Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, May 7, 2024 (part 7 of 14)

individuals whose Personal Data was lost or compromised; ( c) costs associated with third party claims arising from the Security Breach or loss of Personal Data, including litigation costs and settlement costs; and ( d) any investigation, enforcement or similar miscellaneous costs. For the purposes of this Section, "Security Breach" means (1) the failure by the Vendor to properly handle, manage, store, destroy or
otherwise control, or the unauthorized disclosure by the Vendor of: (a) Personal Data in any format or (b) third paiiy corporate information in any format specifically identified as confidential and protected under a confidentiality agreement or similar contract; (2) an unintentional violation of the Vendor's privacy policy or misappropriation that results in the violation of any applicable data privacy laws or regulations; or (3) any other act, error, or omission by Vendor in its capacity as such which is reasonably likely to result in the unauthorized disclosure of Personal Data.

This may be met through a standalone policy or included as a component in a Commercial General Liability Policy - only if the higher limits are available to pay for losses.

II. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by, the City's Risk Manager. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officials, employees, agents, and contractors; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses in an amount specified by the City's Risk Manager.

III. Other Insurance Provisions
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages a. The City, its officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by, or on behalf of, Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, leased, or used by Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officials, employees, and agents.

Financial Services Agreement between City of Santa Clara and Hdl Page 18 of20 b. Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officials, employees, and agents shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officials, employees, or agents. d. Coverage shall state that Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
e. Coverage shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, employees, and agents.

2. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability
Coverage shall be endorsed to state carrier waives its rights of subrogation against the City, its officials, and agents.

3. All coverages
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to the City; except that ten ( 10) days' prior written notice shall apply in the event of cancellation for non-payment of premium.

IV. Acceptability oflnsurance
Insurance is to be placed with insurers acceptable to the City's Risk Manager.

V. Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.

Copies of all the required ENDORSEMENTS shall be attached to the CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE which shall be provided by Contractor's insurance company as evidence of the stipulated coverages.

Proof of insurance shall be either emailed in pdf format to: [email protected], or mailed to the following postal address ( or any subsequent email or postal address as may be directed in writing by the Risk Manager):

Financial Services Agreement between City of Santa Clara and Hdl Page 19 of 20 EBIX Inc.

City of Santa Clara Finance Depatiment
P.O. Box 100085 - S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John's Creek, GA 30097
VI. Subcontractors
Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall obtain separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor.

Financial Services Agreement between City of Santa Clara and Hdl Page 20 of 20 Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/HdL Companies Page 1 of 5
Rev. 10/25/2019
Ebix Insurance No. S200005156
AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES

BETWEEN THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND

HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOCIATES DOING BUSINESS AS HDL

COMPANIES

PREAMBLE
This amendment (“Amendment No. 1”) is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City) and Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates doing business as HDL Companies, a California corporation (Contractor).

City and Contractor may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Agreement for the Performance of Services by and between the City of Santa Clara, and Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates doing business as HDL Companies,” dated May 19, 2023 (Agreement) for the purpose of having Contractor develop and implement a new business tax system; and
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Agreement through this Amendment No. 1 to increase the maximum compensation for the purpose of continuing with ongoing implementation and support services.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Section 2 of the Agreement, entitled “Term of Agreement’” is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on May 12, 2023 and terminate on June 30, 2028.”

2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled “Compensation and Payment” is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/HdL Companies Page 2 of 5
Rev. 10/25/2019
“In consideration for Contractor’s complete performance of Services, City shall pay Contractor for all materials provided and Services rendered by Contractor in accordance with Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES.” The maximum compensation of this Agreement is set forth in Exhibit B, subject to budget appropriations, which includes all payments that may be authorized for Services and for expenses, supplies, materials and equipment required to perform the Services. All work performed or materials provided in excess of the maximum compensation shall be at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall not be entitled to any payment above the maximum compensation under any
circumstance.”

3. Exhibit B of the Agreement, entitled “Compensation Schedule,” is hereby amended in its entirety by replacing it with the attached Exhibit B (First Revised), which is hereby incorporated in the Agreement.

4. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In case of a conflict in the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall control.

Signatures on next page.

Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/HdL Companies Page 3 of 5
Rev. 10/25/2019
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 1 as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
Approved as to Form: Dated:

GLEN R. GOOGINS
City Attorney
JŌVAN D. GROGAN
City Manager
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
“CITY”

HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOCIATES DOING BUSINESS AS HDL

COMPANIES

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Dated:

By (Signature):

Name: Robert Gray
Title: Vice President
Principal Place of
Business Address: 120 S. State College Blvd., Suite 120 Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: 714-879-5000
Fax: 909-861-7726
“CONTRACTOR”

4.29.2024
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/HdL Companies Page 4 of 5
Rev. 10/25/2019

EXHIBIT B (FIRST REVISED)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

1. The total not to exceed cost for this agreement shall not exceed the maximum compensation amount set forth in Table 1 below, unless modified by formal addendum and signed by City and HdL.

2. City shall pay consultant within 30 days upon receipt of a properly completed invoice, subject to acceptance by the City.

3. Any applicable taxes shall be added to the invoice total at the time the invoice is submitted.

4. City shall pay HdL as follows:

Table 1
Task/ Milestone Cost Frequency
Business Process Review $12,000 60% due within 30 days of Agreement date, remaining 40% due
within 30 days of completion
System Configuration
Costs
$43,000 60% due within 30 days of Agreement
date, remaining 40% due within 30 days
of completion of all tasks under Section
3 of this
Statement of Work
Tax Administration
Services
$40,000 Paid monthly in three equal installments
commencing 7/1/2023 through 9/30/23
Tax Administration
Services
$15,000 Paid monthly commencing 10/1/23
through 3/31/2024
Tax Administration
Services
$13,500 Paid monthly commencing 4/1/2024
through 6/30/2025
Maximum Compensation
(Business Process
Review, System
Configuration, and Tax
Administration Services)
$387,500
Audit Services (There is
no maximum
compensation for Audit
Services.)
40% of all
revenues
collected;
Minimum fee is
$350 per audit
Per audit conducted; Invoiced monthly
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/HdL Companies Page 5 of 5
Rev. 10/25/2019

5. In addition to the above, City shall reimburse Consultant actual costs for travel, housing and related incidentals that may be incurred during the performance of duties. No markups are permitted on reimbursable expenses. All such charges shall be reasonable and customary and in conformance with the City's Travel Policy, which will be provided upon request.

6. Pricing for tax administration services shall remain fixed through June 30, 2025, as set forth in Table 1 above. If these services are requested beyond this date, pricing thereafter will be determined and agreed upon in writing by both City and Consultant. Commencing July 1, 2025, any such price increase shall be subject to changes to the U.S. Department of Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, all items in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted, from April of the current Agreement year, to April of the preceding year, base period 1982-1984 = 100.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-382 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action on Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for the Month of February 2024

BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Disbursements made by the Stadium Authority are based on invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, staff reviews all disbursement documents to ensure that the invoiced goods or services have been provided.

The Bills and Claims listing represents the cash disbursements required of normal and usual operations during February 2024. Budget control is set by the Stadium Authority Board through the budget adoption process.

DISCUSSION
Effective August 31, 2022, the Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager agreed to the timely payment of Shared Stadium Expenses and other budgeted expenses in accordance with the Annual Stadium Authority Budget, except for buffet expenses invoiced pursuant to Section 4.6.1 of the Stadium Lease. The Stadium Authority maintains the right to confirm and dispute submitted charges. The Stadium Authority may raise questions with respect to any charge at any time before or after a fiscal year-end reconciliation/true-up and the Stadium Manager must assess and respond to such questions in good faith.

At its March 7, 2023 meeting, the Stadium Authority Board adopted the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget which runs from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. Significant expenditures (greater than $5,000) paid in February 2024 include:
· Payments totaling $292,149.42 to the City of Santa Clara for reimbursement of General and Administrative (G&A) City payroll costs (e.g., Executive Director’s Office (City Manager’s Office), Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office (City Attorney’s Office), and Treasurer’s Office (Finance Department))
· Payment totaling $1,414,123.31 to Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC for February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses
· Payment totaling $5,900.00 to Blocka Construction Inc. for CapEx Project - Variable Frequency Drive(s)
· Payment totaling $174,412.88 to Blue’s Roofing Co. for CapEx Project - General Areas / City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-382 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024
Coatings Main Deck
· Payment totaling $164,595.65 to Cupertino Electric for the following:
o $101,025.23 for CapEx Project - Distribution - High Voltage (480V Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacements - Phase 2)
o $63,570.42 for CapEx Project - Distribution - High Voltage (Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer, Battery & 12KV Main Circuit Breakers)
· Payment totaling $315,332.75 to Devcon Construction Inc. for CapEx Project - New Seating - Bowl Padded Seat Replacement Project
· Payment totaling $220,200.94 to EyeP Solutions Inc. for CapEx Project - Enhance Stadium Security Coverage
· Payment totaling $129,409.55 to Fluoresco Services LLC for the following:
o $14,750.00 for CapEx Project - Updated Stadium Wayfinding Signage o $114,659.55 for CapEx Project - Stadium Event Signage · Payment totaling $5,009.95 to InTWO, Inc. for Financial Management System Monthly Services (January 2024)
· Payment totaling $62,343.25 for Legal Services (December 2023)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the Stadium Authority is $2,786,611.78.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the list of Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for February 2024.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Treasurer
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. February 2024 SCSA Bills and Claims
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
Payment Date Vendor Invoice No. Description Fund Amount 2/15/2024 Bank of America N/A January 2024 Bank Fees - CapEx Reserve Account Operating $ 500.91 2/15/2024 Bank of America N/A January 2024 Bank Fees - Operating Reserve Account Operating 364.57 $ 865.48
2/5/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2325 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 67,334.22 2/5/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2326 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 95,508.07 2/28/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2401 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 26,691.61 2/29/2024 City of Santa Clara N/A B2402 SCSA Admin Payroll Costs Operating 102,615.52 292,149.42
2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Security Operating 132,276.03 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Stadium Ops Operating 381,670.06 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Engineering Operating 226,068.86 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Guest Services Operating 54,270.34 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Groundskeeping Operating 55,112.25 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - SBL Sales & Service Operating 194,437.29 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Insurance Operating 75,066.32 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Utilities Operating 231,757.41 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Use of Tenant Improvements Operating 2,332.28 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Other G&A Operating 52,799.14 2/1/2024 Forty Niners Stadium Management Co, LLC SLS-24338 February 2024 Stadium Manager Expenses - Lender Fees Operating 8,333.33 1,414,123.31
2/15/2024 Armanino Solutions, LLC CINV-1203216 Financial Management System - Annual Subscription for GP (2024) Operating 2,268.60 2/23/2024 Blocka Construction Inc. 10156-RET CapEx Project - Variable Frequency Drive(s) CapEx 5,900.00 2/20/2024 Blue's Roofing Co. 31207 CapEx Project - General Areas / Coatings Main Deck CapEx 115,180.95 2/20/2024 Blue's Roofing Co. 31217COR CapEx Project - General Areas / Coatings Main Deck CapEx 59,231.93 174,412.88
2/23/2024 Cupertino Electric 99539
CapEx Project - Distribution - High Voltage (480V Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacements - Phase 2) CapEx 101,025.23
2/23/2024 Cupertino Electric 99541
CapEx Project - Distribution - High Voltage (Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer, Battery & 12KV Main Circuit Breakers) CapEx 63,570.42
164,595.65
2/20/2024 Devcon Construction Inc. 89541 CapEx Project - New Seating - Bowl Padded Seat Replacement Project CapEx 162,613.66 2/20/2024 Devcon Construction Inc. 89798 CapEx Project - New Seating - Bowl Padded Seat Replacement Project CapEx 152,719.09 315,332.75
2/20/2024 EyeP Solutions Inc. 23-643 CapEx Project - Enhance Stadium Security Coverage CapEx 165,715.54 2/20/2024 EyeP Solutions Inc. 24-9 CapEx Project - Enhance Stadium Security Coverage CapEx 54,485.40 220,200.94
2/20/2024 Fluoresco Services LLC 1510763 CapEx Project - Updated Stadium Wayfinding Signage CapEx 14,750.00 Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Bills and Claims
Expenses Paid by Wire or ACH Transfer
For the Month of February 2024

Page 1 of 2 ends

Payment Date Vendor Invoice No. Description Fund Amount Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Bills and Claims
Expenses Paid by Wire or ACH Transfer
For the Month of February 2024
2/20/2024 Fluoresco Services LLC 10153-APP1 CapEx Project - Stadium Event Signage CapEx 114,659.55 129,409.55
2/20/2024 InTWO Inc. 36415 Financial Management System Monthly Services (January 2024) Operating 5,009.95 2/20/2024 1366518 Legal Services (December 2023) Operating 62,343.25 February 2024 Total $ 2,786,611.78

Page 2 of 2 ends

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-332 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Action to Award a Purchase Order to PCP Motorsports to Purchase Kawasaki Utility Vehicles for Levi’s Stadium Events (Santa Clara Stadium Authority CapEx Project)

COUNCIL PILLAR
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Public safety personnel (such as police, fire and emergency medical personnel) use utility vehicles, commonly known as “Side by Sides,” to quickly access hard-to-navigate places and small spaces normally inaccessible to full-size vehicles. Side by Sides resemble a golf cart, complete with an overhead roll cage for safety, a bench seat for transport, and rear flatbed and all-terrain tires to carry specialized gear.

With the opening of Levi’s Stadium in 2014, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority) purchased five Side by Sides. Subsequently, five additional units have been purchased to bring the number of units currently in the fleet to ten. In addition to the ten current units, two units were very recently purchased in March 2024 (also purchased from PCP Motorsports), at a cost of $39,200 which was budgeted for that purpose in the Stadium Authority Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Capital Expense (CapEx) Budget. These two units have not yet been delivered, but when received, will bring the total inventory to twelve.

The Police and Fire Departments were the first departments in the City of Santa Clara (City) to purchase and utilize Side by Sides associated with the massive footprint of event day operations at Levi’s Stadium. This mobility fleet is maintained by the City’s Fleet Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department (Fleet Division). The Fleet Division developed maintenance and replacement schedules according to the owner’s manual to address normal wear (e.g., fuel filter, air filter, oils and fluids, grease, etc.). It is important to note, hours, idle time and slow creeping are equally as hard on vehicles with high RPM motors as miles, contributing to wear. The Fleet Division recommended replacement of the Side by Sides at 10-years based on the decision that more costly maintenance and repairs would likely ensue at this time, with diminishing resale returns.

As of the writing of this report, there have been 182 events at Levi’s Stadium, plus city-wide special events. In many cases, the Side by Sides are utilized the day prior and day after an event as well for set up and clean up purposes. On four occasions during the 2023 NFL season the deployment was such that the Police Department’s Side by Side inventory was not sufficient for the Police Department’s needs, and multiple law enforcement equipped units were borrowed from allied agencies; routinely, the department could benefit from additional units. Renting units is not ideal but will likely be necessary given the increased need for the 2026 major events.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-332 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024
Law enforcement utilizes the Side by Sides for such uses:
· Pre-event explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) sweeps by the K-9 Unit to secure event footprint
· Deployment of specialized Task Forces
· Movement of staff to conduct sidewalk vendor regulation and enforcement · Special Response Team (SWAT) exterior/interior mobilization · Management of the Traffic Management Operations Plan
· Placement and/or relocation of personnel assets during deployment · Timely responses to critical incidents on both interior and exterior of stadium (e.g., medical emergencies, fights in progress, terrorist threats, etc.) · In-custody transport, both interior and exterior, to the Temporary Holding Facility Seven of the Side by Sides were scheduled for replacement in 2023 and 2024. After a careful diagnostic check of the vehicles, review of their past maintenance patterns and less frequent use during the pandemic, Fleet Services feels the useful life of these units may be extended beyond what was originally anticipated.

While the Stadium Authority typically sells vehicles at auction, with the proceeds going back to the Stadium Authority CapEx budget, staff recommends handling this situation uniquely due to the upcoming major events at Levi’s Stadium in 2026.

In this case, staff plans to delay sending the Side by Sides to auction as they anticipate needing additional units for the enhanced deployment expected for Super Bowl LX (February 2026) and FIFA World Cup 2026 (June - July 2026). Maintaining the twelve current units would bring the total Side by Sides inventory up to seventeen.

While the total number of Side by Sides needed for the 2026 major events has not yet been identified, it is safe to say that more units will be needed than the currently purchased inventory of twelve and an additional two that is budgeted in the Stadium Authority FY 2024/25 CapEx Budget. In fact, the need is very likely to exceed the requested inventory level of nineteen vehicles. As event planning for these significant events evolves, the Police Department will be reaching out to local, State and Federal partners with requests for additional equipment assets. The utilization of Side by Sides throughout the 2026 major events will allow for better mobilization, create a visual deterrence of a strong security posture, facilitate the relocation of personnel and equipment assets, enable a more efficient tactical response to potential threats, and address all of the uses listed above. The cost to continue to insure, maintain and store these vehicles over the next two years is nominal, and various storage solution(s) have been identified. Staff expects to send the seven vehicles that were scheduled for replacement in 2023 and 2024 to auction in Fall 2026.

During this timeframe, the Side by Sides may also continue to be utilized for city-wide special events in our community (e.g., festivals, parades, organized runs, etc.). In these cases, a reimbursement formula has been created for non-Stadium uses.

DISCUSSION
Seven of the Side by Sides utilized by the Police Department are scheduled for replacement in 2023 City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-332 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024
and 2024 according to the Fleet Division’s original replacement schedule. Both the Fleet Division and Police Department are recommending the Stadium Authority Board authorize the purchase of seven units; however, they plan to continue to utilize the existing vehicles for immediate and future needs, rather than send the units to auction. A careful diagnostic check of the Side by Sides, review of their past maintenance patterns and less frequent use during the pandemic, support the Fleet Division’s approval to extend their useful life through Fall 2026.

The Stadium Authority FY 2024/25 CapEx Budget includes two line items for purchase of these Kawasaki mules. The first line item is in the amount of $139,125 - with Board approval, these funds will be used for the purchase of five units. The second line item is in the amount of $55,650 - these funds are planned for the purchase of two additional units in FY 2024/25, bringing the inventory to nineteen units. The timeline for the purchase of these two units has not yet been finalized.

Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code Sections 2.105.140(b) and 17.30.080, an informal Request for Quotes (RFQ) was conducted, with the award recommendation based on the lowest and responsible bidder. Staff received four quotes as listed in Table 1 below.

Bidder Name Unit Price
PCP Motorsports $19,600
Gilroy Motorcycle Center $19,953
Clawson Motorsports $22,712.90
G.P. Sports $21,731.05
Staff recommends awarding a purchase order to PCP Motorsports as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The cost per vehicle is $19,600, inclusive of sales tax, totaling $98,000 for five vehicles.

Public Works’ Fleet Maintenance staff will coordinate the upfitting of the units, to include the installation of necessary equipment such as emergency lights, siren, mirrors, and decals. The estimated one-time cost of these items is approximately $1,250 per unit. Items will be purchased through established vendors. Public Works staff estimates the installation of this equipment will require 20 hours of labor per unit.

In accordance with Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.30 (Stadium Authority Procurement Policy), the Executive Director is granted signature authority to execute contracts for services and public works, as well as to acquire supplies, goods, and equipment up to and including $100,000, as allocated to and authorized by the Stadium Authority by adoption of the annual budget. While this recommended purchase is below the $100,000 threshold, the preceding purchase of two units (as noted above, March 2024) was made with the same vendor through the same quote, in the amount of $39,200. Therefore, the total amount to be paid to this vendor under the single RFQ exceeds the $100,000 threshold and staff is therefore requesting the Stadium Authority Board’s approval of the purchase order with PCP Motorsports.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-332 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Stadium Authority Fiscal Year FY 2024/25 CapEx Budget includes $139,125 for the purchase of five Kawasaki Side by Sides; the PCP Motorsports portion of the purchase is $98,000.

Fleet Maintenance staff will coordinate the upfitting costs of each unit. The additional equipment and accessories are projected to cost approximately $1,250 per unit, for a total of $6,250. The combined vehicle and equipment costs total $104,250. Fleet Division staff anticipates that installation will require approximately 20 hours of labor per unit.

This purchase is expected to be treated as a Public Safety Capital Expenditure pursuant to Section

7.5.2(b) of the Stadium Lease between Stadium Authority and Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC (StadCo), which means that it will be allocated to Non-NFL and NFL events and is subject to the Public Safety Cost Threshold with respect to NFL events. Additionally, use of this equipment with some allocation of costs is expected to be addressed in future agreements relating to the provision of municipal services for the 2026 major events.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel and Treasurer’s Offices.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a purchase order with PCP Motorsports, in a final form to be approved by the Stadium Authority Counsel, in the amount of $98,000 for the purchase of five Kawasaki Side by Sides, plus approximately $1,250 in upfitting costs, with installation conducted by Fleet Maintenance staff (estimated twenty hours of labor per unit) for a total equipment cost expected to reach approximately $104,250.

Reviewed by: Pat Nikolai, Chief of Police
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-199 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Informational Report on Stadium Authority Contracts for Fiscal Year 2023/24 As Required by Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.30 (Stadium Authority Procurement Policy)

BOARD PILLAR
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.30 (Stadium Authority Procurement Policy) formalizes the policies and procedures with respect to procurement for the Stadium Authority, with the intent to: 1) Establish efficient, equitable and effective procedures for the procurement activities of the Stadium Authority; 2) Ensure the integrity and equity in the procurement activities of the Stadium Authority and provide safeguards for the impartial application of the procurement policies; and, 3) Enable the Stadium Authority to operate efficiently and competitively; to responsibly maintain equipment, facilities and services; and to complete projects on time and on budget.

The Stadium Authority Procurement Policy applies to all purchases and contracts for supplies, materials, equipment, services, and public works by and on behalf of the Stadium Authority and establishes the Executive Director as the purchasing officer of the Stadium Authority. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2058, which became effective on April 20, 2023, providing the Executive Director with delegated signature authority to execute Stadium Authority contracts for supplies, materials, equipment, services, and public works in an amount up to and including $100,000, as allocated to and authorized by the Stadium Authority by adoption of the annual budget.

For agreements where there are shared costs, including those for Shared Stadium Expenses (Shared Expenses) which are split 50/50 (or 30/70 for landscaping) between the Stadium Authority and Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC (StadCo) per the Stadium Lease, the $100,000 threshold only applies to the Stadium Authority’s portion of the agreement.

Under the Stadium Authority Procurement Policy, the Executive Director is required to prepare and submit to the Stadium Authority Board, a report at the end of the fiscal year summarizing the total number of contracts let by the Stadium Authority, the number of contracts approved under an exception, the number of contracts approved under best value procedures and the number of contracts approved under formal bidding procedures, and to the extent possible listing information related to application and outreach efforts conducted to implement the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-199 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

DISCUSSION
The Stadium Authority entered into 16 total contracts to purchase or acquire supplies, materials, equipment, and/or services during Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24. Three (3) amendments to legal contracts were entered into under the Stadium Authority Counsel’s authority to contract for legal services, which are exempt from competitive bidding per Santa Clara City Code 17.30.110(d). Of the remaining thirteen (13) contracts, the Stadium Authority executed seven (7) contracts approved under best value procedures, five (5) contracts for services, and one (1) contract by utilizing a competitive bid process of another public agency. There is no information to report related to application and outreach efforts conducted to implement the DBE program. The Stadium Authority’s contract activity for FY 2023/24 is summarized in Attachment 1.

Additionally, the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC (Stadium Manager) has the authority to execute contracts only insofar as the Executive Director has such authority. Under Section 2 of the First Amendment to the Stadium Management Agreement between the Stadium Authority, Stadium Manager, and StadCo, the Stadium Manager is provided certain delegated authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the Stadium Authority.

The Stadium Manager entered into seventy-six (76) total contracts to purchase or acquire supplies, materials, equipment, services, and/or public works on behalf of the Stadium Authority during FY 2023/24. One (1) contract was entered into with a public agency, which is exempt from the Stadium Authority Procurement Policy per Santa Clara City Code 17.30.110(a). Of the remaining seventy-five (75) contracts, the Stadium Manager executed thirty-seven (37) contracts approved under best value procedures, two (2) contracts under formal bidding procedures, twenty-three (23) service contracts, five (5) public works contracts per Santa Clara City Charter Section 1310, and eight (8) contracts by utilizing a competitive bid process of another public agency per Santa Clara City Code Section

2.105.270. There is no information to report related to contracts entered into under an exemption or application and outreach efforts conducted to implement the DBE program. The Stadium Manager’s contract activity on behalf of the Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 is summarized in Attachment 2.

It is staff’s understanding that the Stadium Manager has followed the City of Santa Clara’s procurement and public works requirements for these purchases and services, in addition to the Stadium Authority Procurement Policy. Staff is working with the Stadium Manager’s Director of Procurement to bring forth updates to other sections/provisions within Santa Clara City Code Chapter

17.30 to better align the Stadium Authority Procurement Policy with public procurement best practices similar to those in the City’s purchasing code and address existing gaps within the policy (e.g., consistent competitive process requirements for services, better alignment of public works definitions and requirements with City Charter and State law provisions).

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

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to prepare this report other than administrative staff time.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-199 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel and Treasurer’s Offices.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file the informational report on Stadium Authority contracts for FY 2023/24.

Reviewed by: Chuck Baker, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. Stadium Authority Contract Activity for FY 2023/24

2. Stadium Manager Contract Activity on Behalf of Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
Stadium Authority Contract Activity for FY 2023/24
# Vendor Description of Supplies, Materials, Equipment, or Service Agreement Amount Agreement Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval11 Armanino LLP Financial Management System Platform License and Professional Implementation Services $ 50,652 12/6/2023 General and Administrative Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 2 Armanino Solutions, LLP
Financial Management System Platform License Software and Support Subscriptions $ 2,269 1/18/2024 General and Administrative Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 3 DataWorks Plus Fingerprinting Equipment $ 3,944 12/11/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold4 Dell Marketing L.P. Replacement of End of Life Network Equipment $ 13,392 3/25/2024 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold5 ECS Imaging Support Services for Stadium Builder License (SBL) Integration $ 13,125 8/21/2023 General and Administrative Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold6 Guidepost Solutions, LLC2 Consulting Services for Levi's Stadium Security Procedures and Neighborhood Impacts Assessment $ 99,800 11/29/2023 General and Administrative Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 7 L.N. Curtis and Sons PPE Replacement (Nomex Bottoms) $ 239 2/28/2024 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold8 LC Action Police Supply Projectile Launchers $ 5,508 12/11/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold9 Legal Firm3 Legal Services (Amendment) Undisclosed Amount Undisclosed Date General and Administrative Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.110(d) Exclusion Exempt - Legal Agreement 10 Legal Firm3 Legal Services (Amendment) Undisclosed Amount Undisclosed Date General and Administrative Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.110(d) Exclusion Exempt - Legal Agreement11 Legal Firm3 Legal Services (Amendment) Undisclosed Amount Undisclosed Date General and Administrative Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.110(d) Exclusion Exempt - Legal Agreement12 PCP Motorsports Kawasaki Mules $ 39,200 3/4/2024 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 13 Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC Replacement of End of Life Network Equipment $ 36,296 3/25/2024 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold14 R.S. Hughes Blackline Combustible Gas Indicators Project $ 4,183 8/21/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold15 Savvik Buying Group CPR Assist Devices $ 36,750 10/24/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Exempt - Within
Delegated Signature
Authority Threshold
Stadium Authority Contract Activity for FY 2023/24
# Vendor Description of Supplies, Materials, Equipment, or Service Agreement Amount Agreement Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval1 16 STR Marketplace Third-Party SBL Marketing Website (Amendment No. 3) - 5/24/2023 No Cost to the Stadium Authority Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Yes 1 Ordinance No. 2058 became effective on April 20, 2023, providing delegated signature authority to the Executive Director in an amount up to and including $100,000, as allocated to and authorized by the Stadium Authority by adoption of the annual budget, for supplies, goods, equipment, services, and public works. For agreements where there are shared costs, including those for Shared Stadium Expenses (Stadium Expenses) which are split 50/50 or 30/70 for groundskeeping between the Stadium Authority and Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC (StadCo) per the Stadium Lease, the $100,000 threshold only applies to the Stadium Authority’s portion of the agreement. 2 Costs for this agreement are shared between Stadium Authority (45%), Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC (45%), and Bay Area Host Committee (10%).3 Information regarding legal agreements is protected under Government Code § 7927.700.

Stadium Manager Contract Activity on Behalf of the Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 # Vendor
Description of Supplies,
Materials, Equipment, or
Service
Agreement
Amount
Agreement
Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval1 1 ABM Industry Group, LLC Janitorial Services (Amendment No. 2) No Specified Amount 3/19/2024 Shared Expense,
Non-NFL Events,
and
NFL Events
Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Yes 2 Allied Universal Security Services Universal Protection Services LLP Event Security Services (Amendment No. 2)
No Specified
Amount 3/12/2024
Non-NFL Events
and
NFL Events
Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Yes 3 Amazon.com, LLC Concessions Cart Cabling for Portable Carts $ 40,567.99 7/14/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 4 Arata Compactor Repair and Rigging $ 41,000.00 1/23/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Exempt - Within
Delegated Signature
Authority Threshold
5 Armour Petroleum Service & Equipment Corporation 2023 Annual Internal Function Test $ 3,863.00 8/22/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 6 Assured Aggregate Company, Inc.3 Topdressing Sand $ 987.58 5/5/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold7 Assured Aggregate Company, Inc.4 Topdressing Sand $ 50,000.00 6/26/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold8 Battery Systems ABM Carpet Cleaner Batteries $ 3,963.34 1/11/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold9 Benjamin Litho, Inc. Printing and Related Services $ 50,000.00 6/15/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 10 Benjamin Litho, Inc.3 K9 Stickers Printing Services $ 2,095.20 3/21/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold11 California Mailing Services Stadium Builder License (SBL) Notice and 10 Day Notice
(Amendment)
$ 750.00 5/24/2023 SBL Sales and Services Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 12 California Mailing Services SBL and Term Notices $ 5,800.00 11/30/2023 SBL Sales and Services Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold13 Camatic Seating Stadium Seat Parts $ 5,121.40 7/18/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold Stadium Manager Contract Activity on Behalf of the Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 # Vendor
Description of Supplies,
Materials, Equipment, or
Service
Agreement
Amount
Agreement
Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval1 14 Caroline Judy Consulting
Consulting Services for Professional Services Related to Procurement, Contracting, Public Works, and Workflow $ 13,000.00 3/8/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 15 Colony Landscape and Maintenance, Inc. Sod Removal and Related Services $ 1,820,000.00 11/15/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Yes16 Cupertino Electric, Inc. Power Upgrades $ 28,551.00 11/13/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 17 CWS Construction Group, Inc.

Smoke Evacuation System - Fire Smoke Curtain Replacement Project $ 53,663.00 12/18/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Charter Section 1310 Contracts on Public Works Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 18 CWS Construction Group, Inc.

Overhead Doors, Motors, Sensors and Track Replacements Project $ 109,170.00 12/18/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Charter Section 1310 Contracts on Public Works Yes 19 Devcon Construction, Inc.

Aesthetic Improvements - Premium Areas/Special Event Spaces Project $ 1,231,592.00 1/8/2024 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Charter Section 1310 Contracts on Public Works Yes 20 Diamond Fencing Fence Repairs $ 3,400.00 6/8/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 21 Eagle Wings
Uniforms for Guest Services Staff (Levi's Stadium Ties and Bow Ties) $ 3,132.50 3/5/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 22 Esper.io
Mobile Device Management Software Licenses for Remote
Access
$ 4,176.00 7/12/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 23 Esper.io
Mobile Device Management Software Licenses Annual Subscription $ 9,600.00 12/13/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 24 EyeP Solutions, Inc. Axis Cameras $ 1,154.12 1/24/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Exempt - Within
Delegated Signature
Authority Threshold
25 EyeP Solutions, Inc. Proximity Cards and Micropox Tags $ 7,874.68 4/28/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Exempt - Within
Delegated Signature
Authority Threshold
Stadium Manager Contract Activity on Behalf of the Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 # Vendor
Description of Supplies,
Materials, Equipment, or
Service
Agreement
Amount
Agreement
Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval1 26 EyeP Solutions, Inc. Genetec Advantage Software License Renewal $ 41,714.24 9/1/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Exempt - Within
Delegated Signature
Authority Threshold
27 EyeP Solutions, Inc.

VuWall Parts and Services for Security Control Situation Room Enhancements Project $ 64,892.75 7/14/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 28 EyeP Solutions, Inc.

Axis Cameras - Enhance Stadium Security Coverage Project $ 96,020.08 4/28/2023 Capital Expense
Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Exempt - Within
Delegated Signature
Authority Threshold
29 EyeP Solutions, Inc.

Axis Cameras - Enhance Stadium Security Coverage Project $ 220,201.00 11/16/2023 Capital Expense
Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Yes
30 Ferrellgas3 Propane $ 409.30 5/11/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 31 Ferrellgas3 Propane $ 1,053.56 6/1/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold32 Ferrellgas3 Propane $ 288.55 8/10/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold33 Ferrellgas3 Propane $ 2,408.89 12/22/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold34 FullSource Vests for Parking Staff $ 6,977.22 3/19/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold35 Gachina Landscape Management Landscape Maintenance Services $ 210,000.00 4/19/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Yes2 36 Giant Construction LLC Women’s Locker Room Project $ 263,890.00 2/26/2024 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Charter Section 1310 Contracts on Public Works Yes 37 Green Business Certification Leed Certification $ 19,378.41 10/10/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 38 Gu-Guide LP Parking Lease Consultant $ 14,400.00 5/1/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold Stadium Manager Contract Activity on Behalf of the Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 # Vendor
Description of Supplies,
Materials, Equipment, or
Service
Agreement
Amount
Agreement
Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval1 39 Idesco Corp3 Credential Printer Supplies $ 561.99 6/6/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 40 Idesco Corp3 Credential Cardstock $ 2,357.11 5/25/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold41 Idesco Corp3 Printing Supplies (Cardstock and Ink) $ 10,848.11 7/25/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold42 ImageOne Uniforms3 Uniforms for Guest Services Staff (Hats) $ 2,475.10 3/21/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold43 ImageOne Uniforms3 Hats for Guest Services Representatives $ 7,376.86 10/3/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold44 ImageOne Uniforms Jackets for Guest Services Representatives $ 26,061.15 7/14/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold45 Industrial Plumbing Supply, LLC Plumbing Fixtures - Flushometer $ 48,704.67 2/27/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold46 Integrated Communications Systems (ICS) Fire Alarm Testing, Inspection, Maintenance, and Related Services (Amendment No. 1) $ 10,000.00 5/31/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Yes2 47 Integration Communication Systems (ICS) Full System Battery Replacement $ 35,562.62 12/11/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 48 Mobile Pro Systems
Mobile Security Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Pop Up Trailers $ 389,982.00 8/30/2023 Capital Expense
Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Yes
49 Moved by Bikes Bike Valet Racks $ 5,499.90 1/19/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold50 Myers Restaurant Supply Beverage Distribution System $ 47,131.09 6/28/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold51 National Ticket Company Club and Suite Pass Cardstock $ 1,735.47 5/25/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold52 NES, Inc. Hazmat Training $ 2,725.00 3/19/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold Stadium Manager Contract Activity on Behalf of the Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 # Vendor
Description of Supplies,
Materials, Equipment, or
Service
Agreement
Amount
Agreement
Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval1 53 NovaVision, LLC Security Stickers $ 627.10 8/23/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 54 Personal Awards Uniform Embroidery and Hats $ 3,535.05 2/6/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold55 Pivot Interiors, Inc.

Replace Furniture for BNY Field Clubs, United, Levi’s 501, and Yahoo Clubs and Special Event Spaces Project $ 1,838,204.00 3/13/2024 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.090 Formal Bidding Procedure Yes 56 Sierra Pacific Turf Supply, Inc.3 Granular Fertilizer $ 1,268.30 4/20/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold57 Sierra Pacific Turf Supply, Inc.3 Granular Fertilizer $ 7,970.95 5/4/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold58 Sierra Pacific Turf Supply, Inc.4 Granular Fertilizer $ 75,000.00 6/26/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold59 Sourcing Industry Group Procurement Training and Membership $ 8,779.00 11/28/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold60 Spray Mart II Line Striper $ 9,242.61 10/6/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold61 SSOE Group Hazardous Materials Business Plan & UN-035 Forms $ 4,750.00 10/21/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold62 Staxi Wheelchairs $ 4,021.71 5/3/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold63 Stephen Ciari Plumbing and Heating General Renewal and Replacement of Plumbing Equipment Project $ 88,134.00 12/18/2023 Capital Expense Santa Clara City Charter Section 1310 Contracts on Public Works Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold64 Sustainable Turf Granular Fertilizer $ 5,218.90 6/20/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold65 Sustainable Turf Science, Inc. Liquid Fertilizer $ 75,000.00 6/26/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold66 Turf Equipment Services, Inc.3 Onsite Mower Reel Sharpening Services $ 3,197.71 6/20/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold67 Turf Equipment Services, Inc.4 Onsite Mower Reel Sharpening Services $ 40,000.00 6/26/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold Stadium Manager Contract Activity on Behalf of the Stadium Authority for FY 2023/24 # Vendor
Description of Supplies,
Materials, Equipment, or
Service
Agreement
Amount
Agreement
Date Funding Source Contract Authority Stadium Authority Board Approval1 68 Tyson Group
Stadium Builder License (SBL) Sales Training Services (Amendment No. 1) $ 160,000.00 7/24/2023 SBL Sales and Services Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.120 Service Contracts - Signature Authority Exempt - Delegated
Authority to Executive
Director to Approve
Exercise of Option
Years as Part of Board
Action
69 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Annual Permit and Training $ 3,900.00 1/1/2024 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.110(a) Exclusion Exempt - Public Agency Agreement 70 Walmart Engineering Uniforms $ 1,423.10 7/21/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 71 Waxie Janitorial Supplies $ 200,000.00 4/21/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 2.105.270 Purchases from Other Public Agencies or Through the Utilization of Competitive Bid Processes of Other Public Agencies Exempt - Within
Delegated Signature
Authority Threshold
72 West Coast Turf3 Seed $ 1,467.73 6/6/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold73 West Coast Turf4 Seed $ 30,000.00 6/26/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold74 West Coast Turf Sod Supply, Delivery, and Installation Services $ 4,800,000.00 4/1/2023 Shared Expense and Non-NFL Events Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.090 Formal Bidding Procedure Yes2 75 World Class Athletic Surfaces, Inc.3 Field and Paint Stencils $ 14,443.00 6/13/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 76 World Class Athletic Surfaces, Inc.4 Field and Paint Stencils $ 50,000.00 6/26/2023 Shared Expense Santa Clara City Code Section 17.30.080 Best Value Selection Procedures Exempt - Within Delegated Signature Authority Threshold 1 Ordinance No. 2058 became effective on April 20, 2023, providing delegated signature authority to the Executive Director in an amount up to and including $100,000, as allocated to and authorized by the Stadium Authority by adoption of the annual budget, for supplies, goods, equipment, services, and public works. For agreements where there are shared costs, including those for Shared Stadium Expenses (Stadium Expenses) which are split 50/50 or 30/70 for groundskeeping between the Stadium Authority and Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC (StadCo) per the Stadium Lease, the $100,000 threshold only applies to the Stadium Authority’s portion of the agreement. 2 Agreement was approved by the Stadium Authority Board prior to Ordinance No. 2058 becoming effective on April 20, 2023.3 Agreement was executed on a one-time basis.4 Agreement was executed as a Term Agreement.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-451 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on Rezoning of 17 Sites Along El Camino Real Totaling 27.7 Acres to MU-RC Mixed Use Regional Commercial, for the Purpose of Adding Additional Sites to the City’s Housing Element

BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the Zoning Code Update on January 9, 2024 and an implementation step of that adoption is to update the City’s Zoning Map, which will apply the new Zoning Districts as well as rezone properties across the City to Zoning Districts that will be consistent with their General Plan land use designations. Having consistent zoning and General Plan designations on all properties is a requirement of State law. The Zoning Map adoption will be brought forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in the May through June 2024 timeframe. Rezoning 17 sites on El Camino Real in advance of the Zoning Map adoption process is proposed to enable these sites to qualify for inclusion in the Sites Inventory as part of the City’s Housing Element. For a site to qualify for inclusion in the City’s Housing Element, it must have consistent General Plan and Zoning that would enable housing redevelopment on that site.

The majority of the 17 sites proposed for rezoning have interfaces adjacent to commercial or multifamily development. Six sites proposed for rezoning are partially adjacent to existing singlefamily residential properties. The MU-RC Regional Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning District includes required transition standards for developments adjacent to single family or duplex properties. A 45- degree Daylight Plane must be provided, which limits the height of new development adjacent to single family homes and duplexes, measured from the property line.

Note the El Camino Real Specific Plan revision process is underway. Based on the draft Land Use Plan for the draft El Camino Real Specific Plan, which the City Council confirmed on August 29, 2023, all the sites currently proposed for rezoning are identified to either retain or increase residential density more than the current General Plan designation on the sites, as part of the Specific Plan process. This provides assurance the inclusion of these sites in the Sites Inventory for the Housing Element is appropriate.

As a part of the Housing Element certification process by the State, the City has been in discussions with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewing the City’s adopted Housing Element. To provide a Sites Inventory that demonstrates adequate capacity both to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 11,632 units and to also accommodate the development of HCD’s recommended minimum 15-percent buffer of additional units over the course of the next eight years, the City’s Housing Element includes a program to rezone the identified El Camino Real sites. HCD has indicated that rezoning these sites is a necessary step to obtain HCD’s formal certification of the City’s Housing Element.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-451 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

DISCUSSION
At the April 17, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, prior to the staff presentation, the Assistant City Attorney asked the Planning Commission to consider the parcel at 2789 El Camino Real separately from the other 16 sites due to the fact that Commissioner Bhatnagar lives within 1,000 feet of that parcel and needed to recuse himself from that deliberation and decision.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission had no discussion on the item and there were no public comments. The Planning Commission unanimously voted (7-0) to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council rezone 16 parcels on El Camino Real to MU-RC Regional Commercial Mixed-Use, consistent with the General Plan Land Use diagram.

Commissioner Bhatnagar then recused himself from the discussion on 2789 El Camino Real, due to the proximity of his residence to the subject site.

The Planning Commission had no discussion on the item and there were no public comments. They then voted (6-0-1, Commissioner Bhatnagar recused) to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council rezone 2789 El Camino Real to MU-RC Regional Commercial Mixed-Use, consistent with the General Plan Land Use diagram.

Conclusion
Staff recommends that the City Council rezone the subject 17 sites to the MU-RC Regional Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning District as the rezoning of these sites will make them consistent with their current Regional Mixed-Use General Plan Land Use designation. Staff recommends that the City Council also include these sites in the City’s Housing Element. The rezoning action of these sites is a condition of certification as indicated by HCD in its April 11, 2024 conditional compliance letter.

Staff has prepared two separate adoption resolutions: the first is for 13 sites and the second is for the other four sites. This is to facilitate Councilmember Chahal's anticipated recusal from the decision on four of the sites.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Given that the Zoning Code Update is an implementation action of the 2010 General Plan Update, the City prepared an Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to cover the adoption of the Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and related General Plan Amendments. The Addendum indicates that the adoption of the Zoning Code Update and application of the zoning designations to the Zoning Map will not result in environmental impacts beyond those described in the General Plan Update EIR. The Addendum was adopted by the City Council for the Zoning Code Update at their December 19, 2023 meeting. Accordingly, no additional CEQA action is necessary for Council to approve this item.

FISCAL IMPACT
Rezoning of the 17 El Camino Real sites is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram and the proposed Housing Element Update, which is also a part of the General Plan. No additional resources are required beyond those indicated at the time of the rezoning of the subject sites.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-451 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024

COORDINATION
This item was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
A newspaper notice was published in the March 27, 2024 issue of the Santa Clara Weekly describing the rezonings and the locations of the subject sites. On April 4, 2024, notice was also mailed to all 17 sites proposed for rezoning, and all properties located within 300 feet of those 17 sites.

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

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not adopt the proposed El Camino Real rezonings consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram, for the purpose of adding 17 additional sites to the City’s Housing Element sites inventory.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the proposed El Camino Real rezonings for 13 sites (with addresses 3705, 3735, 3775, 2789, 3590, 3580, 3570, 3750, 3740, 3530, and 2240 El Camino Real, 1484 Halford, and 1460 Halford) to MU-RC Mixed Use Regional Commercial consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram, for the purpose of achieving consistency between the City’s General Plan and applicable zoning and adding 13 additional sites to the City’s Housing Element sites inventory.

2. Adopt a Resolution approving the proposed El Camino rezonings for four sites (with addresses 2213, 2065, 2200, and 2232 El Camino Real) to MU-RC Mixed Use Regional Commercial consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram, for the purpose of achieving consistency between the City’s General Plan and applicable zoning and adding four additional sites to the City’s Housing Element sites inventory.

Reviewed by: Reena Brilliot, Acting Director of Community Development Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Report to Planning Commission (with attachments)

2. Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Rezoning 16 El Camino Real sites

3. Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Rezoning 2789 El Camino Real

4. City Council Resolution Approving the Rezoning of 13 El Camino Real sites (with addresses 3705, 3735, 3775, 2789, 3590, 3580, 3570, 3750, 3740, 3530, and 2240 El Camino Real, 1484 Halford Avenue, and 1460 Halford Avenue)

5. City Council Resolution Approving the Rezoning of four El Camino Real sites (with addresses 2213, 2065, 2200, and 2232 El Camino Real) City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-451 Agenda Date: 5/7/2024
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 5/3/2024
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-317 Agenda Date: 4/17/2024

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Rezoning of 17 sites along El Camino Real totaling 27.7 acres to MU-RC Mixed Use Regional Commercial, consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram, for the purpose of adding additional sites to the City’s Housing Element (CEQA: Use of a previously adopted addendum to the General Plan 2010-2035 EIR for the Zoning Code Update)

BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the Zoning Code Update on January 9, 2024 and an implementation step is the adoption of the City’s Zoning Map, which will apply the new Zoning Districts as well as rezone properties across the City to Zoning Districts that will be consistent with their General Plan designations. Having consistent zoning and General Plan designations on all properties is a requirement of State law. The Zoning Map adoption will be brought forward for Planning Commission and City Council consideration in the May through June 2024 timeframe. Rezoning 17 sites on El Camino Real in advance of the Zoning Map adoption process is proposed to enable these sites to qualify for inclusion in the Sites Inventory as part of the City’s Housing Element. For a site to qualify for inclusion in the City’s Housing Element, it must have consistent General Plan and Zoning that would enable housing redevelopment on that site.

DISCUSSION
As a part of the Housing Element Update, the City is required to provide a Sites Inventory, which lists the parcels that the City evaluated and has determined will be available for development in the eightyear time frame of the Housing Element (2023-2031). Because the City is built out, the City’s Housing Element is reliant on the redevelopment of existing sites, as opposed to greenfield development. The Housing Element certification process includes public noticing and the opportunity for public review and comment on the adequacy of the Sites Inventory. As a part of the public review process and in coordination with HCD, the City revised the Sites Inventory and removed a number of parcels from the Sites Inventory list that are less likely to redevelop in the next eight years.

Several sites along the El Camino Real corridor that have mixed-use General Plan designations and that meet the minimum State-required density of 30 dwelling units/acre (DU/AC) were added to the draft Housing Element prior to the Housing Element re-adoption by the City Council on June 27, City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 4/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-317 Agenda Date: 4/17/2024
2023. This was done to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the Housing Element to accommodate the City’s RHNA throughout the planning period including HCD’s recommended minimum buffer of 15 percent more capacity than required for lower-income, moderate-income, and above moderate-income RHNA units.

The proposed rezoning of all 17 sites is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Diagram on each site and does not require General Plan Amendments or additional environmental review prior to being adopted. The list of sites proposed for rezoning along with a location map is included as Attachment

1. All of the subject sites, totaling 27.7 acres, have a General Plan land use designation of Regional Mixed Use and are proposed to be rezoned to Mixed Use - Regional Commercial (MU-RC), consistent with the General Plan. Allowed Housing densities in the MU-RC Zoning District are from 37-50 DU/AC, and the district also allows a variety of commercial uses, consistent with the Regional Mixed-Use General Plan Land Use designation. The sites have been described and analyzed for their redevelopment potential in the latest draft of the Housing Element Update. That analysis is provided in Attachment 2.

FISCAL IMPACT
Rezoning of the seventeen El Camino sites is consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram and the proposed Housing Element Update, which is also a part of the General Plan. No additional resources are required beyond those indicated at the time of the rezoning of the subject sites.

COORDINATION
This item was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

Public contact was also 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 City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 4/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-317 Agenda Date: 4/17/2024
website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide an alternate recommendation to the City Council than adopting the proposed El Camino rezonings consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram, for the purpose of adding 17 additional sites to the City’s Housing Element sites inventory.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed El Camino rezonings consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram, for the purpose of adding 17 additional sites to the City’s Housing Element sites inventory.

Prepared by: John Davidson Principal Planner, Community Development Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Reena Brilliot, Acting Director of Community Development

ATTACHMENTS

1. List of Parcels to be Rezoned

2. Supplemental Sites Inventory Analysis

3. Resolution Recommending Rezoning of the Proposed El Camino Sites

4. Addendum to the General Plan EIR for the Zoning Code Update City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 4/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
El Camino parcels proposed for rezoning
Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed
Zoning
3705 El Camino Real 213-34-010 4.47 RMXU -
Regional Mixed Use
37-50 DU/AC, minimum

0.15 commercial FAR

MU-RC -
Mixed Use
Regional
Commercial
3735 El Camino Real 213-34-010 1.83 RMXU MU-RC
3775 El Camino Real 213-35-035 2.19 RMXU MU-RC
2789 El Camino Real 216-01-059 0.88 RMXU MU-RC
2213 El Camino Real 224-15-029 1.22 RMXU MU-RC
2065 El Camino Real 224-15-037 6.43 RMXU MU-RC
3590 El Camino Real 290-01-115 0.67 RMXU MU-RC
3580 El Camino Real 290-01-116 1.56 RMXU MU-RC
3570 El Camino Real 290-01-117 0.39 RMXU MU-RC
2200 El Camino Real 290-10-078 0.95 RMXU MU-RC
3750 El Camino Real 313-05-010 0.67 RMXU MU-RC
1484 Halford Avenue 313-05-011 1.29 RMXU MU-RC
1460 Halford Avenue 313-05-012 1.18 RMXU MU-RC
3740 El Camino Real 313-06-003 0.66 RMXU MU-RC
3530 El Camino Real 290-01-114 0.54 RMXU MU-RC
2232 El Camino Real 290-10-091 2.03 RMXU MU-RC
2240 El Camino Real 290-10-090 0.70 RMXU MU-RC
C
Page C-1
Appendix C
Supplemental Sites Inventory
Analysis [NEW]
Sites to Meet the RHNA
Santa Clara has taken concrete steps, including the recent adoption of multiple specific plans, to support a significant amount of new housing development within the City. There are 12,209 units in pending and approved projects with a status of either: proposed (i.e. awaiting Planning approval), approved (all required Planning entitlements secured), under construction, or occupied (See Table 13.6-2 Pending and Approved Projects).

The majority of pending and approved projects are market rate with the conservative assumption that assigns the 10,201 units from those projects into the Above Moderate (above 120% AMI) affordability category. The remaining pending and approved projects include over 2,000 restricted affordable units, because of the City’s inclusionary requirements and/or the development of 100% affordable projects.

Although the total number of pending and approved units (12,209) exceeds the City’s total RHNA of 11,632 units, as shown in the below table, these projects do not fully meet the City’s RHNA requirement within the Very Low (0-50% AMI), Low (50-80% AMI), and Moderate (80-120% AMI) affordability categories.

In addition to the City’s pending and approved projects (12,209 units) and projected ADU production (393 units), the Housing Element Sites Inventory includes redevelopment of available specific plan sites (5,592 units) and certain rezoning sites along the El Camino Real corridor (805 units).

The sites to meet the City’s RHNA includes a surplus of units (buffer beyond the minimum RHNA target) in all affordability categories (i.e. Lower, Moderate, Above Moderate) above the 15 to 30-percent buffer recommended by HCD to comply with “no net loss” provisions of State Housing Element law, which requires jurisdictions to maintain a sufficient capacity to accommodate their RHNA throughout the planning period at all income levels.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-2
Table 13.C-1 Sites to Meet the RHNA
Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Very Low
[0-50%
AMI]
Low
[50-80%
AMI]
[80-120%
AMI]
[> 120%
AMI]
Pending and Approved Projects 710 794 504 10,201 12,209 Tasman East Focus Area 114 239 175 3,838 4,366
Patrick Henry Drive Focus 76 75 75 1,294 1,520
Lawrence Station Area Plan 39 45 58 635 777
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075
Other 427 381 142 3,521 4,471
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 2,138 1,586 1,728 140 5,592 Tasman East Focus Area 268 196 318 121 903
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area 1,747 1,299 1,299 - 4,345 Lawrence Station Area Plan 123 91 111 19 344
El Camino Real Rezoning Sites 319 236 250 - 805
Total 3,285 2,734 2,600 10,380 18,999
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Surplus (buffer above RHNA) 33% 31% 102% 63%
Note: The El Camino Real rezoning sites are not required to accommodate a lower-income RHNA shortfall but have been included in the Sites Inventory for their contribution to the recommended RHNA buffer for lower-income units, particularly in the VLI affordability category.

C
Page C-3
Availability of Specific Plan Sites During the Planning Period Planned Buildout Horizons
Tasman East Focus Area
• Specific Plan (6,000-unit capacity)
o Phase 1 (4,500 units)
o Phase 2 (1,500 units) *Action 19
• Housing Element (5,269 units):
o Pending and Approved (4,366 units, estimated completion 2028)  196 units occupied
 2,441 units under construction
 581 units approved (all Planning entitlements secured)  1,148 units pending Planning approval
o Available Sites (903 units, estimated completion 2030) Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area
• Specific Plan (10,300 to 12,000-unit capacity)
o Phase 1 (5,839 units, estimated completion 2025-2029) o Phase 2 (2,234 units, estimated completion 2030-2034) • Housing Element (5,865 units, estimated completion 2030) o Pending and Approved (1,520 units)
 307 units approved (all Planning entitlements secured)  1,213 units pending Planning approval
o Available Sites (4,345 units)
Lawrence Station Area
• Specific Plan (3,500-unit capacity)
• Housing Element (846 units) completed in 5th Cycle
• Housing Element (1,121 units)
o Pending and Approved (777 units, estimated completion 2024-2027)  449 units under construction
 328 units approved (all Planning entitlements secured) o Available Sites (344 units, estimated completion 2030)

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-4
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
Per California Government Code Sections 65583.2(b)(2) and 65583.2(g)(1), and Part D of HCDs Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, the City’s inventory of land suitable for residential development shall, for nonvacant sites:
• Include a description of the existing use of each property, including additional details, such as whether the use is discontinued, land to value information, age and condition of the structure, known leases, developer or owner interest, whether the property is currently being marketed, degree of underutilization, etc.; and
• Specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential.

Because non-vacant sites accommodate 50 percent or more of the City’s lower income RHNA, the Housing Element must present “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site. As part of the resolution adopting the housing element, findings are included, stating the uses on the identified nonvacant sites included in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and the factors used to make that determination.

Supplementing the information provided in Chapter 6 Housing Resources and Appendix B Sites Inventory, this section includes additional supporting information that demonstrate , based on the site evaluation criteria described below, how nonvacant sites in the City’s available specific plans and on certain rezoning sites along the El Camino Real corridor are suitable candidates for housing redevelopment.

This section also includes an evaluation of the extent existing uses impede potential redevelopment of certain nonvacant sites. As noted below, and in Chapter 6, after this evaluation, certain sites were removed from consideration if, for example, structures were recently built, or if the site/building underwent recent substantial improvements, or if there are no recent examples of similar redevelopments.

Site Evaluation Criteria
Each site on the sites inventory (not including pending projects) has been evaluated against the following criteria to determine if the existing use constitutes an impediment to residential redevelopment of the sites.

See Chapter 6 Housing Resources for descriptions of each criterion.

A site identified under criterion 1, 2, or 3 requires no further factors/evaluation.

1. Interest: Developer interest or property owner interest to redevelop the site during the planning period, as confirmed during the Housing Element Update process through direct communication (letter, email, phone call) with the property owner and/or their representative.

2. Vacant Lot: Completely vacant lot.

C
Page C-5

3. City or County Ownership: Property is under City or County ownership, with defined intent to redevelop the site with a residential use at a higher density.

4. Redevelopment Trend: Uses that are similar to those that have been previously recycled in Santa Clara (e.g., industrial uses, small shopping centers, offices, stand-alone restaurants and retail uses, properties zoned exclusively for residential use that are currently developed well below the zoning capacity). Recent examples of redevelopment trends in the City of Santa Clara are described in the Redevelopment Trends section and listed in Table 13.C-2 Prior Uses/Details of Pending/Approved/Constructed Projects below.

5. Specific Plan Process: Property is located within a defined Specific Plan area and/or the property owner participated in the Specific Plan planning process. This criterion is distinct from criterion 1 when a property owner (or their representative) participated in the Specific Plan planning process but did not provide direct communication to the City during the Housing Element Update process of their interest in redeveloping their site during the planning period.

6. Underutilized Site: A non-vacant property that has a General Plan land use designation and/or zoning district that allows redevelopment with residential use at a higher density that the existing (typically industrial or commercial) use. Existing site utilization factors considered include low floor area ratio (FAR under 0.5 industrial/office/R&D), number of stories (under 2), tenant vacancies, and if the existing use is entirely served by surface parking.

7. Building/Land Value: Property improvement value is less than the land value (ratio is less than

1.00), indicating substantial underinvestment and the ability of a property owner to achieve financial gain through redevelopment.

8. Year Built/Age: Structure was built prior to 1987 (and therefore over 36 years of age) but is not a designated or eligible historic structure, indicating that properties may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.

9. Lease: Site has no existing tenant lease(s) or lease(s) expire(s) or lease(s) have buy-out clauses within planning period.

Impediments to the Availability of Sites for Development During Planning Period All of the Housing Element sites identified in the City’s Tasman East Focus Area, Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area, and Lawrence Station Area Specific Plans currently have General Plan land use designations and Zoning districts that support residential development at levels (i.e. number of units) that exceed those anticipated in the City’s Housing Element (Criterion 6).

All of the El Camino real rezoning sites, that have a Regional Mixed Use (37-50 du/ac) General Plan land use designation will be rezoned as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update from their current commercial zoning districts, which do not allow residential, to a new mixed use zoning district that allows by-right residential redevelopment consistent with the General Plan (Criterion 6).

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-6
Redevelopment Trends
The following table includes details (square footage, stories, FAR, year built) of prior non-residential uses (e.g., industrial, retail, offices) for pending, approved, and constructed projects that will be or have recently redeveloped with residential. These example projects provide supporting evidence that existing industrial, office, and commercial uses have not been an impediment to residential redevelopment and that this redevelopment trend will continue for similar properties identified on the sites inventory (Criterion 4).

C
Page C-7
Table 13.C-2 Prior Uses/Details of Pending/Approved/Constructed Projects Site
Site
(acres) Use(s)
Building
(sq. ft.) Stories FAR Year Built Use Units
Density
(du/ac) FAR Status
2233 Calle Del Mundo 1.22 Industrial 15,910 1 0.30 1983 Residential (100% Affordable) 196 160 3.37 Occupied 2300 Calle De Luna 5.52 Industrial 97,964 1 0.41 1979 Residential 684 124 3.53 Under Construction 5123 Calle Del Sol (1) 1.87 Industrial 29,000 1 0.36 1978 Residential 311 166 3.64 Under Construction 2200 Calle De Luna 3.91 Industrial 20,160 2 0.12 1978 Residential 579 148 2.97 Under Construction 2225 Calle De Luna 2.02 Industrial 27,000 1 and 2 0.31 1977/84 Residential 370 183 5.36 Under Construction 2302 Calle Del Mundo 0.77 Industrial 16,360 1 0.49 1979 Residential (100% Affordable) 151 196 4.7 Under Construction 2343 Calle Del Mundo 3.06 Industrial 54,558 1 0.41 1977/81/82 Residential 346 113 4.66 Under Construction 5123 Calle Del Sol (2) 0.75 Commercial 3,700 1 0.11 1997 Residential 192 256 7.53 Approved 2263 Calle Del Mundo 1.94 Industrial 33,960 1 0.40 1977/80 Residential 301 155 5.04 Approved 2354 Calle Del Mundo 0.46 Industrial 6,640 1 0.33 1979 Residential 88 191 4.69 Approved 2101 Tasman Dr 9.02 Industrial/Office 125,500 1 and 2 0.32 1980/84 Residential 950 105 3.17 Proposed 5185 Lafayette St 0.90 Industrial 14,200 1 0.36 1979 Residential 198 220 10 Proposed 3000 Patrick Henry Dr 2.52 Industrial/Office 32,480 1 0.30 1980 Residential 307 122 2.87 Approved 2901 Patrick Henry Dr 6.50 Industrial/Office 50,500 1 0.18 1978 Residential 800 123 TBD Pre-application 4590 Patrick Henry Dr 2.80 Industrial/Office 42,821 1 0.35 1990 Residential 413 148 4.98 Pre-application 2904 Corvin Dr 1.08 Office/Warehouse 18,000 1 0.38 1975 Residential (100% Affordable) 145 135 1.88 Completed (5th C.) 2961 Corvin Dr 1.69 Industrial 29,100 1 0.40 1963 Residential 38 22 1.1 Under Construction 3305 Kifer Rd 1.91 Industrial 35,818 1 0.43 1964-79 Residential 45 24 1.13 Under Construction 3580 Rambla Pl 2.57 Industrial 40,110 1 0.36 1975 Residential 286 113 4 Under Construction 3323 Kifer Rd 0.53 Office 8,375 1 0.46 1975 Residential (100% Affordable) 80 151 2.57 Under Construction 3517 Ryder St 3.80 Industrial 63,375 1 0.38 1975 Residential 328 86 3.74 Approved 3945 Stevens Creek Bl 0.58 Retail/Car Wash 4,040 1 0.16 1996 Residential (100% Affordable) 59 102 3.5 Under Construction 3035 El Camino Real 1.93 Used Car Dealer 1,456 1 0.02 1965 Residential 48 25 1 Under Construction 3550 El Camino Real 1.12 Motel 29,356 2 0.60 1975 Residential (100% Affordable) 120 107 2.74 Under Construction 1601 Civic Center Dr 1.41 Office 30,000 2 0.49 1974 Residential (100% Affordable) 108 77 2.16 Approved 80 Saratoga Ave 1.98 Office 26,329 1 and 2 0.27 1968 Residential (100% Affordable) 200 101 3.18 Approved Other
Current/Former Use Details Redevelopment Details
Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan
Lawrence Station Area Specific Plan

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-8

Tasman East Focus Area
Housing Element Action 19 Tasman East Specific Plan Amendment will remove impediments to the availability and development of the remaining 9 sites (13 parcels) in the Tasman East Focus area by allowing 1,500 units of additional capacity within the Specific Plan and providing streamlined environmental clearance.

Two sites in the Tasman East Focus Area, 5101 Lafayette Street, which is an existing data center, and 2203 Tasman Drive, which is a retail strip center built in 1998, were excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.

Eleven projects on 18 parcels (58 percent of the parcels on the Sites Inventory) in the Tasman East Focus Area are pending or approved for redevelopment of low intensity light industrial/office uses to high density residential. This is an indicator of trends within the City’s specific plans as they relate to redevelopment of nonvacant sites and that the market demand for new higher density residential development is greater than the demand for existing low-intensity industrial and office development.

These redevelopments are facilitated by the City’s adoption of the Tasman East Specific Plan (and the pending amendment to allow additional residential capacity), the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, and the Lawrence Station Area Plan.

The remaining nine Tasman East Focus Area Specific Plan sites on 13 parcels (Criterion 5) are all nonvacant, and similarly developed with low intensity one-story industrial buildings and surface parking built between 1979 and 1984 with Floor Area Ratios (FARs) ranging from 0.34 to 0.47 (Criteria 6 and 8).

Five of the sites have improvement to land value ratios that are less that 1.0 (Criterion 7). All nine remaining sites share similar characteristics with the prior uses and intensity of development on the 18 parcels that have been or are currently being redeveloped with high density housing (Criterion 4). Specific details for each of the nine remaining sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its potential for redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element.

C
Page C-9

1. 5191 Lafayette Street (APN: 097-46-001)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.51 60 350 7,928 0.35 1 All 0.2 1979
Use(s): Electronics manufacturing; likely unoccupied.

This 0.51-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 7,928 square foot one-story building (0.35 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-10

2. 2203 Tasman Drive (APN: 097-46-030) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.03 100 350 7,210 0.16 1 All 0.77 1998
Use(s): Restaurants (six).

Although the site is underutilized (low FAR, one-story, surface parking) with a low improvement ratio, and can be redeveloped with high density residential per the Tasman East Specific Plan, because the existing building is only about 25 years old, this site is less likely to redevelop during the planning period and has been excluded from the Sites Inventory.

C
Page C-11

3. 2262 Calle Del Mundo (APN: 097-46-026)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.48 60 350 9,850 0.47 1 All 0.77 1980
Use(s): Plating service.

This 0.48-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 9,850 square foot one-story building (0.47 FAR) with surface parking in 1980.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-12

4. 2271 Calle De Luna (APN: 097-46-021)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.93 60 350 15,530 0.38 1 All 6.0 1979
Use(s): Warehouse.

This 0.93-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 15,530 square foot one-story building (0.38 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

5. 2272 Calle Del Mundo (APN: 097-46-025)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built

0.48 60 350 9,850 0.47 1 All 1.38 1980
Use(s): Auto repair shop.

This 0.48-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 9,850 square foot one-story building (0.47 FAR) with surface parking in 1980.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-14

6. 2281 Calle De Luna (APN: 097-46-023)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built

0.94 60 350 14,420 0.35 1 All 2.36 1984
Use(s): Medical equipment manufacturing.

This 0.94-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 14,420 square foot one-story building (0.35 FAR) with surface parking in 1984.

7. 2301, 2309, 2317 Calle De Luna (APNs: 097-46-007, -008, 009) Consolidated Site “S” (same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built

1.38 60 350 23,670 0.39 1 All 2.84 1979
Use(s): Flooring sales, unoccupied, metal manufacturing.

This 1.38-acre industrial site (three parcels) was developed with approximately 23,670 square feet in three one-story buildings (0.39 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-16
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing buildings are almost 45 years old, indicating the buildings may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction – 2300 Calle de Luna (south across street) • The entire site (properties must be sold together) is listed available for sale (Cushman & Wakefield) and marketed for residential redevelopment.

8. 2338, 2330, 2322 Calle Del Mundo (APNs: 097-46-004, -005, -006) Consolidated Site “R” (same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built

1.38 60 350 20,740 0.34 1 All 1.59 1979
Use(s): Unoccupied, unoccupied, glass manufacturing.

C
Page C-17
This 1.38-acre industrial site was developed with three one-story buildings totaling approximately 20,740 square feet (0.34 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story buildings, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. The approved and under construction project on the adjacent 0.77-acre site to the east is an 8-story 151-unit 100% affordable project with a 4.7 FAR. In the Tasman East Specific Plan area, the 12 approved, under construction, or occupied projects have FARs ranging from 2.97 to 10.0 with an average FAR of 4.88.
• The existing buildings are almost 45 years old, indicating the buildings may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • Adjacent to and nearby this site are properties that are in various stages of redevelopment from similar aged low-intensity industrial uses to high density residential projects including:
o Under construction – 2202/2310 Calle del Mundo (east of site) and 2343 Calle del Mundo (north across street)
• The owner has been in conversations with real estate brokers about marketing their property for sale for residential redevelopment.
• Total Taxable Value of Site (land and improvements) vs. Comparable Sale Adjacent Site o $4.07M ($2.95M/acre) Total Taxable Value of Site
o $9.65M ($9.75M/acre) Comparable Sale December 2022 adjacent project site to the east for residential redevelopment (under construction).

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-18

9. 2325 Calle De Luna (APN: 097-46-010)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built

0.47 60 350 6,920 0.34 1 All 1.78 1979
Use(s): Unoccupied.

This 0.47-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 6,920 square foot one-story building (0.34 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

10. 2346 Calle Del Mundo (APN: 097-46-003)
Criteria 6 (Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8
Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio Year Built

0.46 60 350 7,190 0.36 1 All 0.01 1979
Use(s): General contractor.

This 0.46-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 7,190 square foot one-story building (0.36 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-20
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area
Three sites in the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area, 4650 and 4700 Old Ironsides Drive (existing data centers), and 4600 Patrick Henry Drive were excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.

Three projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area are pending or approved for redevelopment of low intensity light industrial to high density residential. See Table 13.C-2 above for prior use and redevelopment details and status for each project.

The remaining 11 Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area Specific Plan sites are all nonvacant, developed with mostly low intensity industrial buildings and surface parking built between 1978 and 1984 with Floor Area Ratios (FARs) ranging from 0.13 to 0.67 (Criteria 6 and 8). Eight of the sites have improvement to land value ratios that are less that 1.0 (Criterion 7). All 11 remaining sites share similar characteristics with the prior uses and intensity of development on the 18 parcels that have been or are currently being redeveloped with high density housing in the nearby Tasman East Focus Area and with the three pending or approved projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area (Criterion 4).

The development of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan included regular, consistent participation on a monthly basis by 11 separate ownership groups representing 100% of the Patrick Henry Drive parcels included in the Housing Element sites inventory (Criterion 5).

Regarding 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, the City received a letter dated April 24, 2023 from the planning consultant representing the property owners (Pearlman) noting their participation in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process, and their continued interest in developing residential uses on the property within the timeframe of the Housing Element (Criterion 1).

At the end of 2023 the overall vacancy rate in Silicon Valley for all classes of office space was 22.6%; an increase from 18.2% in the first quarter of 2023. For the City of Santa Clara, the overall office vacancy rate at the end of 2023 was 28.4%. (Cushman & Wakefield Q4 2023 Report).

Specific details for each of the 11 remaining sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its potential for redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element.

C
Page C-21

1. 2900 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-095)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.98 100 149 27,430 0.32 1 All 1.01 1978
Use(s): Church.

This 1.98-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 27,430 square foot one-story building (0.32 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.

The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), 1-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site. • The existing building is almost 46 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • The owners of this site (San Jose New Hope Christian) were participants in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process.
• As an alternative to selling the property for residential redevelopment, the owner could partner with a housing developer to redevelop the property with a mix of residential uses and a new church facility that is sized to accommodate their total membership, which has been relatively stable for the past 19 years.
• The Urban Village Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a gross density maximum of 149 du/ac, height up to 160- feet and 12-stories, with no FAR maximum.
• The City has included a new program in the Housing Plan under Action 1 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types, Objective n.3 to increase housing choices and affordability in areas of opportunity on religious/faith-based sites. This program will include biennial outreach to religious/faith-based institutions, including New Hope Church, to inform them about recent

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-22
state law changes to facilitate affordable housing development on land owned by religious institutions. The City will also connect interested landowners with experienced nonprofit affordable housing developers. Additionally, the City will support funding applications, provide technical assistance, and grant incentives such as finding funding sources to reduce permit fees for applicants and providing relief from development standards under the City’s density bonus provisions.

2. 2950 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-094)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.52 100 149 32,580 0.3 1 All 0.54 1978
Use(s): Office.

This 2.52-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 32,580 square foot one-story building (0.30 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.

C
Page C-23

3. 3055 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-136)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

3.82 120 250 70,520 0.42 2 All 0.99 1981
Use(s): unoccupied.

This 3.82-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 70,520 square foot two-story building (0.42 FAR) with surface parking in 1981.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-24

4. 3100 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-128)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.52 100 149 32,800 0.3 1 All 0.86 1979
Use(s): Office.

This 2.52-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 32,800 square foot one-story building (0.30 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (less than 0.5), one-story building, all surface parking, indicate that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the high density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • The owner of this property (O2Micro Global) was a very active participant in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process, including providing public comment at all public hearings and community meetings, and requested/agreed to the redesignation of their property to allow residential redevelopment.
• The Urban Village Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a gross density maximum of 149 du/ac, height up to 160- feet and 12-stories, with no FAR maximum.
• The adjacent 2.52-acre property to the west (3000 Patrick Henry Drive) was approved for the demolition of the existing approximately 32,480 square foot one-story industrial building (0.30 FAR) built in 1980 to be replaced with a 307-unit high density residential project (122 du/ace and 2.87 FAR).

C
Page C-25
• A 2.8-acre property to the northwest (4590 Patrick Henry Drive) is nearing Planning approval for the demolition of the existing approximately 42,821 square foot one-story industrial building built in 1990 to be replaced with a 413-unit high density residential project (148 du/ac and 4.98 FAR).

5. 3105 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-131)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

3.8 51 100 51,610 0.31 1 All 0.82 1978
Use(s): Manufacturing.

This 3.8-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 51,610 square foot one-story building (0.31 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-26

6. 3200 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-04-089 and -124) Consolidated Stie “T” (Same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

5.97 100 149 105,120 0.4 2 All 0.23 1978
Use(s): Office.

This 5.97-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 105,120 square foot two-story building (0.40 FAR) with surface parking in 1978.

C
Page C-27

7. 4633 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104.04-141)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.6 60 149 49,500 0.44 4 All 0.78 1983
Use(s): Office.

This 2.6-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 49,500 square foot four-story building (0.44 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.

The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-28

8. 4655 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104-04-140)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.7 60 149 47,500 0.40 4 All 0.75 1983
Use(s): Office.

This 2.7-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 47,500 square foot four-story building (0.40 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.

The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.

C
Page C-29

9. 4677 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104-04-139)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.53 60 149 49,000 0.44 4 All 0.8 1983
Use(s): Office.

This 2.53-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 49,000 square foot four-story building (0.44 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.

The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-30

10. 4699 Old Ironsides Drive (APN: 104-04-138)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.73 60 149 50,820 0.67 4 All 1.3 1984
Use(s): Office.

This 1.73-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 50,820 square foot four-story building (0.44 FAR) with surface parking in 1983.

The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• A letter from Eric Morley, planning consultant for the Pearlman Family, owners of the Pearlman sites located at 4633-4699 Old Ironsides Drive, dated April 24, 2023, indicates their participation throughout the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and their continued interest in redeveloping their property with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element.
• This building is part of the Parkway Plaza development that includes a total of four multitenant Class B office buildings and approximately 198,000 square feet of leasable space. As of early 2024, there was approximately 26,280 square feet of office space available for lease. • Per a follow-up email with Eric Morley, each of the four multi-tenant office buildings have a range of service and other business within them and all leases include a 24-month termination clause by the landlord to facilitate future redevelopment.

C
Page C-31

11. 4701 Patrick Henry Drive (APN: 104-53-001 through -026) Consolidated Site “O” Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

9.06 60 149 52,920 0.13 1 & 2 All 1.67 1981
Use(s): Office.

This 9.06-acre industrial site was developed with approximately 52,920 square feet in multiple, mostly one-story, with some two-story office buildings (0.13 FAR) with surface parking in 1981.

Although there are multiple owners, several of them, including one property owner who own a majority of the parcels, actively participated in the drafting of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, which has as one of its primary purposes the redevelopment of sites like 4701 Patrick Henry Drive.
• In a March 2024 conversation between the City and the majority property owner and a follow-up conversation with the broker representing the majority owners, they expressed keen interest in redeveloping their site with residential uses and noted that their existing

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-32
leases have termination clauses that would facilitate redevelopment within the planning period. About half of the units are owner occupied and half are rented to tenants. Leases with a limited duration/termination clauses are typical for this property and provide the flexibility to accommodate residential redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element. • The Marriott Center Owners Association participated in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan process and committed considerable time and resources, including changing their CC&R’s, with approval by the Santa Clara City Council on November 17, 2022, to make future redevelopment of their site easier.
• As of early 2024 there were advertisements for leases totaling over 20,000 square feet of Class B office space in six buildings.
• Gross direct rent/square foot estimates for this site range from $1.80-$2.20 to $2.30-$2.80. One building recently (2024) advertised as available for $2.25/square foot; less than what the same space leased for in 2019 ($2.43/square foot). The rents for this site are below market asking rents for similar properties in the northern Santa Clara submarket at $3.61/square foot. (CoStar 2024)
• The vacancy rate for similar properties in the northern Santa Clara submarket is approximately 19% (2024) but is forecast to increase to over 25% in 2025. (CoStar 2024).

Lawrence Station Area
Four sites in the Lawrence Station Area, 2960, 2970 and 3030 Corvin Drive (existing data centers), and 3350-3420 Central Expressway (Gemini Rosemont industrial campus), designated Very High Density Residential (51-100 du/ac) on approximately 19 acres and High Density Residential (37-50 du/ac) on approximately 2.8 acres, were excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.

Five projects in the Lawrence Station Area are pending or approved for redevelopment of low intensity light industrial to medium and high density residential. See Table 13.C-2 above for prior use and redevelopment details and status for each project.

The remaining four available Lawrence Station Area Specific Plan sites (Criterion 5) are all nonvacant, developed with low intensity industrial buildings and surface parking built between 1970 and 1981 with Floor Area Ratios (FARs) ranging from 0.25 to 0.6 (Criteria 6 and 8). Four of the sites have improvement to land value ratios that are less that 1.0 (Criterion 7). All five remaining sites share similar characteristics with the prior uses and intensity of development on the parcels that have been or are currently being redeveloped with medium and high density housing in the balance of the Lawrence Station Area, including sites that were completed in the 5th Housing Element cycle (Criterion 4). Specific details for each of the four remaining available sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its potential for redevelopment during the timeframe of the Housing Element.

C
Page C-33

1. 3031 Corvin Drive (APN: 216-33-022)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.61 20 36 15,730 0.59 1 All 0.86 1970
Use(s): Light manufacturing.

This 0.61-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 15,730 square foot one-story building (0.59 FAR) with surface parking in 1970.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-34

2. 3051 Corvin Drive (APN: 216-33-036)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.60 20 36 15,660 0.6 1 All 1.13 1973
Use(s): Light manufacturing.

This 0.60-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 15,660 square foot one-story building (0.60 FAR) with surface parking in 1973.

C
Page C-35

3. 3071 Corvin Drive (APN: 216-33-037)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.78 20 36 11,440 0.34 1 All 0.74 1979
Use(s): Office.

This 0.78-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 11,440 square foot one-story building (0.34 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-36

4. 3450 Central Expressway (APN: 216-34-079)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

3.14 51 100 34,320 0.25 1 All 0.32 1981
Use(s): Office.

This 3.14-acre industrial site was developed with an approximately 34,320 square foot one-story building (0.25 FAR) with surface parking in 1981.

The following factor was used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• In a phone conversation with the City’s Community Development Director on April 25, 2023, the owner of this site (Sobrato Organization) expressed their continued interest in redeveloping the site with residential uses noting that the existing industrial tenant has a buyout provision in their lease that would allow redevelopment of the site to move forward at any time in the next eight years.

El Camino Real Rezoning Sites
In the June 27, 2023 adopted Housing Element, the City expanded its Sites Inventory by adding select properties along the El Camino Real corridor that are between 0.5 and 10 acres in size, have a Regional Mixed Use General Plan land use designation, but are currently zoned only for commercial uses. These sites are proposed to be rezoned through the Zoning Ordinance update process (Action 9) to a new mixed use zoning district that will facilitate redevelopment of these commercial sites to residential uses consistent with the General Plan.

Although there are recent examples of residential development of properties along the City’s commercial corridors, including El Camino real, that have been approved at or above maximum residential densities, for the purposes of the Housing Element, the minimum density was used to calculate a conservative realistic capacity for the El Camino Real rezoning sites.

C
Page C-37
Redevelopment of the El Camino Real rezoning sites is generally consistent with recent trends seen on commercial corridors in neighboring communities and throughout the City of Santa Clara, including on commercial properties along the El Camino Real Corridor (Criterion 4). See Table 13.C-2 above for prior use and redevelopment details and status for each example project listed in the “Other” category.

All of the El Camino Real rezoning sites are underutilized in that they have a General Plan land use designation that allows redevelopment of the existing low intensity commercial uses (FARs ranging from

0.05 to 0.57, all surface parking) with higher density residential uses (Criterion 6).

Eleven of the sites have improvement ratios less than 1.0 (Criterion 7) and sixteen of the sites were built 36 or more years ago (Criterion 8).

Specific details for each of the 20 El Camino Real rezoning sites is provided below with each site evaluated for its redevelopment potential
After evaluation, eight of the sites have been excluded from the available sites inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop in the timeframe of the 6th cycle Housing Element.

1. 4341 El Camino Real (APN: 213-37-015) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.01 37 50 18,393 0.42 2 All 2.54 1973
Use(s): Hotel/motel.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-38

2. 3775 El Camino Real (APN: 213-35-035)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.19 37 50 43,638 0.46 1 All 4.31 1980
Use(s): Strip commercial (3 buildings) – unoccupied, restaurants, salons, laundry.

This 2.19-acre commercial site was developed with approximately 46,638 square feet of one-story buildings (0.46 FAR) with surface parking in 1980.

C
Page C-39
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story buildings with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The existing buildings are almost 44 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • One of the three buildings has remained unoccupied for almost three years.

3. 3755 El Camino Real (APN: 213-35-032) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.16 37 50 12,600 0.25 2 All 0.58 1978
Use(s): Standalone bank.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-40

4. 3725 El Camino Real (APN: 213-34-008) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.56 37 50 1,690 0.07 1 All 0.4 1971
Use(s): Gas station.

5. 3735 and 3705 El Camino Real (APN: 213-34-012 and -010) Consolidated site “P” (same owner) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

6.3 37 50 77,050 0.28 1 All 0.56 1972
Use(s): Grocery store, discount store.

This 6.3-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 77,050 square foot one-story building (0.28 FAR) with surface parking in 1972.

C
Page C-41
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 52 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return. • This 6.3-acre site with a small 0.28 FAR and large surface parking area has the potential for a residential mixed-use redevelopment that could provide housing while retaining the existing grocery store and discount store. The site is also large enough to allow multiple reconfigurations that would preserve access to parking for the adjacent site currently occupied by 24-hour fitness and the small site currently occupied by Starbucks if those sites choose not to participate in a larger redevelopment plan for the entire shopping center. • The Mixed-Use Regional Commercial Zoning District for this site has flexible development standards to facilitate redevelopment of this site, including a density maximum of 50 du/ac, small or no setbacks, height up to 60-feet and 6-stories, with no FAR maximum.

6. 3615 El Camino Real (APN: 213-34-004) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

3.58 37 50 40,700 0.26 1 All 0.34 1972
Use(s): Fitness gym. Recently completed (summer 2022) renovations.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-42

7. 1460 Halford Avenue (APN: 313-05-012)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.18 37 50 11,600 0.23 1 All 1.69 1973
Use(s): Strip commercial – liquor store, clinic, paint store, restaurant.

This 6.3-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 11,600 square foot one-story building (0.23 FAR) with surface parking in 1973.

C
Page C-43

8. 1484 Halford Avenue (APN: 313-05-011)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.29 37 50 9,700 0.17 1 All 0.13 1973
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurant, bakery, bar.

This 1.29-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 9,700 square foot one-story building (0.17 FAR) with surface parking in 1973.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-44

9. 3750 El Camino Real (APN: 313-05-010)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.67 37 50 2,760 0.09 1 All 0.2 1976
Use(s): Fast food drive through.

This 0.67-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 2,760 square foot one-story building (0.09 FAR) with surface parking in 1976.

C
Page C-45

10. 3740 El Camino Real (APN: 313-06-003)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.66 37 50 1,570 0.05 1 All 0.34 1968
Use(s): Gas station/car wash.

This 0.66-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 1,570 square foot one-story building (0.05 FAR) with surface parking in 1968.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-46

11. 3590, 3580, and 3570 El Camino Real (APN: 290-01-115, -116, and -117) Consolidated site “Q” (same owner)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.62 37

50 4,200
22,224
1,830

0.14 0.33

0.11 1
2 1

All

0.23 1967
1970
1968
Use(s): Standalone restaurant, hotel/motel, auto service/repair.

This 2.62-acre commercial site (three parcels) was developed with an approximately 4,200 square foot one-story building (0.14 FAR) in 1967, a 22,224 square foot two-story motel building (0.33 FAR) in 1970, and a 1,830 square foot building (0.11 FAR) in 1968, all with surface parking.

C
Page C-47
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FARs (under 0.50), one-story buildings with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing buildings are between 53 and 57 years old, indicating the buildings may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.

12. 3530 El Camino Real (APN: 290-01-114)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.54 37 50 2,512 0.11 1 All 0.26 1972
Use(s): Standalone restaurant.

This 0.54-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 2,512 square foot one-story building (0.11 FAR) with surface parking in 1972.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-48
• The existing building is almost 52 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.

13. 2789 El Camino Real (APN: 216-01-059)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.88 37 50 11,750 0.31 1 All 1.07 1991
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurants.

This 0.88-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 11,750 square foot one-story building (0.31 FAR) with surface parking in 1991.

C
Page C-49

14. 2775 El Camino Real (APN: 216-01-058) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.25 37 50 15,920 0.29 1 All 1.74 1991
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurants, pet store.

15. 2725 El Camino Real (APN: 216-01-040) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.15 37 50 15,250 0.30 1 All 1.03 1987
Use(s): Strip commercial – restaurants, bakery, dentist.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-50

16. 2213 El Camino Real (APN: 224-15-029)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

1.22 37 50 30,255 0.57 1 All 1.0 1962
Use(s): Grocery store.

This 1.22-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 30,255 square foot one-story building (0.57 FAR) with surface parking in 1962.

C
Page C-51

17. 2065 El Camino Real (APN: 224-15-037)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

6.44 37 50 66,300 0.24 1 All 0.62 1952
Use(s): Strip commercial – grocery, auto parts, shipping.

This 6.44-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 66,300 square foot one-story building (0.24 FAR) with surface parking in 1952.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-52
The following factors were used to determine that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential uses on the site and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
• The low FAR (under 0.50), one-story building with all surface parking, indicates that the property is underutilized, particularly in comparison to the higher density residential allowed on the site.
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 72 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.

18. 2200 El Camino Real (APN: 290-10-078)
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.95 37 50 6,618 0.16 1 All 0.25 1979
Use(s): Standalone bank.

This 0.95-acre commercial site was developed with an approximately 6,618 square foot one-story building (0.16 FAR) with surface parking in 1979.

C
Page C-53
• The low improvement ratio (less than 1.0) indicates substantial underinvestment in the property and the potential for financial gain through redevelopment. • The existing building is almost 45 years old, indicating the building may need substantial improvements or replacement for maximum financial return.

19. 2120 El Camino Real (APN: 290-10-028) Site is Available for Redevelopment, but Not Included on Sites Inventory for Purposes of RHNA
Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

0.97 37 50 12,180 0.29 1 All 2.05 2013
Use(s): Standalone drug store.

20. 2232 and 2240 El Camino Real (APN: 290-10-091 and -190) Consolidated site “U” (same owner) Criteria 6 (Existing Site Utilization) Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Acres
Min.

Density
Max.

Density
Building
Size (sf) FAR Stories
Surface
Parking
Improvement
Ratio
Year
Built

2.73 37 50 24,725 0.21 1 All 0.0 1959/81
Use(s): Three vacant commercial/retail buildings.

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-54
This 2.73-acre commercial site was developed with approximately 24,725 square feet of one-story buildings (0.21 FAR) with surface parking in 1959 and 1981.

C
Page C-55
Table 13.C-2 Sites to Meet the RHNA - Hypothetical
with 4701 Patrick Henry Drive Site Removed
Site/Credit Type
Affordability Category
Total
Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Very Low
[0-50%
AMI]
Low
[50-80%
AMI]
[80-120%
AMI]
[> 120%
AMI]
Pending and Approved Projects 710 794 504 10,201 12,209 Tasman East Focus Area 114 239 175 3,838 4,366
Patrick Henry Drive Focus 76 75 75 1,294 1,520
Lawrence Station Area Plan 39 45 58 635 777
Freedom Circle Focus Area 54 54 54 913 1,075
Other 427 381 142 3,521 4,471
ADU Projection 118 118 118 39 393
Available Specific Plan Sites 1,748 1,295 1,437 140 4,911 Tasman East Focus Area 268 196 318 121 903
Patrick Henry Drive Focus Area 1,357 1,008 1,008 - 3,664 Lawrence Station Area Plan 123 91 111 19 344
El Camino Real Rezoning Sites 319 236 250 - 805
Total 2,895 2,443 2,309 10,380 18,318
RHNA 2,872 1,653 1,981 5,126 11,632
Surplus (buffer above RHNA) 18% 16.5% 102.5% 57.5%
The City received public comment from the Housing Action Coalition on the adopted Housing Element objecting to the inclusion of several sites, including 4701 Patrick Henry Drive, on the sites inventory (see Appendix A Public Outreach).

Although the City continues to believe that 4701 Patrick Henry Drive is prime for redevelopment within the timeframe of the Housing Element (see evaluation criteria above), even if this site was removed from the inventory, the City would still have sufficient sites in its inventory to achieve its RHNA targets with a buffer at all affordability levels (see Table 13.C-2).

As described in Chapter 6 Housing Resources and reflected in Appendix B Electronic Sites Inventory and Appendix C Supplemental Sites Inventory Analysis, the following sites were also identified through public comments (see Appendix A Public Outreach) and have been excluded from the Sites Inventory since they are unlikely to redevelop with residential uses within the timeframe of the Housing Element:

SANTA CLARA

HOUSING ELEMENT
Page C-56
• Tasman East Specific Plan
o 5101 Lafayette Street (data center)
• Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan
o 4650 Old Ironsides Drive (data center)
o 4700 Old Ironsides Drive (data center)
o 4600 Patrick Henry Drive (Drawbridge parcel)
• Lawrence Station Area Plan
o 2960 – 3030 Corvin Drive (data centers)
o 3350 – 34420 Central Expressway (Gemini Rosemont industrial campus) • El Camino Real Rezoning Sites
o 3615 El Camino Real (24-hour Fitness)
o 3735 and 3705 El Camino Real (Big Lots/Lucky)
As noted above (Appendix C), six additional El Camino Real rezoning sites and one Tasman East Specific Plan site were also excluded from the inventory because it was determined that they are less likely to redevelop in the planning period.

City of Santa Clara Zoning Code Update
and
General Plan Amendments
Addendum to the City of Santa Clara
2010-2035 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:

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

MIG, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
Public Review Draft
November 1, 2023
- This document is designed for double-sided printing - Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments i
City of Santa Clara
Table of Contents
1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.7 – Zoning Districts........................................................................................................7

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

2.9 – Required Approvals...............................................................................................13

2.10 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ................................................13 3 Determination ........................................................................................................................19

3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected ......................................................19

3.2 – Determination........................................................................................................19 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................21

4.1 – Aesthetics..............................................................................................................23

4.3 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 28

4.4 – Air Quality..............................................................................................................31

4.6 – Biological Resources.............................................................................................36

4.7 – Cultural Resources................................................................................................43

4.8 – Energy...................................................................................................................47

4.9 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 50

4.10 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................58

4.12 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials.........................................................................61

4.13 – Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................67

4.14 – Land Use and Planning .........................................................................................74

4.15 – Mineral Resources ................................................................................................77

4.16 – Noise.....................................................................................................................79

4.18 – Population and Housing ........................................................................................83

4.15 – Public Services......................................................................................................86

4.16 – Recreation.............................................................................................................91

4.17 – Transportation .......................................................................................................94

4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................99

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................. 103

4.20 – Wildfire ................................................................................................................108

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................... 111 5 Applicable GP / Subsequent SP EIR Mitigation Measures................................................... 114 6 References ..........................................................................................................................180

6.1 – List of Preparers..................................................................................................180

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................ 180

6.3 – Bibliography ........................................................................................................181 Table of Contents
ii Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 2 Existing General Plan Land Use Map......................................................................... 17 Appendices
Appendix A 2010-2035 Santa Clara General Plan EIR
Appendix B Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments Appendix C Lawrence Station Area Plan DEIR
Appendix D Tasman East Specific Plan DEIR
Appendix E Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan DEIR
Appendix F Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment DEIR All appendices are incorporated herein by this reference. No other documents are incorporated by reference.

Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 1
City of Santa Clara
1 Introduction
This document has been prepared to serve as an addendum to the previously certified Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH # 2008092005), which was certified in January 2011, and subsequent amendments made for the various Specific Plan areas and future focus areas of the city. The City of Santa Clara (“City” or “Lead Agency”) is considering approval of a comprehensive update of the city’s current Zoning Code and corresponding General Plan text amendments (“proposed project” or “project”). The goal of the comprehensive Zoning Code Update (ZCU) is to develop a more up-to-date, readable, and relevant Zoning Code that better aligns with the city’s General Plan and which fully aligns with recent changes in State law. The project would also include a General Plan Amendment (GPA) that would amend the text of the General Plan to reflect the ZCU. The City of Santa Clara is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. This Addendum serves as the environmental review for the ZCU/GPA, prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164.

1.1 – Purpose and Authority
Pursuant to CEQA, the proposed Zoning Code Update constitutes a “project” that is subject to analysis and determination of environmental effects under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et. seq.). This Addendum, its appendices, and related supporting environmental documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the General Plan EIR and associated amendments prepared for the General Plan EIR are sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Zoning Code Update, or whether additional documentation is required under CEQA. The proposed project requires discretionary approval by the City of Santa Clara and, as the project initiator, the City of Santa Clara is the Lead Agency with respect to this Addendum pursuant to §15367 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Specifically, the Project requires the City of Santa Clara’s approval of a Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendment. No other governmental agencies have discretionary permitting authority with respect to approval of the proposed project, and no Trustee Agencies, as defined in §21070 of the CEQA Statutes, has jurisdiction over resources such that Trustee agency approval is required for entitlement approval.

Under CEQA, the City must determine whether the proposed changes would require a new or supplemental EIR, or whether an addendum would suffice. Section 2, Project Description, provides detailed description of the proposed changes. In determining whether an addendum is the appropriate document to analyze the modifications to the project and its approval, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) states:
a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. 1 – Introduction
2 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
1 – Introduction
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 3
City of Santa Clara
An addendum may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to a certified EIR and none of the above-stated conditions apply (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). Per the above, this Addendum functions as both an “addendum” and a “written checklist,” as called for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) and 15168(c)(4). As such, this Addendum analyzes the proposed project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects disclosed in 2010 General Plan EIR consistent with Guidelines Section 15162. Based on a review of the proposed project (as described in Section 2, Project Description) and surrounding circumstances (i.e., the Environmental Setting), this addendum concludes that there is no substantial change proposed that would require major revisions to the previous EIR; that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of project modifications that would cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts (see Section 3, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures); and, that there is no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).

1.3 – Tiering
Section 15152 et al of the CEQA Guidelines describes “tiering” as a streamlining tool as follows:
(a) "Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. (b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.
(c) Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. (d) Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to affects which:
(1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means. (e) Tiering under this section shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project is located, except that a project requiring a rezone to achieve or maintain conformity with a general plan may be subject to tiering.

1 – Introduction
4 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
(f) A later EIR shall be required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR.

A negative declaration shall be required when the provisions of Section 15070 are met. (1) Where a lead agency determines that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR that effect is not treated as significant for purposes of the later EIR or negative declaration and need not be discussed in detail.
(2) When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. For a discussion on how to assess whether project impacts are cumulatively considerable, see Section 15064(i).
(3) Significant environmental effects have been "adequately addressed" if the lead agency determines that:
(A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental report; or (B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.
(g) When tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept and that it is being tiered with the earlier EIR. (h) There are various types of EIRs that may be used in a tiering situation. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) General Plan EIR (Section 15166)
(2) Staged EIR (Section 15167)
(3) Program EIR (Section 15168)
(4) Master EIR (Section 15175)
(5) Multiple-family residential development/residential and commercial or retail mixed-use development (Section 15179.5)
(6) Redevelopment project (Section 15180)
(7) Projects consistent with community plan, general plan, or zoning (Section 15183) This Addendum for the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments has been prepared to tier from the General Plan “Program” EIR of the City of Santa Clara dated January 2011, as amended or otherwise supplemented (See Appendix A). In addition, this addendum has been prepared to tier from the Lawrence Station Area Plan (“Lawrence Station SP”) DEIR dated August 2016 (see Appendix C), the Tasman East Specific Plan (“Tasman East SP”) DEIR dated July 2018 (see Appendix D), the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (“Patrick Henry Drive SP”) DEIR dated July 2021 (see Appendix E), and the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (“Freedom Circle FFA”) DEIR dated November 2021 (see Appendix F). Mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs are incorporated herein by reference.
1 – Introduction
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 5
City of Santa Clara

1.4 – Organization and Scope
Although this document is not an initial study, in the interest of providing a thorough examination of any potential environmental impacts, the document has been organized to comply with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which sets forth the required contents of an Initial Study. These include:
• A description of the project, including the location of the project (see Section 2) • Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 2.5) • Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (see Section 3)
• Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (see Section 4.11)
• Applicable General Plan EIR and Subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures (see Section 5)
• The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (see Section 6.1)

1.5 – Conclusions
The City of Santa Clara may approve the proposed project based on this Addendum. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and associated amendments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). The proposed project does not require any revisions to the General Plan EIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the proposed project have occurred since the approval of the General Plan EIR and EIR’s relate to subsequent specific plans and area plans that amended the General Plan. Therefore, the previous CEQA analyses completed for the General Plan EIR and associated amendments remain adequate. The applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval from the General Plan EIR and associated amendments would be imposed on the proposed project as described herein. The proposed project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the proposed project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and associated amendments and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an Addendum is appropriate CEQA compliance for the proposed project. 1 – Introduction
6 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 7
City of Santa Clara
2 Project Description

2.1 – Project Title
City of Santa Clara Zoning Code Update

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

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

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

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

2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designations
Multiple.

2.7 – Zoning Districts
Multiple.
2 – Project Description
8 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

2.8 – Project Description
The proposed project includes a comprehensive update to the City of Santa Clara Zoning Code and corresponding text amendments to the General Plan. The following discussion summarizes the key changes and concepts being brought forward through the Zoning Code Update.

Organization of the Zoning Code
The draft updated Zoning Code has been organized and formatted for clarity and ease of use (see Appendix B). One significant change in organizational structure is to move from a nested or cumulative approach to zoning districts to an organization where the contents of each zoning district is selfcontained. In the 1969 Zoning Code, uses were listed out within each zoning district, and the zoning code was cumulative in nature, meaning that uses in less intense zoning districts were included by reference in the more intense districts of the same type. For example, all of the uses allowed in the CN Neighborhood Commercial district are also allowed in the CC Community Commercial zoning district, and the uses of both zoning districts are allowed in the CT Commercial Thoroughfare zoning district with each district referring back to the other districts for the complete list of allowed uses. Functionally, this means that to understand the uses applicable to a property, a resident might need to follow a chain of references through three chapters of the Code. The updated Zoning Code further improves readability by presenting all similar districts together in a single chapter, with uses presented in tabular format, making it easier to compare regulations between uses and zoning districts. Similarly, development standards, including building heights, setbacks and area limitations such as lot coverage maximums are presented in tables, allowing information to be readily accessed in a concise format. The updated Zoning Code also adds explanatory graphics, helping to clarify code sections such as nonstandard setback regulations and sign types.

Zoning Code Changes Required by Recent State Legislation Over the past year, the State has made a number of changes to the Government Code that are intended to promote housing inventory including several actions cities are required to implement through their Zoning Codes. As a result, the City of Santa Clara has made the following changes to the proposed Zoning Code Update since the release of the February 2022 draft:
• Allowing residential development on land with commercial land use designations (SB 6 and AB 2011), provided that the development meets specific conditions including a minimum density of 30 du/ac and paying prevailing wages during construction; • The relaxation of local ADU development standards to allow greater ADU heights near transit (SB 897), and waiving otherwise required front setbacks if a detached ADU of 800 square feet cannot be built (AB 2221);
• Increasing the range of projects that can take advantage of incentives in the Density Bonus Law, including shared housing (AB 682) and commercial projects that include an affordable housing component (AB 1551);
• A prohibition on parking requirements for residential and commercial developments within a halfmile of transit (AB 2097) and for 55-and-older senior housing projects (AB 2334); • Requirements to provide more possible zoning districts for emergency shelters, and to approve emergency shelters using objective standards (AB 2339); and • Prohibition on cities from requiring a public hearing for residential renovation projects that only involve interior reconfigurations (AB 916).
2 – Project Description
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 9
City of Santa Clara
Some of the new state laws simply changed processing procedures, and individual projects themselves will still be subject to environmental review. For those laws, the Zoning Code changes would be considered administrative actions not likely to result in environmental impacts under CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5). These include: SB 6 (residential uses on commercial land); AB 1551 and AB 682 (density bonuses for mixed use and shared housing); and, AB 2339 (emergency shelters in residential zones).

For other laws, the Legislature created a ministerial approval process for certain projects, which has already gone into effect. By adopting an ordinance conforming to state law, the City is not changing anything, because the approvals are already ministerial, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268 (ministerial projects) and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080(b)(1), are not subject to CEQA, whether or not the ordinance is adopted. These include: SB 897 (new max ADU heights); AB 2221 (waiver of front setbacks for ADUs); AB 2011 (100% affordable projects in commercial zones); and, AB 916 (reconfiguration of bedrooms). Finally, two of the laws pertain to parking; however, parking is not a CEQA impact (Save Our Access v. Watershed Conservation Authority, 68 Cal. App. 5th 8 (2021)). These include: AB 2097 (no parking near transit) and AB 2334 (no parking for affordable housing).

New Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
One of the purposes of the proposed Zoning Code Update is to implement existing General Plan land use designations and eliminate any remaining inconsistencies between the City’s General Plan and the Zoning Code. When the City completed the most recent comprehensive update of the General Plan in 2010, staff began a corresponding update to the Zoning Code to more fully align with the new General Plan, but this effort was not completed. This lack of alignment limits the effectiveness of the Zoning Code as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Recent changes in State law also remove an exception for charter cities, such as Santa Clara, that allowed for inconsistency between zoning and General Plan. Other recent changes in State law also require that local land use regulations for residential and mixed-use developments be generally limited to objective standards, which are found in the updated Zoning Code. The Zoning Code Update will address these concerns. For example, the City’s General Plan designates areas for mixed-use development along the City’s commercial thoroughfares, but the current applicable zoning districts are limited to commercial uses. As a result of the current lack of mixed-use zoning districts, mixed-use projects must be developed using the more cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming Planned Development Zoning process.

The proposed Zoning Code Update adds mixed-use zoning districts that directly align with the City’s General Plan land use designations, including new mixed-use districts for commercial corridors, such as El Camino Real, Homestead Road, and Saratoga Avenue. The creation of mixed-use districts conforming to the General Plan will provide developers with a more streamlined approval process through a development review hearing using objective standards in the analysis of projects. The proposed designations for El Camino Real implement the existing General Plan land use designations including the MU-CC Mixed Use – Community Commercial zone, which corresponds to the CMU Community Mixed-Use designation, and the MU-RC Mixed Use – Regional Commercial zone, which corresponds to the RMU Regional Mixed-Use designation. Any future zoning changes that result from the El Camino Real Specific Plan, which is under development, would be adopted separately.

New Industrial Zoning Districts
Most of the employment lands in North Santa Clara are zoned ML Light Industrial, a catch-all designation in the 1969 code, even though the General Plan designates these areas as a mix of Light Industrial, Low Intensity Office or High Intensity Office. Lands designated for Light and Heavy Industrial use are now focused within areas most impacted by the flight path of San José Mineta International Airport (SJC). The Zoning code update also addresses potential height conflicts with airport uses by 2 – Project Description
10 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
limiting heights in industrial districts to the maximum allowed under the FAA’s part 77 surfaces. The update maintains the Light and Heavy Industrial zoning districts in areas with those General Plan designations, especially near SJC, and creates new zoning designations for Low-Intensity Office/R+D (LO-RD) and High-Intensity Office/R+D (HI-RD) uses, recognizing that additional height and development intensity is now a part of the development program for contemporary office uses. The additional height is related to the low- and high-intensity office designations. The proposed zoning code FARs are the same as in the General Plan, at 1.0 and 2.0 respectively. This change would also better reflect the mix of businesses that are located in Santa Clara’s job centers.

Additional Height Allowances for Industrial Uses with Fewer Employees The 1969 Zoning Code assumed that light industrial uses would be limited to low-rise development.

Increasingly, developers of modern industrial uses, such as data centers, seek to better utilize industrially zoned land. The City has typically granted modifications regarding height through the City’s permit process for these uses. This code change recognizes the contemporary needs for additional height of this development type which are compatible with surrounding forms of industrial development and therefore provides a more logical and streamlined development process. The current maximum height for these uses is 70 feet. Under this change, the maximum allowable height for these uses will be 90 feet.

Streamlined Permitting Processes for Placemaking Uses
The updated Zoning Code includes multiple changes to streamline the permitting of placemaking uses.

The streamlined processes include an increased allowance for restaurants to provide up to 24 outdoor seats without a permit, as opposed to twelve as currently allowed, making it easier for restaurants to activate their adjacent outdoor spaces. The code changes also include a streamlined administrative permit process for temporary outdoor events on private property as well as live entertainment, provided the entertainment use meets residential separation requirements, striking a balance between placemaking and neighborhood protection. These types of activities would be permitted with less time and cost through a streamlined staff review process rather than through City Council action as required by the current Zoning Code.

Simplified Parking Regulations
The parking section of the Zoning Code has been revised to base parking requirements on the floor area of a building, as opposed to requirements based on other criteria. The parking requirements in the current Zoning Code can prevent an existing commercial space from being re-tenanted for a different commercial use. For example, the current Zoning Code requirements for restaurants based on the number of seats can effectively prevent a restaurant from entering a vacant commercial space.

Implementing a consistent standard based on square footage makes for an apples-to-apples comparison of required parking between different uses such as restaurants and retail and makes it easier to re-tenant buildings. The updated Zoning Code also increases the thresholds for triggering additional parking requirements so that a wider range of tenants can use existing buildings, reducing the likelihood of vacant commercial space and leading to livelier streets. Additional changes are included to align with recent changes to State law, especially AB 2097, which prohibits cities from requiring parking within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

Construction Parking for Larger Projects
The updated Zoning Code adds requirements for off-street parking for the duration of construction of residential projects of over 100 units in size, or non-residential projects of over 100,000 square feet in 2 – Project Description
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 11
City of Santa Clara
area. Parking spaces on private property (either the project site or off-site private property) would be required to be available from the time of issuance of building permits until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The proposed code provisions include performance standards to maintain the temporary parking lot and to sweep surrounding streets.

Occupancy Limits for Residences
The Zoning Code Update will require that in new or expanded residences, each residential unit maintain a minimum common area (the area dedicated to living rooms, family rooms and kitchens) of 25% of the floor area of the building, to provide adequate common space for congregating in the residences and to prevent dining rooms and living rooms from being converted to bedrooms.

Short-Term Rentals
The proposed Zoning Code Update establishes regulations for short-term rentals, requiring the unit to be owner-occupied or significantly limiting the amount of time that the unit may be rented, and requiring the owner to register with the City, pay the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and meet performance standards. The proposed regulations will establish a maximum number of days (90 aggregate days in a calendar year) that properties can be rented without the owner present, set occupancy limits and require a local contact person.

Increased Allowances for Houses with One-Car Garages
A number of subdivisions were built in Santa Clara in the 1950s with one-car garages and do not conform to the City’s current standard of two parking spaces per single-family residence. Prior to the 2010 General Plan update, the City had a General Plan policy that allowed expansions of these houses by up to 500 square feet before they were required to provide an additional garage space. The Zoning Code Update will codify the ability to make up to a cumulative 1,000-square foot addition to such houses over the life of the building without the need to add a parking space. Any additions made previously will count towards the 1,000-square foot total. Previously, property owners with one-car garages were able to add expansions up to 500 square feet without a variance. This change would increase the size of the addition allowed by 500 square feet and would apply to approximately 5 percent of the existing housing stock within the planning area
By-Right Setback Exceptions
The proposed Zoning Code Update will add by-right exceptions for additions to houses with legal nonconforming side setbacks, provided the addition is to the rear. It has become a frequent practice for the City to grant Variances for such additions in consideration of a lack of any clear negative impact upon the community and the benefit to the homeowner. This change will thus reduce the number of variance cases in the City, especially in relation to pre-war houses in the Old Quad, reducing unnecessary time and cost burdens for homeowners.

Unenclosed Porch Allowances
The Zoning Code Update would increase the amount that unenclosed porches can encroach into the front setback to up to six feet. This change aligns with current community preferences, reflecting the transition from a visual preference for large, uninterrupted front lawns to homes that are more inviting and pedestrian-oriented. Homeowners will be more able to add on an open front porch that could activate their front yard and better convey the homeowner’s identity. 2 – Project Description
12 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Prohibited Activities
The proposed Zoning Code Update adds language to clarify that residential front and side setbacks need to be free of inoperable vehicles, construction equipment and debris, and other potential attractive nuisances, such as unattended ping-pong tables and inflatable pools. This clarified code language will make it easier for the City to conduct Code Enforcement for non-compliant property owners.

One-and-a-Half Story Accessory Dwelling Units
Recent changes to State law require cities to allow 800-square foot Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) with 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks. Cities are allowed to have more permissive development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units that go beyond these minimum requirements. In response to community input, particularly from the Old Quad neighborhood, the proposed update will include zoning standards that allow one-and-a-half story ADUs by right. This increased height is considered by the community to be consistent with the historical character of the Old Quad, and an appropriate means of allowing compatible development, as the volume of a half-story is largely underneath the pitch of the roof and use of the half-story reduces the mass of a structure with two habitable floor areas.

Minor Use Permits
The Zoning Code Update will create a Minor Use Permit process to allow more streamlined review of non-controversial uses, such as licenses for beer and wine sales at a restaurant. Neighbors would be notified of the proposed use permit, but a public hearing would only be held if requested by a neighbor.

Non-controversial permits would be approved by the Director of Community Development without a public hearing.

Changes Made as a Result of the Housing Element Update
Several changes are proposed for the Zoning Code Update to implement actions proposed by staff and/or directed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through the City’s Housing Element update process. Specific to the Zoning Code, the State has asked the City to support a wider variety of residential housing choices by allowing a wider variety of housing types in the City’s various residential zoning districts. This includes generally allowing Single Room Occupancies (SROs) and supportive housing (housing that includes supportive services) in multi-family and mixeduse zoning districts. HCD also asked that the City include low-barrier navigation centers as an enumerated use. Low-barrier navigation centers are functionally emergency shelters with additional supportive services.

General Plan Text Amendments
The Zoning Code Update includes an accompanying General Plan Amendment in response to a recent change to State law that requires charter cities to have consistent General Plans and Zoning Codes.

This Amendment would update the mix of industrial areas supported by the General Plan to align with the Zoning Code update and the evolving nature of industrial activity within Santa Clara. First, the General Plan changes would remove limitations on the maximum amount of building area devoted to manufacturing in the Low and High Intensity Office/R+D designations. This would allow both existing industrial businesses to continue in place and would allow for new businesses with a manufacturing component to locate in the new zoning designations that have not yet been applied to the City’s zoning map. Second, the proposed changes would remove the prohibition on Medical Facilities in the areas 2 – Project Description
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 13
City of Santa Clara
designated High Intensity Office/R+D. Reflecting current practices within the medical industry, this change would allow medical uses, including uses that both manufacture medical supplies or equipment and perform outpatient procedures, to locate both parts of their business within the same building. Third, the proposed change would modify the definition of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is used to regulate building mass. The definition is being changed to clarify that FAR calculation is based on all of the building mass above grade, but excludes basements and below-grade parking. This change to the General Plan text would not change Floor Area Ratio maximums but would more clearly describe a building’s bulk numerically.

Zoning Code Sections to be in Effect Prior to Map Approval Adoption of the Zoning Code is scheduled for City Council consideration in advance of the proposed adoption of a Zoning Map that would change the zoning at specific locations throughout the City where the current zoning does not align with the General Plan. This change would address the State requirement now applicable to charter cities for the Zoning and General Plan to align. The proposed changes in the Zoning Code Update that are zoning district-based would not become effective until the time of the Zoning Map adoption. However, the bulk of the elements that apply citywide would take effect upon adoption of the Zoning Code.

2.9 – Required Approvals
The project would require the following approvals:
• Zoning Code Update
• General Plan Amendment

2.10 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
• None.
2 – Project Description
14 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 15
City of Santa Clara
Exhibit 1
Regional Context Map
2 – Project Description
16 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
2 – Project Description
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 17
City of Santa Clara
Exhibit 2
Existing General Plan Land Use Map
2 – Project Description
18 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 19
City of Santa Clara
3 Determination

3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected
The environmental categories checked below were identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments as being a ‘Potentially Significant Impact,’ and the following sections of this Addendum identify to what degree the proposed project contributes to these previously identified significant impacts.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
□ Hydrology / Water
Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation Transportation/Traffic □ Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.2 – Determination
□ The project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□
Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □ The project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□
The project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

The project could have a significant effect on the environment, but all of its potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION. As such, no further environmental documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required.
3 – Determination
20 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 21
City of Santa Clara
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the CEQA environmental checklist categories in terms of any changed conditions from the approved General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments to the proposed project (e.g., project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance) that may produce a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). As such, the Addendum’s checklist analysis uses the standard environmental categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed in Guidelines Section 15162(a).

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

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES (COLUMNS) Effect Not Examined in the General Plan EIR?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1), this column indicates whether the project would have effects that were not previously examined by the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, which new effects could necessitate subsequent CEQA review.

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

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

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

New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
22 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs were certified, shows any of the following:
(A) The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments;
(B) Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent amendments would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

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

DISCUSSION FOLLOWING CHECKLIST EVALUATION
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers regarding the proposed project in relation to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs that apply to the proposed project are listed at the end of each of the topical sections and in Section 5 of this Addendum. The summary of each of the subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s has been excerpted and are included in Appendix C, and each of the summaries includes the mitigation measures for each of the subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s.

Conclusion
Each Section ends with a summary of the conclusion of the preceding analysis. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 23
City of Santa Clara

4.1 – Aesthetics
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR
and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within view from a
state scenic highway?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing
scenic quality?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Scenic Vistas. The General Plan EIR noted that there are no scenic vistas within the City, but the City of Santa Clara offers many views of the community and surrounding natural features, including panoramic views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range and stretches of open space and undeveloped land in the Ulistac Natural Area. It was further noted that these scenic vistas can be viewed from the system of roadways and formal and informal public trails throughout the City, but private views of these resources from residential neighborhoods are currently obstructed by adjacent development.

The General Plan EIR found that development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan could obstruct views of these scenic vistas from the system of roadways and formal and informal public trails throughout the City. However, it was noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
24 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
policies that provide program-level mitigation for effects to the scenic vistas and ensure high quality design that maintains the quality of these scenic vistas and ensures their importance in the City’s future.

Therefore, it was determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic vistas and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, subsequent Specific Plan EIRs determined that this impact would not occur or be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
(b) Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway. The General Plan EIR noted that development under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to alter the City’s scenic resources. It was also noted that the El Camino Real Focus Area would serve as a gateway into the City and help define the boundary of the City’s historic core, and transition goals and policies, in conjunction with the El Camino Real Focus Area policies require that this development respect the existing historic character and development patterns of the surrounding area. It was further noted that the Downtown Focus Area offers opportunities for place-making and for a unique destination in the City to serve both local and regional interests, and that revitalization will support the Major Strategies for city identity and community vitality.

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

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

It was further found that the City’s scenic resources would be managed consistent with city adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing scenic resources and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, subsequent Specific Plan EIRs determined that this impact would not occur or be less than significant.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 25
City of Santa Clara
(c) Degrade Existing Visual Character. The General Plan EIR noted that new development and redevelopment under the General Plan would be substantial enough, and would occur at key locations throughout the City, such that it could have the potential to degrade the visual character of the City without appropriate planning and oversight. However, the General Plan EIR noted that most development would go through the City’s architectural review process prior to issuance of building permits, and would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines. In addition, it was noted that Focus Areas within which much of the changes would occur are strategically designed to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods, and changes to public spaces, including roadways, would be designed to upgrade the aesthetic environment. The General Plan EIR found that the City’s visual character would be maintained consistent with city adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. It was further noted that the General Plan includes a range of policies to ensure high quality design that supports and enhances the aesthetic qualities and character of the City and minimize or avoid adverse effects on the existing visual character. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects to the existing visual character and impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Freedom Circle FFA found that the goals and policies of the Specific Plan presented potential conflicts with applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality, and the following mitigation measure was incorporated to reduce potential impacts to less than significant:
• Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 4-3.

The General Plan EIR found that the City’s light and glare would be reduced and managed consistent with city adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State regulations. It was also found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes a range of policies to provide program-level mitigation for effects to residential neighborhoods from new light and glare resources and ensure high quality design that maintains the quality of existing neighborhoods and reduces light and glare. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize effects of light and glare and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, subsequent Specific Plan EIRs determined that this impact would not occur or be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
26 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to light and glare. In addition, the proposed project would not make any changes to the City’s Zoning Code related to light and glare. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that visual and scenic resources are generally localized, although specific resources can be regional in nature, such as vistas of a mountain range. It was also noted that buildout of the General Plan would be limited to redevelopment of existing urbanized areas within Santa Clara, as there are only a small number of vacant undeveloped parcels remaining in the City. Further, it was noted that cumulative development within Santa Clara by other public agencies (i.e., public school districts), or in adjacent communities (i.e., San Jose), would also largely consist of ‘recycling’ of existing developed parcels for new urban land uses or intensification of existing land uses. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan, including implementation of design review process and incorporation of applicable policies regulating the appearance of new development, would not result in impacts to regional visual and scenic resources, such as the Valley’s surrounding hillsides, in that new development and redevelopment would not be of a scale or density to affect regional visual and scenic resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative regional visual and scenic resource impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that cumulative projects would not result in a cumulative visual or aesthetic impact and cumulative aesthetics impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to aesthetics impacts. However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. Subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as referenced above and 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 27
City of Santa Clara
listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, scenic vistas, visual character, or light and glare. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 4-3.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
28 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

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

Would the project:

The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. While there are locations in the City designated (A) Agricultural, there are no lands designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
(b) Williamson Act. The General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs did not analyze impacts related to Williamson Act contracts because these impacts were screened out during the Initial Study process.

The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. There are no lands within the City under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (c) Forest Zoning. The General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs did not analyze conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g)) because these impacts were screened out during the Initial Study process.

There are no areas of the City zoned as forest land or timberland resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. (d) Loss or Conversion of Forestland. The General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs did not analyze impacts related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use because these impacts were screened out during the Initial Study process.

There are no areas of the City zoned as forest land, and the Planning Area does not contain any forest land resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
30 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
(e) Other Changes. The General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs did not analyze impacts related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use because these impacts were screened out during the Initial Study process.

The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not re-zone or re-designate any parcel within the City from agricultural uses or zones to other uses. Development associated with implementation of the Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in the conversion of any agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. In addition, the Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose any specific development that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. There are no parts of the City designated as timberland, forest land, or farmland. As such, implementation of the project would not result in a conversion of these land uses to another use. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs did not analyze cumulative impacts related to the loss of agricultural or forest land. The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and is designated in Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as “Urban and Built-Up Land”.

Implementation of the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in the loss or conversion of agricultural or forest uses. Therefore, no cumulative agriculture and forest resources impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Conclusion
No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would occur.

Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification.

The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures There are no applicable General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 31
City of Santa Clara

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

Would the project:

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

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

The General Plan EIR also noted that the Air District has a long history of implementing control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions from stationary, area, mobile and transportation sources, and transportation control measures (TCMs) were designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The General Plan EIR also noted that 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
32 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
TCMs may also reduce vehicle use, vehicle idling or traffic congestion, and that the TCMs address State ozone planning requirements for the Bay Area. The General Plan EIR found that the policies under the 2010-2035 General Plan support and reasonably implement the applicable Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan TCMs. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would be consistent with the TCMs and project impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP found that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant an unavoidable impact and there are no feasible mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant emission and impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA found that construction related impacts would require implementation of the below mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs determined that operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation. • Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6, and AQ-7. • Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1, AQ-1.2, AQ-2.1, AQ-2.2, and AQ-2.3. • Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-2A, 5-2B, 5-2C, and 5-2D. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, and 5-3D.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to and no greater than those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in cumulatively considerable net increases in criteria pollutant emissions for which the Air Basin is in non-attainment. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, even with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed above, implementation of the proposed project would also contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions and result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 33
City of Santa Clara
(c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could result in construction dust emissions that could affect local and regional air quality. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce construction dust emissions and impacts would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also found that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan may involve the placement of sensitive receptors (e.g., new residences) near localized sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The General Plan EIR subsequently found that the 2010-2035 General Plan does not provide adequate buffers between existing sources of TAC and new residences or sensitive receptors. As such, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact would be significant and unavoidable, even with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP found implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 However, subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA found that impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
• Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A and 5-2B. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, and 5-3D.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts from implementation of the General Plan would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Subsequent Specific Plan EIRs also determined that this impact would be less than significant without the need for additional mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
34 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to the General Plan EIR. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant effect.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that air pollution is a regional issue affected by climate, land uses, and topography. The General Plan EIR also noted that Section 4.10, Air Quality includes a detailed analysis of the cumulative air quality conditions related to build-out of the 2010-2035 General Plan, as well as the General Plan’s conformance with the existing Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and the draft 2010 Bay Area Clear Air Plan, which have been based on regional ABAG projections. The General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan would conform with the current and proposed long-range air quality plans for the Bay Area. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that while cumulative construction, air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures, long-term cumulative operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to air quality were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant. While the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan, similar to what was determined in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 as well as subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, implementation of the proposed project would also contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, even with incorporation of mitigation, and would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

Conclusion
Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to the mobile, energy, and area sources that cumulatively contribute to criteria pollutant levels and associated air pollution in the Basin. Future development would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2, incorporated by reference, would also be applicable to development under the General Plan and Zoning Code. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur, nor would the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs be worsened. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 35
City of Santa Clara
propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures General Plan EIR: 4.10-1 and 4.10-2.

Lawrence Station SP EIR: AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, AQ-6, and AQ-7.

Tasman East SP EIR: AQ-1.1, AQ-1.2, AQ-2.1, AQ-2.2, and AQ-2.3.

Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 5-2A, 5-2B, 5-2C, 5-2D, and 5-3A.

Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 5-3A, 5-3B, 5-3C, 5-3D, 5-4A, 5-4B, and 5-5. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

4.6 – Biological Resources
Would the project:

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

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

Additionally, it was noted that the east bank of the Guadalupe River adjacent to Santa Clara is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose and is included within the Valley HCP boundary. The Valley HCP’s conservation strategy to ensure urban development on the east side of the Guadalupe River doesn’t further degrade the riparian corridor’s habitat value is to apply the City of San Jose’s Riparian Corridor Policy. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated biological policies that address impacts to riparian habitats. As described in the General Plan EIR, the City of Santa Clara has adopted the Water Collaborative’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, and the two riparian protection policies (5.10.1-P2 and 5.10.1-P5) are functionally equivalent and will ensure that new development and redevelopment on either bank of the Guadalupe River doesn’t significantly impact wildlife movement along the Guadalupe River. Finally, it was found that there are no other sensitive natural communities present in the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. However, subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that the following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to sensitive habitat to less than significant:
• Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure BIO-4.1.
• Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 6-2. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 6-2.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that there is minimal vacant, undeveloped land within Santa Clara that provides suitable habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered flora or fauna, and that most suitable 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 41
City of Santa Clara
habitat in the City is concentrated along the several creek corridors. It was also noted that the predominant biologic impacts associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan would occur to common, urban-adapted species. In the rare instances where future development would involve a site with a special status species, appropriate mitigation, including avoidance, would be implemented to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that new construction and redevelopment within the City of Santa Clara would not contribute to cumulative impacts to special status plants and animals present within the City. As further discussed in Section 4.9 Biology of the General Plan EIR, regional nitrogen deposition impacts to serpentine habitat in southern San Jose is a cumulative issue being addressed by the Local Partner agencies participating in the Valley HCP. However, for the reasons provided in Section 4.9, Santa Clara’s NOx contribution from new development allowed under the 2035 General Plan was determined to be less than cumulatively considerable. Finally, it was also determined that Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions associated with the City’s electrical utility, Silicon Valley Power, would be mitigated on an ongoing basis through management of serpentine habitat on Coyote Ridge in San Jose. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative biological impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP determined that cumulative biological impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East SP determined that cumulative biological impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in greater growth capacity than was previously analyzed. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 as well as subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact on biological resources than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative biological resources impact from the proposed project would be less than significant.

However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation of General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive species or habitat, on any wetlands, with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or with a habitat conservation plan. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur, nor would the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs be worsened. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures General Plan EIR: 4.9-1 and 4.9-2.

Lawrence Station SP EIR: BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-1c, BIO-2, BIO-3a, and BIO-3b.

Tasman East SP EIR: BIO-1.1, BIO-2.1, BIO-2.2, BIO-2.3, BIO-2.4, BIO-3.1, BIO-4.1, BIO-5.1, BIO-5.2, BIO-5.3, BIO-5.4, BIO-6.1, BIO-6.2, BIO-7.1, BIO-8.1, BIO-8.2, BIO-9.1, BIO-9.2, BIO-9.3, BIO-10.1, and BIO-10.2.

Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4.

Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 43
City of Santa Clara

4.7 – Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would reduce the impact to archaeological resources to less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and CUL-3. • Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL-1.3 • Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-2. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 7-3 and 7-4.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts to 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 45
City of Santa Clara
archaeological resources. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed above.
(c) Human Remains. The General Plan EIR noted that implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would allow development and redevelopment, including grading, of sensitive areas, possibly disturbing human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries. However, it was found that existing regulations, including the California Public Resources Code. Section 5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during development activities. In addition, review and protection are afforded by CEQA for those projects subject to discretionary action, particularly for activities that could potentially disturb human remains. Further, it was noted that SB 18 requires consultation regarding Native American sites and artifacts, but the potential for project-level impacts to unidentified and unrecorded tribal cultural places remains moderate to high. As such, it was found that future excavation and grading activities could result in impacts to human remains. However, it was determined that Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of a discovery of any human remains, and would mitigate all potential impacts. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation existing programs would reduce the impact to human remains to less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-5. • Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL-1.3. • Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-2. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-3.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR found that projects in the City and other cumulative projects in the area would implement mitigation that avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, as required by State law. These mitigation strategies would typically involve pre-construction identification surveys; significance evaluations; consultation with tribal descendant communities; culturally and legally appropriate treatment of human remains; archaeological construction monitoring; resource documentation; and data recovery for unavoidable impacts. These mitigation strategies would generally avoid or substantially lessen the severity of impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative effects associated with cultural 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
resources is less than cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP and the Tasman East SP determined that cumulative cultural resources impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of subsequent EIR mitigation measures.

However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. Subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as referenced above and listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation of subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any historical resources, cultural resources, or buried human remains. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Lawrence Station SP EIR: CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL -3, and CUL -5.

Tasman East SP EIR: CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL-1.3.

Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 7-1 and 7-2.

Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 7-1, 7-3, and 7-4.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 47
City of Santa Clara

4.8 – Energy
Would the project:

It was also found that new construction would be required to meet Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, including the new CALGreen requirements. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that the Climate Action Plan (discussed in Section 4.16 Climate Change of the General Plan EIR) would focus on efforts to increase energy conservation and efficiency as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA also found that impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that the geographic area for cumulative energy impacts is the State of California, which includes the areas serviced by electrical and natural gas utility providers. The General Plan EIR also noted that Section 4.16 Climate Change of the General Plan EIR provides Plan-level analysis that places the 2010-2035 General Plan’s growth within the cumulative context for California’s 2020 and 2050 climate change goals. As discussed in the Climate Change section of the General Plan EIR, the City is committed to the preparation and implementation of a Climate Action Plan to ensure the proposed General Plan would be consistent with the state’s 2020 emissions targets, and would contribute a less than cumulatively considerable amount toward future GHG levels. Achieving 2020 emissions levels will necessarily entail increased energy conservation and efficiency, and utilization of renewable sources. In addition to Santa Clara, it was noted that the cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale were (at the time) each developing Climate Action Plans to address their respective 2020 emissions. In addition, all other projects constructed within Santa Clara, including projects under subsequent Specific Plans, are required to comply with the policies of the General Plan, plus existing local, state and federal regulations to prevent the inefficient use of energy. Finally, it was found that future development within the electrical and natural gas utility providers’ service area would also be required to adhere to applicable local regulations, including the provisions of Title 24, designed to prevent the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative impacts to energy from development under the General Plan would be less than significant with compliance to relevant legislative regulations and General Plan policies. In addition, the subsequent EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that cumulative energy impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater energy impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative energy impact from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to energy impacts. However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation nor would it conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 49
City of Santa Clara
there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures There are no applicable General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

4.9 – Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
iv) Landslides?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
b) Result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 51
City of Santa Clara
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating
substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or
property?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
e) Have soils incapable
of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste
water?
Yes No Impact No No No
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a.i) Fault Rupture. The General Plan EIR noted that the City does not contain any faults mapped as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones. There are also no other faults that extend through the City.

Because there are no known active earthquake faults within the limits of the City of Santa Clara, the risk for surface fault rupture is considered low within the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
(a.ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. The General Plan EIR noted that because the City is in relatively close proximity to several major fault zones, the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Santa Clara, requires that seismic design features be incorporated in construction and 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
redevelopment projects in Santa Clara. The primary purpose of the seismic design requirements of the building code is to avoid loss of life. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. (a.iv) Landslides/Seismically-Induced Waves. The General Plan EIR noted that because the City is located on gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor topography, it is not subject to risk of landslides; and the landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara shows the City is outside the landslide hazard zone. Therefore, it was determined that there are no areas within the City susceptible to landslides. The General Plan EIR also noted that because the City is not located within a tsunami inundation area, development and redevelopment anticipated under the General Plan would not be exposed to substantial risks associated with tsunamis. Locally, the General Plan EIR found that seiches due to seismic shaking could occur in shallow lakes, reservoirs, or percolation ponds in Santa Clara 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 53
City of Santa Clara
and the surrounding area, and sloshing of water out of a lake or basin onto the surrounding area could result in water damage, erosion and some slope failure. However, it was found that there are no lakes or reservoirs within the City, but several ponds, including the City’s two retention basins, (located near State Route 237 and the Union Pacific Railroad Line, and the Great America Parkway and San Tomas Aquino Creek). It was also found that Lexington Reservoir, which is located approximately nine miles from the City, could be susceptible to seiche. However, the potential for loss of life from this hazard is low. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to an unstable geologic unit or soils. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed above.
(d) Expansive Soils. The General Plan EIR noted that soil and geologic hazards of concern in the City of Santa Clara are primarily related to expansive soils, weak soils, and artificial fill and the City primarily consists of well-drained loamy soils formed on alluvial sediments. It was also noted that soils include loam and clay loam at the surface and in the very shallow subsurface, overlying gravelly sandy clay loam and fine sandy clay loam present at depth and such units are typically moderate to very highly expansive. It was further noted that in general, alluvial fan sediments become increasingly finer grained with greater distance from the mountains and because of this expansion potential is generally moderate in the southern city’s alluvial fan and plain soils and high in the alluvial plain/valley floor soils of the northern city. The General Plan EIR also found that where expansive soils are present, foundations and pavements can be damaged when solids go through cycles of wetting and drying. Weak compressible soils are located at the City’s northernmost edge and weak soils can compress, collapse, or spread laterally under the weight of buildings and fill. It was also noted that artificial fill has been placed under buildings throughout the City, and non-engineered fill can result in excessive settlement of structures, pavement, and utilities. It was found that because the City is located on gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor topography, it is not subject to risk of landslides; landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara shows the City is outside the landslide hazard zone. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that there are no areas within the City susceptible to landslides. The General Plan EIR found that new development under the 2010-2035 General Plan would occur primarily as intensification of previously developed areas throughout the City and hazards associated with expansive soils, weak soils, and artificial fill would be reduced and managed consistent with city adopted regulations and policies, in combination with State building regulations. In addition, it was noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated hazards policies that address geologic and seismic hazards and provide program-level mitigation for geologic, soil and landslide hazards within the City. While the General Plan EIR determined that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in areas with identified soil hazards, implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce hazards to people and property. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined this impact would be less than significant. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East SP determined that this impact would be less than significant.

However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 55
City of Santa Clara
FFA determined that the following mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant:
• Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-3. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-6.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to septic systems. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
(f) Paleontological Resources. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize this effect. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that the following subsequent EIR mitigation measures would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-4. • Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure CUL-2.1.
• Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 8-4. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 8-7 and 8-8 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to paleontological resources. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed above.

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

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to geology and soils impacts. However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. Subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as referenced above and listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation of subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to geology and soils. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 57
City of Santa Clara
Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Lawrence Station SP EIR: CUL-4.

Tasman East SP EIR: CUL-2.1.

Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 8-6, 8-7, and 8-8.

Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 8-3, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, and 8-8. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

4.10 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Freedom Circle FFA determined that the following mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially substantial impacts to less than significant:
• Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 9-1A and 9-1B.

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

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in greater growth capacity than was previously analyzed. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project would be required to implement subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater greenhouse gas emissions impacts than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impact from the proposed project would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 9-1A and 9-1B.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 61
City of Santa Clara

4.12 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR
and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Conclusion
in General
Plan EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or
More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
e) For a project located
within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in
the project area?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Yes No Impact No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a-c) Hazardous Materials Use/Potential for Accidental Releases. The General Plan EIR noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan allows for a greater mix of uses, including location of residential uses in proximity to businesses which could expose sensitive receptors to hazardous materials used, stored or disposed of as waste by industrial or in some cases, commercial, operations. It was also noted that hazardous materials presently stored and used in Santa Clara include flammable liquids, acids, and similar substances, and that some of these substances are routinely transported and kept in large enough amounts that improper handling or an accidental spill or leak could result in off-site consequences that could adversely impact nearby workers or the public. It was further noted that placement of additional sensitive receptors near facilities that could have an accidental release of a hazardous substance that would have off-site consequences, or conversely, location of a new industrial, commercial or institutional use that uses or stores toxic substances near sensitive receptors, including within ¼ mile of schools, could increase the risk of adverse health effects in the event of an accidental release. In addition to housing, it was found that new sensitive receptors such as schools and day care centers will be developed within the General Plan Focus Areas. As such, it was determined that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could place sensitive uses in proximity to industrial, commercial or institutional hazardous materials users, and an accidental release of hazardous materials that travels off-site could pose health or safety risks to these sensitive land uses. However, it was found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated hazards policies that address proper hazardous materials use and storage and the proximity of sensitive uses to substantial hazards from accidental release of hazardous materials and provide program-level mitigation for risks associated with the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies for adequate mitigation or separation buffers between uses and existing regulations and programs would substantially reduce hazards to people and the environment to less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impacts would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP determined that the following mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially substantial impacts to less than significant:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 63
City of Santa Clara
required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed above.
(d) Hazardous Materials per Government Code Section 65962.5. The General Plan EIR found that the presence of hazardous materials on future development and redevelopment sites could result in hazardous materials exposure of construction workers during site preparation, demolition, and/or construction of new structures. Contaminated airborne dust could also migrate off-site during demolition or construction activities and affect adjacent land uses if improperly controlled. It was further found that within Santa Clara a variety of chemical compounds associated with fuels, oil, flammable liquids, metals, pesticides or other hazardous substances originating from historical and/or current land uses may be found in soils that will be disturbed by future development or redevelopment. It was also noted that releases of hazardous materials, such as volatile organic compounds and metals, into the environment could affect future residents or users through direct contact or, in the case of volatile organic compounds, inhalation of soil vapors. The General Plan EIR noted that contaminated groundwater, where encountered during site redevelopment activities, could also result in potential health risks to construction workers or the public, and if excavations extend to the groundwater table, dewatering could be required and extracted contaminated groundwater would require on-site management and/or treatment. Additionally, it was found that potentially hazardous environmental conditions from reported hazardous materials spills and releases are found in virtually all of the Focus Areas of the City. While a number of these reports represent cases considered closed by Responsible Agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, where there are changes in land uses or excavation into contaminated areas, a reevaluation of potential hazards and soil or groundwater management may be warranted. It was also found that development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan could occur on or near contaminated properties located throughout the city, and localized contamination of soil, soil vapor and ground water could adversely impact human health or the environment if not appropriately addressed and/or mitigated.

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

As such, it was found that the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require the removal of potentially friable asbestos-containing material prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb these materials. In addition, the General Plan EIR found that demolition and renovation of buildings also have the potential to release lead particles to the air, resulting in health impacts to workers, building occupants and the general public. As such, it was determined that applicable OSHA regulations must be followed; these include requirements for worker training, air monitoring and dust control, among others, and any debris or soil containing lead must be disposed appropriately. Finally, the General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010- 2035 General Plan could occur in areas with soil or groundwater contamination or involve demolition of buildings containing hazardous building materials. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP and the 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Tasman East SP determined that the following mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials to less than significant:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 and HAZ-3. • Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures HAZ-1.1, HAZ-1.2, HAZ-1.3, HAZ-1.4, HAZ1.5, and HAZ-1.6.

As such, it was found that lane restrictions, closures, and/or detours could cause an increase in traffic volumes on adjacent roadways, which could affect emergency response routes. However, the General Plan EIR determined that redevelopment and development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would include preparation a Traffic Management Plan, which would demonstrate where construction activities could interfere with emergency response routes and other traffic. With this information, the City is able to adequately plan around potential blocks in emergency right-of-way and would have the right to deny or halt construction activities if they would result in an adverse impact on public safety. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing regulations and programs, would substantially reduce the impairment of emergency response plans to less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP and the Tasman East SP determined that this impact would either not occur or would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues are generally site-specific or affect localized areas and would not be significantly affected by other development in northern Santa Clara County. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to regional cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East SP determined that cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
The Planning Area is completely urbanized and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in greater growth capacity than was previously analyzed. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project would be required to implement subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater hazards and hazardous materials impacts than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impact from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to hazards and hazardous materials impacts. However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. Subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as referenced above and listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation of subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to hazards and hazardous materials. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Lawrence Station SP EIR: HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3.

Tasman East SP EIR: HAZ-1.1, HAZ-1.2, HAZ-1.3, HAZ-1.4, HAZ-1.5, and HAZ-1.6. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 67
City of Santa Clara

4.13 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR
and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Conclusion
in General
Plan EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water supply?
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river,
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff
in a manner which
would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
Yes
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows? Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Yes
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Degrade the Water Supply. The General Plan EIR found that ground-disturbing activities related to construction under the 2010-2035 General Plan could result in accelerated erosion on work sites including increased input of fine sediments into the City’s storm drains and ultimately into area creeks and the Bay. It was also found that construction would use various hazardous substances such as vehicle fuels and lubricants, paving media, paints, solvents, etc.; accidental release or discharge of any of these substances could adversely affect water quality, endanger aquatic life, and/or result in violation of water quality standards. The General Plan EIR noted that all construction on sites of one acre or larger is required to manage discharge of storm water runoff under the Clean Water Act, through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. It was also noted that for future development over one acre in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. However, given that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre in size, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing erosion control measures through the grading and building permit process. Additionally, it was noted that the City is committed to ensuring that construction-related grading complies with the erosion and sediment control BMPs set forth in the California Storm Water Quality Association’s (CASQA) Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction and with the erosion and sediment control plan recommendations of the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. With regulatory programs currently place, the General Plan EIR determined that the possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that with implementation of existing regulations this impact would either not occur or be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR noted that new impervious surfaces can increase the delivery of polluted runoff to area storm drains and ultimately to San Francisco Bay, and this is especially true during the “first flush” at the beginning of the storm season, when urban pollutants that have accumulated during the dry season are washed from paved surfaces. However, the General Plan EIR also noted that the City adheres to the terms of the NPDES permitting, which requires all developments that create one acre or more of impervious surface to incorporate design measures to reduce pollutant discharge to the maximum extent practicable, including site design measures, source controls, and storm water treatment measures that municipalities are to require of developments to ensure water quality. Given 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 69
City of Santa Clara
that many future development projects would be on properties less than one acre, requirements under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures after development is complete. With regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that the possible impacts of accelerated runoff and decrease in water quality after construction is complete for the development and redevelopment would be less than significant. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and existing programs would minimize water quality hazards to be less than significant.

Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that with implementation of existing regulations this impact would either not occur or be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP determined that the following mitigation measure is required to reduce this impact to less than significant:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure HYD-1.

Therefore, given the City’s existing developed and extensively hardscaped character, limited overall influence on potable aquifer recharge, and the 2010-2035 General Plan commitment to minimize hardscape and promote infiltration, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts to 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
groundwater supplies. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
(c.i-c.iv) Alter Drainage Patterns. The General Plan EIR noted that development often requires grading that alters natural drainage patterns. It was also noted that in the City, as in other densely developed Bay Area communities, natural drainage patterns have already been substantially modified to accommodate existing development. It was further noted that additional infill and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan could entail further modification, and both the City’s industrial and commercial areas are expected to change from lower to higher intensity development. The General Plan EIR found that new development within the Planning Area would result in some potential for increased erosion and siltation both on- and off-site because grading and ground disturbance associated with development in these areas could increase the potential for accelerated erosion by changing natural drainage patterns. As such, the General Plan EIR found that for all future development and redevelopment on sites that are one acre or greater in size, erosion hazards would be minimized through implementation of site-specific erosion measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. It was further found that future development projects on properties of less than one acre would be subject to requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code, and the primary means of enforcing erosion control measures are through the grading and building permit process. Finally, it was found that the City also implements the "Guidelines and Standards for Lands Near Streams" in the City's entitlement and permitting functions, where applicable. Therefore, with regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that possible impacts of accelerated erosion during construction associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

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

Therefore, with regulatory protections in place, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to increases in surface runoff would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR noted that although the City is largely built out, development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would add quantities of impervious surface (including both buildings and pavement), potentially decreasing infiltration and increasing runoff. However, it was noted that for future development over one acre in size, storm water runoff would be minimized through implementation of site-specific measures in SWPPPs under the NPDES General Construction Permit and grading and excavation requirements in the City Code. In addition, given that many future development projects 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 71
City of Santa Clara
would be on properties less than one acre, it was noted that requirements for BMPs under the City’s NPDES Municipal Permit, urban runoff policies, and the City Code would be the primary means of enforcing control measures through the grading and building permit process. The General Plan EIR further noted that the City Code and building code include provisions for postconstruction effective management of storm water runoff. Therefore, with regulatory programs currently in place, the General Plan EIR determined that potential impacts of additional runoff to the storm water drainage system associated with development and redevelopment would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East SP determined that the following mitigation measure is required to reduce potential impacts from on- or off-site flooding to less than significant:
• Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures HYD-1.1.

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

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

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that compliance with applicable NPDES permits, as the permits are amended over the course of the General Plan’s 25 year planning horizon, would reduce cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in greater growth capacity than was previously analyzed. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project would be required to implement subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater hydrology and water quality impacts than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impact from the proposed project would be less than significant.

However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 73
City of Santa Clara
upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. Subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as referenced above and listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation of subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to hydrology and water quality. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Lawrence Station SP EIR: HYD-1.

Tasman East SP EIR: HYD-1.1.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

4.14 – Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative impacts related to land use and planning. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP determined that cumulative land use and planning impacts would be less than significant.

However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to land use and planning. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

4.15 – Mineral Resources
Would the project:

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

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative impacts related to the loss of known mineral resources or mineral resources recovery sites. However, the General Plan EIR found that the Planning Area is not known to support significant mineral resources of any type, and no mineral resources are currently being extracted in the City.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include approval of any development projects. There are no known minerals or minerals recovery sites in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulative mineral resources impacts.

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in the loss of known mineral resources or mineral resources recovery sites. The proposed project does not include approval of any development projects. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation is required.

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

Temporary/Construction Noise
The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would cause a temporary or periodic increase in construction noise exposure above ambient levels. However, it was determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.14-3 would reduce potential construction noise impacts to less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA also determined that construction-related impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure NOI-3. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
80 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
• Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures NV-2.1 and NV-2.2. • Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 13-1. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 13-1 and 13-2.

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

Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. • Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 13-3. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 13-5 and 13-6.

However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Patrick Henry Drive SP determined that increases in traffic noise levels from SP development would be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact to less than significant.

If project-level significant vibration impacts are identified, site-specific mitigation measures will be required under CEQA. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that vibration impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Similarly, the Specific Plan EIRs for the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impact vibration impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
• Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures NV-1.1, NV-1.2, NV-1.3, NV-1.4, and NV-1.5. • Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 13-2. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 13-3 and 13-4. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 81
City of Santa Clara
Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to paleontological resources. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed above.
(c) Airport/Airstrip Noise. The General Plan EIR found that new development and redevelopment under the 2010-2035 General Plan would exceed Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) noise thresholds, which could expose individuals living and working within the plan area to excessive aircraft noise. However, it was found that compliance with the local airport land use plan and the City’s acceptable noise level standards as well as implementation of General Plan policies would effectively reduce potential program-level aircraft noise impacts. The City will require that individual development projects undergo project-specific environmental review. If significant project-level aircraft noise impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures will be required under CEQA. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be a less than significant impact. Similarly, the Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that airport-related noise impacts would either not occur or would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that noise impacts are generally experienced locally as opposed to regionally. It was also noted that future increases in noise from buildout of the Mineta International Airport Master Plan, the BART to Silicon Valley extension project, and the High-Speed Rail project would all contribute to future noise conditions that would affect specific areas of Santa Clara. However, it was found that the future development allowed under the General Plan would not contribute to the railway or airport-related noise. It was further found that residents could be exposed to ongoing construction noise if multiple projects are clustered in an area and are constructed simultaneously or in sequence over a period of years, and increased traffic from build-out of the General Plan would contribute to a significant increase in traffic noise levels on roadway segments throughout the region, beyond accepted thresholds in various communities. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
82 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
this impact, and the City’s contribution to it with build-out of the General Plan, would be significant and unavoidable. The EIR further found that there was no feasible mitigation available to reduce cumulative impacts to levels of insignificance.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to noise were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and Amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Similar to what was determined in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, the proposed project would contribute to a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels. All future development projects under the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.14-1, 4.14-2, and 4.14-3 as well as subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, implementation of the proposed project would also contribute to cumulative noise impacts, even with incorporation of mitigation, and would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to noise impacts. However, all future development would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.14-1, 4.14-2, and 4.14-3, as described below, as well as the subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigations measures described above, would also be applicable to the development associated with implementation of the proposed changes. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in more severe noise impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures General Plan EIR: 4.14-1, 4.14-2 and 4.14-3.

Lawrence Station SP EIR: NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3.

Tasman East SP EIR: NV-1.1, NV-1.2, NV-1.3, NV-1.4, NV-1.5, NV-2.1, and NV-2.2.

Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 13-1, 13-2, and 13-3.

Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 13-1, 13-2, 13-3, 13-4, 13-5, and 13-6. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 83
City of Santa Clara

4.18 – Population and Housing
Would the project:

The General Plan EIR determined this to be a significant impact due to the secondary effects related to increased VMT resulting from commuting due to a shortage of residential opportunities in closer proximity to Santa Clara employment areas. These secondary effects are discussed in detail in the Transportation, Air Quality, and Climate Change sections, respectively, of the General Plan EIR. Since implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan would induce substantial population growth at other locations, the General Plan EIR determined that the impact would be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation measures are available.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
84 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, project impacts would be similar to and no greater than those evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in any additional unplanned population growth.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would also induce substantial unplanned population growth and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. (b) Displace Housing. The General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan would retain all existing housing units and could accommodate the population growth as forecast in ABAG’s Projections 2007. The General Plan EIR also found that the 2010-2035 General Plan would accommodate employment growth in ways (i.e., intensification of currently planned employment lands) that would not displace existing housing or people, nor would the construction of planned infrastructure or public facilities necessary to serve future growth require the displacement of existing housing units or people.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would have no impact in terms of housing or population displacement. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA, determined that this impact would either not occur or be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR noted that the cumulative scenario includes new population and employment growth planned by the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale, and all cumulative population and employment growth would occur within the cities’ existing urban growth boundaries, with no expansion of urban services to rural undeveloped areas. While some new development would occur through development of the relatively few remaining vacant infill parcels found in each city, the cumulative trend would continue to predominantly be redevelopment of existing low-intensity, underutilized parcels with new urban uses. In addition, it was found that most new housing accommodated within the cumulative jurisdictions would be in a medium- or high-density attached or mixed-use format. It was further found that new job growth would largely occur on previously developed parcels in intensified forms (i.e., more employees per acre compared to existing development patterns, often with structured parking). Given the interconnected nature of the cities and the regional transportation network, most workers would travel to jobs in a city different from where they live. In essence, the cumulative projects would accommodate two new jobs for every new employed resident, exacerbating Santa Clara County’s existing jobs-housing imbalance (1.2 in 2005 according to ABAG Projections 2007). The General Plan EIR found that the environmental consequences would primarily be increased regional traffic congestion and air pollution from vehicles as workers unable to live near 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 85
City of Santa Clara
their employment commute long distances from outlying areas with affordable housing, continuing a pervasive trend over the past several decades as job growth has outpaced housing growth in Santa Clara County. Considering both ‘in process’ growth and new growth caused by the 2010-2035 General Plan, the City of Santa Clara would contribute to this cumulative imbalance in 2035 by adding 39,490 residents (yielding 23,694 employed residents) and 46,180 jobs, for a jobs per employed resident ratio of 1.95, (46,180 jobs divided by 23,694 employed residents). Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that this is a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact that cannot be mitigated and is adverse and unavoidable.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to population and housing were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and Amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Similar to what was determined in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, the proposed project would contribute to a significant impact related to unplanned population growth. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, implementation of the proposed project would also contribute to cumulative population growth, and would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

However, all future development would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in more severe population and housing impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures There are no applicable General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
86 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

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

Additional fire personnel would be housed in the existing facilities; however, there would be no need for expansion of the facilities. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated policies that address fire protection and public safety. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that there would be no construction activities associated with the provision of new fire and police services and no associated construction-related effects and project impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 87
City of Santa Clara
Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts on police protection services would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Since the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to general plan land use designations or policies that would increase the growth capacity of the General Plan, including subsequent EIRs related to specific plans or area plans, the impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review to ensure they do not result in significant impacts related to police protection. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
(c) Schools. The General Plan EIR found that the increase in population associated with new development and redevelopment allowed under the 2010-2035 General Plan would increase the demand for school and community facilities services. The General Plan EIR further found that new development projected under the 2010-2035 General Plan would fall primarily within the jurisdiction of SCUSD, and approximately 12,500 households are expected to be added to the SCUSD area, which would result in approximately 2,000 additional students. The General Plan EIR found that SCUSD has four closed school sites that could be used to serve new development. Alternatively, it was noted SCUSD may choose to modify school catchment areas or add modular classrooms to accommodate new students. It was also noted that SCUSD was also anticipating the construction of new school facilities in north San José as a result of an agreement with that city and future housing developers, and these new facilities in San José would add more capacity for new students and can reduce the number of students now in Santa Clara facilities. The General Plan EIR further noted that the Campbell Union 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
88 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
(K-8) and Campbell Union High (9-12) school districts, which overlap, would realize approximately 500 additional households as a result of implementation of the 2010-2035 General Plan, generating approximately 38 new K-8 and 42 new 9-12 grade students. The Campbell K-8 and Campbell 9-12 districts were anticipated to be able to accommodate the relatively modest gain in students from the City by modifying school catchment areas, busing and adding modular classrooms. The General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan includes updated policies that address schools and community facilities, and policies and existing regulations and programs are designed to ensure that future development of new facilities within the City would not have an adverse physical effect on the existing environment. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to schools would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

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

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

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

The General Plan EIR determined that the 2010-2035 General Plan would not substantially impact the use of the other jurisdiction’s libraries, parks and recreation facilities in the region, although Santa Clara residents are also residents of Santa Clara County and would continue to take advantage of County parks, trails, and other recreational facilities, funded in part by Santa Clara resident taxes. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the cumulative regional impacts of the 2010-2035 General Plan associated with law enforcement, fire and emergency, schools, library, social, and neighborhood parks and recreation services would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
90 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
The Planning Area is completely urbanized and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in greater growth capacity than was previously analyzed. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater public services impacts than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative public services impact from the proposed project would be less than significant.

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

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not analyze cumulative recreation impacts. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP and the Tasman East SP determined that cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater recreation impacts than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative recreation impact from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to recreation impacts. However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to recreation facilities. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 93
City of Santa Clara
information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures There are no applicable General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
94 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

4.17 – Transportation
Would the project:

The General Plan EIR also found that implementation of the 2010- 2035 General Plan would result in the degrading of the operating levels of County Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 95
City of Santa Clara
segments beyond the then current County CMP Levels of Service standard. As such, this was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact for which there is no feasible mitigation.

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

The Tasman East Specific Plan also includes the following mitigation measures to address traffic congestion, that, in some cases reduce localized impacts to some road, to less than significant, but overall, still resulted in significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures TRANS-1.1:9, TRANS-1.2:10, TRANS-1.3:11, TRANS-1.4:37, TRANS-3.1:1, TRANS-3.2:9, TRANS-3.3:10, TRANS-3.4:37 and TRANS-4.1.

At a citywide performance level, the General Plan EIR found that the 2010-2035 General Plan more efficiently links land uses and the transportation system network in that VMT and VT per service population are dropping compared to existing conditions, VMT growth is less than population growth, 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
96 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
non-auto travel mode shares increase, and trip length is virtually unchanged. The General Plan EIR found that all of these indicators suggest the 2010-2035 General Plan is an efficient, well-balanced plan from a land use-transportation standpoint compared to existing conditions. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that VMT impacts would be less than significant.

(c) Design Hazards. The General Plan EIR did not directly analyze potential impacts from design features hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. Nevertheless, the General Plan EIR did not identify any existing or potential design hazards that could occur as the result of implementation of the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan EIR noted that potential roadway and circulation design hazards more typically occur with site specific development proposal instead of plan/programs like a general plan. Finally, it was noted that when development proposal applications are submitted to the City they are reviewed for potential design and circulation hazards and are subject to city regulations and standards related to project access and roadway design. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impacts related to design hazards would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, similar to the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. (d) Emergency Access. The General Plan EIR did not specifically analyze impacts related to inadequate emergency access. However, the General Plan EIR found that increased motor vehicle traffic and increased congestion associated with implementation of the General Plan could result in increased emergency response times, and increased vehicle traffic associated with the 2010-2035 General Plan could result in increased traffic congestion as described under Impacts 4.12-1 through

4.12-5. This congestion, anticipated mainly during the morning and evening commute periods, would result in decreased travel speeds and increased emergency vehicle response times on key routes in the City. To mitigate the impact of the 2010-2035 General Plan on emergency vehicle response times, the General Plan included a prerequisite policy 5.1.1-P5, which requires the City to evaluate appropriate 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 97
City of Santa Clara
measures to maintain emergency response time standards prior to the implementation of Phase III of the 2010-2035 General Plan. In addition, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR determined that under cumulative conditions, which assumes build-out of all planned growth in the region, including the City’s Draft General Plan, regional roadways and highways would experience levels of service in excess of those identified by responsible agencies, for which no feasible mitigation exists. These cumulative impacts, and the City’s contribution to them under the General Plan, were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Lawrence Station SP determined that cumulative transportation impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
• Lawrence Station SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures CUM-TR-1, CUM-TR-2, CUM-TR-4, and CUM-TR-5.
• Tasman East SP EIR – See Mitigation Measures C-TRANS-3.1, C-TRANS-3.2, and C-TRANS3.3.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and cumulative impacts related to air quality were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and were determined to be less than significant. Similar to what was determined in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative transportation impact. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12- 1 as well as subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, implementation of the proposed project would also contribute to cumulative transportation impacts, even with incorporation of mitigation, and would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

Conclusion
The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in increased development density or capacity. Future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would have the effect of contributing incrementally to transportation impacts. However, all 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
98 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
future development would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, as well as the subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigations measures listed below, would also be applicable to the development associated with implementation of the proposed changes. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in more severe transportation impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures General Plan EIR: 4.12-1.

Lawrence Station SP EIR: CUM-TR-1, CUM-TR-2, CUM-TR-4, and CUM-TR-5.

Tasman East SP EIR: TRANS-1.1(9), TRANS-1.2(10), TRANS-1.3(11), TRANS-1.4(37), TRANS-3.1(1), TRANS-3.2(9), TRANS-3.3(10), TRANS-3.4(37), TRANS-4.1, C-TRANS-3.1, C-TRANS-3.2, and C-TRANS-3.3.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 99
City of Santa Clara

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

Yes
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Listed or Eligible Historical Resources. The General Plan EIR did not specifically evaluate impacts to Tribal cultural resources because it was not required by CEQA until the passage of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) in 2014, which requires consultation between lead agencies and Tribal representatives for projects within Tribal territory. However, the General Plan EIR found that implementation of General Plan policies and programs, including application of the California Historic Building Code and the City’s Combining Historic Districts, the City’s design review process, and referral of projects involving historic resources to the Historical and Landmarks Commission, would serve to minimize historic resources impacts. The General Plan EIR further determined implementation of General Plan policies and existing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
100 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
programs would reduce the impact to cultural resources to less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East SP determined that impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant:
• Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 7-2. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measures 7-3 and 7-4.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not specifically evaluate cumulative impacts related to Tribal cultural resources because it was not required by CEQA until the passage of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) in 2014, which requires consultation between lead agencies and Tribal representatives for projects within Tribal territory. However, the General Plan EIR found that Projects in the City and other cumulative projects would implement mitigation that avoids or substantially lessens potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, as required by State law. These mitigation strategies would typically involve pre-construction identification surveys; significance evaluations; consultation with tribal descendant communities; culturally and legally appropriate treatment of human remains; archaeological construction monitoring; resource documentation; and data recovery for unavoidable impacts. These mitigation strategies would generally avoid or substantially lessen the severity of impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that the City’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with cultural resources is less than cumulatively considerable. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIR for the Tasman East SP determined that cumulative impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would be less than significant.

The Planning Area is completely urbanized and most of the Planning Area is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in greater growth capacity than was previously analyzed and would not approve any development projects. The proposed changes do not include approval of any development projects, and all future development projects under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan would be required to perform environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project would be required to implement subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures incorporated by reference. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater impact on cultural resources than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the cumulative tribal cultural resources impact from the proposed project would be less than significant.

However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. Subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as referenced above and listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation of subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any listed or eligible historical resources or significant tribal resources. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
102 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 7-2.

Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 7-3 and 7-4.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 103
City of Santa Clara

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

However, the General Plan EIR found that impacts related to water and wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. Similarly, the Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP and the Tasman East SP determined that this impact would be less than significant. However, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impacts related to water supply infrastructure would be less than significant with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
• Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 18-1. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 18-1 and 18-5.

(b) Sufficient Water Supplies. The General Plan EIR noted that new development under the 2010- 2035 General Plan would increase water demand within the City. However, it was also noted that the City’s Water Utility had determined that there would be sufficient water supplies to provide service to the City for the 2010-2035 General Plan under normal and single critical dry year scenarios. In the event of a multiple dry year event and the loss of supply from SFPUC, the General Plan EIR found that there is a projected shortfall of 0.6 percent or 193 afy in the year 2035, and the City plans to meet future demand growth by pumping additional groundwater, relying on more recycled water, and increased conservation. Future pumping by the City of Santa Clara, in combination with the multiple other users of the Santa Clara Sub-Basin, would not be expected to contribute to cumulative groundwater pumping impacts, i.e., withdrawals above the basin's safe yield, given the Water District's reasonably foreseeable recharge and groundwater management programs. However, should the District's recharge program be affected by reduced availability of imported water, there is the potential for future cumulative groundwater basin demand to exceed the aquifer's safe yield. These impacts were considered potentially significant by the General Plan EIR. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Patrick Henry Drive SP and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that impacts related to water supply infrastructure would be less than significant with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
• Patrick Henry Drive SP EIR – See Mitigation Measure 18-1. • Freedom Circle FFA EIR – See Mitigation Measure 18-1 and 18-5.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to wastewater services would be less than significant. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR determined that potential impacts to water supply were determined to be less than significant with mitigation and potential impacts to solid waste capacity were determined to be significant, adverse and unavoidable. Similarly, the subsequent Specific Plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP and the Tasman East SP determined that cumulative solid waste impacts would be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation is available.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a greater utilities and services systems impacts than was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs.

Nevertheless, consistent with the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, the cumulative utilities and service systems impact from the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable.

However, future development projects would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA upon application for entitlement permits. Projects found to be not exempt from CEQA would be subject to analysis and mitigation, if required. General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, as referenced above and listed below, would also be applicable to development that would occur under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. With incorporation of subsequent Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to utilities and service systems. No new significant impacts and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts associated with the proposed project would occur. Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification. The Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not propose substantial changes that require major 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 107
City of Santa Clara
revisions to the General Plan EIR or subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. As such, no further analysis or new mitigation is required.

Applicable General Plan EIR / Subsequent Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures General Plan EIR: 4.7-1
Lawrence Station SP EIR: UTIL-1.

Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 18-1.

Freedom Circle FFA EIR: 18-1 and 18-5.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
108 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

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

However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara. In addition, the subsequent specific plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that that no wildfire impacts would occur.

The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. There are no lands within the City designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The proposed project will not result in any changes to general plan land use designations or Circulation Element improvements that could increase potential impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. (b) Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire. The General Plan EIR did not examine this potential impact. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara. In addition, the subsequent specific plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that that no wildfire impacts would occur.

The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Planning Area. The City is predominantly flat with no areas with steep slopes or wildland interface areas. There are no lands within the City designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire and impacts would be less than significant. (c) Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure. The General Plan EIR did not examine this potential impact. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara and the City is not within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In addition, the subsequent specific plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that that no wildfire impacts would occur.

The City has been largely built out and the necessary infrastructure is in place to support future development under the updated Zoning Code and amended General Plan. Future project roadways would connect to the existing roadway system in the area and utility connections would be made for sewer and electric services. No wildlands exist in the vicinity of the project site, and there are no areas of the City designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would not occur. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
110 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
(d) Post-Fire Slope Instability or Drainage Changes. The General Plan EIR did not examine this potential impact. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara. In addition, the subsequent specific plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that that no wildfire impacts would occur.

The City is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is relatively flat.

Because no wildlands exist in the vicinity of the City, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes. Development of the proposed project would comply with the California Uniform Building Code for grading and drainage. Therefore, impacts related to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The General Plan EIR did not examine potential cumulative wildfire impacts. However, Section 4.13, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR found that there are no wildfire hazards in the City of Santa Clara and the City is not within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. In addition, the subsequent specific plan EIRs for the Lawrence Station SP, the Tasman East SP, the Patrick Henry Drive SP, and the Freedom Circle FFA determined that that no wildfire impacts would occur.

The City of Santa Clara is almost completely urbanized and there are no lands designated as being in or within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Implementation of the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in wildfire impacts. Therefore, no cumulative wildfire impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Likewise, there is no new information of substantial importance requiring new analysis or verification.

4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Effect
Examined
in General
Plan EIR
and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Conclusion in
General Plan
EIR and
Subsequent
EIRs?
Proposed
Changes
Involving
New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Showing
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
a) Does the project have
the potential to degrade
the quality of the
environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the
number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or
animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
b) Does the project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
c) Does the project have
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Yes
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
No No No
Proposed Project in Relation to the General Plan EIR and Subsequent Amendments (a) Significant Biological or Cultural Impacts. The results of the preceding analysis indicate that the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments will have less than significant impacts to sensitive biological, archaeological, and paleontological resources with incorporation of mitigation measures. However, the results of the preceding analysis indicate that, similar to the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs, the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on historical resources even after incorporation of mitigation measures. Impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character will be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. The project would not authorize any development plan, would not authorize redevelopment of any existing sites, would not authorize construction of new infrastructure, would not change existing city land use policy regarding locations or intensities of development, and would not result in any effects 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
112 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
that would degrade the quality of the environment beyond such impacts already analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s. Therefore, the City finds that impacts related to degradation of the environment significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures.
(b) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects resulting from full implementation of city land use policies were evaluated in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not change any of these policies and do not propose any specific development or redevelopment project that could contribute to short-term or longterm cumulative impacts that were not addressed sufficiently in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIR’s. The proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments do not include any changes to land use designations and thus is consistent with what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. The project would not result in more significant cumulative impacts than were analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. Therefore, the City hereby finds that the proposed project’s individual contribution to potentially significant cumulative impacts is not considerable and no additional mitigation is required. (c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. As supported by the preceding environmental evaluation, the proposed Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings above and beyond these effects analyzed in the General Plan EIR and subsequent Specific Plan EIRs. It has been determined through analysis supported by substantial evidence that the proposed project could have adverse impacts on people and/or the environment as evaluated in the 20 preceding environmental topics. Therefore, the City hereby finds that direct and indirect impacts on human beings will be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures.
4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 113
City of Santa Clara
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 114
City of Santa Clara
5 Applicable GP / Subsequent SP EIR Mitigation Measures The following General Plan EIR mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Determine Burrowing Owl Presence
a. Breeding Season Surveys
Standardized surveys are necessary to determine presence (or presumed absence) of burrowing owls for the purposes of inventory, monitoring, avoidance of take, and determining appropriate mitigation. In California the breeding season begins as early as February 1 and continues through August 31. The California Burrowing Owl Consortium 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 115
City of Santa Clara
(Consortium) survey protocol specifies a multi-phase approach, which is recommended in order to adequately evaluate burrowing owl use of an area and to inform the CEQA process. The Department recommends that the Consortium survey protocol for breeding season surveys be adhered to (4 survey visits spread evenly (roughly every 3 weeks) during the peak of the breeding season, from April 15-July 15) The habitat assessment, intensive burrow surveys and burrowing owl surveys should include the area within 150 meters of the project boundaries (approximately 500 feet). b. Non-Breeding Season Surveys (Including Winter)
Surveys during the non-breeding season (September 1- January 31) are recommended by the Department but are not generally required because burrowing owls are much more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season, and the number or type of surveys that would be needed to detect presence then has not been studied or quantified. Negative results during any nonbreeding season surveys are not conclusive proof that owls do not use the site. Because of this complication, the DFG recommends breeding season surveys as the first step, but project applicants should consult with the Department if burrowing owls have been documented on the project site during the nonbreeding season.

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

Generally, the buffers recommended in these reports for protecting burrowing owls from disturbance is 75 meters (250 feet) from occupied burrows during the breeding season and 50 meters (160 feet) from occupied burrows during the non-breeding season.

Consultation with the Department may result in site-specific buffer specifications, on a case-by-case basis.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
116 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
c. Passive Relocation
If construction will directly impact occupied burrows, eviction of owls should occur outside the nesting season to prevent injury or mortality of individual owls. No burrowing owls will be evicted from burrows during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) unless evidence indicates that nesting is not actively occurring (e.g., because the owls have not yet begun nesting early in the season, or because young have already fledged late in the season). Relocation of owls during the non-breeding season will be performed by a qualified biologist using one-way doors, which should be installed in all burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. These one-way doors will then be removed and the burrows backfilled immediately prior to the initiation of grading. Furthermore, should the Valley HCP, once adopted, include a regional WBO mitigation program that would be available to future projects in Santa Clara, future projects may have a feasible option to mitigate for their individual impacts to loss of WBO foraging and/or nesting habitat by participating in the Valley HCP’s program.

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

MM 4.14-2: Case studies have shown that the replacement of dense grade asphalt (standard type) with open-grade or rubberized asphalt can reduce traffic noise levels along local roadways by 2 to 3 dBA CNEL. A possible noise reduction of 2 dBA would be expected using conservative engineering assumptions, and future traffic noise increases could be mitigated to a less than significant level by repaving roadways with “quieter pavements.” To be a permanent mitigation, subsequent repaving would also have to use “quieter” pavements. Existing residential receivers located along Tasman Drive between Lafayette Street and the easternmost city limits either front the roadway (private outdoor use areas are located behind the homes) or have outdoor use areas adjacent to the roadway that may or may not be shielded by fences or noise barriers. In situations where private outdoor use areas are located adjacent to the roadway, new or larger noise barriers could be constructed to provide the additional necessary noise attenuation in private use areas. Typically, increasing the height of an existing barrier results in approximately one dBA of attenuation per one foot of additional barrier height. The design of such noise barriers would require additional analysis. Traffic calming could also be implemented to reduce noise levels expected with the project. Each five mph reduction in average speed provides approximately one dBA of noise reduction on an average basis (Leq/CNEL). Traffic calming measures that regulate speed improve the noise environment by smoothing out noise levels. Residences could also be provided with sound insulation treatments if further study finds that interior noise levels within the affected residential units would exceed 45 dBA CNEL as a result of the projected increase in traffic noise. Treatments to the homes may include the replacement of existing windows and doors with sound-rated windows and doors and the provision of a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation to allow the occupants the option of 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 117
City of Santa Clara
controlling noise by closing the windows. The specific treatments for each affected residential unit would be identified on a case-by-case basis.

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

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

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

The following subsequent Lawrence Station Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures are incorporated by reference and are applicable to the proposed project:

AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-1: Implement BAAQMD-recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions during Construction for all projects allowed by the LSAP, including future development.

Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM from construction are recommended to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
118 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site.
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors). • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.

MM AQ-2: Implement the following additional control measures for the SummerHill Homes site and the future development area to further reduce NOx and PM associated with Impact AQ1:
• All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the SummerHill Homes site and the future development area for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent and the latest CARB equipment standards at a minimum. Note that the construction contractor could use other measures to minimize construction period DPM emissions to reduce the predicted cancer risk below the thresholds. Such measures may be the use of alternative powered equipment (e.g., LPG-powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust emission control devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce construction risk impacts to less than significant.

MM AQ-3: Development projects at the study area shall include the following measures to minimize long-term TAC and annual PM2.5 exposure for new project occupants:
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 119
City of Santa Clara
• Design the site to limit exposure from sources of TACs and PM2.5 emissions. The final layout shall locate operable windows and air intakes as far as possible from Central Expressway and Lawrence Expressway. Any modifications to the site design shall incorporate buffers between residences and the roadway. • To the greatest degree possible, plant vegetation along the study area boundaries near Central Expressway and Lawrence Expressway and around outdoor use areas.

This barrier would include trees and shrubs that provide a dense vegetative barrier. • Install air filtration at units that have predicted PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). Air filtration devices shall be rated MERV13 or higher. To ensure adequate health protection to sensitive receptors, a ventilation system shall meet the following minimal design standards:
o A MERV13 or higher rating (or MERV16 where specified below); o At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air; o At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and o Alternately, at the approval of the City, equivalent control technology may be used if it is shown by a qualified air-quality consultant or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) engineer that it would reduce risk below significance thresholds.
• As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC air filtration system shall be required. Recognizing that emissions from air pollution sources are decreasing, the maintenance period shall last as long as significant excess cancer risk or annual PM2.5 exposures are predicted. Subsequent studies could be conducted by an air quality expert approved by the City to identify the ongoing need for the filtered ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
• Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents (1) require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected units for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed.
• Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant or HVAC engineer verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure.
• The type of MERV-rated filtration required to be installed as part of the ventilation system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
o MERV13 filtration shall be utilized for areas where the annual PM2.5 concentrations are 0.4 μg/m3 or greater for unmitigated concentrations. o MERV16 filtration shall be utilized for areas where the annual PM2.5 concentrations are 0.8 μg/m3 or greater for unmitigated concentrations.

MM AQ-4: Implement additional control measures to reduce NOx. All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on site for more than two days shall, at a minimum meet U.S. EPA NOx emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent and the latest CARB equipment standards at a minimum.

MM AQ-5: Require the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) paint for construction of SummerHill Homes. The SummerHill Homes construction contractor shall require the use of low VOC paint based on the following specifications: 50 g/L VOC for all interior coatings and 50 g/L VOC for all exterior coatings.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
120 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
MM AQ-6: Require a project-level construction assessment of the future development area.

Construction criteria pollutant quantification will be required on a project-level basis once those details are available through modeling to identify impacts and, if necessary, include measures to reduce emissions. Reduction in emissions can be accomplished by the following measures:
• Construction equipment selection;
• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; • Low-VOC paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

MM AQ-7: Require the Use of Low VOC Paint for Operational Architectural Coatings of the Phase 1 buildings. Santa Clara shall require the use of low VOC paint for all operational architectural coatings (maintenance coatings) based on the following specifications: 50 g/L VOC for all interior coatings and 50 g/L VOC for all exterior coatings.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1a: To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Wildlife Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31.

MM BIO-1b: If construction activities occur within the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation.

These surveys would be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ivy, and buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Wildlife Code will be disturbed during project implementation.

MM BIO-1c: If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation), planned for removal, will be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates.

MM BIO-2: The following measures will be implemented to minimize impacts on roosting bats:
• Within 30 days prior to demolition of any building, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for evidence of bat use. If evidence is observed, or if potential roost sites are 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 121
City of Santa Clara
present in areas where evidence of bat use might not be detectable, an evening survey and/or nocturnal acoustic survey will be conducted to determine if the bat colony is active and to identify the specific location of the bat colony. • If a maternity roost of any bat species is present, the bat biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer (typically 100 feet) around the active roost that will be maintained. This buffer will be maintained from April 1 until the young are flying, typically after August 31.
• If a nonbreeding bat roost (i.e., a non-maternity roost, or a roost occupied between September 1 and March 31) is found in a structure that must be physically disturbed, a avoid injury or mortality during demolition. For projects within the future buildout area within the LSAP, impacts to roosting bats are also expected to be considered less than significant under CEQA with incorporation of the mitigation measure described above.

MM BIO-3a: During detailed design of project activities, trees over which the City claims jurisdiction will be avoided to the extent feasible. If it is determined during detailed design of the project that impacts on some trees can be avoided, a construction phase Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist prior to initiation of construction. The Tree Preservation Plan will describe how trees that are not proposed for removal will be protected. The construction-phase Tree Preservation Plan shall include the following tree protection measures:
• A standard Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) will be established. The TPZ will surround individual trees or groups of trees, to ensure that the tree trunk, canopy, and root system of each tree is protected from damage during construction activities. • Protect tree root systems from damage caused by (a) runoff or spillage of noxious materials and (b) ponding, eroding, or excessive wetting caused by dewatering operations through use of the following measures during excavation and grading:

Excavation: Trenching will not occur within the TPZ.

Excavation under, or around, tree roots will be done by hand and to a depth of 3 feet.

Grading: Existing grades will be maintained within TPZs. Where existing grade is 2 inches or less below elevation of finish grade, backfill with topsoil or native site soil will be applied.
• 6-inch average thickness wood bark mulch will be placed inside TPZs. • Fencing will be installed along edges of TPZs before building material or equipment is brought on site and construction operations begin. Maintain fence will remain in place until construction operations are complete and equipment has been removed from site.
• Temporary irrigation will be provided to all trees in TPZs using a temporary on-grade drip or bubbler irrigation system sufficient to wet the soil within tree protection zones to a depth of 30 inches per bi-weekly irrigation event.

MM BIO-3b:
• To the extent that the construction-phase tree protection measures, described above under Mitigation Measure BIO-3a, are not feasible, the project applicant will comply with the standards of the Protected Tree Removal Permit, which requires mitigation 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
122 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
for the removal of protected trees. A certified arborist will review the development areas after all construction has been completed.
• All trees, proposed for removal, that fall under the jurisdiction of the City shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, unless otherwise specified by the Protected Tree Removal Permit. The replacement trees will be standard 24-inch box size trees or larger.

Replanting shall occur in appropriate habitat in the City limits within 6 months of tree removal.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: Projects within the LSAP that would require demolition of buildings older than 50 years would be subject to the following measures:
• Evaluation: Any buildings within the study area that are or will reach 50 years of age prior to demolition will be evaluated for significance (CRHR eligibility) in accordance with the criteria in 36 CEQA Section 15064.5▪ Recordation: Appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms (DPR 523) will be prepared and submitted by the project applicant.

MM CUL-2: According to CEQA Section 15126.4 avoidance of historical resources is the preferred mitigation. If avoidance is not feasible, an appropriate plan (archaeological monitoring plan or testing plan) should be prepared to mitigate adverse effects to the site. The plan should be limited to the area of adverse effect.

Before construction, True Life Companies and future development, shall obtain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant to analyze specific project impacts and ground disturbance in order to prepare an appropriate archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) or archaeological testing plan (ATP) to ensure there are no adverse impacts to CA-SCL-134, and to address the possibility that project construction may impact previously unknown buried archaeological resources.

Archaeological testing, monitoring, and any resulting data recovery shall be conducted by a professional archaeologist in compliance with CEQA Guideline Section §15064.5.

In addition, the professional archaeologist should consider the results of Native American consultation and provide for a Native American monitor when applicable during future monitoring or testing.

MM CUL-3: In accordance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5 (f), should any previously unknown historic-period resources, including but not limited to glass, metal, ceramics, wood, privies, trash deposits or similar debris, be discovered in any of the four project sponsor areas during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 25 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a qualified professional archaeologist has an opportunity to evaluate the potential significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), as determined necessary to protect the resource.

Should any previously unknown prehistoric resources be discovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 25 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a qualified professional archaeologist and the Native American contacts are consulted. The Native American contacts should include those consulted during preparation of the CRAR. The qualified professional archaeologist and Native American contacts would have an opportunity to evaluate the potential significance of the find and 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 123
City of Santa Clara
suggest the appropriate steps to protect the resource. Such prehistoric resource could include charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, or pockets of dark, friable soils. These may include some or all of the following:
(A) According to CEQA Section 15126.4, avoidance is the preferred mitigation. Since CEQA provisions regarding the preservation of historic resources direct that adverse effects to historic resources shall be avoided, if feasible, the resource shall be protected from damaging effects through avoidance.
(B) Avoidance can include, but is not limited to, the following options:

1. Planning construction to avoid the historic site.

2. Incorporation of sites within parks, green space, or other open space.

3. Capping the historic site with a layer of chemically stable soil before construction.

Capping the historic site would include installation of a water permeable protective barrier that is covered with a 3-ft.-thick layer of chemically stable soil before constructing non-intrusive facilities on the site. Excavation for landscaping, irrigation or any other purpose shall be limited to the soil layer above the water permeable protective barrier. If the soil layer cannot accommodate all planned underground utilities, a thicker soil layer may be used to cover the site.

4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. (C) If avoidance of any previously undiscovered archaeological site is not feasible, data recovery shall be conducted in accordance with an approved Archaeological Data Recovery Plan (ADRP) to mitigate adverse effects to the significance of the site – the area of data recovery being limited to the area of adverse effect. A professional, qualified archaeologist shall conduct data recovery in compliance with CEQA Guideline Section §15064.5. Once the site has been properly tested, subject to data recovery, or preserved to the satisfaction of the professional archaeologist in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5, the site can be further developed.

MM CUL-5: Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety code shall be implemented in the event that human remains, or possible human remains, are located within the study area during project-related construction excavation. Section 7050.5(b) states:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

The County Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties, including the appointment of a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to the project. 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
124 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
The MLD, or in lieu of the MLD, the NAHC, has the responsibility to provide guidance to project proponents as to the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM CUL-4: A discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the LSAP buildout shall result in a work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by a professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the impact.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: Some components encountered as part of building demolition may contain hazardous materials. Materials that may result in possible risk to human health and the environment when improperly managed include lamps, thermostats, and light switches containing mercury; batteries from exit signs, emergency lights, and smoke alarms; lighting ballasts which contain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB); and lead pipes or roof vent flashings.

Universal wastes, lubrication fluids, and equipment containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) shall be removed before structural demolition begins. Demolition waste such as fluorescent lamps, PCB ballasts, lead acid batteries, mercury thermostats, and lead flashings have special case-by-case requirements for generation, storage, transportation, and disposal. Before disposing of any demolition waste, the project developer and the demolition contractor shall determine if the waste is hazardous and shall ensure proper disposal of waste materials MM HAZ-2: Project applicants within the area of known contamination related to the National Semiconductor superfund site must perform groundwater and vapor testing and, if needed, remediation to ensure that the site poses to risk to construction workers, future residents, or the environment. After demolition of the existing structures and removal of asphalt, the groundwater and vapor sampling will be conducted to evaluate the concentrations of contaminants underlying the site.

If contaminated groundwater or vapor is detected that exceeds safe thresholds for permanent residential development, a Site Management Plan (SMP) approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will be prepared by an environmental professional to establish management practices for controlling and handling identified hazardous materials. The project applicant shall comply with the provisions of the SMP.

The project applicant’s environmental professional shall assist in the implementation of the SMP and shall perform full-time observation services during demolition, excavation, grading and trenching activities. In addition to these requirements, the following protocols shall be established:

If the vapor sampling determines that hazardous vapors exceed recommended levels for permanent residential uses, the project applicant will prepare and submit a vapor mitigation plan (VMP) for approval by the RWQCB and the EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). The VMP will include an evaluation of risks to construction workers and future residents, and shall include discussion of site-specific measures to reduce this risk to acceptable levels. In addition, the project developer shall provide financial assurances of adequate funds for long-term operation and maintenance of the VMP, if required.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 125
City of Santa Clara
Prior to the start of any construction activity that involves below ground work (e.g., grading, foundation construction, excavation, or utility trenching), a copy of the SMP shall be provided to the contractors for their review, along with any other relevant information regarding risk abatement. Each contractor shall provide such information to its subcontractors.

If groundwater monitoring wells, extraction wells, or conveyance piping are located onsite, measures shall be implemented to protect these features during construction. The RWQCB shall be notified in writing of construction activities in these areas and, at a minimum, these areas shall be marked and cordoned off. Upon completion of construction activities, wells and associated infrastructure shall be inspected by a qualified environmental professional to determine if they have been damaged. If these onsite features require decommissioning, the project developer shall obtain the written approval by the RWQCB and other necessary permits. The RWQCB’s written approval shall be submitted to the City.

During project demolition, an environmental professional shall be present to observe soil conditions, monitor vapors with a hand held meter, and determine if additional soil sampling should be performed. Daily Field Reports (DFRs) shall be prepared by the Environmental Professional documenting: 1) the day’s activities; 2) vapor monitoring; 3) soil and groundwater sampling and associated analytical testing; 4) the installation of the vapor barrier system; and, 5) variances with the SMP. Photographs shall be taken to help document information entered in the DFR. When a photograph is taken, the following information shall be written in the daily field report: 1) time, date, location, and, if appropriate, weather conditions; 2) description of the subject photographed; and 3) name of person taking the photograph.

Perimeter air monitoring shall be conducted at the site during any activity that significantly disturbs site soil (e.g., grading, foundation construction, excavation, or utility trenching) to document the effectiveness of dust control measures. If dewatering is required, the means and methods to extract, treat and dispose groundwater also shall be presented to the RWQCB for their written approval. This written approval shall be submitted to the City.

Appropriate measures shall be implemented to reduce soil vapor and groundwater migration through trench backfill and utility conduits. Such measures shall include placement of low-permeability backfill “plugs” at specified intervals on-site and at all locations where the utility trenches extend off-site. In addition, utility conduits that are placed below ground water shall be installed with water-tight fittings to reduce the potential for ground water to migrate into the conduits.

Upon completion of construction activities, the environmental professional shall prepare a report documenting compliance with the SMP; it shall contain a summary of: 1) vapor monitoring; 2) groundwater monitoring; 3) the installation of the vapor barrier system; and 4) variances to the SMP. This report shall be submitted to the RWQCB and EPA.

Written approval of the completion report by the RWQCB shall be provided to the City.

The project applicants shall record a new Covenant and Environmental Restriction on Property (Deed Restriction) in accordance with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 1471. The new deed restriction will prohibit extraction of groundwater for purposes other than monitoring and remediation and will require that activities that 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
126 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
disturb the soil beneath the site, such as grading, excavation or removal, shall be in accordance with the SMP.

MM HAZ-3: The following steps shall be implemented to reduce the risk of adverse public health impacts or environmental hazards resulting from soil and groundwater contaminants within the study area.

Reporting Requirements
Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permits, project applicants shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City’s Fire Prevention/Hazardous Materials Division. The reports shall make recommendations for the preparation of additional subsurface sampling (Phase II) and/or remedial action (Phase III), if appropriate, and should be signed by a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer.

If the environmental site assessment reports recommend remedial action, the project applicant shall:
• Consult with the appropriate local, state, and federal environmental regulatory agencies to ensure sufficient minimization of risk to human health and environmental resources, both during and after construction, posed by soil contamination, groundwater contamination, or other surface hazards including, but not limited to, underground storage tanks, fuel distribution lines, waste pits, and sumps. ▪ Obtain and submit written evidence of approval for any remedial action if required by a local, state, or federal environmental regulatory agency.
• Submit a copy of all applicable documentation required by local, state, and federal environmental regulatory agencies, including but not limited to: permit applications, Phase I and II environmental site assessments, human health and ecological risk assessments, remedial action plans, risk management plans, soil management plans, and groundwater management plans.

Best Management Practices During Construction
• Project applicants shall implement the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) regarding potential soil and groundwater contamination throughout demolition, grading, and construction activities.
• Soil removed from the site during project construction shall be stockpiled in a secure and safe manner. All contaminated soils determined to be hazardous must be adequately sampled prior to acceptable reuse or disposal at an appropriate off-site facility. Specific sampling and handling and transport procedures for reuse or disposal shall be in accordance with the requirements of applicable local, state and federal agencies, including the RWQCB, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), and/or the City’s Fire Prevention/Hazardous Materials Division.
• Groundwater pumped from the subsurface shall be contained onsite in a secure and safe manner, prior to treatment and disposal, to ensure environmental and health issues are resolved pursuant to applicable laws and policies of the City of Santa Clara, SCCDEH, and/or the RWQCB. Engineering controls shall be utilized, which may include impermeable barriers to prohibit groundwater and vapor intrusion into 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 127
City of Santa Clara
the proposed buildings (pursuant to the review and approval of the Fire Prevention/Hazardous Materials Division and/or SCCDEH). • Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Fire Prevention/Hazardous Materials Division, written verification that the appropriate federal, state or county oversight authorities, including but not limited to the SCCDEH and RWQCB, have granted all required clearances and confirmed that the all applicable standards, regulations and conditions for all previous contamination at the site.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM HYD-1: In the event groundwater is encountered during construction activities, onsite dewatering would be required. The discharge of any dewatered groundwater would comply with BMPs as described in the SWPPP, and if found to be contaminated would be handled as described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 and HAZ-3.

NOISE
MM NOI-1: Due to the number of variables inherent in the mechanical equipment needs of new buildings (number and type of units, locations, size, housing or enclosures, etc.), the impacts of mechanical equipment noise on adjacent noise-sensitive uses shall be assessed during the final stage of project design for Phase 1 development. Design planning shall take into account the noise criteria associated with such equipment and use site planning to locate equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible. Other controls could include, but shall not be limited to, fan silencers, enclosures, and screen walls.

An acoustical study shall be prepared during final project design to evaluate the potential noise generated by building mechanical equipment and to identify the necessary noise controls that are included in the design to meet the City’s 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime noise limits. The study shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clara for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits.

MM NOI-2: Future developers will evaluate noise impacts on surrounding sensitive land uses once project-specific information, such as type and size of the retail uses, loading zone locations, hours of operation, and frequency of deliveries, is available. Due to the close proximity of the proposed retail uses to the proposed residential uses, noise impacts could be reduced with the implementation of the following measures:
• Move loading zones inside (e.g., within parking structures), where possible, and as far from adjacent residential uses as possible.
• Implement a no idling policy at all retail locations that requires engines to be turned off after five minutes.
• Recess truck docks into the ground.
• Equip loading bay doors with rubberized gasket type seals to allow little loading noise to escape.

MM NOI-3: The project developer shall develop a construction noise control plan, including, but not limited to, the following available controls:
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
128 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
• Ensure that construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) within 300 feet of residentially zoned property are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays. • Ensure that excavating, grading and filling activities (including warming of equipment motors) within 300 feet of residentially zoned property are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays. • Contractors equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Contractors utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Locate loading, staging areas, stationary noise-generating equipment, etc. as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.

Temporary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA. • Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• Comply with Air Resource Board idling prohibitions of uneasy idling of internal combustion engines.
• Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences or noise-sensitive land uses.
• A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. • Route construction-related traffic along major roadways and as far as feasible from sensitive receptors.
• Businesses, residences or noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to construction sites should be notified of the construction schedule in writing. Designate a "construction liaison" that would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the liaison at the construction site.
• Include a disclosure in the lease of the future tenants on the Westlake Urban and True Life Companies properties that provides information regarding the on-going construction activities at the SummerHill Homes development and future development sites.

TRANSPORTATION
MM CUM-TR-1: Project applicants shall add a southbound right-turn lane to Intersection #29: Great America Parkway/Tasman Drive based on their project’s fair share contribution. The City of Santa Clara shall determine the calculation of fair share accordingly during future design phases.

MM CUM-TR-2: Project applicants shall add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane and left-turn phasing adjustment (from split to protected) in the northbound and southbound direction to Intersection #36: Bowers Avenue/Monroe Street based on their project’s 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 129
City of Santa Clara
fair share contribution. The City of Santa Clara shall determine the calculation of fair share accordingly during future design phases.

MM CUM-TR-4: Project applicants shall add a westbound right-turn lane to Intersection #30: Great America Parkway/Mission College Boulevard based on their project’s fair share contribution. The City of Santa Clara shall determine the calculation of fair share accordingly during future design phases.

MM CUM-TR-5: Project applicants shall add a second eastbound left-turn lane to Intersection #35:

Bowers Avenue/Kifer Road based on their project’s fair share contribution. The City of Santa Clara shall determine the calculation of fair share accordingly during future design phases.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MM UTIL-1: Future development allowed under the LSAP would be subject to project-level environmental review. Before the CEQA documentation for future development can be approved, the City must have a solid waste disposal location to fulfill the needs of development beyond 2024.

The following subsequent Tasman East Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures are incorporated by reference and are applicable to the proposed project:

AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-1.1: During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements the following BAAQMD BMPs:
• All exposed unpaved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the construction firm regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
130 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. generators).

MM AQ-1.2: Construction criteria pollutant and TAC quantification will be required on a project-level basis for individual development projects once those details are available through modeling to identify impacts and, if necessary, include measures to reduce emissions.

The analysis must be submitted for City review and approval, once complete. Health risks from construction TACs shall be reduced below 10 in one million excess cancer cases, a hazard index of 1.0, and PM2.5 emissions of 0.3 μg/m3. Criteria pollutant emissions shall not exceed BAAQMD construction criteria pollutant emissions thresholds. Reduction in emissions can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:
• Construction equipment selection for low emissions;
• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; • Low-VOC paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

Site-specific construction schedules and equipment are not known at this time for the future development of the Specific Plan and, therefore, air pollutant emissions have not been quantified at the project-level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 would ensure that all construction projects employ the proper BAAQMD-Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter Emissions and Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2 would ensure that construction of future development areas under the TESP would be analyzed through project level review to quantify construction criteria pollutant emissions and identify the specific measures needed to reduce potential impacts so as not to exceed BAAQMD construction criteria pollutant emissions thresholds, as necessary. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2, the construction emissions impacts from individual development projects under the Tasman East Specific Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.

MM AQ-2.1: Proposed residential development within the TESP shall implement TDM programs to reduce residential vehicle miles traveled as required by the City’s Climate Action Plan.

The TDM programs would be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. An annual TDM monitoring report shall be submitted to the Community Development Director to document each development is meeting the required TDM program reductions.

MM AQ-2.2: Proposed development within the TESP shall incorporate additional green building measures such as rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, rough-ins for electric vehicle charging, use of efficient lighting and irrigation, and recycled water, as feasible, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

MM AQ-2.3: Developed parcels shall require within their CC&Rs and/or ground leases requirements for all future interior spaces to be repainted only with architectural coatings that meet the “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements. “Low-VOC” refers to paints that meet 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 131
City of Santa Clara
the more stringent regulatory limits in South Coast AQMD Rule 1113; however, many manufacturers have reformulated to levels well below these limits. These are referred to as “Super-Compliant” Architectural Coatings.

However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable given that implementation of a TDM program under the City’s Climate Action Plan would not reduce significant operational ROG and NOx emissions below BAAQMD thresholds of 54 pounds per day. Mitigation measures including TDM programs and green building techniques would not reduce emissions of ROG and NOX to below the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutant emissions impacts of the Specific Plan, therefore, would remain significant and unavoidable.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1.1: Prior to any construction activity in natural habitat/substrate on the extreme eastern portion of the site (i.e., ruderal grassland, perennial freshwater wetland, or riparian habitat), a qualified biologist will examine the impact area for pond turtles and their nests 48 hours before proposed construction activities begin. If a western pond turtle is observed within the work area at any time before or during proposed construction activities, all activities will cease until such time that either (1) the pond turtle leaves the area or (2) the qualified biologist can capture and relocate the animal to suitable habitat away from construction activity.

MM BIO-2.1: Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls will be conducted prior to the initiation of all construction activities within suitable burrowing owl roosting habitat (i.e., ruderal grassland habitat with burrows of California ground squirrels) in the Specific Plan area, or within 250 feet of this habitat. Preconstruction surveys will be completed in conformance with the CDFW’s 2012 guidelines. An initial habitat assessment will be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if suitable burrowing owl habitat is present. During the initial site visit, which will be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist will survey the entire activity area and (to the extent that access allows) the areas within 250 feet of the site for suitable burrows that could be used by burrowing owls for nesting or roosting. If no suitable burrowing owl habitat (i.e., ruderal grasslands with burrows of California ground squirrels) is present, no additional surveys will be required. If suitable burrows are determined to be present within 250 feet of work areas, a qualified biologist will conduct at least one additional survey to investigate each burrow within the survey area for signs of owl use and to determine whether owls are present in areas where they could be affected by proposed activities. The final survey will be conducted within the 24-hour period prior to the initiation of construction activities in any given area.

MM BIO-2.2: If burrowing owls are present during the nonbreeding season (generally September 1 to January 31), a 160-foot buffer zone will be maintained around the occupied burrow(s), if feasible. If maintaining such a buffer is not feasible, then the buffer must be great enough to avoid injury or mortality of individual owls. During the breeding season (generally February 1 to August 31), a 250-foot buffer, within which no newly initiated constructionrelated activities will be permissible, will be maintained between construction activities and occupied burrows. Owls present between February 1 and August 31 will be assumed to be nesting, and the 250-foot protected area will remain in effect until August 31. If monitoring evidence indicates that the owls are no longer nesting or the young owls are 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
132 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
foraging independently, the buffer may be reduced or the owls may be relocated prior to August 31, in consultation with the CDFW.

MM BIO-2.3: Any owls occupying the Specific Plan area or immediately adjacent areas are likely habituated to frequent human disturbances. As a result, they may exhibit a tolerance of greater levels of human disturbance than owls in more natural settings, and work within the standard 250-foot buffer during the nesting season may be able to proceed without disturbing the owls. Therefore, if nesting owls are determined to be present within the Specific Plan area or within 250 feet of this area, and construction activities cannot feasibly avoid disturbance of the area within 250 feet of the occupied burrow during the nesting season (i.e., February 1 through August 31) due to other seasonal constraints, a qualified biologist will be present during all activities within 250 feet of the nest to monitor the owls’ behavior. If, in the opinion of the qualified biologist, the owls are unduly disturbed (i.e., disturbed to the point of harm or reduced reproductive success), all work within 250 feet of the occupied burrow will cease until the nest is determined to no longer be active by a qualified biologist.

MM BIO-2.4: In the unlikely event that construction will directly impact occupied burrows, a qualified biologist will passively evict owls from burrows during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31). No burrowing owls will be evicted during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) except with the CDFW’s concurrence that evidence demonstrates that nesting is not actively occurring (e.g., because the owls have not yet begun nesting early in the season, or because young have already fledged late in the season). Eviction will occur through the use of one-way doors inserted into the occupied burrow and all burrows within impact areas that are within 250 feet of the occupied burrow (to prevent occupation of other burrows that will be impacted). Oneway doors will be installed by a qualified biologist and left in place for at least 48 hours before they are removed. The burrows will then be back-filled to prevent reoccupation.

Although relocation of owls may be necessary to avoid the direct injury or mortality of owls during construction, relocated owls may suffer predation, competition with other owls, or reduced health or reproductive success as a result of being relegated to more marginal habitat. However, the benefits of such relocation, in terms of avoiding direct injury or mortality, would outweigh any adverse effects.

MM BIO-3.1: Due to the potential for buildings in the Plan Area to result in high numbers of bird collisions, particularly if extensive glass facades are used, all new construction and building additions within the Plan Area will implement the following bird-safe building design considerations:
• Reduce the extent of glass on the facades of new buildings and additions to the extent feasible.
• Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass. • No more than 10 percent of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground, unless located within 300 feet of the top of bank of the Guadalupe River. Within such boundary this requirement would extend to the entirety of the structure. Bird-safe glazing treatments may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or ultraviolet patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 0.25 inches wide at a maximum spacing of four inches or have horizontal elements at least 0.125 inches wide at a maximum spacing of two inches. Any remaining 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 133
City of Santa Clara
untreated glazed areas will be broken up into sections no greater than 24 square feet in size by mullions or bird-safe glazing treatments.
• Avoid free-standing clear glass walls, skywalks, transparent building corners, glass enclosures (e.g., greenhouses) on rooftops, and balconies with unbroken glazed segments 24 square feet and larger where feasible. If any such features are included in building designs, all glazing used in any such features will be 100 percent treated. • Reduce glass at tops of buildings, especially when incorporating a green roof into the building design.
• If a green roof or green wall is incorporated into the building design, no more than 10 percent of the surface area of the building's combined facades within 12 vertical feet above and/or below the green roof or green wall shall have untreated glazing. Any remaining untreated glazed areas will be broken up into sections no greater than 24 square feet in size by mullions or bird-safe glazing treatments. • Avoid the funneling of flight paths between buildings or trees towards a glazed building façade.
• Landscaping, including planted vegetation and water features, shall be designed to minimize the potential for collisions. For example, vegetation providing particularly valuable resources to birds (such as fruits) will be planted away from buildings with extensive glazing, and vegetation in general will be planted in such a way that it is not clearly reflected in windows. Water features would be located away from building exteriors to reduce the attraction of birds toward glazed facades. • Minimize exterior lighting to the extent feasible, except as needed for safety. All exterior lights shall be directed toward facilities in the Plan Area (e.g., rather than directed upward or outward) and shielded to ensure that light is not directed outward toward the Guadalupe River or Ulistac Natural Area.
• Occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on interior lights, with the exception of emergency lights or lights needed for safety purposes. On commercial buildings, these lights shall be programmed to shut off during non-work hours and between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise.

The City may waive or reduce any of the above-listed bird-safe design requirements based on analysis by a qualified biologist indicating that proposed construction will not pose a collision hazard to birds. Such a waiver will generally not be appropriate for façades adjacent to well-vegetated areas, but a waiver may be appropriate, for example, for façades that face developed areas lacking vegetation, water features, or other features that would be particularly attractive to birds.

Mitigation measure MM BIO-3.1 would incorporate bird-safe design elements into the future building designs and reduce this impact to the extent feasible. Given the potential for bird strikes to result from implementation of the Specific Plan this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

MM BIO-4.1: To the extent consistent with the normal and expected operations of commercial and/or residential uses under the Specific Plan, take appropriate measures to avoid use of unnecessary lighting at night, especially during the bird migration season (February through May and August through November). Such measures may include the installation of motion-sensor lighting, automatic light shutoff mechanisms, downwardfacing exterior light fixtures, and others. Exterior lighting within the Specific Plan area will be shielded as needed to block illumination from shining upward, or outward into the Guadalupe River to the east or Ulistac Natural Area to the south. The intensity of exterior 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
134 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
lighting will be minimized, and no exterior uplighting will be used. Lighting plans for each development site shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits.

MM BIO-5.1: To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31.

MM BIO-5.2: If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31 then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during Plan implementation.

These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist would inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

MM BIO-5.3: If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist would determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation under the Specific Plan.

A final report of nesting birds, including any protection measures, shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to the start of grading or tree removal.

MM BIO-5.4: If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by projects covered under the Specific Plan may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February 1). This would preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation and prevent the potential delay of a project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates. Any vegetation removal shall occur consistent with required tree removal and grading permits, as applicable.

MM BIO-6.1: If avoidance of the wetlands is not proposed, to compensate for the permanent loss of wetlands, perennial marsh habitat shall be restored or created at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (compensation:impact) on an acreage basis, unless a higher ratio is required by a regulatory agency, in which case that higher ratio shall apply. This ratio is not higher due to the relatively low quality of the wetlands in the project area relative to more extensive, less fragmented wetlands elsewhere along the Guadalupe River, but is not lower due to the temporal loss of wetland functions and values that will result from the lag between impacts to the wetlands in the Plan area and maturation of the mitigation habitat.

Compensation will be provided by creating or restoring wetland habitat so as to achieve the 2:1 ratio (or higher ratio, if required by a regulatory agency) somewhere in the Santa Clara Valley. Among other criteria, the mitigation site(s) must not currently be wetlands.

A qualified biologist shall develop a “Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan” describing the mitigation, which will contain the following components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency permitting conditions):
• Summary of habitat impacts and proposed mitigation ratios • Goal of the restoration to achieve no net loss of habitat functions and values 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 135
City of Santa Clara
• Location of mitigation site(s) and description of existing site conditions (among other criteria, the site(s) must not currently be wetlands)
• Mitigation design:
- Existing and proposed site hydrology
- Grading plan if appropriate, including bank stabilization or other site stabilization features
- Soil amendments and other site preparation elements as appropriate - Planting plan
- Irrigation and maintenance plan
- Remedial measures and adaptive management
• Monitoring plan (including final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule). Success criteria will include quantifiable measurements of wetland vegetation type (e.g., dominance by natives) and extent appropriate for the restoration location, and provision of ecological functions and values equal to or exceeding those in the wetland habitat affected. At a minimum, success criteria will include following:
- At Year 5 post-mitigation, at least 75 percent of the mitigation site will be dominated by native hydrophytic vegetation.

The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan must be approved by the City of Santa Clara prior to the wetland impacts, and it must be implemented within one year following impacts.

Alternatively, mitigation may be provided by restoring or creating at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (compensation:impact) on an acreage basis by either: (a) purchasing credits at a suitably located mitigation bank in the Santa Clara Valley approved by the City of Santa Clara; or (b) donating funds to a project undertaking enhancement or restoration of wetland or riparian habitats in the Santa Clara Valley, approved by the City of Santa Clara.

MM BIO-6.2: In compliance with the NPDES, the Specific Plan will comply with the SWRCB General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, which requires preparation of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. These controls will include methods to minimize indirect impacts as a result of construction activities that may compromise water quality in the Eastside Drainage Swale. Additional control measures identified in this SWPPP will mitigate the release of construction-related pollutants from the main site during the various construction phases. Unless otherwise authorized by the RWQCB and in compliance with the NPDES permit issued for the proposed activities, the following measures will be implemented during project implementation to avoid or minimize impacts on water quality:
• All permit conditions, legal requirements, and appropriate dredging and engineering practices shall be followed to avoid and minimize water quality impacts associated with project activities. Suitable erosion control, sediment control, source control, treatment control, material management, and stormwater management BMPs will be 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
136 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
implemented consistent with the latest edition of the California Stormwater Quality Association “Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook,” available at www.capmphandbooks.com.
• Spill prevention kits shall always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations). Feasible measures shall be implemented to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and the quality of wetland and aquatic resources is protected by all reasonable means when removing vegetation and sediments from the channels.
• No fueling shall be done in areas along the Eastside Drainage Swale. For stationary equipment that must be fueled within 50 feet of the swale, containment shall be provided in such a manner that any accidental spill of fuel shall not be able to enter the water or contaminate sediments that may come in contact with water. • A hazardous materials management/fuel spill containment plan will be developed and implemented by the construction contractor and given to all contractors and biological monitors. One copy of the hazardous materials management/fuel spill containment plan located will be on the work site at all times, and will provide construction managers, environmental compliance monitors, and regulatory agencies with a detailed description of hazardous materials management, spill prevention, and spill response/cleanup measures associated with the construction of the Plan elements. Elements of the materials management/fuel spill containment plan will include, but are not limited to the following:
- A discussion of hazardous materials management, including delineation of hazardous material and hazardous waste storage area, access and egress routes, waterways, emergency assembly areas, and temporary hazardous waste storage areas;
- Materials Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals used and stored on site; - An inventory list of emergency equipment;
- Spill control and countermeasures including employee spill prevention/response training;
- Notification and documentation procedures; and
- A monthly reporting plan.
• Vehicles will be checked daily for oil or fuel leaks and will be washed only at an approved area. No washing of vehicles will occur outside of designated staging areas in uplands.
• The work site, areas adjacent to the site, and access areas will be maintained in an orderly condition, free and clear from debris and discarded materials. Personnel will not sweep, grade, or flush surplus materials, rubbish, debris, or dust onto adjacent areas or wetlands or waterways. Upon completion of work, all building materials, debris, unused materials, concrete forms, and other construction-related materials will be removed from the Plan Area.
• Stockpiled materials will be covered by plastic sheeting, tarps, or similar material that can be secured during wind and rain. A sediment fence or berm will be installed around stockpiled material to prevent runoff from transporting sediment into the Eastside Drainage Swale.
• Silt fencing will be erected along the limits of disturbance between the Plan area and the Eastside Drainage Swale.
• As to any portion of the drainage swale that is not culverted, for construction activities occurring within 50 feet of aquatic habitat in the drainage swale, protective measures 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 137
City of Santa Clara
shall be put in place to ensure that impacts on the swale are avoided and minimized.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentMay 7, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
May 7, 2024