Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, July 16, 2024 (part 6 of 7)

$4,676,400
400,000

43.600
$1,432,600
125,000
22,400
$1,380,000
100,000
20,000
• • I
$5,120,000
$1.200,000
$8,200,000
PROPOSITION F Shall the City of San-
(L1brary Department ta Clara incur a bondImprovements) ed indebtedness in the principal sum. of
$800,000~ for the acquisition, construction and
completion of the following municipal improvement, to-wit: Library buildings, including furniture, fixtures, equipment, off-street parking facilities and paving, landscaping, and all other works, properties or structures necessary or
convenient for the libraries for the City of
Santa Clara?
I
Yes
No
(

Page 2 ends

S.C. Becomes 'United City'
As 11 Bond Issues Sweep
The old and the new joined other of the eight issue requirin hands T u e s d a y in voting Vot1· ng Brealz-down a l\vo-thirds margin for triumpli a landslide mandate to make '- were running scared.

Santa Clara the big city she's In only one precinct-the 8th al yearning to be. YES NO 1250 Market St.-were any of the
A shocking turnout and a A-Parks & Hecreation $1,940.000 6,255 1,139 issues turned down. ·And even there, stunning margin gave the B-strects, Highways 5,700,000 6,578 780 only Parks. and Library were beatcity's $20. 7 million capital ~lreel Lighting 1,000,o_oo 6,459 967 en. improvements bond program D-Storm Drains. 1.350,000 6,647 782 * * * unconditional victory. Each E-Fire .Department . 1,300,000 ·s.612 . 817·. AS THE DAY wore on, voters of the 11 issues on the ballot F-Library 800,000 6,117 1,326 !urned out in greater numbers. An swept into the win column G-Corporalion Yard 305,000 6,264 1,162 unofficial count showed only 10 pe oz:i totally unexpected mar- H-Police Department 105,000 5,979 1.341 cent had trooped lo the polls by 1 gins ranging from 4 ½-1 on I-Sanitary Sewers 5,120.000 6,675 777 p.m. In U1e next two hours. anolheli the police issue to 8½-1 on J-Waterworks 1,580,000 6.68:J 779 10 per cent cast !heir ballots. The walerworks facilities. K-Eleclric Plant 1,500,000 6,501 923 '!ate afternoon and early evenin{:! * * * ________________________ ballot bitz produced another 4,000 IN TIIE FAOE of recent down- Yes column with consistent deter- VICTORY IN SUCH totality was vogrs. ff . I I d I led the-line defeats of bond programs mination the electorate ensured unexpected. A small turnout was tu 1 Y t O icia7s 000
13 ulsJdicbcu. a 11
· p · ti 'ti u .l\f · City ' · mou over . wo rmg sue 1n etlIDSl a Cl es, te issmn the city of sufficient funds lo meet forecast by most Citv Hal observ- B t II f 1) bel' d rel.urns bordered on fantasy. Never . . ·. r:e:s, . u iey n~ver u Y ieve - S ta Cl ii· l h tl su 1 a all 1mprovemcnt needs here lor tltc ers. The bond campa1gn had been this s11e onlpourmg would come. in aln bears f is otry ta edc 1 ut next 20 years. silent, and Mission City leaders From "Old Town" and rrom lh grea num r O vo ers um O LI d'd 't kn h t t l bd' • • T I ' for a bond vote. Never had they The $20.7 million in bonds will rea Y . 1 n ow w a O expec new SU iv15ion~ came . _uesc av~
approved such a swe~ping program. can}' Santa Cara's capital improve- on election day. . electorate ~o w~ip ~ l 1 rachhona1 hi>x
The 46 per cent turnout of 7,647 ment program through the next Success or the amtary sewer, wa- here on city 1mp10\ement measwas nearly 2,500 greater than the five years. and revenue from these ter and eleclric programs, all need- ures. turnout for last April's councilman- beefed-up services will yield £inane- ing only a majority vole. was ex- * * * ic elediuu~ het'ec IH cheeking Lh Co n · ddiliona~ year Lcd..J:!nt the librai; · n~a::-r::::::=.::,-:'-n:~~~~~MillM ~umme up s way y o n - Council Pron1ises Tax Cut
A tax cut ... a tight-fisted City
Council.

These are the rewards Santa Clara
voters will receive in the coming year
for propelling the city bond issue to a
landslide victory Tuesday.
* * *
AS THE YES VOTES STORMED in
last night, Santa Clara's leaders were taking a quick look ahead to what the returns have triggered. · "There will definitely be a tax reduction next year," chorused Councilmen Austen Wa1·burton and James Viso. The
present tax rate of $1.54 is based on
a 14-month year and was due for trim- . n1ing next summer anyway. Thus, the bond passage could mean an even lower
tax rate than the $1.48 used for the last
12-month fiscal year in -1958-59.

LAWMAKERS ALSO AUE QUICK
to note they will be tight-fisted with the
$20.7 million U1e voters poured into city
coffers. Tuesday.
"There'll be no reckless spending
of this money," agreed Councilmen
Maurice Dullea and Robert Simons.
* . * *
l\IOST OF THE LA WMAI{ERS at the
election rally indicated they would move
quickly on one issue - the $105,000
voted for completion of the new police
administration building. Action on getting final work under way is expected to be taken at council session Thursday.

The police bond funds are earmarked
for furnishings, paving, parking construction and landscaping: The building, constructed at an initial $330,000 cost, is
due to open the first of the year at the
latest.
man James Viso:
"We became a united citv Tue~
nay-no longer the old and the new
The city voted together for !he firs
lime."
Briefly, this is what lhey vole
for:

Expansion of lhe muici!)al par),
5yslem and recreational pro~ran
. .. Wideninl? of present road~. re
'lWim! of exislinP. sfrcets. rrcatior.
nf new direct trnfric routes . .
"!reel lighlincr xoansion on 1iurn,
~trecls . . . Slnrm drain construe
•ion in lh north :ind Pa~! SPrfion•
')f th" citv . .. New firr station
and fire-Ci!.•hfing equipmP.nt . . . f,
"1P\V n1 uin librarv , , , A v:ird fo~
citv vehicles and equipment . .

Furnishings arl'I lanosc;:iping £or
,.ii,• vehicles and er1uipment . . .
r.ih• n~1·ficinatiw1 ir1 n multi-mil
lion dollar sanitary sewer trea lment nlant . . . Increased storac snace for waler . ·. . Constructio
nf ,,ew electric suhslalion~ and en•
larr,in" nr thn e]P,.fric deparlmenl'~
"entrnl suonlv station.

Landslide Bond Election Unites S .C .•• .:.

It's.Ready To Roll on City Projects ·
By DICIC COX two new 60,000 volt clec- 'obUgatlon bo11ds ot the after World War 11 when l\Icrcury Stare Writer trie substations, accord• clty carry n lower lntercst subdivlders begnn bulldoz• SANTA CLARA-Jubilant ing to Public Works DI• thnn the CO\\llCil npproved tng tile flrst orchards tor city Of! 1 c i o. I s here o.rc rector Donald. Yon Rnes• br!.<fge bonds. tracts there hns been n. 110• ! starting plnns tor a· series f cltl. One stat1on wlll be An Issue o! $400,000 ot tlccnble dlvlslon between 1 o! clty improvements . au• l>lnccd at Ktrcr rontl nnd the spcclul bonds were sold .. .. .. :
tho1·lzed b.Y votc1·s Tuesday Lafayette street nncl the by the Counctl Inst week to O 1 d Town nnd New 1 when they passed twenty other n! UeUoml' street provide money needed by Town." million dollars ln city bonds and CamJ>bcJJ iwcnue. the city in a hurry to meet s an ta Clara's old er 11 by a 7•
1 margin. Pr1orlt.1~s 011 other jobs its co1mµitmcnts to the neighborhoods al w a Y s Councilmen and others wlU be recommended to the Stnte of Cnllfornln. on the cnst the heavier vote. The were highly pleased }Ylth City council shortly by the De Ln Cruz Ovcrpnss. newcomers or the 0 Wcst• the obvious publlc vote ot department. heads involved. During tt.e elect\on. cnm• slders" usunlly ,•oted only 11 con!tdencc from both new . von Racs!cld predicted palgn Clty Mgr. Loyd Brndy about onc-thlrtl lo one• nnd old sections ot the clty thnt the s5 700 ooo bond ls• nnd other city . of!lclnls fourth as heavy. The po• nlike. sue tor street~, highways; promised tllat the lllgh in• llUcal snges used to wlseMoSt. nmJor city o!!lccs bridges and trn!!Jc stgnn.Js tei·cst :;peel.al assessment crnck th.at the tract t>to• J• yestcrdny were ncknowledg• wm be high on the ust. bonds wo.uld not be used pie "nre sttll busy lllant• • Ing congrntulntory . tcle• The snmc bond Issue ngnln I! the voters np• ?ng their lawns ~!tt wnlt phone cnlls f1•om numero~s probably l:iOUnded the dentb proved the low interest tU they wnke u11. 1 public of !lclnls throughout knell 011 furthe1· use ot bonds. Tuesdny night when the the County. Snntn Clnra•s citywide spc- Most notlcenble fenturc vote wns in the newcomers j 'rhe first two 11rojects cla.l assessment ~lstrtct. for of the T\lesday n\1thli vote hnd voted just ns heavy nnd 1 likely to go before the bridges nnd ovcrpnsscs. The wns the united nttitude of Clty Connell 1 tor n1>1>roval new bond issue by being the voters. Just as soUdlY for the bonds 1 or s11cclflcntlons wlll be voter-approved and gcnernl Since th_e dnys -~hortly as the older residents. . 4 S&nJOH Munuy Hm Cp•hllahtd a., 5111Jo11t MuNry)-OctoberlO, l95t. page 9 O<tobttl,l, 1!511 S,,,Jou U11a.oyt1P.Y1 (put,bl\tdnSM>jonll11nr.,1 I SM>)ou,C.Uo,rit I '"'' · Snuln Clnrnn" Di!l1,Jny
i\t unicipal ~lnturhy
Santa Clara clly "Ol<?B did them•
sdrcs proud \Vedne.sday.

By orerwhclmlng naJctillt.!. thtf •
p&s!(d $20 mllllon .-orth of public Im•
pf'O\"ttnent. bondt, fUJldj whJch at~
10rcly nerot-d to prorlde 5Mb. .Chua
with the tool& to bu.lid bu futu~ .
., The people of Sant.a run hai-t
tt'try rlghl lo be proud ot tht!msel\>e.t
lodAJ. They were conrron~ "1th mu•
nldpa.t ~ problMnS that now
plague every communny In the coun•
l1, And they, lh~ J)tc)plt! or &nl& CIAtA.
had the fOtt!dght. and the l1!0IJ mttr•
age to bond lhtmttl~.... to OTercome
lft~probl~
-~ Thal the 11 bond wucs ~ b)'
,naJotltlcs or· ~ttt•lo-one In dnt
~t:S IJ lndfcaUti? ot the cohtdnnm
or· pu~ AmOng Santa Cf~nan&. The
tact. lhat. an ~tlmaltd .f$ J)c!l' cenl. of
&ho!e cllglbte to Yale wt. ballots b an . ltlitJtaUon ot corwdmbte malnru:, on th~ part. of &nt& Clam•, cf U.ttm. All
too «>flM bond tlttUon tumoul4 •~
df .• dtt&,f ng.Jy Ught~ and A Uny fraction
ot a oorrununllf._. total ~ltn Actually
mAkfS the d~om r or lhe tnaJotilJ'. ~ --&nl4 Clara hM t~tty right lo ~ pniud'thAl- htt tt(Ord of tnt1Jortt1 rule
c!omu cl~ to adlle'flng the dttn~
-~UcJdtal. CTTATIOU(AGLCsrn..E)
Sdn)os, Mucurylltws (0<1lf.ne}. 30 Oct 1959 9 Jiupl:/linfoweb-ne•nsbinlc-com.sjeiptOl.sjlibnry.o,g/.apps/news/document.v!ew'? p • AWIEWS&docrefa-lmJgeMft3>.11261 56B6E3010FO\HOWIX•tlf3..181036A6[67582B6'M0206872-1!!0BF3A02A2803DS'M0!-1SOBF3AD2A2803DS'iMO, S111JoH Muc1,11y N-• {Pllhl.l.shed u S&nJoH J.Cuauy). HOftmbu 10, 1959. p1.g,:, ll-,nbtt"l0.1'l11 SUl)ottUt1N)'Nf\'\o'l{pubbht4itsSUIJoftlJ11<V)! I SUIJH t.C&lkn,i,a J ,,,,l ... >roam.
lhc
,rk•
tcs
llC)
Br<tlf.)' Bll(!li, to)
Still 11111,,ze,l ~•. roJ•
, m~
,1~! 111, Elecl,io11. ~!11
the
-tor SA~'l'A Cl.Alt,\ - City ~~{! ud •
1 M,:r. 1.0yd n r" d y wns 11 Ive. 1:u•k nl work Monr111,· nfl• the rr n · lwo,wttrk ,·nrntlon f!~
:1- "~llll nnrnu•d 0 nt the '1·1 Mc
,·ktory of thr S:?O million drl1
rd bond Issue Oct. :?8. Vlr
lon Hrndy said the nlmosl cor.

I'd unhrnrd of mnr,:ln of up. be~
Uld 1no,•nl rnusell A · minor ror
llh• !-icns:tthm nt thr lntrrnnup• tlonnl City ll n n n ~er .s Ing A,Ma. ('Ott\·~nthm he nt• tc
ntc tended In St. l,ouls, . Mo. Ill
?Oil Cl On l'lt.!t•tlon i1l~ht, Mny• ~· or Josta,h Jtcbclrt> tcle• by 285 1•honcd elccUnn nsult~ to ~
llr11dy. no
~t~ One or Urncly's flDl hn
nr~ nets bnrk on the Job wns poi
to order ~tudlcs townrd •
ll.SC- the sal~ or·uae rfrst bonds nil
nnd the ilnrl of needtd - ~ - ----.
projects. The Cllr Coun• Ins
rll · ntrrndy hRi directed rk
l l I thnl n 11rlorU1 ll~l be nt Ca
· u1, ror the proJtct.5. wl1
~ .

CITATIOH {AGLC S1YLE)
~njas~ Mucu,y N~(online). 10 Neu 1959 3 Jittps://infoy,~b-ntwsbank.('.om.sJ,zpt0l.sj1lb1a,y.0<g/appslnl!Y1Sldocument•vlew? p• AMNEWS&dO(ltf 2 1rNg,Mr.3At12615686E3010FO;uoEANX-NB-181037A6297-46CFC½402-436883--l!0FD6CBF17F2D47YA02· 180F06CBF17F2D-47:.MO,
July 9, 2024 City Council Meeting
Item No. 5: Updated Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION OF A MEASURE

INCURRING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS TO THE QUALIFIED

VOTERS OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AT THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024,

FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF THE

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF

CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

CONSTITUTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY,

SUBJECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES AND

COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADOPTED EXPENDITURE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara (the "City") is a municipal corporation and charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City desires to unde1iake ce1iain public infrastructure improvements for the City consisting of streets and transpmiation improvements, improvements to public safety facilities, improvements to parks and community facilities, storm drain and flood collection improvements, and improvements to other City facilities, as more paiiicularly described below (collectively, the "Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to call an election for the purpose of incun'ing bonded indebtedness and to authorize the issuance of bonds to finance the Improvements, which constitute public infrastructure of the City, pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution, including Article XIIIA, the California Government Code, including A1iicle 1 of Chapter 4 of Division 4 of Title 4 (commencing with Section 43600) and Aliicle 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with Section 53506) (collectively, the "Bond Law"); and WHEREAS, the City intends to issue its general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") und.er and pursuant to the Bond Law to finance the cost of the acquisition and construction of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, under existing law, approval of the Bonds requires 2/3rds of the voters in the City voting on the measure to vote in favor of the measure; and WHEREAS, Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1 ("ACAl ") has qualified for the November 5, 2024 Statewide ballot and would, among other things, change existing law to authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure if the measure proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable, and the measure includes specified accountability requirements; and
WHEREAS, the foregoing constitutional amendments effectuated by ACAl, if approved at the November 5, 2024 Statewide ballot, would apply to any measure authorizing general obligation bonds of a city that is submitted at the same election as the Voter Approval Ballot Measure; and WHEREAS, the measure to approve the Bonds is intended to and will comply with all the provisions of A CA 1, including all of its accountability requirements, so that, if A CA 1 is approved on November 5, 2024, approval of the Bonds shall require that 55% (not 2/3rds) of the voters in the City voting on the measure vote in favor of the measure; and
WHEREAS, if the ballot measure authorizing issuance of the Bonds is approved by the requisite number of affirmative votes, the City will be authorized to issue the Bonds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINEDBY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals CoITect. The foregoing recitals are true and col1'ect.

2. Purpose and Intent. Pursuant to the authority provided by the California Government Code and California Elections Code, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to authorize and direct the submittal to the qualified voters of the City at the general municipal election to be held on November 5, 2024, of a measure authorizing the City to issue general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing the Improvements on the terms set forth below.

3. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the proposed Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
measure for the Bonds:
(i) On July 9, 2024, the City Council adopted, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California, Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Demand the Acquisition, Construction and Improvement of Municipal Improvement Projects Constituting Public Infrastructure of the City, and Their Financing Through the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds," pursuant to which the City Council has found and determined that the public interest and necessity demand the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance the Improvements, which are municipal improvement projects constituting public infrastructure of the City. (ii) In order to provide for the issuance by the City of general obligation bonds to provide financing for the Improvements, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt an ordinance ordering the submission of the measure of incurring bonded indebtedness for such purpose to the qualified voters of the City at a municipal election.
(iii) The City Council desires to submit said ballot measure to the qualified voters of the City at the regular election to be held in the City on November 5, 2024, and to consolidate the bond election with other elections held within the City on that date, by a resolution adopted after the adoption of this Ordinance pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403 (the "Resolution Calling Election").

4. Call for Election. The City Council hereby orders that there be submitted to the qualified voters of the City, pursuant to the Resolution Calling Election, a measure on incun'ing bonded indebtedness for the purposes set forth in this Ordinance, at the regular election to be held on November 5, 2024.

5. Ballot Measure. The City Council hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City, at the regular election to be held on November 5, 2024, a measure on issuing the Bonds. The statement of the measure shall be in substantially the form set fmih in the resolution of the City placing the measure on the ballot.

6. Object and Purpose of Bonds. The object and purpose of the Bonds is to finance some or all of Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
the costs of the Improvements. The Improvements are more particularly described in that ce1iain Expenditure Plan ("Expenditure Plan") to be attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance, which shall be approved by the City Council by separate Resolution and presented to the voters as part of the measure for the Bonds.

The authorized Improvements will include all work, facilities and expenditures necessary and incidental to the Improvements described in the Expenditure Plan. Examples of such work, facilities, and expenditures include, but are not limited to: costs of design, engineering, architect and other professional services, inspections, site preparation, utilities, landscaping, construction management and other planning and permitting, legal, accounting and similar costs; a customary construction contingency; demolition and disposal of existing structures; rental or construction of storage facilities and other space on an interim basis for materials and other equipment and furnishings displaced during construction; addressing unforeseen conditions revealed by construction or renovation, and other necessmy improvements required to comply with existing building codes and other applicable law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act; costs of the bond election; bond issuance costs; project administration during the duration of such projects, including reimbursement of City staff time; and financing and interest costs on the Bonds.

The final costs, locations, designs, layouts and other components of the Improvements will be dete1mined as plans are finalized, construction bids are awarded, and projects are completed. Therefore, the City Council cannot guarantee that the Bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all needed Improvements.

7. Estimated Cost of Improvements. The estimated cost of the Improvements is $[598,000,000].

The estimated cost includes legal or other fees, the costs of printing the Bonds, and other costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance and sale of the Bonds. To the extent the Improvements financed are revenue-producing public works, the cost of the Improvements may also include bond interest estimated to accrue during the construction period and for a period of not to exceed Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
12 months after completion of construction.

8. Principal Amount of Bonds. The aggregate principal of the Bonds shall not exceed $[598,000,000.00].

9. Maximum Interest Rate. The maximum rate of interest to be paid on the Bonds shall be the statutory maximum of 12% per annum. Said interest shall be payable semiannually, except that interest for the first year after the date of the Bonds may be made payable at the end of said year. The actual interest rates of each series of the Bonds will be determined at the time of each respective Bond sale.

10. Issuance and Sale of Bonds. The City proposes to issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Aiiicle 1, commencing with Section 43600, of Chapter 4 of Division 4 of Title 4 of the California Government Code, or Aiiicle 4.5, commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code, in one or more series, in the maximum amount and for the objects and purposes set forth above if the requisite number of qualified voters voting on the measure vote in favor thereof. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by ad valorem taxes levied and collected in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State of California, and not from the general fund or other funds of the City. The revenue generated from the ad valorem tax levied and collected will be used for the payment of debt service on the Bonds. All of the Bonds shall be equally and ratably secured, without priority, by the taxing power of the City.

11. Manner of Conducting Election. The election on the Bonds held on November 5, 2024 shall be held and conducted, election officers appointed, voting precincts designated, ballots printed, polls opened and closed, ballots counted, and returned, returns canvassed, results declared, and all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the election shall be regulated and done in accordance with the Resolution Calling Election and the provisions of California law regulating the election with which it is consolidated.

12. Procedure for Voting on Measure. Ballots for the election shall be provided in the form and in the number provided by law. Voters shall be provided an oppo1iunity to vote for or against the measure Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
on the ballot, in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the authorized officers of the County of Santa Clara (the "County") charged with conducting the election.

13. Transparency and Accountability Requirements.
(a) In order to comply with ACAl and Sections 53410 and 53411 of the California Government Code, the City Council hereby adopts the following accountability requirements relating to the Bonds (the "State Accountability Requirements"):
(i) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds shall be used only for the purposes specified in this Ordinance, and not for any other purpose, including City employee salaries ( other than for reimbursement of staff costs incuned in providing normal and customary project management and delivery services for the Improvements ("Project Related Administrative Costs")), and other operating expenses. The administrative cost of the City for the Improvements, including any and all Project Related Administrative Costs, shall not exceed 5% of the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds.
(ii) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds shall only be spent on projects and programs that serve the jurisdiction of the City.
(iii) This Ordinance shall be the ordinance through which projects will be funded and the City hereby ce1iifies that it has evaluated alternative funding sources. (iv) The City shall conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the Bond funds are expended pursuant to this Ordinance.
(v) The City shall conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the public infrastructure authorized by this Ordinance.
(vi) The City shall post the audits required by clauses (iv) and (v) in a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
(vii) The City shall submit the audits required by clauses (iv) and (v) to the California State Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
Auditor for review.
(viii) The City shall appoint a citizens' oversight committee (the "Bond Compliance COC") to ensure that Bond proceeds are expended only for the purposes described in the measure approved by the voters. Members appointed to the Bond Compliance COC shall receive educational training about bonds and fiscal oversight.
(ix) Any entity owned or controlled by a member of the City Council shall be prohibited from bidding on any work funded by the measure.
(x) A separate account shall be created and held by the City, into which the proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited and applied solely for the Improvements. Expenditures shall be tracked on a project by project basis to facilitate project oversight and compliance audits. (xi) The City's Director of Finance shall file a report with the City Council at least annually showing the amount of Bond proceeds collected and expended, and the status of the Improvements.

If approved by California voters, the any transparency or accountability provisions of ACAl not already expressly provided herein are hereby incorporated by reference in this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares its intent that this Ordinance and the accountability measures contained herein shall comply with ACAl and any and all other statutory or other requirements dete1mined to be required for compliance with ACAL To the extent any provision of this Ordinance is determined to be inconsistent with the te1ms of ACAl, or any other applicable state law, the City is authorized and directed to make any necessary conforming changes.
(b) In addition to the State Accountability Requirements, the City Council hereby adopts the following local accountability and transparency requirements relating to the Bonds and the use of Bond proceeds ("Local Accountability Requirements"):
(i) Expenditure Plan Requirements. Bond proceeds shall only be used on Improvements in strict accordance with the te1ms of the adopted Expenditure Plan, as it may be amended from Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
time to time subject to the requirements of Section 13(b )(ii), below. (ii) Required Process for Amending Expenditure Plan. City staff shall review, analyze and make a recommendation on any proposed substantive amendment to the Expenditure Plan ("Amendment"). Prior to City Council consideration, any such proposed Amendment shall first be submitted to the Bond Compliance COC for their review and recommendation. Any proposed Amendment shall require the unanimous approval of the City Council.. (iii) Prohibited Uses. In no event shall Bond proceeds may be used for (I) improvements to Levi's Stadium; (II) any Improvements projects for the sole benefit of Levi's Stadium; (III) Improvements projects within .05 miles of Levi's Stadiun1, except Improvements in existing residential neighborhoods or business districts designed to be of substantial direct benefit to those areas and not Levi's Stadium; or (IV) the direct or indirect benefit of any professional sports team.
(iv) Additional Terms for the Bond Compliance COC. The Bond Compliance COC shall consist of 9 members selected by a lottery process and appointed by Council. The committee shall include seven residents, one large business representative, and one small business representative (neither of which must be residents, but both must be either an owner or employee of a business headquaitered within the City). Additionally, no business representative shall work for, have previously worked for, or be employed by a firm that provides services to any professional sports teams within the City. The role of the Bond Compliance Committee shall be to (I) ensure that project implementation is consistent with all Bond measure requirements, including the tenns of the Expenditure Plan; (II) review and report on annual audits, ai1d (III) review and provided recommendations to the City Council on any proposed amendment to the Expenditure Plan, and (IV) to info1m the public concerning the expenditure of Bond proceeds. (v) Communications Program. There shall be a Bond measure communications program to enhance accountability and transpai·ency including, at a minimum, the following elements: (I) Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
requirement for an annual public presentation on the Expenditure Plan and the status of the implementation of Improvements projects to the Bond Compliance COC and the City Council presented by the City Manager; (II) requirements for an annual presentation of the independent annual audit(s) required in Section 13(6) above to the COC and the Council Audit Committee; (111) status of all Bond funded projects to be communicated on the City's webpage; and (IV) notice of all proposed Improvements projects to residents within 1,000 feet of such project(s), with public signage providing further information at the project site(s).

These Local Accountability Requirements are intended to supplement and not replace ACAl or any other applicable state law. To the extent of any duplication or inconsistency, the requirement(s) requiring the greater degree of transparency or accountability shall apply.

14. Identification of Tax. The tax imposed by this measure is an ad valorem tax levied upon taxable property in the City, and will be used to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds.

15. Official Actions. The Mayor, the City Manager, the Director of Finance, the City Clerk, and any of their designees, are hereby authorized to execute any documents and to perf01m all acts necessary to place the Bond measure on the ballot.

16. Interpretation. The provisions of this Ordinance, being necessary for the health, welfare, and safety of the City and its residents, is to be liberally interpreted to carry out its purposes. No error, i1Tegularity or info1mality, and no neglect or omission of any officer, in any proceeding taken related to the submission of the measure incurring bonded indebtedness to the qualified voters of the City shall void or invalidate any such proceeding, any Bonds issued by the City or any levy of ad valorem taxes to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds.

17. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

18. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the proposed ordinance to be posted at least Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
three (3) days prior to its adoption in three (3) public places in the City and at least three (3) days prior to the ordinance adoption shall cause a single publication in an official newspaper. In accordance with Section 43611 of the California Government Code, this Ordinance shall also be published once a day for at least seven days in a newspaper published at least six days a week in the City, or once a week for two weeks in a newspaper published less than six days a week in the City. The first of said publications shall, in either event, be within 15 days after the adoption of this Ordinance. No other notice need be given.

19. Adoption; Effective Date. This Ordinance must be adopted by two-thirds of all members of the City Council. When adopted, in accordance with Section 36937(a) of the California Government Code, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately, as an ordinance relating to an election.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachment: Exhibit A Expenditure Plan
Ordinance/Calling Bond Election
ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Page
Ordinance/Calling Bond Election

EXHIBIT A

EXPENDITURE PLAN
Page

ORDINANCE NO. 2069

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION OF A MEASURE

INCURRING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS TO THE QUALIFIED

VOTERS OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AT THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024,

FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF THE

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF

CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

CONSTITUTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY,

SUBJECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES AND

COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADOPTED EXPENDITURE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) is a municipal corporation and charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City desires to undertake certain public infrastructure improvements for the City consisting of streets and transportation improvements, improvements to public safety facilities, improvements to parks and community facilities, storm drain and flood collection improvements, and improvements to other City facilities, as more particularly described below (collectively, the “Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to call an election for the purpose of incurring bonded indebtedness and to authorize the issuance of bonds to finance the Improvements, which constitute public infrastructure of the City, pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution, including Article XIIIA, the California Government Code, including Article 1 of Chapter 4 of Division 4 of Title 4 (commencing with Section 43600) and Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with Section 53506) (collectively, the “Bond Law”); and WHEREAS, the City intends to issue its general obligation bonds (the “Bonds”) under and pursuant to the Bond Law to finance the cost of the acquisition and construction of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, under existing law, approval of the Bonds requires 2/3rds of the voters in the City voting on the measure to vote in favor of the measure; and Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
WHEREAS, Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1 (“ACA1”) has qualified for the November 5, 2024 Statewide ballot and would, among other things, change existing law to authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure if the measure proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable, and the measure includes specified accountability requirements; and
WHEREAS, the foregoing constitutional amendments effectuated by ACA1, if approved at the November 5, 2024 Statewide ballot, would apply to any measure authorizing general obligation bonds of a city that is submitted at the same election as the Voter Approval Ballot Measure; and WHEREAS, the measure to approve the Bonds is intended to and will comply with all the provisions of ACA1, including all of its accountability requirements, so that, if ACA1 is approved on November 5, 2024, approval of the Bonds shall require that 55% (not 2/3rds) of the voters in the City voting on the measure vote in favor of the measure; and
WHEREAS, if the ballot measure authorizing issuance of the Bonds is approved by the requisite number of affirmative votes, the City will be authorized to issue the Bonds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINEDBY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals Correct. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. Purpose and Intent. Pursuant to the authority provided by the California Government Code and California Elections Code, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to authorize and direct the submittal to the qualified voters of the City at the general municipal election to be held on November 5, 2024, of a measure authorizing the City to issue general obligation bonds (the “Bonds”) for the purpose of financing the Improvements on the terms set forth below.

3. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the proposed Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
measure for the Bonds:
(i) On July 9, 2024, the City Council adopted, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, California, Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Demand the Acquisition, Construction and Improvement of Municipal Improvement Projects Constituting Public Infrastructure of the City, and Their Financing Through the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds,” pursuant to which the City Council has found and determined that the public interest and necessity demand the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance the Improvements, which are municipal improvement projects constituting public infrastructure of the City. (ii) In order to provide for the issuance by the City of general obligation bonds to provide financing for the Improvements, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt an ordinance ordering the submission of the measure of incurring bonded indebtedness for such purpose to the qualified voters of the City at a municipal election.
(iii) The City Council desires to submit said ballot measure to the qualified voters of the City at the regular election to be held in the City on November 5, 2024, and to consolidate the bond election with other elections held within the City on that date, by a resolution adopted after the adoption of this Ordinance pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403 (the “Resolution Calling Election”).

4. Call for Election. The City Council hereby orders that there be submitted to the qualified voters of the City, pursuant to the Resolution Calling Election, a measure on incurring bonded indebtedness for the purposes set forth in this Ordinance, at the regular election to be held on November 5, 2024.

5. Ballot Measure. The City Council hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City, at the regular election to be held on November 5, 2024, a measure on issuing the Bonds. The statement of the measure shall be in substantially the form set forth in the resolution of the City placing the measure on the ballot.

6. Object and Purpose of Bonds. The object and purpose of the Bonds is to finance some or all of Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
the costs of the Improvements. The Improvements are more particularly described in that certain Expenditure Plan (“Expenditure Plan”) to be attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance, which shall be approved by the City Council by separate Resolution and presented to the voters as part of the measure for the Bonds.

The authorized Improvements will include all work, facilities and expenditures necessary and incidental to the Improvements described in the Expenditure Plan. Examples of such work, facilities, and expenditures include, but are not limited to: costs of design, engineering, architect and other professional services, inspections, site preparation, utilities, landscaping, construction management and other planning and permitting, legal, accounting and similar costs; a customary construction contingency; demolition and disposal of existing structures; rental or construction of storage facilities and other space on an interim basis for materials and other equipment and furnishings displaced during construction; addressing unforeseen conditions revealed by construction or renovation, and other necessary improvements required to comply with existing building codes and other applicable law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act; costs of the bond election; bond issuance costs; project administration during the duration of such projects, including reimbursement of City staff time; and financing and interest costs on the Bonds.

The final costs, locations, designs, layouts and other components of the Improvements will be determined as plans are finalized, construction bids are awarded, and projects are completed. Therefore, the City Council cannot guarantee that the Bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all needed Improvements.

7. Estimated Cost of Improvements. The estimated cost of the Improvements is $400,000,000. The estimated cost includes legal or other fees, the costs of printing the Bonds, and other costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance and sale of the Bonds. To the extent the Improvements financed are revenue-producing public works, the cost of the Improvements may also include bond interest estimated to accrue during the construction period and for a period of not to exceed Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
12 months after completion of construction.

8. Principal Amount of Bonds. The aggregate principal of the Bonds shall not exceed $400,000,000.00.

10. Issuance and Sale of Bonds. The City proposes to issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Article 1, commencing with Section 43600, of Chapter 4 of Division 4 of Title 4 of the California Government Code, or Article 4.5, commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code, in one or more series, in the maximum amount and for the objects and purposes set forth above if the requisite number of qualified voters voting on the measure vote in favor thereof. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by ad valorem taxes levied and collected in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State of California, and not from the general fund or other funds of the City. The revenue generated from the ad valorem tax levied and collected will be used for the payment of debt service on the Bonds. All of the Bonds shall be equally and ratably secured, without priority, by the taxing power of the City.

12. Procedure for Voting on Measure. Ballots for the election shall be provided in the form and in the number provided by law. Voters shall be provided an opportunity to vote for or against the measure Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
on the ballot, in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the authorized officers of the County of Santa Clara (the “County”) charged with conducting the election.

13. Transparency and Accountability Requirements.
(a) In order to comply with ACA1 and Sections 53410 and 53411 of the California Government Code, the City Council hereby adopts the following accountability requirements relating to the Bonds (the “State Accountability Requirements”):
(i) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds shall be used only for the purposes specified in this Ordinance, and not for any other purpose, including City employee salaries (other than for reimbursement of staff costs incurred in providing normal and customary project management and delivery services for the Improvements (“Project Related Administrative Costs”)), and other operating expenses. The administrative cost of the City for the Improvements, including any and all Project Related Administrative Costs, shall not exceed 5% of the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds.
(ii) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds shall only be spent on projects and programs that serve the jurisdiction of the City.
(iii) This Ordinance shall be the ordinance through which projects will be funded and the City hereby certifies that it has evaluated alternative funding sources. (iv) The City shall conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the Bond funds are expended pursuant to this Ordinance.
(v) The City shall conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the public infrastructure authorized by this Ordinance.
(vi) The City shall post the audits required by clauses (iv) and (v) in a manner that is easily accessible to the public.
(vii) The City shall submit the audits required by clauses (iv) and (v) to the California State Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
Auditor for review.
(viii) The City shall appoint a citizens’ oversight committee (the “Bond Compliance COC”) to ensure that Bond proceeds are expended only for the purposes described in the measure approved by the voters. Members appointed to the Bond Compliance COC shall receive educational training about bonds and fiscal oversight.
(ix) Any entity owned or controlled by a member of the City Council shall be prohibited from bidding on any work funded by the measure.
(x) A separate account shall be created and held by the City, into which the proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited and applied solely for the Improvements. Expenditures shall be tracked on a project by project basis to facilitate project oversight and compliance audits. (xi) The City’s Director of Finance shall file a report with the City Council at least annually showing the amount of Bond proceeds collected and expended, and the status of the Improvements.

If approved by California voters, any transparency or accountability provisions of ACA1 not already expressly provided herein are hereby incorporated by reference in this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares its intent that this Ordinance and the accountability measures contained herein shall comply with ACA1 and any and all other statutory or other requirements determined to be required for compliance with ACA1. To the extent any provision of this Ordinance is determined to be inconsistent with the terms of ACA1, or any other applicable state law, the City is authorized and directed to make any necessary conforming changes.
(b) In addition to the State Accountability Requirements, the City Council hereby adopts the following local accountability and transparency requirements relating to the Bonds and the use of Bond proceeds (“Local Accountability Requirements”):
(i) Expenditure Plan Requirements. Bond proceeds shall only be used on Improvements in strict accordance with the terms of the adopted Expenditure Plan, as it may be amended from Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
time to time subject to the requirements of Section 13(b)(ii), below. (ii) Required Process for Amending Expenditure Plan. City staff shall review, analyze and make a recommendation on any proposed substantive amendment to the Expenditure Plan (“Amendment”). Prior to City Council consideration, any such proposed Amendment shall first be submitted to the Bond Compliance COC for their review and recommendation. Any proposed Amendment shall require the unanimous approval of the City Council.. (iii) Prohibited Uses. In no event shall Bond proceeds may be used for (I) improvements to Levi’s Stadium; (II) any Improvements projects for the sole benefit of Levi’s Stadium; (III) Improvements projects within .5 miles of Levi’s Stadium, except Improvements in existing residential neighborhoods designed to be of substantial direct benefit to those areas and not Levi’s Stadium; or (IV) the direct or indirect benefit of any professional sports team. (iv) Additional Terms for the Bond Compliance COC. The Bond Compliance COC shall consist of 9 members selected by a lottery process and appointed by Council. The committee shall include seven residents, one large business representative, and one small business representative (neither of which must be residents, but both must be either an owner or employee of a business headquartered within the City). Additionally, no business representative shall work for, have previously worked for, or be employed by a firm that provides services to any professional sports teams within the City. The role of the Bond Compliance Committee shall be to (I) ensure that project implementation is consistent with all Bond measure requirements, including the terms of the Expenditure Plan; (II) review and report on annual audits, and (III) review and provided recommendations to the City Council on any proposed amendment to the Expenditure Plan, and (IV) to inform the public concerning the expenditure of Bond proceeds. (v) Communications Program. There shall be a Bond measure communications program to enhance accountability and transparency including, at a minimum, the following elements: (I) requirement for an annual public presentation on the Expenditure Plan and the status of the Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
implementation of Improvements projects to the Bond Compliance COC and the City Council presented by the City Manager; (II) requirements for an annual presentation of the independent annual audit(s) required in Section 13(b) above to the COC and the Council Audit Committee; (III) status of all Bond funded projects to be communicated on the City’s webpage; and (IV) notice of all proposed Improvements projects to residents within 1,000 feet of such project(s), with public signage providing further information at the project site(s).

These Local Accountability Requirements are intended to supplement and not replace ACA1 or any other applicable state law. To the extent of any duplication or inconsistency, the requirement(s) requiring the greater degree of transparency or accountability shall apply.

14. Identification of Tax. The tax imposed by this measure is an ad valorem tax levied upon taxable property in the City, and will be used to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds.

15. Official Actions. The Mayor, the City Manager, the Director of Finance, the City Clerk, and any of their designees, are hereby authorized to execute any documents and to perform all acts necessary to place the Bond measure on the ballot.

16. Interpretation. The provisions of this Ordinance, being necessary for the health, welfare, and safety of the City and its residents, is to be liberally interpreted to carry out its purposes. No error, irregularity or informality, and no neglect or omission of any officer, in any proceeding taken related to the submission of the measure incurring bonded indebtedness to the qualified voters of the City shall void or invalidate any such proceeding, any Bonds issued by the City or any levy of ad valorem taxes to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds.

18. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the proposed ordinance to be posted at least three (3) days prior to its adoption in three (3) public places in the City and at least three (3) days prior Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page
to the ordinance adoption shall cause a single publication in an official newspaper. In accordance with Section 43611 of the California Government Code, this Ordinance shall also be published once a day for at least seven days in a newspaper published at least six days a week in the City, or once a week for two weeks in a newspaper published less than six days a week in the City. The first of said publications shall, in either event, be within 15 days after the adoption of this Ordinance. No other notice need be given.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachment: Exhibit A – Expenditure Plan
Ordinance/Calling Bond Election Page

EXHIBIT A

EXPENDITURE PLAN
General Obligation Bond Expenditure Plan
$400 Million Bond Measure
Project Areas Total
Streets and Transportation 41,170,000
Street Resurfacing and Rehabilitation 23,000,000
ADA Improvements 10,000,000
Creek Trail Rehabilitation 2,500,000
Bicycle Wayfinding 300,000
Contingency/Escalation/Administration 5,370,000
Fire Stations and Emergency Response 142,235,450
Fire Stations 5 Replacement 27,000,000
Fire Stations 7 Replacement 27,000,000
Fire Stations 9 Replacement/Renovations 9,000,000
Fire Station 1 Replacement/Renovations 58,000,000
Fire Training Tower Renovation 783,000
Various Fire Station Infrastructure Upgrades 1,900,000
Contingency/Escalation/Administration 18,552,450
Police Facilities 43,987,500
Police Department Drone First Responder Infrastructure 3,000,000 Emergency Operations Center Infrastructure 250,000
Police Training Facility 30,000,000
Police Department Facility and Real-Time Crime Center
Infrastructure 5,000,000
Contingency/Escalation/Administration 5,737,500
Parks, Library, Senior Center, and Aquatics Facilities 115,258,750 Renovation/Expansion of 3 Public Libraries 9,000,000
Senior Center Expansion/Renovation 9,500,000
Community Aquatic Facility/ISC Renovation/Replacement 45,000,000 Bowers Park Renovations 4,400,000
Earl Carmichael Park Playground Renovations 2,900,000
Warburton Park Playground Renovations 3,000,000
Henry Schmidt Park Playground Renovations 4,325,000
Pickleball Court 1,600,000
Mary Gomez Park Renovations 2,500,000
Aged Parks & Buildings Infrastructure in Critical/Poor
Condition 18,000,000
Contingency/Escalation/Administration 15,033,750
Stormdrain System Improvements 46,000,000
Stormdrain System Improvements 16,423,000
Storm Water Retention Basin Remediation 9,209,000
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Design & Construction 6,645,000 Lafayette St. Underpass at Subway Pump Station 4,946,000 Bowers Ave Underpass SDPS Rehabilitation 2,030,000
SDPS Motor and Control Replacement 347,000
Stormdrain Pump Station Outfall Reconstruction Program 250,000 Stormdrain Renovations 150,000
Contingency/Escalation/Administration 6,000,000
Historic Buildings and Beautification 9,200,000
Street/Median Beautification Improvements 4,000,000
Renovations to Historic Buildings 3,000,000
Triton Museum Improvements 1,000,000
Contingency/Escalation/Administration 1,200,000
Bond Issuance Costs 2,000,000
GRAND TOTAL $ 399,851,700

5. Council Approval Required. Council approval shall be required for (a) each and every proposed Project Phase for the implementation of the Expenditure Plan; (b) each and every issuance of Infrastructure Bonds to finance a Project Phase; and (c) any proposed amendment to the Expenditure Plan as provided in Section 6. Below.

6. Amendment of the Plan. Any proposed substantive amendment to this Expenditure Plan shall be subject to the requirements of Section 13(b)(ii) of the Ordinance. Such requirements shall include prior consideration and input from the “Bond Compliance COC” as provided therein.

7. Legal Requirements for Capital Projects. All Infrastructure Project costs paid from Infrastructure Bond proceeds shall consist of capital costs of the acquisition and improvement of real property within the meaning of California law. Any Infrastructure Project costs consisting of furnishings, furniture, equipment, software, ordinary maintenance (such as repairs, painting, resurfacing, striping or slurry seals), or other non-capital costs shall be paid by the City from other funds.

1. In General. This City of Santa Clara plan for the expenditure of bond proceeds (“Expenditure Plan”) was adopted by the City Council on July 16, 2024, by Resolution No.__________, to implement Section 6 of that certain Ordinance No. __________ adopted concurrently herewith (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance calls for an election by City voters on a ballot measure to approve the issuance of up to $400,000,000 in bonds (“Infrastructure Bonds”) for purposes of financing the acquisition and construction of public infrastructure on the terms set forth therein. To the extent of any conflict between this Expenditure Plan and the Ordinance, the terms of the Ordinance shall govern. The above chart summarizes the Expenditure Plan’s “Project Categories” (as defined in Section 2, below), and “Infrastructure Projects” (as defined in Section

2. Project Categories. The Expenditure Plan includes the following infrastructure expenditure categories (“Project Categories”), each with a designated amount of allocated Infrastructure Bonds proceeds (“Designated Allocations”): Streets and Transportation ($41,170,000); Fire Stations and Emergency Response ($142,235,450); Police Facilities ($43,987,500); Parks, Library, Senior Center and Aquatic Facilities ($115,258,750); Storm Drain System Improvements (46,000,000); Historic Buildings and Beautification ($9,200,000); and Bond Issuance Costs ($2,000,000). Project Categories and/or their respective Designated Allocations may be amended, but only in accordance with the Expenditure Plan Amendment Process set forth in Section 6 of this Expenditure Plan, below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Designated Allocation for Bond Issuance Costs shall be treated as a “Budgeted Amount” under this plan, to be updated by staff without a formal Expenditure Plan amendment in accordance with the process set forth in Section 3, below.

3. Designated Infrastructure Subcategories/Specific Projects. Within each Project Category, there is a list of designated project subcategories and/or specific projects (“Infrastructure Projects”), including estimated amounts budgeted for each such project subcategory/specific project, and an overall estimate of the projected contingencies, cost escalations and administrative costs necessary for project implementation (“Budgeted Amounts”). Infrastructure Projects may be deleted or added, but only in accordance with the Expenditure Plan Amendment Process set forth in Section 6 of this Expenditure Plan, below. Budgeted Amounts represent City staff’s best estimate of the projected costs for such Infrastructure Projects as of the date of the City’s adoption of this Expenditure Plan. Throughout the duration of the Expenditure Plan staff will monitor the Budgeted Amounts for outstanding projects and, at least [annually], as necessary, staff will revise the Expenditure Plan to update the Budgeted Amounts to be consistent with then projected project implementation costs. Staff updates to Budgeted Amounts will not be considered amendments to the Expenditure Plan requiring the amendment process set forth in Section 6, below.

4. Phased Implementation. Infrastructure Projects identified within the Expenditure Plan will be implemented in phases (each a “Project Phase”). Consistent with priorities set by the City Council, staff will develop lists of proposed Infrastructure Projects to be included within each Project Phase. Each Project Phase will be presented for City Council and approval as part of the City’s annual Capital Improvement Program budget process. Additional factors to be considered in the development and timing of each Project Phase, and the sequencing of projects within each Project Phase time period include: (a) the need to balance available staff and contractor resources; (b) the length of the planning, design, and construction phases of each project; (c) disruption to the public as City services and facilities are removed from service to undergo renovations; (d) legal requirements for the expenditure of Infrastructure Bond proceeds (in general, under current federal tax law, the City must expect to spend 85% of each series of Infrastructure Bond funds within three years of their date(s) of issuance ); (e) the timing and availability of alternate and supplemental funding sources; (f) local, regional, state or federal permitting requirements; (g) the need to coordinate with outside agencies.

Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL

MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 2024 FOR A VOTE ON A MEASURE TO

APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION

BONDS TO FINANCE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTITUTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY;

REQUESTING THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE SPECIAL

MUNCIPAL ELECTION WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL

ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ON
NOVEMBER 5, 2024; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO

TRANSMIT THE MEASURES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE THE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND DESIGNATING

THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF

BALLOT ARGUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) is a municipal corporation and charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is required by the California Constitution as well as other applicable provisions of California law to submit any proposal for bonded indebtedness to the voters for their consideration; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2024, the City Council adopted, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, Resolution No. 24-180 determining the necessity to incur a bonded indebtedness to finance municipal improvement projects constituting public infrastructure of the City through the issuance of general obligation bonds (the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City Council adopted, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, an ordinance entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,

ORDERING THE SUBMISSION OF A MEASURE INCURRING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS TO

THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page

COST OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF CERTAIN

MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CONSTITUTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF

THE CITY, SUBJECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES AND COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADOPTED EXPENDITURE PLAN” (the “Ordinance”), which orders the submission to the voters of a proposition authorizing the issuance of the Bonds to the voters of the City for their consideration; and WHEREAS, under existing law, approval of the Bonds requires 2/3 of the voters in the City voting on the proposition to vote in favor; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1 (“ACA1”) has qualified for the November 5, 2024 Statewide ballot and would, among other things, change existing law to authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable, and the proposition includes specified accountability requirements; and WHEREAS, the foregoing amendments effectuated by ACA1, if approved at the November 5, 2024 Statewide ballot, would apply to any proposition authorizing general obligation bonds of a city that is submitted at the same election as ACA1; and
WHEREAS, the proposition to approve the Bonds complies with all the provisions of ACA1 so that, if ACA1 is approved on November 5, 2024, approval of the Bonds shall require 55% (not 2/3) of the voters in the City voting on the proposition to vote in favor; and WHEREAS, if the ballot measure authorizing issuance of the Bonds is approved by the requisite number of affirmative votes, the City will be authorized to issue the Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code section 1201, the next Presidential General Election will be held on November 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, in the course of conducting a Special Municipal Election on November 5, 2024, it is desired that that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara consolidate a special Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page
municipal election to be held on November 5, 2024, with the Presidential General Election to be held on the same date for the purpose of submitting this ballot measure. It is also necessary for the City to request services of the County as set forth in this Resolution.

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

1. Recitals Correct. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. Election Ordered; Ballot Measure. Pursuant to its right, power and authority under the California Constitution and the laws of the State of California, the City Council on its own motion hereby orders submitted to the voters at an election to be held in the City on November 5, 2024, a ballot measure designated by letter by the Santa Clara County (the “County”) Registrar of Voters authorizing the sale of general obligation bonds to finance the costs of municipal improvement projects constituting public infrastructure of the City described in the Ordinance, to appear on the ballot in substantially the following form:

To improve 911 emergency rapid response; fix potholes, repair and improve streets throughout Santa Clara; fix underground stormdrains/pipes to prevent sinkholes; provide safer roads and routes to school for drivers, pedestrians; and repair/maintain safe public facilities; shall the City of Santa Clara’s measure authorizing $400,000,000 in bonds, funded by levying an estimated
$19/$100,000 of assessed value while bonds are outstanding, generating approximately $21,674,000 annually, with annual audits and citizen oversight of spending, be adopted?
BONDS
YES
_____
BONDS
NO
______
The full text of the proposed measure to be submitted to the voters is set forth in the Ordinance, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. The full text of the Ordinance and Exhibit A, Tax Rate Statement, as described in Section 4, shall be printed in the voter information guide.

3. Voter Approval. The proposed measure shall not take effect unless approved by (1) if ACA1 passes, a 55% vote of the voters voting on the question or (2) if ACA1 does not pass, a 2/3rds vote of the voters voting on the question.

Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page

4. Tax Rate Statement. The City Council hereby finds that the estimates and projections contained in the measure and in the tax rate statement required by Section 9401 of the California Elections Code, which has been prepared in connection with the measure as is attached as Exhibit A, have been made based on currently available information, but depend on a number of variables which are subject to variation. Such estimates and projections have been made in good faith, and are not binding or intended to be limitations on the terms of the Bonds. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to finalize and execute the tax rate statement, and to file the tax rate statement and any other documents required for the Bond measure with the County Registrar of Voters.

5. Request for Consolidation; County Services. Pursuant to Section 10002 and 10403 of the California Elections Code, the City hereby requests that the County Board of Supervisors and the County Registrar of Voters consolidate the City’s general obligation bond measure with the Statewide general election to be held on November 5, 2024. The City further hereby requests the services of the County Registrar of Voters in carrying out the election for the City’s general obligation bond measure, including sending to the City’s registered voters all required election materials, conducting the election, canvassing the vote received, and taking all steps necessary and required for the holding of this election within the City. The City Clerk of the City shall receive the canvass as it pertains to the election on the measure from the County, and shall certify the results to the City Council, as and to the extent required by law.

6. Election Procedures. The City acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418 of the California Elections Code. The location of the central counting place for the ballots to be cast at the election shall be as established by the County Board of Supervisors and/or the County Registrar of Voters. The precincts, ballot drop box locations and hours of operations, vote center locations and hours of operations, vote-by-mail procedures and timing, and election officers, and all other persons and procedures for the election shall be the same as those utilized by the County.

7. County Compensation. The City acknowledges that the compensation for election officers, Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page
polling place rental fees and any other fees or costs of the election shall be based on the rates set by the County Board of Supervisors which are in effect at the time of the consolidated election, and the County shall be reimbursed by the City for such services as they are performed. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to reimburse the County for services performed in accordance with this Resolution, when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill subject to the approval by the City Clerk.

8. Arguments. The last day for filing direct arguments for or against the measure shall be July 30, 2024 at 5:00 p.m., and all such arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Santa Clara, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050, and shall not exceed 300 words in length. Each argument shall be signed and include the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. The arguments shall be accompanied by the “Form of Statement to be filed by Author(s) of Argument” as provided by the City Clerk. Arguments received prior to the deadline shall be confidential until the deadline. The City Clerk, upon receipt of arguments and after the filing deadline, shall immediately transmit copies to any known opposing parties who may then submit rebuttals within the time period described below.

9. The Council hereby selects the following course of action regarding arguments in favor of the proposed ballot measure (Council to select one of the following concurrent with the adoption of resolution):
a. Two or Three City Council Members who support adoption of the proposed Charter Amendment shall be authorized to, and shall, jointly file an official ballot Argument in favor of the proposed Charter Amendment measure. The City Council Members authorized to file such ballot Argument, or at least two, but no more than three, other City Council Members authorized to do so by the City Council, shall also jointly file a Rebuttal Argument to any Argument against the proposed Charter Amendment that may be filed. Neither the City Council, nor any of its Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page
Members, shall file a ballot Argument in opposition to the proposed Charter Amendment measure in their official capacity;
OR
b. Takes no action with regard to authorizing the Council or member of the Council to submit a written argument (in favor) of the measure, in which case the City Clerk shall select arguments for or against the measure in accordance with the priority order set forth in Elections Code section 9287.

10. Rebuttal Arguments. The last day for filing rebuttal arguments for or against the measure shall be August 9, 2024 at 5:00 p.m., and all such arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Santa Clara, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050, and shall not exceed 250 words in length. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the “Form of Statement to be filed by Author(s) of Argument” as provided by the City Clerk. Arguments received prior to the deadline shall be confidential until the deadline.

11. Impartial Analysis. The City Council directs the City Clerk to submit to the City Attorney a copy of the measure, and the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the ballot measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and operation of the measure.

The impartial analysis shall be submitted by the City Attorney to the City Clerk on or before August 9, 2024 at 5:00 p.m., shall not exceed 500 words in length, and otherwise shall comply in all respects with the applicable provisions of the California Elections Code.

12. Public Examination Period. Pursuant to Section 9295 of the California Elections Code, there shall be a 10-day public review period for the impartial analysis, arguments submitted for or against the measure, and rebuttal arguments. These time periods are established as follows: (a) with respect to arguments submitted for or against the measure, commencing on July 30, 2024 and closing on August 10, 2024, and (b) with respect to the impartial analysis and rebuttal arguments, commencing on August 9, 2024 and closing on August 19, 2024.

Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page

13. Printing of Arguments and Rebuttals. The City Clerk shall comply with all provisions of law establishing priority of arguments for printing and distribution to the voters, and shall take all necessary actions to cause the selected arguments to be printed and distributed to the voters. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.

14. Election Law Governing. In all particulars not recited in the Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

15. Publications. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of the election and synopsis of the City’s general obligation bond measure in the time, form, and manner as required by law.

16. Transmittal to County Elections Officials. The City Clerk is authorized to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Board of Supervisors and the County Registrar of Voters.

17. Other Actions. Each of the City Manager, the Director of Finance and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to work with the appropriate officials of the County to carry out the purposes and intent of this Resolution, including preparing, signing, filing and/or revising any applicable documents, agreements, or other materials.

18. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.

Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page

19. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A Tax Rate Statement
Resolution/Calling Bond Election Page

EXHIBIT A

TAX RATE STATEMENT
An election will be held in the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) on November 5, 2024, to authorize the sale of up to $400,000,000.00 in bonds of the City to finance the municipal improvements listed in the bond measure. If such bonds are authorized, the City expects to sell the bonds in one or more series. Principal and interest on the bonds will be payable solely from the proceeds of ad valorem tax levies made upon the taxable property in the City. The following information is provided in compliance with applicable provisions of the California Elections Code.

Such information is based upon the best estimates and projections presently available from official sources, and other demonstrable factors.

Based upon the foregoing and projections of the City’s assessed valuation:

1. The best estimate of the average annual tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue over the entire duration of the bond debt service, based on assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement is $19 per $100,000 of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed. The best estimate of the final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is 2060.

2. The best estimate of the highest tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue, based on assessed valuations available at the time of filing this statement is $28.70 per $100,000 of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed. The best estimate of the first fiscal year in which the highest tax rate will apply is 2026.

3. The best estimate of the total debt service, including the principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all the bonds are issued and sold is $736,890,700.

Voters should note that such estimated tax rates are specific to the repayment of bonds issued under this authorization and are and will be in addition to tax rates levied in connection with other bond authorizations approved or to be approved by the voters of the City or any other overlapping public agency.

Voters should note that estimated tax rate is based on the ASSESSED VALUE of taxable property within the City as shown on Santa Clara County’s official tax rolls, not on the property’s market value. In addition, taxpayers eligible for a property tax exemption, such as the homeowner’s exemption, will be taxed at a lower effective tax rate than described above. Property owners should consult their own property tax bills to determine their property’s assessed value and any applicable tax exemptions.

Attention of all voters is directed to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon projections and estimates only, which amounts are not maximum amounts or durations and are not binding upon the City. The actual debt service amounts, tax rates and the years in which they will apply may vary from those presently estimated, due to variations from these estimates in the rating for the bonds, the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold and market interest rates at the time of each sale, and actual assessed valuations over the term of repayment of the bonds. The dates of sale and the amount of bonds sold at any given time will be determined by the City based on need for funds and other factors. The actual interest rates at which the bonds will be sold will depend on the bond market at the time of each sale. Actual future assessed valuation will depend upon the amount and value of taxable property within the City as determined by the Santa Clara County assessor in the annual assessment and the equalization process.

City Manager
City of Santa Clara
Resolution/Adoption of Expenditure Plan Page
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE EXPENDITURE PLAN

RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) is a municipal corporation and charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2024, the City Council adopted, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, Resolution No. 24-180 determining the necessity to incur a bonded indebtedness to finance municipal improvement projects constituting public infrastructure of the City through the issuance of general obligation bonds (the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City Council adopted, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, an ordinance (“Ordinance”) entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION OF A MEASURE INCURRING BONDED

INDEBTEDNESS TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, FOR THE PURPOSE

OF FINANCING THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT

OF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CONSTITUTING PUBLIC

INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY, SUBJECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES AND COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADOPTED EXPENDITURE PLAN”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt a plan for the expenditure of bond proceeds (“Expenditure Plan”) that implements the object and purpose of the Bonds as provided in Section 6 of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the approved Expenditure Plan shall be attached to the Ordinance and presented to the voters as part of the measure for the Bonds at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024.

Resolution/Adoption of Expenditure Plan Page
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals Correct. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. That the Expenditure Plan attached here as Attachment 1, is hereby approved and adopted and shall be attached to the Ordinance and presented to the voters as part of the measure for the Bonds at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024.

3. Adoption; Effective Date. This Resolution must be adopted by a majority of all members of the City Council and, when adopted, shall take effect immediately.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments to be incorporated by reference:

1. Expenditure Plan
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-685 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Discussion, Consideration, and Direction to Staff Regarding Actions to be Taken in Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled “Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers”

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

BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2024, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled “Outplayed:

Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers” (Civil Grand Jury report). The Civil Grand Jury report includes various findings and recommendations. California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report to respond within 90 days on the specified findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.

This report presents the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations and solicits City Council/Stadium Authority Board input on the desired process for providing the City and Stadium Authority’s response. The City and Stadium Authority’s responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowan, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 11, 2024. For this report, staff is not aware of any requests for individual responses from City Council/Board members.

DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made various findings and recommendations; however, only specific findings and recommendations require City/Stadium Authority response. The report included a total of twenty (20) findings and thirteen (13) recommendations. Of these, the Stadium Authority, as an agency, has been directed to respond to all of the findings and 13 recommendations. It should be noted that: 1) some findings/recommendations may require a City or joint City and Stadium Authority response instead of a response from only the Stadium Authority, 2) the Civil Grand Jury identified Recommendations 7a and 7b for Stadium Authority response; however, neither of these Recommendations exist whereas Recommendation 7 does exist and appears to be relevant for Stadium Authority response, and 3) three of the 13 recommendations identified for City/Stadium Authority response provide no recommendation (# 4, 5, and 11).

A complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers” report can be found on pages 70-74 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 7 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-685 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
Grand Jury’s website:
<https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/outplayed-measure-j-city-santa-clara-and-sanfrancisco-49ers.pdf> Civil Grand Jury Findings
The Civil Grand Jury report findings requiring a City and/or Stadium Authority response are as follows:

Finding 1
From the beginning, the City was impatient and overmatched in its negotiation posture with the 49ers to the long-term detriment of the City/Stadium Authority.

Finding 2
The City has not studied the actual economic impact of the Stadium. The 49ers have produced their own studies, which they use to tout long-term unverified benefits and frame all discussions surrounding the success of the Stadium.

Finding 3
Measure J’s promise to protect the City’s General Fund has been realized. The funding structure from the Stadium Lease has successfully allowed the Stadium Authority to pay off Stadium construction loans and fund required Waterfall reserves faster than originally planned.

Finding 4
The City/Stadium Authority agreed to use ManCo, an affiliate of the 49ers, with an inherent conflict of interest to handle the Stadium Authority’s financial interests in non-NFL events.

Finding 5
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the Management Agreement included a fair termination clause.

Finding 6a
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure the Management Agreement provided the Stadium Authority with full access to financial records.

Finding 6b
ManCo’s financial transparency with the Stadium Authority has improved with the implementation in 2022 of a new financial management system.

Finding 6c
Transaction-level testing generally supports ManCo’s reporting of financial results for non-NFL events.

Finding 7a
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the original Management Agreement and the 2022 settlement agreement contained sufficient language requiring specific items or methods and performance metrics to prioritize Stadium Authority revenue generation. This has resulted in a failure to hold ManCo accountable for the success of non-NFL events.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 7 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-685 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
Finding 7b
The Stadium Authority failed to use the prescribed Marketing Correction Plan per Article 3.3.1 of the Management Agreement process to hold ManCo accountable for unsuccessful non-NFL event bookings.

Finding 8a
There is no evidence showing that ManCo is negotiating to maximize Stadium Authority profits for non-NFL events.

Finding 8b
The Stadium Authority has failed to ensure the Management Agreement requires ManCo to incentivize its staff to prioritize the Stadium Authority's success. There is no evidence that there are employee sales goals, metrics, or consequences related to unprofitable non-NFL events.

Finding 9a
StadCo/ManCo interprets the Stadium Lease to require non-NFL ticket surcharges be applied to tickets associated with Rental and Trophy Luxury Suites, but failed to remit all corresponding surcharges to the Stadium Authority.

Finding 9b
StadCo/ManCo interprets the Stadium Lease to not require non-NFL ticket surcharges to be applied to Seating Bowl complimentary tickets and Owners Club Luxury Suite tickets.

Finding 9c
Suite ticket revenue submitted to the Stadium Authority does not account for suite ticket revenue for certain suite attendees.

Finding 10a
Most revenue from non-NFL events goes to the promoter, which is typical. StadCo can make money on luxury suites regardless of the event's profitability for the Stadium Authority.

Finding 10b
The Stadium Authority is unaware of the market revenue potential for non-NFL events at the Stadium.

The Stadium Authority does not know what net revenues should be expected for non-NFL, ticketed and non-ticketed, events.

Finding 11
Per the Stadium Lease, the Stadium Authority failed to negotiate pertinent details about buffet costs in the contract, such as parameters on cost thresholds and alcohol. The Stadium Authority accepted responsibility for buffet costs but failed to follow up when the expense was omitted from ManCo’s budgets.

Finding 12
A Multi-Use Community Facility at the Stadium was one of Measure J’s original promises and was memorialized in the Stadium Lease. The current designated space for the Community Room at the Stadium is not easily accessible nor is it pragmatic for most civic events.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 7 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-685 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
Finding 13
The FIFA World Cup commitments for the City and the Stadium Authority were made without consultation with the City/Stadium Authority.

Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to indicate one of the following for each Civil Grand Jury finding:

1. The respondent agrees with the finding.

2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.

Civil Grand Jury Recommendations
The Civil Grand Jury recommendations requiring a City and/or Stadium Authority response are as follows:

Recommendation 1
Given the long-term nature of the various agreements, the 49ers' sophistication, and the history of past disputes, the City/Stadium Authority should engage advisors with specialized knowledge to determine options to level the playing field.

Recommendation 2
The City should commission its own report to determine the Stadium's actual economic impact over the last decade. This recommendation should be implemented by July 1, 2025.

Recommendation 3
The May 2024 settlement agreement gives the Board/City Council new flexibility to divert Excess Revenue from the Stadium Authority to the City’s General Fund. When diverting Excess Revenue, the Board/City Council should be mindful of the long-term financial health of the Stadium Authority and request the Treasurer to produce a long-term plan for funding all required Stadium reserves, including reserves for capital improvements. This recommendation should be implemented by October 31, 2024.

Recommendation 4
None
Recommendation 5
None
Recommendation 7 (Per the note above, Recommendations 7a and 7b are identified for Stadium Authority response; however, neither of these Recommendations exist whereas Recommendation 7 does exist and appears to be relevant for Stadium Authority response)
The Stadium Authority should retain the expertise needed to meaningfully weigh in on ManCo’s Marketing Plan to ensure that the Stadium Authority’s profitability is maximized. The Stadium Authority should also establish a yearly audit procedure to measure and analyze each season's Marketing Plan against its outcomes, updating future plans based on this analysis. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 7 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-685 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
Recommendation 8
As part of the Marketing Plan, Stadium Authority should require that ManCo produce a marketing plan that maximizes profits for the Stadium Authority and incentivizes ManCo marketing staff to prioritize the profitability of the Stadium Authority. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Recommendation 9
The Stadium Authority should review and ensure that it receives all a) non-NFL event ticket surcharges for all event attendees, and b) ticket revenue for all suite attendees owed to the Stadium Authority. This recommendation should be implemented by October 31, 2024.

Recommendation 10
The Stadium Authority should hire a professional third-party consultant, not affiliated with the 49ers, to analyze the reasonable expectations for non-NFL events such as:
· An analysis of the market revenue potential for non-NFL events at the Stadium. · An analysis of ManCo's Marketing Plans, comparing successful (FY 2022-23) and unsuccessful (FY 2017-18) bookings to potential market revenue. · A plan with measurable objectives and incentives for ManCo to achieve these results.

This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Recommendation 11
None
Recommendation 12
The Stadium is not an appropriate location for a Community Facility. The Stadium Authority should work with the 49ers to identify and procure an alternative space for community needs. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2025.

Recommendation 13
The Stadium Authority should insist on consultation and prior notice before any major Stadium event commitments are made. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe cannot City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 7 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-685 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

Next Steps
Staff is requesting that the Council/Board provide direction on the process it would like to follow to develop the City and Stadium Authority’s required response by September 11, 2024. Consistent with prior Council/Board direction and input for Civil Grand Jury reports, staff is prepared to draft an initial response to the Civil Grand Jury report for each item that relates to the City and/or Stadium Authority.

We are prepared to bring the draft responses to the City Council/Stadium Authority Board for your review and possible approval at the August 27, 2024 Council Meeting or at a special meeting, if necessary based on the Council/Board’s business calendar and the extent of Council/Board input received at the July 16 Council/Board meeting.

It may be most efficient to schedule a special meeting of the City Council/Stadium Authority Board to address and finalize, if possible, the pending Civil Grand Jury responses due for both the “Irreconcilable Differences” and the “Outplayed” Civil Grand Jury reports.

Note: On July 3, 2024 the Stadium Authority received a letter from Forty Niners Stadium Management Company (ManCo) that addressed, generally, a number of the findings in the “Outplayed” Civil Grand Jury Report. A copy of this letter is attached.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report except for administrative time.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney/Stadium Authority Counsel and City Manager/Executive Director’s Offices.

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
Provide direction on the desired process to develop the City and Stadium Authority’s responses for the specified findings and recommendations outlined in the June 13, 2024 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers” in time to be submitted to the Presiding Judge by the required response date of September 11, 2024. One possible option would be to schedule a special meeting of the City Council/Stadium Authority Board to address both the pending Civil Grand Jury responses due for both the “Irreconcilable Differences” and the “Outplayed” Civil Grand Jury reports.

Reviewed and approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager and Glen R. Googins, City Attorney City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 7 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-685 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

ATTACHMENTS

1. Civil Grand Jury Report: “Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers”

2. Letter from Forty Niners Stadium Management Company (ManCo) dated July 3, 2024 City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 7 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882‐2721 • FAX (408) 882‐2795

G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 13, 2024
Stadium Authority
c/o Ms. Nora Pimentel, Acting Secretary to the Stadium Authority 1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Pimentel:

The 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Outplayed: Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the San Francisco 49ers.

California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9a, 9b, 9c, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, and 13. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.

2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Beth McGowen, 2023-24 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than September 11, 2024. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882‐2721 • FAX (408) 882‐2795 Stadium Authority

Page 2 ends

June 13, 2024
If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson
2023-24 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Hosam Haggag, City Clerk, City of Santa Clara
Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager, City of Santa Clara
§ 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 California Statutes Annotated - 2018
West's Annotated California Codes
Penal Code (Refs & Annos)
Part 2. Of Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)
Title 4. Grand Jury Proceedings (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 3. Powers and Duties of Grand Jury (Refs & Annos) Article 2. Investigation of County, City, and District Affairs (Refs & Annos) West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05
§ 933.05. Responses to findings
Currentness
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall § 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

Credits
(Added by Stats.1996, c. 1170 (S.B.1457), § 1. Amended by Stats.1997, c. 443 (A.B.829), § 5.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
2008 Main Volume
Stats.1997, c. 443 (A.B.829), in subds. (a) and (b), in the introductory paragraphs, substituted “(b)” for “(c)”; in subd. (b)(3), substituted “head” for “director”; in subd. (c), inserted “agency or” throughout; inserted subd. (e), relating to investigations and meetings with the grand jury; and, in subd. (f), substituted “presiding” for “supervising”.

CROSS REFERENCES
Grand jury defined, see Penal Code § 888.

Words and phrases, “county”, see Penal Code § 691.

RESEARCH REFERENCES
Encyclopedias
Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 716, Recommendations and Reporting.

Cal. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Pretrial Proceedings § 717, Responses to Findings.

Treatises and Practice Aids
Witkin, California Criminal Law 4th Introduction to Criminal Procedure § 43, Reports.

West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 933.05, CA PENAL § 933.05 Current with all 2017 Reg.Sess. laws.
(C) 2017 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. § 933.05. Responses to findings, West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 933.05 © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2023-24 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
June 13, 2024

OUTPLAYED:

Measure J, the City of Santa Clara, and the
San Francisco 49ers

Page 1 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................3 CONFLICTS ...............................................................................................................................5 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................6 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................8 History..........................................................................................................................................8 Measure J – The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act.9 Measure J Promise......................................................................................................................9 The City and the 49ers Establish New Entities to Carry Out Measure J............................10 The Agreements Anticipated by Measure J ...........................................................................12 Stadium Authority Revenue Potential Under Measure J .....................................................15 History of Audits and 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury Report about Measure J....................16 Good Neighbor or Litigious Partner .......................................................................................19 A Politicized Partner.................................................................................................................20 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................22 INVESTIGATION....................................................................................................................24 Major Tenets of Measure J ......................................................................................................24 The Climate of Deal-Making and Contract Negotiation.......................................................25 Property Tax Reassessment.....................................................................................................26 Measure J – New Jobs ..............................................................................................................29 Measure J – Taxpayer Protections..........................................................................................30 Measure J Promise on City Revenue: Missed Opportunities, Unfavorable Contracts......30 How the Money Flows and Does Not Flow to the Stadium Authority .................................32 The Problem with PSCs............................................................................................................37 The Problem with the Management Agreement....................................................................40 Lack of Financial Transparency..............................................................................................42 Stadium Authority’s Lack of Input on Non-NFL Bookings.................................................44 The Stadium Authority Does Not Hold ManCo Accountable for Successful Non-NFL Events.........................................................................................................................................46

Page 2 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority Failed to Ensure ManCo Staff is Incentivized to Prioritize Stadium Authority Success......................................................................................................................49 The Stadium Authority Fails to Exercise the Remaining Power it Has in the Management of the Stadium ...........................................................................................................................50 Management Agreement Termination, Litigation, and Settlements....................................51 Measure J Promise for City Revenue: The Problems with the Luxury Suites, Stadium Exclusive Areas, and Non-NFL Events...................................................................................55 The Stadium Authority Receipt of Non-NFL Ticket Surcharge “Exemptions”..................59 Measure J Promise to Generate City Revenue: The Problem with Buffet Costs ...............63 Community Promises Not Fulfilled.........................................................................................65 FIFA – World Cup Soccer 2026 ..............................................................................................66 Stadium Authority Staff...........................................................................................................67 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................69 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................70 REQUIRED RESPONSES.......................................................................................................75 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................76

Page 3 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Fixed Base Rent As stated in Measure J, the Ground Lease shall require the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to pay into the City of Santa Clara’s General Fund a fixed base rent totaling $40.875 million over 40 years.

Ground Lease The agreement between the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to lease the Stadium Site. The lease has an initial term of 40 years, with an extension option that could extend the term up to another 20 years.

Ground Rent The fixed base rent and performance-based rent are payable by the Santa Clara Stadium Authority to the City of Santa Clara under the Ground Lease.

JAMS United States–based for-profit organization of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services, including mediation and arbitration.

ManCo Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, an
affiliate of the Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC;
manages the Stadium’s operations and books non-NFL
events.

Measure J The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act passed by the voters of Santa Clara in June 2010. This measure modified the City of Santa Clara
Municipal Code, adopted a term sheet for the development and operations of the Stadium upon which future agreements would be based, and contemplated the creation of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

Naming Rights Agreement A sponsorship agreement that gives Levi Strauss & Co. the right to name the stadium Levi’s Stadium and sets the terms of the agreement.

Non-NFL Events Events such as concerts and sporting events that are held at the Stadium.

Page 4 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Santa Clara Stadium
Authority
A Joint Powers Authority and the managing entity of the Stadium contemplated by Measure J to construct and own
Levi’s Stadium while insulating the City of Santa Clara taxpayers from any financial liability deriving from Levi’s Stadium construction, maintenance, and operation.

StadCo Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC, an affiliate of the San Francisco 49ers NFL football team and the tenant of Levi’s Stadium.

Stadium Lease The agreement between the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and the Forty Niners SC Stadium Company LLC to lease
Levi’s Stadium. The lease has an initial term of 40 years, with an extension option that could extend the term up to another 20 years.

Stadium Management
Agreement
The contract between three entities: StadCo, ManCo, and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority that designates ManCo as the stadium manager for both the NFL and non-NFL seasons at Levi’s Stadium.

Page 5 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

CONFLICTS
Members of the Civil Grand Jury are conflicted from a Civil Grand Jury investigation if, as a result of prior or current employment or associations, investment in public or private enterprise, financial interest, bias, or personal relationship, they are subject to recusal from participating in a matter before the Civil Grand Jury. Two jurors recused themselves from this matter.

Page 6 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

SUMMARY
Levi’s Stadium’s (Stadium) inaugural game, the San Jose Earthquakes versus the Seattle Sounders FC, was played on August 2, 2014. Within a year, the Stadium’s home team, the San Francisco 49ers Football Company LLC (the 49ers), had upset locals over their failure to follow up on promises made to the Santa Clara Youth Soccer League, which had an existing control over fields adjacent to the newly built Stadium and coveted by the 49ers for VIP parking. Since then, there have been dozens of disputes and court actions, including lawsuits and counterclaims between the various 49ers entities and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority) over management of the Stadium and money.

Furthermore, 49ers entities have inserted themselves into the local political landscape; 49erfunded independent expenditure campaign contributions for the last two election cycles in the City of Santa Clara (City) totaled over $7.5 million. This has led to divisiveness, distrust, and rancor among City leaders and garnered distrust from the residents.

In 2010, City voters passed Measure J, which brought the $1.3 billion Stadium to the City. As presented to voters, the Stadium would deliver significant economic benefits to the City and its residents. The campaign painted a picture of the Stadium as a safe but lucrative investment for the City, which would benefit the community by providing much-needed funding for libraries, schools, and senior and youth programs, and be a multi-use community facility that could be used for civic events. A decade after the Stadium opened, however, the results are mixed.

As promised by Measure J, the City’s General Fund has been protected, Stadium debt has been paid down, and reserves have been funded more quickly than originally planned. But the revenues that were promised to the City, which were actually quite modest at about 1% of the City budget, have been hard won.

The revenue calculations are extremely complicated and contingent upon many factors; the financial structure ensures that the City is the last to get its cut of profits. The public safety costs (PSCs) for National Football League (NFL) events were wildly underestimated and have soared, resulting in less revenue for the City. The contracts and agreements are also very complex and heavily skewed in favor of the 49ers. Most importantly, there is no incentive for the Stadium management company, which is a 49er affiliate, to increase non-NFL revenue for the Stadium Authority and, unlike for any other employee in any other circumstance, there are no consequences if non-NFL events are not successful and do not make a profit.

Additionally, the 49ers have been litigious, fighting the Stadium Authority and the City at every turn, over transparency and financial issues. And although the 49ers occupy the Stadium year-

Page 7 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
round, notably through their exclusive ownership of luxury suites, restaurant space, a team merchandise store, and other commercial areas, they won a lawsuit to decrease their property tax bill to only cover the six-month NFL season, to the detriment of the Santa Clara Unified School District.

The Stadium Authority Board/City Council, both past and present, have compounded the issues by 1) allowing changes to the already 49er-friendly terms in Measure J to be adjusted in the Stadium’s legal agreements to further and materially benefit the 49ers; 2) giving away what little leverage and control they did have in settlement agreements; and 3) relinquishing its power to the 49ers over the last decade. By taking a passive role in its oversight duties, the Board has undermined Stadium Authority staff.

For this report, the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) took the unprecedented step of hiring expert consultants, to better understand the complexities of the various contracts and to gain transparency into the financial documents of the publicly owned Stadium.

Page 8 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

BACKGROUND
The Stadium is a 1.85 million-square-foot venue, seating approximately 70,000, and sits on public land on the north side of the City. The publicly owned Stadium, which opened in August 2014, cost over $1.3 billion and was built through a public-private partnership between the City and the 49ers. The Stadium is home to the San Francisco 49ers; valued at $6 billion, the team is ranked the ninth-most-valuable team in the NFL franchise, and the fourteenth-most-valuable professional sports team in the world (Lu, 2024).

History
In the 1990s, three major Bay Area sports teams–the 49ers, the San Francisco Giants (Giants), and the Oakland Athletics (A’s)–were looking for new homes. The 49ers and Giants needed to replace the aging Candlestick Park, and the A’s were facing an expiring lease in the City of Oakland. City and County of Santa Clara (County) civic leaders and residents wanted to elevate Silicon Valley’s visibility and marketability. They envisioned enticing a major professional sports team with the promise of a new stadium.

In November 1990, County residents saw three propositions on the ballot. Two were Countywide; one was for City residents only. If passed together, the three measures would have brought the Giants to the City. But County residents were wary of the costs associated with a stadium, and the two County-wide measures failed. The City-only third measure, Proposition N, passed 51% to 49% and allowed the use of 98 acres of City-owned land between Great America Parkway and the Guadalupe River for a stadium (Associated Press, 1990). The stage was set for a stadium to come to the City.

The day after the vote, the Los Angeles Times reported that the 49ers would like to “build a multipurpose stadium with private funds in Santa Clara” (Newhan, 1990). The 49ers had been training in the City since 1979 and established a headquarters there in 1988; nevertheless, after the November 1990 vote, they spent a decade trying to work out a deal for a new stadium in San Francisco and were repeatedly rejected by San Francisco voters (Simers, 1997).

In November 2006, the 49ers formally announced their intent to build a football stadium in the City (City of Santa Clara, April 2, 2024). The City started negotiations with the 49ers in 2007 to develop a term sheet that would outline the complicated relationships between the City and the 49ers.

Page 9 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Measure J – The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act
The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act (Measure J) was passed with a 58.2% majority vote in June 2010. The measure amended the City Charter, the legal document that defines the City's government structure, and created a joint powers authority, a separate legal entity known as the Stadium Authority. The ballot question asked:

Shall the City of Santa Clara adopt Ordinance 17.20 leasing City property for a professional football stadium and other events; no use of City General or Enterprise funds for construction; no new taxes for residents for stadium; Redevelopment Agency funds capped for construction; private party pays all construction cost overruns; no City/Agency obligation for stadium operating/maintenance; private party payment of projected fair market rent; and additional funds for senior/youth/library/recreation to City’s General Fund? (City of Santa Clara, 2010)
The complete text of Measure J consisted of 25 pages (including a non-binding term sheet) and made many projections and promises about benefits and costs to the City and residents. Measure J described the parameters of the proposal for the Stadium’s development and construction, and outlined the relationship between the City, the Stadium Authority, and the 49ers.

Ultimately, the City would lease public land to the newly created Stadium Authority and the Stadium Authority would lease the custom-built Stadium to a private tenant. This tenant would, in turn, lease to the team(s) (Measure J at Section 17.20.030, Section 8, 2010). Measure J stipulated that up to two professional football teams could use the Stadium as a home. Notably, Measure J stated that after it passed, it could only be amended by City voters, and promised that voters would maintain control over any proposed future changes.

Measure J Promise
Measure J promised voters that the Stadium would:
• Generate new revenue for the City and “further the City’s goal of creating an entertainment destination in the Bayshore North Redevelopment Project Area [to] provide a long-term revenue stream to the City” (Measure J at Section 2.A.1, 2010). • Create thousands of new jobs in the City and the surrounding area, which would “generate tens of millions of dollars in new annual economic activity” for local businesses and the Santa Clara Convention Center (Convention Center). In addition, it would “encourage the creation of new businesses in the area” (Measure J at Section

2.A.2, 2010).

Page 10 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
• Provide taxpayer protections by safeguarding the City’s general and enterprise funds. As the owner of the land, the City would “receive payment into the City’s general fund of fixed base rent and performance-based rent that together [were] projected to provide fair market rent” (Measure J at Section 2.A.3, 2010).
• Generate community funding by adding a fee “to the price of tickets for certain stadium events to secure additional funding for libraries, senior activities and [City operated] youth sports programs;” provide substantial new revenue, based on increased property taxes for the Stadium, for the Santa Clara Unified School District (Measure J at Section

2.A.4, 2010); and provide for the scheduling of “Civic Events” with the “provision of meeting space in the Stadium for community groups and non-profits” (Measure J at Section 13.6).

The City and the 49ers Establish New Entities to Carry Out Measure J Measure J also outlined specifics about how agreements among the various parties – City, Stadium Authority, private tenant (i.e., 49ers), and the management company (i.e., ManCo) – would be implemented to achieve the promise of Measure J. As an initial matter, both the City and the 49ers had to establish new entities.

Stadium Authority
In accordance with Measure J, and after its passing, the City and the now-defunct Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clara entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) to create the Stadium Authority as a “separate and distinct legal entity” from the City. The Stadium Authority would build, own, and operate the Stadium, thereby ensuring the City would not be liable for the debts or obligations of the Stadium Authority (Measure J at Section 2.B.2, 2010).

The Mayor and Councilmembers serve as the governing Board of the Stadium Authority and as the Santa Clara City Council (Council). Officers of the Stadium Authority include the City Manager, serving as the Executive Director; the City Attorney, serving as General Counsel; the City Finance Director, serving as Treasurer; the Assistant City Clerk, serving as Secretary; and an Auditor. The Board directs policy, and it is the responsibility of the officers to implement that policy. Since the Stadium Authority’s inception, the officers and their support staff have divided their time between City business and Stadium business. The elected Councilmembers function as both a City Council and as the Stadium Board, the meeting agendas are divided to accommodate the differing Council and Board roles. Therefore, Stadium business that requires Board direction is presented by City staff to the Board at public Council meetings; this includes quarterly Stadium Authority Financial Status Reports (Measure J at Article 2, Section 2.1, 2010).

Page 11 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Stated Board pillars are to “ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium” and to “enhance Community Engagement and Transparency” (City of Santa Clara, April 19, 2024). Additionally, the City’s website lists some examples of Stadium Authority functions as:
• Leasing the land from the City.
• Owning the Stadium.
• Financing contracts.
• Stadium Builder License (SBL) sales.
• Sale of Naming Rights.
• Leasing the Stadium.
• Managing day-to-day Stadium operations and the surrounding areas for football games and other Stadium events.

The creation of the Stadium Authority was meant to insulate and financially protect the City and public dollars. But as a sports economist noted in a Los Angeles Times article, the creation of the joint powers authority served another purpose as well:

In Santa Clara ... Goldman’s [Sachs] plan was to create a public authority to build and own the stadium, using the proceeds of a construction loan raised from private investors.

The loan would be paid back using revenue from sponsorships, high-end seating and nonNFL events at the stadium and, in a two-team stadium ... using as much as $800 million in personal seat licenses — upfront payments that allow fans to buy season tickets.

The structure of the deal would also save both teams a lot of money in the long run, said John Vrooman, a sports economist at Vanderbilt University. Using a tax-exempt public authority to sell personal seat licenses and sponsorships allows the teams to avoid many taxes on those sales, saving them tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars, Vrooman said. The teams would also avoid property taxes on the building, though they would pay rent and other local taxes on the private use of a public facility.

Public agency bonds for the stadium would be tax exempt and sell at lower interest rates. “Goldman Sachs’ job is to use, if not disguise, every public funding tax shelter and loophole,” Vrooman said. (Logan, 2015)
49ers New Entities
The 49ers created two entities that would be the main parties to all contract negotiations following the passing of Measure J: StadCo and ManCo.

As detailed in Measure J, it was expected that the Stadium would have a “Private Tenant,” which was the Measure J term to describe the 49ers affiliate that would occupy the Stadium. Thus, the 49ers formed the Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC (StadCo) to ultimately act as the Stadium’s tenant. While Measure J used the term “Private Tenant” to describe the entity that

Page 12 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
later would be known as StadCo, for clarity purposes, the Civil Grand Jury will use the term StadCo, not Private Tenant, in this report.

Measure J stated that the Stadium Authority could contract with a stadium management company after consulting with StadCo (Measure J at Article 8, Section 8.1.(a)). In anticipation of being selected as the stadium's management company, the 49ers also established the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC (ManCo).

Figure 1 below illustrates the relationships between the City, Stadium Authority, ManCo, and StadCo.

Figure 1: City/Stadium Authority Flowchart (Santa Clara Stadium Authority, 2020) The Agreements Anticipated by Measure J
Ground Lease: The City and the Stadium Authority Enter into a Ground Lease for the Fair Market Value of the Public Land
Approved by Measure J, the City leased the land on which the Stadium would be built. The Ground Lease between the City and the Stadium Authority would have an initial term of 40 years, and construction of the Stadium could not begin unless a private tenant (the 49ers) had entered into a lease with the Stadium Authority for the Stadium. Additionally, Measure J required that the Ground Lease provide for the use of the Stadium as the home for one or two professional football teams.

Page 13 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority would pay the City a fixed base rent totaling $40.875 million over the 40-year term. Beginning in the 11th year of Stadium operations (fiscal year 2024-25), the fixed rent to the City’s General Fund would be $1 million per year. If a second professional football team made a long-term commitment to use the Stadium for home games, the minimum annual fixed base rent would increase by $1 million (Measure J at Section 17.20.020(e,f), 2010).

In addition to fixed base rent, Measure J promised that the Ground Lease would require the Stadium Authority to pay performance-based rent (Performance Rent) into the City’s General Fund. The Performance Rent, along with the fixed base rent, would provide fair market value rent to the City as determined by the City Council (Measure J at Section 17.20.020(g), 2010).

As anticipated by Measure J, on March 28, 2012, the City and the Stadium Authority entered into the Ground Lease. This lease allowed City-owned real estate to be used as the site for a Stadium suitable for the exhibition of professional football games and other events.

Stadium Lease: Stadium Authority Enters into a Stadium Lease with StadCo Per Measure J, the Stadium Lease (referred to as “Private Tenant Lease” in the measure) would require StadCo to pay rent to the Stadium Authority to provide them with the required funds to pay both the Ground Rent, to the City, and the operating and maintenance expenses of the Stadium (Measure J at Section 17.20.020(k)). The operating and maintenance expenses would include “without limitation, day-to-day expenses of operating and maintaining the Stadium, deposits to a reserve for capital improvements and reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by the City in providing public safety and traffic management related to NFL Events and nonNFL Events” (Measure J at Section 17.20.020(l), 2010). Expenses for events conducted by the City or the Stadium Authority that were not approved by StadCo would not be included.

On March 28, 2012, the Stadium Authority and StadCo entered into the Stadium Lease. The initial term for the lease is 40 years with an option to extend. The lease year is defined as two distinct seasons: a “Tenant Season” and a “Stadium Authority Season.” The 49ers' existing Ground Lease for its 11-acre headquarters and training facility located at 4949 Centennial Boulevard (now identified as 4949 Marie P. DeBartolo Way) would be extended to be coterminous with the Stadium Lease (Measure J at Section 17.3, 2010). That feature of Measure J was executed on March 12, 2012, when the City Council approved an amended Lease Agreement extending the lease to 2042, with additional options that would allow the term to extend to 2074. In 2009, rent for the 11-acre facility was $25,317. In 2012, the annual rent was $28,196 and per the agreement, the rent would increase 4% annually (City of Santa Clara, 2012).

Page 14 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Management Agreement: Agreement Between Stadium Authority and Unspecified Management Company
Measure J stated that the Stadium Authority would be responsible for the management and operation of the Stadium for NFL events, non-NFL events, and Civic Events (Measure J at Section 8.1, 2010). The Measure further stated that StadCo was expected to cooperate with the Stadium Authority in the operation of the Stadium. In that regard, Measure J noted that “certain operational standards would be negotiated by the Parties and will be set forth in a mutually agreed operation and maintenance plan for the Stadium designed to achieve a safe and wellmaintained Stadium.” The Stadium Operation and Maintenance Plan and a Capital Expenditure Plan are required to be adopted annually by the Stadium Authority, subject to the mutual approval of the Stadium Authority and StadCo (Measure J at Article 8, Section 8.1, 2010).

Unlike the Stadium Lease, Measure J itself does not anticipate the Stadium will be operated by a 49ers affiliate. Measure J simply provides that the Stadium Authority “may [emphasis added], after consultation with 49ers Stadium Company, contract with a Stadium management firm to oversee the day-to-day operations of the Stadium. The Parties will identify a mutually acceptable process for selecting the management firm” (Measure J at Article 8, Section 8.1(a), 2010).

Ultimately, the Stadium Authority, StadCo, and ManCo reached a management agreement for the operations of the Stadium. The Stadium Management Agreement (Management Agreement), effective March 28, 2012, is a three-way agreement between the Stadium Authority, StadCo, and ManCo. The agreement stated that ManCo had been selected by StadCo and the Stadium Authority to manage and operate the Stadium in accordance with the Stadium Lease for both the tenant during the NFL season and the Stadium Authority during the non-NFL season. The Stadium Authority also selected ManCo to handle the marketing and booking of the Stadium Authority-owned non-NFL events. Four amendments were made to this original agreement, with the final amendment dated March 18, 2014.

Figure 2 below provides an overview of the Stadium-related agreements and leases created as a result of Measure J.

Page 15 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Figure 2: Overview of Stadium-Related Leases and Agreements (City of Santa Clara, Agenda Report, 2017)
All Stadium-related leases and agreements can be found online.

Stadium Authority Revenue Potential Under Measure J
Per Measure J, the Stadium Authority would receive Stadium Operating Revenues listed as follows:
• NFL Ticket surcharges, of an unspecified amount, not needed for debt service payment, or other financing costs (Measure J at Section 7.3(c), 2010). • Annual proceeds from the City Senior and Youth Program Fee, which could not exceed $250,000 per year (Measure J at Section 7.3(c), 2010).
• Naming rights revenue not needed for debt service or other financing costs (Measure J at Section 7.3(b), 2010).

Page 16 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
• SBL sales, financing, and transfer revenue, excluding what would be needed to pay the initial development costs of the Stadium (Measure J at Section 7.3(a), 2010). • Community Facilities District hotel tax amounts not needed for debt service and bonds financing (Measure J at Section 7.5, 2010).
• Facility Rent payable by StadCo amounting to $5 million plus all net operating expenses, currently at $24.8 million (Measure J at Section 5.3, 2010). • Parking revenue: “All net revenues from the operation of surface lots or in parking structures owned or controlled by the Stadium Authority and revenue sharing or parking surcharge revenues generated from contracts with private parking lots in the vicinity of the Stadium, excluding Team Revenue” (Measure J at Section 10.7, 2010). • Concession revenue, which would include all net revenues from concessionaires authorized by the Stadium Authority to sell food, beverages, and other goods in the Stadium or on parking lots or structures owned or controlled by the Stadium Authority.

Stadium Authority concession revenue does not include Team Revenue. (Measure J at Section 10.8, 2010).
• Third-party rent from the lease of other leasable space in the Stadium excluding any and all space occupied or controlled by StadCo or the Team (Measure J at Section 10.9, 2010).
• Non-NFL Events revenue would include net revenue received from the promoter or other sponsor for the use of the Stadium (Measure J at Section 10.10, 2010). • Non-NFL Event advertising revenue from transient electronic advertising on designated areas of the Stadium scoreboards during non-NFL Events with the stipulation that advertising would not conflict with advertising contracts that the Team(s) or StadCo had (Measure J at Section 10.11, 2010).

Team Revenue
Measure J defined Team Revenue as belonging to StadCo, the Team, any second Team, or their affiliates. Team revenue is made up of NFL Events Revenue, NFL media advertising and Sponsorship Revenue, and all other NFL-related revenue from NFL operations, whether or not occurring at the Stadium. Team Revenue also includes all revenue from retail activities associated with the 49ers Team Store (Measure J at Section 11.1, 2010).

History of Audits and 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury Report about Measure J Over the last decade, there have been many disputes over the accuracy and completeness of the financial records supplied by ManCo and StadCo and the Stadium Authority’s adherence to Measure J. Consequently, the Stadium Authority has initiated multiple independent audits in addition to mandated annual financial audits.

Page 17 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Annual Financial Audits
The Stadium Authority undergoes a series of annual financial audits that are reviewed by the Council/Board and publicly presented at their meetings (City of Santa Clara, 2019). These audits are completed by KPMG LLP, an independent audit firm, and focus on the financial statements of the Stadium Authority. Overall audit reports have indicated that the Stadium Authority’s financial statements are in compliance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and fairly present the financial situation of the Stadium Authority. KPMG LLP reports do not make any determination about the quality of financial information provided to the Stadium Authority by ManCo or StadCo.
2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury Report
The 2015-2016 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released a report titled “The City of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Levi’s Stadium, and Measure J.” The report recommended that the Stadium Authority conduct an audit of Stadium operations to ensure compliance with the 2010 voter-approved Measure J. The Board agreed with all the recommendations in the report and, in 2016, approved a Measure J compliance audit. 2017 Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC Measure J Compliance Audit In 2017, the audit firm of Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC completed a forensic audit (an examination and evaluation of a firm’s financial records) to evaluate compliance with Measure J. The final audit report, hereinafter referred to as the Harvey Rose Audit issued August 21, 2017, included 37 recommendations to improve transparency and management of the Stadium (City of Santa Clara, August 24, 2017). The Harvey Rose Audit came with the following disclaimer:

One of the objectives of this audit, review of non-NFL event revenues and expenses, could not be conducted as originally anticipated. Further, a number of other revenue and expense items could not be reviewed and reported on because the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company (ManCo), the company under contract with the Stadium Authority and the Stadium Management Company to manage the Stadium, would not allow the audit team to review and report on their records for non-NFL events or parking revenue without signing a non-disclosure agreement that would have prohibited presentation of information from those records in a public document such as this audit report. We did not sign such an agreement and, after that request was made, we did not review or analyze any records maintained by ManCo or include their contents in this report.

Ultimately, the Board voted 6-to-1 to accept the Harvey Rose Audit and its recommendations to improve billing, invoicing, financial transparency, and other such processes so that the Stadium Authority could plan and expect income from these activities.

Page 18 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
J.S. Held Forensic Audit of non-NFL events at the Stadium, fiscal years 2015-2018 In 2018, the Stadium Authority noted that various documentation provided by ManCo did not appear to reconcile. Specifically, the year-end non-NFL event income for fiscal years 2015-2018 did not equal the sum of non-NFL income from each individual event. The Stadium Authority engaged audit firm J.S. Held to determine the reasons for the differences and whether the nonNFL event revenue reported by ManCo was supported by their documentation. The results of this forensic audit were presented to the Stadium Authority by Timothy Gillihan, a certified public accountant with J.S. Held in December 2020. “We are not saying the results are inaccurate nor are we saying they are accurate, but from an accounting standpoint, we are unable to say whether or not they are accurate because the underlying supporting documents are not sufficient,” Gillihan said (City of Santa Clara, 2020).

The report continued:

The records were not adequate for making this determination because many of the documents provided by ManCo were not actual source records but were instead summary reports, with limited to no inputs that explain the summarized data, that appear to have been prepared by ManCo. Without the underlying source records or knowledge of the underlying inputs used for calculations, JSH cannot determine if the summaries were accurately prepared. This step of verifying financial data with the underlying source records is a basic step in accounting to confirm the accuracy of financial information (J.S.

Held, 2020).

The Board voted unanimously to accept the report and extend the contract with J.S. Held to dive deeper into the 2016 financials and begin looking into 2018, 2019, and 2020.

J.S. Held Forensic audit of non-NFL events at the Stadium, fiscal years 2018-2020 J.S. Held attempted to continue their forensic audit of ManCo records in 2020. The final report was presented to the Board on Tuesday, September 26, 2023. Auditor Timothy Gillihan again told the Board that ManCo failed to provide sufficient records to make the audit report as substantive as he would have liked. Despite having a good working relationship with ManCo during the audit for the first three years, Gillihan told the Board that ManCo started freezing his firm out beginning in September 2020. After a letter from ManCo’s lawyer accused the firm of being a “Trojan horse” designed to garner information for the City regarding lawsuits the two are embroiled in, he said communication halted (City of Santa Clara, 2023).

The Board eventually voted 4-to-3 to accept the report and then passed a second motion via a 5- to-2 vote to have City employees return with a clear scope of work for years 2020 through 2023 and a better understanding of ManCo’s willingness to provide the needed documents for all years studied.

Page 19 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Good Neighbor or Litigious Partner
The Court record reflects numerous legal actions, including notices of breach, lawsuits, arbitrations, and settlements between the 49er entities, the Stadium Authority, and the City over the last decade. A dispute over the use of the Youth Soccer Fields, which are adjacent to the Stadium and the 49ers’ headquarters, appears to have been an inflection point and forecasted the difficult relationship to come between the 49ers and the City.

Rent Re-set Arbitration
In March 2016, the 49ers requested a rent reduction of $4.25 million from the Stadium Authority (City of Santa Clara, 2018). This proposed reduction would reduce the 49ers' annual rent from $24.5 million to $20.25 million per year. The Board unanimously refused the request and the 49ers started legal proceedings. On August 12, 2018, after the matter had been sent to arbitration, the 49ers’ litigation failed. In addition to siding with the Stadium Authority, the arbitrator found that the 49ers owed approximately $262,000 more per year. The Stadium Authority also received back pay for rental payments, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs (City of Santa Clara, 2018).

Many regard this as the beginning of the contentious relationship between the Stadium Authority and the 49ers.

Stadium Management Disputes and Litigation
The myriad lawsuits fall into multiple categories. There have been disputes over ancillary items such as parking, contract interpretation, and rent. But primarily, there have been disputes over ManCo’s management of the Stadium and the financial performance of non-NFL events. As a public entity, the Stadium Authority needs to follow many requirements, including prevailing wage laws, procurement requirements, and transparency. ManCo struggled to understand this.

The complicated history of the disputes, claims, and counterclaims shows that in the beginning, as the Stadium Authority attempted to hold ManCo accountable, the 49ers would escalate and respond with lawsuits. The fact that ManCo is part of the 49ers umbrella organization complicated things immensely as is more fully discussed in the “Investigation” section of this report.

An overview of the major disputes since the Stadium opened is shown below in Figure 3. “The 49ers probably lead the league in their aggressiveness in dealing with Santa Clara.

I’ve never seen anyone fight as hard as many times as the 49ers.” - Roger Noll, Stanford Economics Professor (quoted in Williams and Kroichick, 2023)

Page 20 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Figure 3: Summary of disputes involving the 49ers
A Politicized Partner
Since Measure J went on the ballot, the 49ers have been actively involved in the local political landscape. In addition to spending $4.5 million to pass Measure J, which was estimated at the time to be $300 per needed vote, the 49ers have created numerous independent Political Action Committees (PACs) (Mintz, August 2, 2010; Killion, 2010). Most of the PACs have been in support of the political campaigns of City Councilmembers who have been referred to by media outlets as the “49er Five,” and against their opponents and the current Mayor. In addition to supporting candidates, the 49ers were also involved in the City’s recent redistricting battle.

However, the 49ers’ involvement went beyond supporting candidates and elected officials.

During the 2022 election cycle, 49ers PAC campaign postcard mailers included an attack of the then-City Manager/Stadium Authority Executive Director and her salary, in spite of the fact that she had already been fired by the Councilmembers who had benefited from 49ers PACs. Her firing had come immediately after a Council meeting during which she criticized the 49ers (Williams and Kroichick, 2022).

Page 21 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Although the City has averaged only approximately 46,000 to 58,000 registered voters between 2010 and 2024, the 49ers have invested enormous amounts of money in recent election cycles:
• March 2020 election: Over $600,000.
• November 2020 election: $2.9 million.
• November 2022 election: Over $4.5 million (City of Santa Clara, “Past Election Information and Results,” 2024).

Examples of PACs created by the 49ers can be found on the City’s Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure and Lobbyist Filings and include but are not limited to the following (City of Santa Clara, 2024):
• No on C – Santa Clarans for Voting Rights, a coalition of community and civic org. and ind., sponsored by John Edward (Jed) York & Affiliated Entities, including the Forty Niners Football Company LLC, 2020 (I.D. Number 1424766). • Citizens for Efficient Government & Full Voting Rights, supporting Bhatia, Park, Jain & Becker & opposing Watanabe, O’Neill, O’Keefe & Mezzetti – City Council 2020, sponsored by John Edward (Jed) York, 2021 (I.D. Number 1432043). • Santa Clara Community Leaders Supporting Anthony Becker for Mayor 2022, sponsored by and major funding from DeBartolo Corporation & Affiliated Entities, including Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, 2022, 2023 (I.D. Number 1453491). • Frustrated Santa Clarans Opposing Gillmor for Mayor 2022, sponsored by DeBartolo Corp. & Affiliated Entities, including 49ers Football Company, LLC, 2022, 2023 (I.D.

Number 1453887).
• Santa Clara Neighbors Supporting Karen Hardy for City Council District 3 2022, sponsored by and major funding from DeBartolo Corp. & Affiliated entities, including 49ers Football Co., LLC, 2022, 2023 (I.D. Number 1453502). • Santa Clara Neighbors Supporting Raj Chahal for City Council District 2 2022 sponsored by and major funding from DeBartolo Corp. & Affiliated Entities, including 49ers Football Co., LLC, 2022, 2023 (I.D. Number 1453495).
• Concerned Citizens Opposing Larry McColloch for City Council District 2 2022, sponsored by DeBartolo Corp. & Affiliated Entities, including 49ers Football Co. LLC, 2022, 2023 (I.D. Number 1454751).
• Concerned Citizens Opposing Christian Pellecchia for City Council District 3 2022, sponsored by DeBartolo Corp. & Affiliated Entities, including 49ers Football Co. LLC, 2022, 2023 (I.D. Number 1454122).

The website is clickable and searchable.

Page 22 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

METHODOLOGY
When the Civil Grand Jury decided to pursue this investigation, StadCo and ManCo already had a long history of not providing the City and Stadium Authority with relevant documents. The lack of cooperation had impeded the City and Stadium Authority auditors from conducting complete audits on several occasions. Although ManCo works for the Stadium Authority, and the contract between the parties gives the Stadium Authority the right to access financial documents and conduct an audit, the Board has historically been unable and unwilling to hold ManCo accountable for providing documentation to auditors.

Unlike the Stadium Authority, the Civil Grand Jury enjoys subpoena power to obtain documents from StadCo and ManCo (Pen. Code § 939.2). Further, under Penal Code section 926, a Civil Grand Jury may hire experts. When the Civil Grand Jury undertook this investigation, it was understood that the legal and financial relationships among the parties were very complex. Due to the complexity of the Stadium contracts, the Civil Grand Jury took the unprecedented step of hiring Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc. (Grand Jury Expert) as an expert consultant to assist the Civil Grand Jury in its investigation. The Grand Jury Expert is a management consulting and auditing service firm with expertise in performance audits, internal audits, management consulting services, and customized training involving nearly every area of state and local government.

The Civil Grand Jury subpoenaed thousands of financial and Stadium-related documents that were previously unavailable to the Stadium Authority auditors due to the lack of cooperation from both ManCo and StadCo. The Civil Grand Jury utilized the Grand Jury Expert to help it analyze the impact of the documents. The Grand Jury Expert helped the Civil Grand Jury reach various findings and recommendations, which are contained throughout this report.

Overall, the Civil Grand Jury and the Grand Jury Expert conducted, either together or separately, more than 55 interviews with City and Stadium Authority employees and officials, as well as with representatives from the 49ers, and watched video recordings of Council meetings from January 2019 to May 2024.

Additionally, the Civil Grand Jury and/or the Grand Jury Expert read and reviewed a vast array of documents including the following key items:
• Measure J.
• The Stadium Lease.
• The Naming Rights Agreement.
• The Management Agreement.
• Various Stadium Authority financial documents.

Page 23 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
• The Annual Stadium Authority Operations Budgets and Annual Stadium Authority Budgets.
• Policies and procedures in use guiding budgeting, accounting, contracting, procurement processes, and activities.
• Budget calendars.
• Financial Accounting records for the Stadium Authority, StadCo, and ManCo. • Public safety costs.
• Extensive financial materials related to non-NFL events. • Marketing materials.
• FIFA-related materials (agreements, host agreement, etc.) • Parking agreements.
• Data.
• Food and buffet costs.
• Information related to the community room.
• Naming rights materials.
• Concessioner contracts and related materials.
• Various auditing materials.

The Civil Grand Jury used these sources of information to analyze facts and develop findings and recommendations for this report.

Page 24 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

INVESTIGATION
There have been questions and complaints from civic leaders, City staff, and residents about the Stadium for years. The Civil Grand Jury watched hundreds of hours of Council meetings which have spotlighted the concerns about the presence of the Stadium, its management, and the complex and unequal relationship between the City, the Stadium Authority, and the various 49er entities.

Complaints about the Stadium and the 49er entities include accusations of a failure to comply with Measure J; mismanagement of the Stadium by ManCo and its failure to adhere to municipal laws; ManCo’s lack of transparency and nebulous accounting practices; a lack of revenue into the City’s General Fund; the 49ers involvement in local politics; and even accusations of unethical behavior and corruption of City Councilmembers in their dealings with the Stadium and the 49ers. The contentious relationship between the City, the Stadium Authority, and the 49ers has made national headlines, which have dubbed certain Councilmembers the “49er Five” and referred to the City as a “Company Town” and/or “Yorkville” (Gardiner, 2022).

The Civil Grand Jury felt compelled to attempt to unpack these important issues on behalf of the constituents of the City and County. For more than a year, the Civil Grand Jury has investigated these concerns, and, with the assistance of the Grand Jury Expert, the Civil Grand Jury has uncovered the following information.

Major Tenets of Measure J
The major tenets of Measure J were to protect and insulate the City from any negative economic impact from the Stadium, thereby protecting the City’s General Fund; to create an independent public entity that would be responsible for all aspects of management of the Stadium; and to bring revenue to the City, with a specific focus on development in the Northside, schools, libraries, and youth and senior programs.

Measure J itself is a legal promise to the voters. The details and nature of how a citizen or taxpayer can enforce any failures to implement a ballot measure promise involve many complexities and go beyond the scope of this report. Nevertheless, this report details many of the various agreements that have been reached to bring about the Stadium and its operation and the problems with those agreements. The Civil Grand Jury believes it is important to mention that the Stadium’s origin and existence began with the 49er-backed initiative because voters were made certain promises outlined in Measure J.

Page 25 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Climate of Deal-Making and Contract Negotiation
The Civil Grand Jury heard repeatedly that during the negotiation process, the City’s primary concern was protecting the City’s General Fund and not ending up in the same situation as other cities that had built stadiums for major sports teams and lost public money. City staff members worried about the political dangers of bringing such a big entity to a small city, but they also believed the long-term revenue projections were optimistic and that they would be able to insulate the City.

However, the mostly eager City Council gave the upper hand to the 49ers from the beginning.

At a December 15, 2009, City Council meeting, the City Council voted to put its own ballot measure on hold to allow a “citizen-sponsored” Stadium initiative written and funded by the 49ers to move forward. A qualifying initiative requiring voter signatures guaranteed that the Stadium measure would be on the June 8, 2010, ballot and less likely to be challenged. If the measure had been put on the ballot solely by a City Council vote, the measure could have been subject to potential legal challenges and delayed (Mintz, 2009). In addition to writing the initiative and funding the collection of signatures by “Santa Clarans for Economic Progress,” the 49ers spent $4.5 million to make sure it passed (Mintz, August 2, 2010).

The Civil Grand Jury learned that some things were non-negotiables for the 49ers from the start.

Specifically (a) they would not change their name from the “San Francisco 49ers” to the “Santa Clara 49ers,” (b) the lucrative luxury suites would be owned by the 49ers and all revenue from the suites for both NFL and non-NFL events would belong to the 49ers, (c) a 49er company would manage the Stadium year-round, and (d) all advertising media revenue would belong to the 49ers, except the Naming Rights revenue.

After Measure J passed, City staff began negotiating the key agreements that would define the relationships between the Stadium Authority, the 49ers, StadCo, and ManCo for the next 40 years. These key agreements were the Ground Lease; the Stadium Lease, which included the terms for the SBLs; the Naming Rights Agreement; and the Management Agreement. City staff had recognized during the term sheet negotiations that the 49ers did not want the Stadium on their balance sheet. To that end, the Stadium was leased to the 49ers. This allowed the 49ers to Finding 1: From the beginning, the City was impatient and overmatched in its negotiation posture with the 49ers to the long-term detriment of the City/Stadium Authority.

Page 26 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
reduce taxes by keeping the Stadium asset off their balance sheet and by keeping large income streams, such as from the sale of SBLs and Stadium Naming Rights, off their income statement.

Using the 49ers as the management company concerned City staff at the time, who recognized it was a conflict of interest for the 49ers to simultaneously be a tenant and a property manager; but the City had used the now defunct local Chamber of Commerce for decades as the manager of the Convention Center, which was also considered a conflict. That arrangement made management of the Stadium by the 49ers more palatable to the City Council. In retrospect, overlooking this conflict of interest was a major negotiating mistake.

Overall, City staff would spend the years 2007-2013 negotiating complex terms, contracts, and amendments to those contracts with the 49ers. During that time, as many as three days per week of City staff time were devoted exclusively to these negotiations. The Civil Grand Jury learned that after so many years of negotiating, the City Council was frustrated and impatient to finalize the Stadium’s legal agreements, ultimately allowing themselves to be outmaneuvered by the 49ers on some key terms discussed below.

Property Tax Reassessment
While Property Tax does not affect Stadium Authority revenues or the General Fund directly, Measure J did state that in addition to providing funding for libraries, senior activities, and youth sports, the Stadium would “also provide substantial new revenue for the Santa Clara Unified School District” (SCUSD) (Measure J at Section 2.A.4, 2010).

Nevertheless, one of the best examples of the sophistication of the 49ers contract bargaining position is regarding property taxes, or possessory interest taxes, for the Stadium. Property tax assessment for the Stadium is explained as follows:

California’s property tax system assesses all property at its full value. (Cal. Const., art.

XIII, g 1; Rev. & Tax. Code, $ 401.) Full value is the cash price that the property would bring on the open market, assuming neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other, i.e., fair market value. Newly constructed property is assessed at its fair market value as of the date of completion and upon a change in ownership, with increases otherwise limited to two percent per year. While publicly owned property is generally either immune or exempt from taxation, private possessory rights in public property are subject to taxation…
Possessory interests in public property encompass a wide array of rights, including concessions, leases, airport permits, air rights, and mining rights. Taxation of possessory interests places rights holders in public property on equal competitive footing with rights holders in private, taxable property, who pay rent or contract prices informed by the

Page 27 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
owner’s property tax. And, in doing so, taxation of possessory interests fulfills the constitutional mandate that all owners of non-exempt property pay their fair share of the property taxes funding provision of local, public services. (County of Santa Clara et al. vs. Santa Clara County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 19-CV-347946)
The 49ers and the Stadium Authority share year-round Stadium expenses. There is an exception per Article 4.3.1 of the Stadium Lease, in that some of the most valuable sections of the Stadium are designated as exclusive “areas” and are reserved for year-round use by the 49ers. These include the 49ers museum, all commercial areas (restaurants and team store), an owner’s club and team suite, the locker rooms and training spaces, an auditorium, an audio/visual hub, and, most valuable of all, the suite tower and all 174 suites. The contract also gives the 49ers yearround rights to lease the commercial areas of the Stadium for retail, restaurant, or other purposes.

Finally, the 49ers can use the Stadium year-round for marketing, promotional events, tours, and meetings as stated in the Stadium Lease:

4.3.1 Tenant’s Exclusive Facilities. (a) For the entirety of each Lease Year during the Lease Term, including during each the Stadium Authority Season, Tenant shall have the right to use and operate Tenant’s Exclusive Facilities, including (i) the Stadium Commercial Areas, including the Team Store and the Hall of Fame, depicted on the Stadium Plans, the revenues from which shall constitute Tenant Revenue as provided in ARTICLE 13 below, (ii) Tenant’s Administrative Space depicted on the Stadium Plans, (iii) locker rooms and related training space, (iv) the Stadium Audio Video Facilities, (v) the Owners’ Club, including the Team Suite, and (vi) the Suite Tower and all of the Suites in the Stadium, but excluding any Premium the Stadium Areas and Press Areas located in the Suite Tower. Tenant will have the exclusive use of Tenant’s Exclusive Facilities, the Tenant’s Parking Spaces, and the Intellectual Property Rights attendant thereto, at all times during the Lease Term, subject only to the provisions of the Stadium Lease Documents
Because of the 49ers’ year-round ownership of these “exclusive areas” and the resulting revenues from non-NFL events, the Office of the Assessor, County of Santa Clara (County Assessor’s Office) assigned the full value of the Stadium to StadCo’s possessory interest.

The 49ers appealed its 12-month property tax assessment to a County Assessment Appeals Board (AAB), the local forum for property owners to challenge property tax assessments. The 49ers contended that they officially operated the Stadium for only six months because the Stadium Lease established two six-month seasons, one for StadCo and one for the Stadium Authority (Stadium Lease at Section 1.2.1, 2012). The AAB agreed with StadCo’s argument and reduced the original property tax assessment by half.

Page 28 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The County Assessor filed a lawsuit to reverse this decision stating that StadCo was the principal at the Stadium (and the Stadium Authority was subordinate) with its year-round access and control to key areas and revenue streams, notably the luxury suites, restaurants, and other commercial areas. However, on January 23, 2024, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Superior Court) denied this challenge, allowing the AAB property tax reassessment to stand resulting in a $180 million cut in property taxes over 30 years (County of Santa Clara et al. vs. Santa Clara County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 19-CV-347946).

The revenue shortfall from the AAB decision is large. The impact is decreased funding for multiple entities:
• SCUSD: 40% (-$2.4 million per year).
• West Valley College: 11%.
• City of Santa Clara: 10%.
• County of Santa Clara: 18%
• Santa Clara County Office of Education: 4%.
• A fund created under state law for augmenting local education revenue: 15%. • A local water district: 2%.

The judgment also caused the same entities to have to issue a one-time refund of $36 million to the 49ers, including $13 million from SCUSD.

In hindsight, this appears to be another well-planned long-term play by the 49ers as the Stadium Lease specifically gave them authority to challenge a property tax assessment (Stadium Lease at Section 9.1.2, 2013). The Civil Grand Jury learned that the 49ers designed the contract so a yearlong property tax bill could eventually be contested. While this may have been a winning tax minimization strategy and a well-calculated and sophisticated 49ers negotiating position, local schools and the greater community are the losers.

Page 29 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Measure J – New Jobs
The text of Measure J projected that there would be significant economic benefits resulting from activities that support the Convention Center, local hotels, and restaurants, and that the Stadium would “encourage new restaurant and retail services to support daily business activity” (Measure J at Section 2.B.1, 2010). The broader long-term economic benefits from the Stadium that were cited in Measure J are either unproved or unrealized. Recent media reports issued by the 49ers purporting to show large economic benefits from the Stadium are self-serving and incomplete (Simon, 2023). In fact, the City has never done a comprehensive assessment of the City-wide local economic benefit of the Stadium, which could support or refute the claims made by the report conducted by the 49ers. Although the Stadium’s website continues to advertise opportunities for temporary gameday and special event positions, it is unclear how many permanent positions were created after the initial construction of the Stadium (Avalos, 2014).

Additionally, there is no evidence that the Stadium has increased Convention Center business, or that the Convention Center has benefitted from NFL and non-NFL events. Likewise, Measure J’s promise that the City’s Northside would become an entertainment destination has not come to fruition.

Local hotels have seen an increase in their revenues due to large NFL and non-NFL events, as was expressed by general managers who called into the August 30, 2022, City Council meeting, during which the Council, acting in its capacity as the Board, was going to decide on a settlement agreement with the 49ers. The settlement agreement was related to the termination dispute with ManCo, and the Civil Grand Jury learned that the calls were coordinated by 49ers staff.

In sum, Measure J’s promise to create new jobs and realize economic benefits related to the Convention Center has not been meaningfully evaluated. Nevertheless, the 49ers tout this benefit to the City during disputes with the Stadium Authority. This topic is beyond the scope of the Civil Grand Jury’s investigation. However, it is an important element in understanding the success of Measure J and should be evaluated by the City.

Finding 2: The City has not studied the actual economic impact of the Stadium. The 49ers have produced their own studies, which they use to tout long-term unverified benefits and frame all discussions surrounding the success of the Stadium.

Page 30 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Measure J – Taxpayer Protections
Measure J stated that the Stadium development would not require or impose new or increased City taxes. Stadium Authority would lease the Stadium to an affiliate of the 49ers (StadCo) for an initial term of 40 years. The affiliate would pay a minimum base rent as well as the Stadium’s operating expenses if the expenses exceeded the Stadium Authority’s operating revenues. This would ensure that the Stadium Authority would have the funds required to pay both the rent to the City and operating expenses of the Stadium.

The promise of taxpayer protections has worked out well for the City and, by extension, the Stadium Authority. City taxpayers have been well-protected from covering the cost of building and operating the Stadium. In addition, the Stadium’s funding structure has allowed the Stadium Authority to pay down construction loans and fund reserve accounts ahead of schedule. The Stadium Authority has sufficient revenue flows to pay for its share of the Stadium operations expenses, to pay for the Stadium Authority staff, to pay down the loans incurred building the Stadium, and to provide funding for various reserve accounts related to long-term Stadium operations.

Measure J Promise on City Revenue: Missed Opportunities, Unfavorable Contracts
The Stadium’s operating contracts have favored the interests of the 49ers to the long-term detriment of the City. This section contains some of the analysis and commentary created by the Grand Jury Expert’s thorough review of Stadium Authority and the 49ers records. The topics covered in this section are:
• How the Money Flows to the City.
• How the Money Flows and Does Not Flow to the Stadium Authority. • The Challenge with PSCs.
• Deficiencies in the Management Agreement with ManCo.
• Luxury Suite Revenue.
• Buffet Costs.

Finding 3: Measure J’s promise to protect the City’s General Fund has been realized. The funding structure from the Stadium Lease has successfully allowed the Stadium Authority to pay off Stadium construction loans and fund required Waterfall reserves faster than originally planned.

Page 31 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
How the Money Flows to the City
In the early years of the Stadium’s operations, the total money estimated to flow annually to the City was approximately $3 million, or roughly 1% of the City’s annual budget. According to information learned by the Civil Grand Jury through its investigation, this was estimated to grow to about $4 million in fiscal year 2024-2025.

Measure J contains a provision for excess revenues to be paid to the City, but this provision has not been realized as of today. The City receives money primarily from the following three sources (Measure J at Section 4.3, Article 4, 2010) which are broken out below. 1) Fixed Base Rent
As noted above, fair market rent for the City’s land, as defined by Measure J, consists of Fixed Base Rent and Performance Rent. The annual fixed rent from the Stadium Authority to the City increases yearly. It started at $180,000 and beginning in year 11, has grown to $1 million for the current fiscal year (Measure J at Section 17.20.020 (f)), 2010). The Fixed Ground Rent has been consistently paid as outlined in Measure J. 2) Senior and Youth Fee
There is a 35-cent Youth and Seniors Program NFL game ticket surcharge. The surcharge has delivered $230,000-$250,000 to the City annually (Santa Clara Stadium Authority, 2024). The May 2024 settlement agreement increases the surcharge to 40 cents per NFL game ticket, raising approximately an extra $30,000 annually. 3) Performance Rent
Performance Rent is the other element that is designed to make up part of the calculation that results in a payment of fair market value to the City. Performance Rent is a complicated feature in Measure J. Performance Rent is derived from the profits from the Stadium Authority-owned non-NFL events. For a variety of reasons, the City’s General Fund has not consistently received as much of the anticipated money as expected. And the lack of Performance Rent has been a major source of mistrust between the City, the Stadium Authority, and the 49ers. Additionally, it has become the most controversial and most discussed Stadium-related item during Council meetings.

Per the Stadium Lease Article 6.4.2, Performance Rent is calculated from half of the Stadium Authority’s profits from non-NFL events (Figure 4, row 1), less credits for half of the Fixed Ground Rent (Figure 4, row 5), and less credits for accumulated overages in PSCs not reimbursed to StadCo from the current and prior years.

Page 32 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Figure 4 below uses information obtained from the Stadium Authority financial records as referenced in the Methodology section of this report.

Figure 4: History of non-NFL Events Income and Stadium Authority payments to the General Fund
Figure 4, Rows 1-3 show that net income from non-NFL events was at or near original expectations for the first four years of the Stadium operations, and the City received almost $10 million in Performance Rent. Since then, the City has received zero Performance Rent due to:
1) Two controversial years of zero profits or losses on ManCo-managed non-NFL events (fiscal years 2018-2020).
2) Two years of almost no non-NFL event activity due to COVID-19 (fiscal years 2020-2022). 3) Most recently, despite a non-NFL event net income record high, due to the dispute over PSCs (fiscal years 2022-2024).

The May 2024 settlement agreement allowed $7.1 million of Stadium Authority litigation reserves to be liquidated and paid to the City as Performance Rent for the fiscal years 2022-2024.

The May 2024 settlement agreement is explained fully in the section of this report titled “Management Agreement Termination, Litigation, and Settlements.” How the Money Flows and Does Not Flow to the Stadium Authority Stadium Authority Revenues
The bulk of the Stadium Authority revenue comes from five sources:
1) Facility Rent paid by the 49ers.
2) A 10% ticket surcharge on all NFL ticket sales.
3) The Stadium Naming Rights payments received from Levi Strauss & Co. 4) The SBL revenue from payments for new or transferred seat licenses.

All figures $K Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual TBD Budget 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 1 Non-NFL Events (NNE) Net Income $5,208 $6,079 $5,317 $5,163 $19 ($2,741) ($510) ($286) $8,809 $7,756 $6,000 2 Original 2013 Forecast $5,000 $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 $5,628 $5,796 $5,970 $6,149 $6,334 $6,524 $6,720 3 % Actual vs. 2013 Forecast 104% 118% 100% 94% 0% -47% -9% -5% 139% 119% 89% 4 City Performance Rent = 50% NNE NI $2,604 $3,040 $2,659 $2,582 $9 ($1,371) ($255) ($143) $4,405 $3,878 $3,000 5 Credit – 50% Base Ground Rent ($90) ($108) ($125) ($143) ($160) ($178) ($195) ($213) ($230) ($248) ($500) 6 Credit – PSCs over threshold $0 $0 $0 ($660) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 Net Performance Rent to City $2,514 $2,932 $2,534 $1,779 $0 $0 $0 $0 tbd tbd tbd 8 Fixed Ground Rent Paid to City $180 $215 $250 $285 $320 $355 $390 $425 $460 $495 $1,000 9 Senior and Youth fees to City (estimate $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $250 $100 $230 $250 $250 $230 10 Actual Payments to City General Fund $2,924 $3,377 $3,014 $2,294 $550 $605 $490 $655 $710 $745 $1,230 11 Original Measure J Estimates $2,820 $2,913 $3,007 $3,104 $3,204 $3,306 $3,410 $3,517 $3,627 $3,739 $4,090 12 % Actual vs. 2013 Forecast 104% 116% 100% 74% 17% 18% 14% 19% 20% 20% 30% NNE to
SCSA
Payments to
City of Santa Clara

Page 33 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
5) Revenue from non-NFL events.

Other much smaller sources of revenue include interest income and a $4 ticket surcharge for non-NFL events. Figure 5 below shows a revenue budget of $62.8 million for fiscal year 2024- 2025 (Santa Clara Stadium Authority, 2024).

Figure 5: Stadium Authority 2024-25 Revenue Budget
The May 2024 settlement agreement will change the Stadium Authority’s fiscal year 2024-2025 budget. It should increase revenue in future years by raising the non-NFL ticket surcharge from $4 to $8.

Stadium Authority Expenses
The Stadium Authority’s expense budget has six main categories:
1) The Stadium operations expenses shared with the 49ers, including items such as engineering, groundskeeping, and insurance.
2) Stadium operations and management expenses owned by the Stadium Authority, including the costs of servicing and marketing SBLs, utilities, and the Stadium Authority administrative expenses.

Page 34 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
3) Payments to the City for Fixed Ground Rent, Youth and Senior Services, and Performance Rent derived from non-NFL events net income. As noted previously, Performance Rent has been zero in recent years because of the legal dispute with the 49ers over PSC.
4) Debt Service: The Stadium Authority has been successfully paying down the Stadium loans over the past 10 years.
5) “Excess revenue”: All excess revenue flows through what is known as the “Waterfall,” described in the next section.
6) Paymentsto legal contingency reserves related to the two disputes: PSCs and buffet costs.

Figure 6 shows the six categories of the Stadium Authority’s $62.8 million fiscal year 2024- 25 expense budget (Santa Clara Stadium Authority, 2024).

Figure 6: Santa Clara the Stadium Authority 2024-25 Budget – Expenses The May 2024 settlement agreement eliminates the expense category 6 (above) Legal Contingency Reserves. All of the money held in litigation reserves is now freed up. Under the settlement agreement, the City will receive approximately $7.1 million of Performance Rent for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 lease years (City of Santa Clara, May 23, 2024).

Page 35 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Stadium Authority Excess Revenue and the Waterfall
Any Stadium Authority money left after payment of operating expenses and debt service is known as “Excess Revenue” (Stadium Lease Agreement, 2013). The Stadium Authority has had Excess Revenue yearly since the Stadium began operations in 2014. Article 14 of the Stadium Lease prescribes exactly how all the Stadium Authority Excess Revenue is applied. The structure of how Excess Revenue is applied is frequently referred to in the Stadium Authority budget presentations as the Waterfall. The Waterfall ensures sufficient funds are available for ongoing Stadium operating expenses, capital improvements, end-of-life demolition, and paying off any revolving or subordinate loans. The Waterfall can be likened to a forced savings plan.

The Waterfall conceptually contains eight cascading buckets of different funds. The first bucket/fund is filled with Excess Revenue from the Stadium Authority budget before the second bucket receives any funds. The second bucket must be filled before the third budget receives funds. The process continues until seven buckets are filled. The key point is that the Stadium Authority has no flexibility in the distribution of Excess Revenues until all the first seven buckets are filled. As of the release of this report, Buckets 1 through 6 are filled. Bucket 7, which requires $70 million for the Stadium Demolition Fund, is approximately 50% filled.

Once Bucket 7 is filled, which could happen by the end of this decade, Stadium Authority leadership could have more latitude in deciding how to allocate Excess Revenue, including more diversions to the City’s General Fund. However, the Stadium is aging, and Capital Reserves will be nearly depleted in 2025, so additional Excess Revenues may be needed to fund capital improvement/renovation projects. Figure 7 uses information obtained by the Civil Grand Jury to demonstrate how funds are distributed throughout the Waterfall.

Page 36 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Figure 7: Stadium Authority Excess Revenue Distribution Waterfall The rigidity of the Waterfall has frustrated some City officials, who have been vocal about wanting more of the Stadium/Stadium Authority revenue to reach the City’s General Fund.

However, this same rigidity ensures the Stadium Authority's long-term financial health and the Stadium’s continued financial viability by requiring the Stadium Authority to set aside sufficient funds for future needs, including long-term infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

The May 2024 settlement agreement allows for significant changes to how Waterfall Bucket 7, the Renovation/Demolition Fund, will receive Excess Revenues. Instead of receiving 100% of Excess Revenues, the Renovation/Demolition Fund will only receive 50% and the remaining 50% will go to StadCo to repay the outstanding PSC balance. Once the $11.5 million PSC balance is paid off after the 50% allocation to the Renovation/Demolition Fund, the remaining amounts will flow to the Stadium Authority, with the option to distribute these funds to the City’s General Fund.

Page 37 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Problem with PSCs
The costliest and longest continuous dispute between the 49ers and the Stadium Authority has been over PSCs. The core of the dispute has been over a $170,000 per-game Public Safety Cost Threshold (Threshold), or maximum value, originally specified under Measure J that the 49ers must pay for the cost of public safety services at NFL events. Measure J also provided a 4% annual increase to the Threshold. The Threshold could be renegotiated if the costs exceeded the Threshold for three consecutive years.

The Threshold was greatly underestimated; in fact, since the Stadium opened in 2014, PSCs have increased substantially and have been well over the Threshold for all games/seasons. Because of the complicated Performance Rent calculations (i.e., any dollar amount over the Threshold becomes an expense or “credit” taken out of Performance Rent revenue), the City has been the biggest loser in the PSC dispute.

Public Safety Staffing
PSCs for Stadium events include all the costs of planning for safety at stadium events, safety equipment costs, and the full costs of public safety officers for controlling traffic and pedestrian flows, monitoring parking areas, monitoring stadium entrances/exits, monitoring adjacent residential neighborhoods, and providing backup support for any Stadium incidents. PSCs also include fire and public works services. PSCs for 49ers games are paid as follows:
• The City bills StadCo for PSCs for each 49er game.
• StadCo reimburses the City.
• The Stadium Authority reimburses the 49ers for all PSCs above the Threshold.

City Police Officers can be mandated to work at Stadium events when staffing and security needs dictate. Even with mandated overtime, the City must rely on officers from other jurisdictions, such as surrounding city police departments, the County Sheriff’s Office, and the California Highway Patrol. Normally, at least 200 badged officers are deployed for large events, and the total costs, including overtime and benefits, are included in the PSC bill from the City. It should be noted that the full security costs for Stadium events also include private security personnel hired by ManCo. Private security personnel are often in the range of 500-800 additional staff.

These costs are separate and in addition to PSCs.

The Civil Grand Jury did not widely investigate safety costs and contracts at other comparable sports venues but learned that PSCs for Stadium events are among the highest for any stadium in the U.S. for a variety of reasons, including:
• The Bay Area is an expensive location, and pay rates for local police officers, including the Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD), can be among the highest in the nation.

Page 38 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
• Venues like the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (Oakland) or Oracle Park (San Francisco) are in larger cities with larger police forces. These cities have more flexibility in assigning officers or getting volunteers to work at stadium events. The SCPD is not as large, and, per a 2021 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and its Police Officers Association (POA), the City pays its officers double-overtime (2x regular pay rate) purportedly to incentivize enough officers to volunteer to work at 49ers games. • Unlike some stadiums (e.g., Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum), the Stadium is located near suburban neighborhoods, not near major highway exits. It has access from multiple ingress points and a distributed parking footprint, which requires more traffic/pedestrian control officers than at other stadiums.

Public Safety Cost History
Figure 8 below shows a history of PSCs from fiscal years 2014-2024 and what the payments entail based on information obtained from Stadium Authority financial records as referenced in the Methodology section of this report.

Row 8 shows how much over the Threshold the PSCs have been each year. Since the 2019-20 football season, the gap between actual PSCs and the Threshold value has been about $3 million per year (except for the COVID-19-shortened 2020-21 season). Row 5 shows that PSC per game have more than doubled between the 2014-15 and 2023-24 seasons.

Figure 8: History of PSCs, PSC Threshold, and PSCs Over the Threshold It is difficult to ascertain why the costs have increased so much. In general, the increase has been attributed to a revised safety plan to provide a heightened level of security; increases in Worker’s All figures $K, except for $ football games Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual TBD Budget 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 1 Total PSCs $2,455 $2,438 $3,085 $2,633 $2,995 $5,417 $888 $5,303 $5,716 $6,034 2 PSC adjustments (1) $0 $0 $0 $4 $8 $790 $128 $308 $94 $0 3 Billable PSCs $2,455 $2,438 $3,085 $2,637 $3,003 $6,207 $1,016 $5,611 $5,810 $6,034 4 # 49ers Games @ Levi's 10 10 10 10 10 12 5 10 12 12
5 PSCs per game $246 $244 $309 $264 $300 $517 $203 $561 $484 $503 6 PSCs Threshold Per Game (+4%/yr) $170 $177 $184 $191 $199 $207 $215 $224 $233 $242 $360 7 Allowable PSCs for season $1,700 $1,768 $1,839 $1,912 $1,989 $2,482 $1,076 $2,237 $2,792 $2,904 8 PSCs Over Threshold $755 $670 $1,246 $725 $1,014 $3,725 ($60) $3,374 $3,018 $3,130 9 PSCs Paid by 49ers (StadCo) $1,257 $1,478 $1,557 $1,680 $1,671 $2,006 $890 $1,814 $2,241 $0 10 PSCs Paid by Offsite Parking Fees $443 $290 $355 $293 $317 $476 $0 $423 $551 $613 11 PSCs Paid by SCSA Discretionary Fund $755 $670 $1,173 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 PSCs Paid by 49ers pending litigation $0 $0 $0 $664 $1,013 $3,664 $3,165 $2,856 $3,632 13 Total PSCs Paid $2,455 $2,438 $3,085 $2,637 $3,001 $6,146 $890 $5,402 $5,648 $4,245 14 Unpaid PSCs (contested depreciation) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $61 $126 $209 $162 $0

1. Includes Workers Comp & Depreciation adjustments
Public Safety Costs Public Safety Payments

Page 39 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Compensation costs; the previously mentioned move to double-overtime pay for SCPD; an increase in the City-calculated overhead rates applied to all City staff working at the Stadium events; and general pay raises. All of these factors appear to have contributed to the increase; however, the Civil Grand Jury could not confirm that there was a definitive cause that accounted for the escalation.

History of the PSC Dispute
Critical to the PSC dispute and ensuing litigation are the stipulations in Measure J and in the Stadium Lease regarding the Threshold limit; the relationship to Performance Rent; and the allowable three-year renegotiation of the Threshold.

The Stadium Lease states if the Stadium Authority cannot or will not reimburse StadCo for PSCs above the Threshold value, then StadCo can credit any unpaid PSCs against Performance Rent (from the profits of non-NFL events) owed by the Stadium Authority to the City’s General Fund (Stadium Lease at Section 7.5.3(a), 2012). Additionally, if the Threshold is exceeded over a consecutive three-year period the amount can be renegotiated (Stadium Lease at Section 7.5.4(b), 2012).

In 2017, the Stadium Authority called for negotiations on the Threshold at the end of the third season. The Stadium Authority contends the 49ers did not negotiate in good faith, and the Threshold remained unchanged. Thereafter, the Stadium Authority stopped reimbursing StadCo for PSCs above the Threshold.

In 2018, StadCo contested payments to the City for PSC overages (Figure 8, Row 12), and they began to accumulate PSC overages as credits against Performance Rent. Income from non-NFL events was negligible from fiscal years 2018 through 22. Therefore, there was no Performance Rent, and StadCo’s PSC credits had no impact. Income from non-NFL events for the past two seasons, however, has been good (via performances from the likes of Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Ed Sheeran, etc.), but the Stadium Authority prudently put this income into litigation reserves instead of paying Performance Rent payments to the City.

The PSC dispute was settled in May 2024. The agreement includes:
• The 49ers allowed a one-time Threshold increase of $108,000 to $360,000 per game. The original 4% annual inflation adjustment stayed in place. • The non-NFL ticket surcharge that attendees pay will double from $4 to $8, and this money will go towards paying the 49ers for PSCs over the new Threshold. • The 49ers agreed to allow the Stadium Authority to pay unpaid PSCs from prior seasons (approximately $11.5 million) by diverting 25% of excess revenues that flow through the Waterfall over the next several years.

Page 40 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Consistent with Measure J, the Stadium Lease gave sole discretion to the 49ers to approve any changes to the PSC Threshold (Stadium Lease 7.5.4(b), 2012). This has proven to be an expensive arrangement that gives StadCo control over determining the key element affecting Performance Rent.

The Problem with the Management Agreement
As noted previously, the Management Agreement is a three-way agreement between the Stadium Authority, StadCo, and ManCo, which was signed in March 2012. It is a glaring example of the Stadium contract provisions that heavily favor the 49ers’ interests and something that was never anticipated by Measure J.

The Stadium Authority Accepted a Conflicting Interest
While Measure J contemplated that the Stadium Authority may contract with a Stadium management firm to oversee the day-to-day operations of the Stadium, Measure J made clear that the Stadium Authority was supposed to be responsible for managing the Stadium. (Measure J at Section 8.1(a), 2010). Measure J further states that StadCo is required to “cooperate” with the Stadium Authority in that regard. (Measure J at Section 8.1, 2010). That is not the reality of the current arrangement. The first problem began when the Stadium Authority agreed to use ManCo. The Civil Grand Jury learned that, during negotiations, the 49ers demanded that the Stadium Authority agree to hire ManCo, an affiliate of the 49ers, and it agreed. When the Stadium Authority agreed to use ManCo to provide management of Stadium Authority’s nonNFL events, it should have protected itself from risks associated with the inherent conflicts of interest in performing this role, particularly given StadCo’s competing financial interests in nonNFL events. Specifically, StadCo can earn revenues at the same non-NFL events for which ManCo is responsible for negotiating event terms on behalf of the Stadium Authority. The terms Finding 4: The City/Stadium Authority agreed to use ManCo, an affiliate of the 49ers, with an inherent conflict of interest to handle the Stadium Authority’s financial interests in non-NFL events.
“The Stadium Authority will be responsible for the management and operation of the Stadium for NFL Events, non-NFL Events and Civic Events, and 49ers Stadium Company will cooperate with the Stadium Authority in the operation of the Stadium.” (Measure J, Article 8)

Page 41 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
negotiated by ManCo directly impact the profitability the Stadium Authority achieves at these events.

The Stadium Authority Agreed to a Lopsided Termination Provision The Management Agreement states that the Stadium Authority may terminate the agreement only by written notice upon the occurrence of any of the following (Management Agreement, Article 8.1.1, 2012):

1. Fraud or intentional and material misrepresentation by or at the direction of the ManCo in connection with this Agreement.

2. Misappropriation or conversion of any funds received pursuant to this Agreement by or at the direction for ManCo.

3. Willful misconduct of ManCo resulting in an Event of Default, which Event of Default is not cured in accordance with Article 11 of the Management Agreement.

It is notable that the contract termination bar is lower for both StadCo and ManCo, requiring only an occurrence of an Event of Default specified in Article 11 of the Management Agreement.

An Event of Default is a failure to pay or failure to perform. The Stadium Authority, however, can only terminate in the Event of Default if they also demonstrate that the Event of Default is caused by “willful misconduct of ManCo.” This is a much harder standard to establish, typically requiring proof of intentional conduct done with the knowledge that the event will occur. Barring fraud, misappropriation of funds, or willful misconduct, the Stadium Authority can terminate the Management Agreement only if StadCo also gives approval.

This is a prime example of the superior negotiation position that StadCo and ManCo have established over the Stadium Authority, and it is/was a large shift from the cooperative spirit written under Measure J. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed the termination clauses for the management agreements at Petco Park (San Diego), Golden 1 Center (Sacramento), and SAP Arena (San José) and found no similar termination language.

Finding 5: The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the Management Agreement included a fair termination clause.

Page 42 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Lack of Financial Transparency
Compounding the fact that the Stadium Authority agreed to accept ManCo’s conflicting interests, the Stadium Authority also failed to ensure the Management Agreement requires ManCo to provide the Stadium Authority with full access to financial records. The Stadium Authority conceded it should have done a better job with the agreement language.

The Civil Grand Jury learned that from the outset the 49ers were concerned about their information being subject to California Public Record Act requests. And over the years there have been numerous disputes between the Stadium Authority and ManCo over lack of transparency, lack of complete financial documents, and suspicions of inaccurate reporting. It appears that ManCo either did not understand or did not give importance to the type of transparency required for a public Stadium.

The Civil Grand Jury learned that for many years, when City/Stadium Authority finance staff requested financial source documents, they would have to physically go to the 49ers offices where they would be allowed to look at documents or spreadsheets; in that manner, City/Stadium Authority staff spent years attempting to verify financial records that belonged to the Stadium Authority. Much distrust and acrimony have stemmed from the fact that the Stadium Authority had to struggle to get access to complete source documents in order to authenticate revenues and expenditures. As noted earlier, this led to the Board initiating third-party audits over the last decade to verify ManCo records. It should be stressed that every one of those audits had Finding 6a: The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure the Management Agreement provided the Stadium Authority with full access to financial records.

Finding 6b: ManCo’s financial transparency with the Stadium Authority has improved with the implementation in 2022 of a new financial management system.

Finding 6c: Transaction-level testing generally supports ManCo’s reporting of financial results for non-NFL events.

Page 43 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
disclaimers noting that there had been insufficient underlying supporting documents. With respect to these audits, the Civil Grand Jury could not determine whether ManCo’s earlier accounting system was deficient and, therefore, they were unable to supply source documentation, or whether ManCo was hiding something.

In a cover letter to the Adopted Fiscal Year 2019/20 Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget, presented to the Board, dated March 27, 2019, then-City Manager/Stadium Authority Executive Director explained the situation as follows:

Over the past years, [ManCo] has commingled its portion of the revenues and expenses of the Stadium Authority into its San Francisco 49ers financial management system.

There has been dispute over possession of documents, access to financial information, and overall improved knowledge of the complete set of financial information pertaining to the Stadium Authority. [ManCo] now agrees to work with the Stadium Authority to establish a segregated financial management system for the Stadium Authority, where Stadium Authority staff has full access to the system, supporting documentation, and in real-time (not at the end of the fiscal year or on other terms that require the Stadium Authority to always look backwards to understand financial activity).

The financial management system was not put into place until April 2022. The Civil Grand Jury has learned that since then City/Stadium Authority staff has found it much easier to do their jobs and they feel more confident about ManCo’s reporting.

In addition to basic source documents needed to verify accounts, the 49ers have insisted that other financial information is proprietary and must remain confidential. The 49ers have maintained a need to keep certain non-NFL financial information private because concert promoters and performers require it. Given that ManCo works for the Stadium Authority, these restrictions are untenable and should be unacceptable to the Stadium Authority. The management agreement anticipated that ManCo would have confidential and proprietary information and that those records would have to be audited, examined, or inspected by the Stadium Authority (Management Agreement at Section 15.2, 2012). Thus, it was expected that ManCo would provide these documents to the Stadium Authority.

Given the history of secrecy and the failed audits, the Civil Grand Jury was interested in understanding if ManCo was properly accounting revenue and expenses. The Grand Jury Expert undertook a sampling of ManCo records to assess the accuracy of ManCo’s reported results.

They reviewed samples of transaction-level records covering $4.8 million of expenses for nonNFL events, both ticketed and non-ticketed, for the fiscal years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019- 2020, and 2022-2023. For each transaction, the Expert assessed whether expenses had adequate supporting documentation and if the transactions were recorded accurately in the accounting system.

Page 44 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Civil Grand Jury Expert concluded that their transaction-level testing “generally supported” ManCo’s reporting of financial results for non-NFL events. Further, the Civil Grand Jury learned that the detail and timeliness of financial records provided by ManCo to the Stadium Authority has improved over the past two years since the implementation of a new financial management system, which can be accessed by Stadium Authority finance staff.

Stadium Authority’s Lack of Input on Non-NFL Bookings
Compounding the fact that Stadium Authority agreed to accept ManCo’s conflicting interests, it also failed to ensure the Management Agreement provides the Stadium Authority with sufficient input on booking non-NFL events.

Under Measure J, the Stadium Authority was supposed to be responsible for managing the Stadium, and it was StadCo that was supposed to “cooperate” with the Stadium Authority. Now, the Stadium finds itself in competing different power dynamics. First, under the Management Agreement, ManCo has the sole authority to book events on behalf of the Stadium Authority and negotiate all terms with promoters/artists. As such, ManCo has all the power, but none of the risk if events are not profitable for the Stadium Authority. Conversely, the Stadium Authority has all the risks associated with ticketed non-NFL events but does not have any role in decision-making.

Amendment 1 to the contract further clarified that ManCo has “sole” authority to book and negotiate. The Civil Grand Jury learned that the 49ers demanded this, and the Stadium Authority went along.

Second, the Stadium Authority has failed to sufficiently exercise the little input in booking nonNFL events the contract provides. Section 4.10 of the Management Agreement requires a marketing plan that details ManCo’s plans to develop, implement, and monitor marketing, booking, advertising, and promotion of non-NFL events for the Stadium Authority, and the plan should be mutually agreed upon by ManCo and the Stadium Authority.

According to ManCo, it develops non-NFL event marketing plans annually and indicated that the Stadium Authority is generally not involved in the process. While the Stadium Authority could not provide evidence that it attempted to formally provide ManCo with input and feedback on the plans, the Board is aware of Stadium Authority staff’s dissatisfaction with ManCo’s marketing plans. For example, during a March 2, 2021, meeting, the Stadium Authority informed the Board that it had not agreed with the 2019 and 2020 marketing plans developed by ManCo because the plans lacked sufficient detail.

According to Section 3.3.1 of the Management Agreement, if the Stadium Authority is unhappy with the results of the marketing plan after attempting to work with ManCo to improve it, the

Page 45 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Stadium Authority can require that ManCo subcontract management services as long as both parties agree on the contractor; otherwise, the Stadium Authority and ManCo must work through a dispute resolution process.

As an initial step toward pursuing a formal dispute resolution process, the Stadium Authority hired a consultant to prepare an assessment of ManCo’s marketing plans and sought the assistance of the Board to make the assessment available to ManCo for review and adoption to address its concerns. On February 22, 2022, the consultant presented Board members with their assessment of ManCo’s annual Levi’s Stadium Events Marketing Plans (Marketing Plan) for 2020 and 2021, but Board members disagreed on whether there was a need to give the consultantprepared assessment to ManCo for consideration. Ultimately after debate, the Board passed a motion that referred the assessment to ManCo for their review and directed ManCo to return to the Board with an updated Marketing Plan for 2022. On March 15, 2022, ManCo sent a letter to the Board rejecting the assessment and consultant and refusing to spend any more time working with the consultant updating the Marketing Plan. On the same day, the Board passed a motion denying a contract amendment that would have continued using the consultant’s services assessing the Marketing Plans and denying a motion that would have required ManCo to return with an updated 2022 Marketing Plan.

Because all these efforts were halted, the Stadium Authority failed to take any steps toward initiating a formal dispute resolution process despite some members verbally discussing their dissatisfaction with the Marketing Plans. In this way, the Stadium Authority ultimately failed to exercise its right to opine on the Marketing Plan.

Page 46 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority Does Not Hold ManCo Accountable for Successful Non-NFL Events
Compounding the fact that Stadium Authority agreed to accept ManCo’s conflicting interests and sole authority, it also failed to ensure the Management Agreement adequately holds ManCo accountable for the success of non-NFL events.

Non-NFL Ticketed Events
Figure 9 reflects the Stadium Authority’s profitability for non-NFL ticketed events for the four fiscal years between April 1, 2017, and March 30, 2023, as reported by ManCo. Fiscal years 2020-21 and 2021-22 were excluded due to COVID-19. (Note: the Stadium Authority’s fiscal year is April 1 – March 30th and the City’s fiscal year is July 1 – June 30th. The Civil Grand Jury’s investigation described in this report accounted for these schedules.) FY 2022-23 FY 2019-20 FY 2018-19 FY 2017-18
$6,521,092 $(3,005,464) $(2,333,932) $1,623,598
Figure 9: Stadium Authority Profit/Loss for Non-NFL Ticketed Events For Selected Years. Data from ManCo General Ledger.

The fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20 reflected overall losses for the Stadium Authority’s nonNFL ticketed events before rebounding in the fiscal year 2022-23. It should be noted that the losses occurring in fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20 were before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finding 7a: The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the original Management Agreement and the 2022 settlement agreement contained sufficient language requiring specific items or methods and performance metrics to prioritize Stadium Authority revenue generation. This has resulted in a failure to hold ManCo accountable for the success of nonNFL events.

Finding 7b: Stadium Authority failed to use the prescribed Marketing Correction Plan per Article 3.3.1 of the Management Agreement process to hold ManCo accountable for unsuccessful non-NFL event bookings.

Page 47 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Civil Grand Jury, with the assistance of the Grand Jury Expert, sought to investigate ManCo’s processes for ensuring non-NFL ticketed event success and to identify the factors contributing to or detracting from the profitability of specific events for the Stadium Authority.

For the four years identified in Figure 9, the Civil Grand Jury endeavored to examine the following information:
• Non-NFL ticketed event profitability goals or success measures for ManCo to meet, and/or consequences for failing to ensure events are profitable for the Stadium Authority. • Non-NFL event Marketing Plans.
• All policies and procedures that guide the solicitation, negotiation, scheduling, and calendaring processes for non-NFL events.

The Civil Grand Jury also identified the universe of ticketed non-NFL events that were held during the four years. Of the 38 ticketed non-NFL events held, the Civil Grand Jury selected ten for detailed review to assess if adequate processes were in place to maximize potential event profit. Selection ensured a range of events were selected representing different types of events (concerts, football, soccer) and varying net revenue amounts. For each selected ticketed event, the Civil Grand Jury endeavored to review detailed records for all revenue and expense activity.

The Civil Grand Jury was unable to determine or conclude whether ManCo had adequate processes in place to maximize ticketed event profit for the Stadium Authority because documents provided by ManCo did not demonstrate support of said efforts. Specifically, the Civil Grand Jury learned that ManCo staff involved with booking ticketed events since fiscal year 2022-23, the only measure of success is to ensure that each non-NFL event is profitable (even making a single dollar would be considered a success) or that in total, the events held during the year made more net-revenue than the previous year. Also, the annual Marketing Plan is the sole document guiding how it approaches soliciting and negotiating non-NFL events.

However, the Marketing Plans provided lacked sufficient detail to determine how ManCo executes the processes and do not demonstrate evidence of ManCo’s methodologies employed to ensure profitable non-NFL events. Moreover, the documents ManCo did provide were insufficient to provide evidence that ManCo had adequate processes in place to maximize Stadium Authority profit.

Nonetheless, the Civil Grand Jury was able to identify several key reasons at a high level why the Stadium Authority experienced losses in fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Largely, reasons for the losses were attributed to continuing to book Pac-12 events when these events continually resulted in losses, particularly due to promoter guarantees exceeding the revenues generated.

According to ManCo, it was required to book Pac-12 events due to long-term contracts covering multiple years. However, starting in fiscal year 2022-23, ManCo stopped booking Pac-12 events due to past losses, which resulted in more Stadium Authority profit that year.

Page 48 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
ManCo also indicated that another reason for the losses was the City's curfew, which affected the ability to host nighttime non-NFL ticketed events during the week. However, a comparison of non-NFL ticketed events held during both profitable and non-profitable years reflected in Figure 9 showed no significant difference in the number or ratio of events held on weeknights versus weekends.

Non-NFL Special Events
Figure 10 reflects the Stadium Authority’s profitability for non-NFL special events for the four fiscal years between April 1, 2017, and March 30, 2023, as reported by ManCo. Fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 were excluded due to COVID-19.

FY 2022-23 FY 2019-20 FY 2018-19 FY 2017-18
$2,055,959 $1,492,330 $2,415,445 $3,580,351
Figure 10: Stadium Authority Profit/Loss for Non-NFL Special Events For Selected Years. Data from ManCo General Ledger
Non-NFL special events were generally profitable for the Stadium Authority during this time period.

Similar to the non-NFL ticketed event analysis, the Civil Grand Jury attempted to evaluate ManCo’s processes for ensuring non-NFL special event success and to identify the factors contributing to or detracting from the profitability of specific events for the Stadium Authority.

To do this, the Civil Grand Jury sought to review, for the four years identified in Figure 10, nonNFL special event profitability goals or success measures for ManCo to meet or consequences for failing to ensure events are profitable for the Stadium Authority. The Civil Grand Jury also identified the universe of non-NFL special events that were held during the four years. Out of 359 non-ticketed events across the four years, the Civil Grand Jury selected 16 for detailed review to assess if adequate processes were in place to maximize potential event profit. Selection ensured a range of events were selected representing different types of events (businesses, high school, college, sports) and varying net revenue amounts.

Again, the documentation provided by ManCo was insufficient to determine whether adequate processes were in place to maximize non-NFL special event profit for the Stadium Authority.

Though non-NFL special events were generally profitable as reflected in Figure 10, without support showing that ManCo’s processes were robust, there is no assurance that the profits earned maximized the potential.

Page 49 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority Failed to Ensure ManCo Staff is Incentivized to Prioritize Stadium Authority Success
The Management Agreement contains a provision that calls for the development of a marketing and booking fee incentive. (Management Agreement at Section 7.3, 2012). Over the period reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, ManCo earned $150,000 in these fees, of which $90,000 was earned for fiscal year 2022-23 when revenues were the highest for the Stadium Authority in years. This small marketing and booking incentive fee in the Management Agreement does not provide sufficient incentive for ManCo to prioritize Stadium Authority profitability over StadCo profitability associated with non-NFL events.

The Civil Grand Jury sought to understand the commission structure of ManCo employees who worked in the marketing team. The Civil Grand Jury sought documents detailing compensation structure including details regarding commissions of any employees involved in soliciting, negotiating, scheduling, and calendaring non-NFL ticketed events between fiscal years 2017-18 and 2022-23. ManCo provided summarized excerpts of some employees’ commission structure, not the actual documents that detailed the structure. Without the original documents, the excerpts provided could not be verified or interpreted appropriately with the needed context. Thus, the Civil Grand Jury was unable to determine whether ManCo staff are incentivized to book nonNFL events to prioritize Stadium Authority profitability.

In any case, for special events, commissions do not appear to incentivize ManCo staff to prioritize Stadium Authority profitability. According to ManCo, it pays its special event staff commission based on the contract amount with the event host, rather than commission based on the profitability of the event. No documents were provided to validate this statement.

Finding 8a: There is no evidence showing that ManCo is negotiating to maximize Stadium Authority profits for non-NFL events.

Finding 8b: The Stadium Authority has failed to ensure the Management Agreement requires ManCo to incentivize its staff to prioritize the Stadium Authority's success. There is no evidence that there are employee sales goals, metrics, or consequences related to unprofitable non-NFL events.

Page 50 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority Fails to Exercise the Remaining Power it Has in the Management of the Stadium
ManCo’s responsibilities include all day-to-day operations of the Stadium. ManCo also has exclusive authority for booking, marketing, and promoting all non-NFL stadium events. Under Article 2.9 of the Stadium Management Agreement, one of ManCo’s key goals is maximizing the Stadium Authority's operating revenue by booking successful non-NFL events. This responsibility was further reinforced under the August 2022 settlement agreement.

Under Articles 2.1 and 2.2, ManCo is required to meet periodically with Stadium Authority officials to coordinate Stadium activities and event scheduling to support the goal of successful non-NFL events. ManCo must also maintain an official calendar system showing all scheduled events. The Civil Grand Jury learned that scheduling meetings are infrequent, the calendar system is no longer used, and Stadium Authority officials often learn of newly scheduled nonNFL events only when these events are publicly announced.

Another component to the already problematic Marketing Plan is performance. If the Stadium Authority believes that ManCo has materially failed to meet the provisions of Article 4.10 of the Management Agreement, and this adversely affects bookings and/or net income revenue for nonNFL events, ManCo must submit to the Stadium Authority a Correction Plan per Article 3.3.1 of the agreement. If, after two years of operating under this Correction Plan, ManCo does not achieve these provisions, the Stadium Authority has the right to direct ManCo to hire a mutually agreed upon third-party provider to perform these services.

To this end, on March 10, 2021, Stadium Authority authorized hiring outside experts, Stone Planning LLC and the Rooney Sports & Entertainment Group, LLC, to assess Marketing Plans for 2021 and 2022). They presented their assessment report (Stone Assessment) to the Board at its February 22, 2022, meeting (City of Santa Clara, 2022). The Board discussed referring the Stone Assessment to ManCo for a response, with an expected response of returning to the Board with an updated Marketing Plan. At the March 15, 2022, Board meeting, all further action on the Stone Assessment ended with a 4-to-3 Board vote. The Board effectively relinquished its prerogative to change ManCo’s Marketing Plans via a Correction Plan prescribed in the Management Agreement. This is an example of the Stadium Authority’s failure to hold ManCo accountable and its failure to use one of the few available contractually prescribed levers to influence ManCo’s performance.

Page 51 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Management Agreement Termination, Litigation, and Settlements The 49ers have proven to be an aggressive and litigious Stadium tenant. The litigation and disputes poisoned the relationship between the City/Stadium Authority and the 49ers.

Management Agreement Litigation
The most complicated legal dispute between the Stadium Authority and the 49ers has been over the Stadium Authority’s efforts to hold ManCo accountable and terminate ManCo’s contract for stadium management services. On November 23, 2016, the Stadium Authority sent a letter to ManCo alleging a potential breach of the Management Agreement Articles 11.1.2, 11.3, and 11.4 and threatening to terminate the Management Agreement with ManCo. The two sides traded correspondence regarding these issues, with the last occurring on December 23, 2016, with no resolution. On January 6, 2017, ManCo and StadCo filed a civil lawsuit against the Stadium Authority, Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, et al. vs. Santa Clara Stadium Authority, et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 17-CV-304903) seeking a declaration to prevent the Stadium Authority from terminating the Management Agreement.

On February 22, 2017, the Stadium Authority filed a cross-complaint to the action filed by ManCo, citing failure to produce the required documentation supporting the Harvey Rose Audit.

During the discovery process for that lawsuit, the Stadium Authority discovered additional potential breaches relating to procurement processes and the non-payment of prevailing wages, which they attempted to add to the cross-complaint. On August 6, 2018, ManCo dismissed their complaint, as the dispute shifted from termination of the management agreement to these other issues. The Stadium Authority’s cross-complaint continued before the trial court.

On September 17, 2019, after an abysmal year of non-NFL events (zero profits) in 2018-19 and a forecast for losses in 2019-20, a special Board meeting was called to try to regain the Stadium Authority controls delegated to ManCo. The Board voted to start the process of terminating the management contract with ManCo for the six-month Stadium Authority season. In addition, the Board approved changes in the delegation of contract approval authority to ManCo. Going forward, all contracts, regardless of value, would need the Board's approval. Previously, ManCo could approve contracts up to $250,000 without Board approval.

ManCo responded on September 20, 2019, with Forty Niners Stadium Management, LLC, et al. vs. City of Santa Clara, et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 19- CV-355432) seeking a declaration relief to prevent partial termination of the management agreement. Following this, the Stadium Authority amended its complaint to terminate the entire Management Agreement for both non-NFL and NFL events.

Page 52 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Since June 2019, StadCo, ManCo, and Stadium Authority have filed different arbitration claims against each other pertaining to various disputes. These arbitration claims were consolidated under JAMS Mediation, Arbitration and ADR Services Case No. 1110024318. These claims included:
• Procurement Ordinance Arbitration.
• Buffet Arbitration.
• PSC Arbitration.
• ManCo use of the revolving credit agreement (RCA).
• Shared Stadium Expenses (SSE).

The entire legal history related to the efforts by the Stadium Authority to enforce contract provisions and/or terminate ManCo is summarized by the Civil Grand Jury below in Figure 11.

Page 53 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Figure 11: History of Legal Filings Related to the Management Agreement August 2022 Legal Settlement Agreement
On August 31, 2022, a settlement agreement was signed between ManCo, StadCo, and Stadium Authority, resolving the outstanding issues from Superior Court litigation Case No. 17-CV304903 (and, by way of prior case consolidation, also resolved issues related to Superior Court Case No. 19-CV-355432) and many of the JAMS arbitration items, including procurement, use of the revolving loan, and shared stadium expenses. Highlights of this agreement include:
• The City received a one-time settlement payment of $1.7 million from the 49ers.

Page 54 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
• The 49ers consented to the Stadium Authority transferring (under the Stadium Lease at Section 12.1) up to $650,000 from the Stadium Authority’s Discretionary Fund to the City’s General Fund.
• The Stadium Authority withdrew its termination notices issued to ManCo. • ManCo procurement contract limits increased to $100,000 without Board approval. • Default interest under the Management Agreement was waived by all parties. • The defense of all prevailing wage claims against the Stadium Authority was assigned to ManCo.
• ManCo agreed to comply with all applicable conflict of interest laws and to separate sponsorship and advertising agreements for StadCo and the Stadium Authority assets. • ManCo agreed to select, prioritize, emphasize, and negotiate contracts for non-NFL events to maximize Stadium Authority revenues.
• The two most costly arbitrations over PSCs and buffets were excluded from the August 2022 settlement. These were both settled in the recent May 23, 2024, settlement.

There are three primary themes from this settlement agreement. One, the Stadium Authority clearly has a very limited ability to terminate and/or influence the performance of its stadium management contractor, ManCo. Two, ManCo agreed to “do better” on various fronts, including non-NFL events, without specific performance metrics. Third, the agreement immediately triggered (on September 1, 2022) over $700,000 in payments by 49ers PACs to support certain City Council and mayoral candidates. By election day, the total 49ers PACs contributions for these candidates reached $4.5 million. So, if the PAC contributions are any indication of what the 49ers organization thinks about the settlement, once again, the 49ers win.

The Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the August 2022 settlement agreement between the Stadium Authority and ManCo included sufficient language to do more than provide an acknowledgment that ManCo needs to prioritize Stadium Authority revenue over StadCo revenue, but also include specific action items or methods—such as a contract amendment—to ensure ManCo does so following the formal acknowledgment.

May 2024 Settlement Agreement
The May 23, 2024, settlement agreement concluded the two costly JAMS arbitration issues left outstanding from August 2022 - buffets and PSCs. The agreement states that Stadium Authority must pay for all PSCs above the Threshold and all future buffet costs. However, the settlement agreement went well beyond the scope of the arbitration issues and made important changes in the Stadium Lease that will benefit the City and may benefit the Stadium Authority.

The agreement on buffets is straightforward - the Stadium Authority agrees to pay $90,000 per game, growing at 3% per year. All buffet amounts under dispute for prior years’ expenses were

Page 55 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
dismissed. The agreement on PSCs is also straightforward – the Stadium Authority must pay the 49ers for all PSCs above the Threshold for all years, past, present, and future. However, the underlying changes supporting the settlement agreement are more complicated as explained above in the “The Problem with PSCs” section.

As detailed above in the “How the Money Flows and Does Not Flow to the Stadium Authority” section of this report, PSCs and Performance Rent are intertwined, and the settlement agreement directly impacts Performance Rent paid by the Stadium Authority to the City. Accumulated credits for unpaid past PSCs have negated profits from non-NFL events. The agreement eliminates these credits and moves them all to the new $11.5 million PSC outstanding balance.

Eliminating PSC credits frees up $7.1 million of Performance Rent payments to the City for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 lease years. If the Stadium Authority can pay all future PSC obligations, the City should see more Performance Rent payments in future years. Funding for the $7.1 million payment to the City will come from liquidating the Stadium Authority’s litigation reserve accounts.

Some media reports on the settlement described large sums, current and future, flowing to the City’s General Fund (up to $20 million over two years). What is not always made clear in media reports is that all the money flowing to the City will come from Stadium Authority-owned funds.

None of it comes from the 49ers/StadCo. Unsurprisingly, the 49ers are the clear winners as they will get reimbursed an additional several million dollars each year for PSCs and buffets, and installment payments on the $11.5 million outstanding balance for past PSCs.

The longer-term impact of the settlement agreement on the financial health of the Stadium Authority and the Stadium is uncertain and possibly negative. The agreement slows the required funding of Waterfall buckets by diverting half of Excess Revenues toward paying the PSC outstanding balance to StadCo. At the same time, Excess Revenues flowing into the Waterfall are declining because of reduced future SBL revenues, and the Waterfall’s capital funds will need to be replenished as the Stadium ages. Basically, the money flowing into the Waterfall is going down while commitments on the Waterfall funds are increasing. The settlement agreement gives the Board/City Council new flexibility to divert revenue from the Stadium Authority to the City. The long-term financial health of the Stadium and the Stadium Authority could depend on the financial discipline of City/Stadium Authority leaders.

Measure J Promise for City Revenue: The Problems with the Luxury Suites, Stadium Exclusive Areas, and Non-NFL Events
The 49ers own the Stadium’s 174 luxury suites. They own the suites year-round and all the revenues associated with them for NFL and non-NFL events flow to StadCo, with the exception

Page 56 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
of a $4 per ticket surcharge for non-NFL events and Suite Ticket revenues associated with some luxury suites. This was stipulated in Measure J and all subsequent agreements between the Stadium Authority and the 49ers entities. Because of their year-round ownership of the luxury suites and many other Stadium “exclusive areas,” the 49ers can profit from non-NFL events, regardless of whether the events are profitable for the Stadium Authority.

In fiscal years 2018-2020, The Civil Grand Jury learned that ManCo booked many money-losing non-NFL events, both college football and concerts, which led to zero Performance Rent. The Civil Grand Jury learned that college football was a draw for suite owners who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into suite ownership. ManCo booked college football to satisfy suite owners regardless of whether the events would be profitable for the Stadium Authority. This is another example of why it is imperative for the Stadium Authority to have a strong negotiating presence in the Marketing Plan.

The Stadium Authority had to absorb financial losses from these ManCo-negotiated events while the 49ers likely made money on these same events from renting luxury suites. This arrangement, which allows the 49ers to profit from non-NFL events even when Stadium Authority does not, calls into question whether ManCo, Stadium Authority’s Stadium management company, shares Stadium Authority’s priorities and motivations when booking non-NFL events.

The Grand Jury Expert also reviewed extensive information and agreements regarding revenue from non-NFL events and how the Stadium Authority’s $4 per ticket non-NFL event is not uniformly applied.

Measure J and the Stadium Lease Gave StadCo Control Over the Suites, Which StadCo Has Successfully Marketed in a Manner that Further Bolsters StadCo/ManCo Revenue Measure J anticipated that the suites were intended to be for the exclusive use of StadCo. (Measure J at Article 10, Section 10.9.) Per Measure J, StadCo also has the exclusive right to market the suites at non-NFL events (Measure J at Article 10, Section 10.10). The Stadium Lease provides that the Stadium’s luxury suites are StadCo’s “Tenant Exclusive Facilities,” which memorialized Measure J and allows StadCo to market and lease the suites. StadCo’s Stadium luxury suite leases provide leaseholders with a valuable enticement to enter into the agreement, such as:
• Special access to all ticketed non-NFL events held at the Stadium. • Executive Annual Suite Lease Holders—these leaseholders have the first right to rent their suite and purchase tickets for an additional charge before the suite is offered to the public for rent.
• Trophy Suite Lease Holders—these leaseholders may “opt-in” to attend all ticketed nonNFL events in their suite at no additional charge.

Page 57 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
• Owner’s Club Lease Holders—these leaseholders automatically are given the right to attend all ticketed non-NFL events in their suite at no additional charge.

Offering access perks to non-NFL events enhances StadCo’s ability to lease its expensive luxury suites. Specifically, while the Civil Grand Jury does not know the dollar value of the leases, according to the Stadium website, individual luxury suites range in price from $10,000-$50,000 per event depending on the event, suite availability, and suite type. As such, the value of the suites during non-NFL events can be significant. In comparison, for the ten events reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury with the assistance of the Grand Jury Expert, tickets distributed to the 712 luxury suites associated with the event contributed just $1,112,324 (Figures 15 and 16) in suite ticket revenue and $13,328 (Figure 13) in suite ticket surcharges.

The Stadium Authority Is Supposed to Receive Non-NFL Ticket Surcharges Measure J and the Lease Agreement Section 12.1 state that the Stadium Authority is entitled to the $4 non-NFL event ticket surcharge on tickets that are “sold or otherwise offered to the general public.” StadCo/ManCo interprets Section 12.1 to require the surcharge to be applied to several non-NFL event ticket categories, including general admission tickets and tickets associated with certain types of luxury suites. As detailed below, there are several ticket categories that StadCo/ManCo interprets the Lease Agreement as not requiring the surcharge.

Most tickets associated with non-NFL events are sold to the public for general admission to the Stadium’s “Seating Bowl.” These tickets are automatically assessed the $4 surcharge when purchased through various ticketing platforms and the surcharges collected are remitted to the Stadium Authority. Figure 12 reflects the number of Seating Bowl tickets sold by event and the $1.7 million in ticket surcharges StadCo/ManCo remitted to the Stadium Authority for the 10 sampled non-NFL events.
# of Tickets Sold Surcharges Remitted to
SA
433,119 $1,732,476
Figure 12: Seating Bowl Sold Ticket Surcharges Remitted to Stadium Authority In addition to Seating Bowl tickets, StadCo/ManCo interprets tickets associated with certain luxury suites to also fall under the Stadium Lease’s definition of “sold or otherwise offered to the general public” requiring the surcharge. For example, the Stadium Authority receives surcharges on tickets associated with “Rental Suites” tickets. The surcharges on these tickets are automatically assessed when purchased through StadCo/ManCo’s suites ticketing system.

According to StadCo/ManCo, a key feature of why tickets associated with rental suites are assessed the surcharge is that these tickets are sold to guests for specific events, producing additional incremental revenue.

Page 58 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority also receives ticket surcharges associated with certain suite tickets that are not considered sold or offered to the public but are bundled within a suite owner’s lease.

Specifically, StadCo/ManCo provides “Trophy Suite” guests with complimentary tickets for each individual non-NFL event that the lease owner opts to attend in their suite. According to StadCo/ManCo, surcharges for Trophy Suite tickets are only remitted to the Stadium Authority on tickets that are scanned—meaning the ticketholder attended the event. It is not clear why StadCo/ManCo interprets the Lease Agreement to require the surcharge be remitted on these tickets as StadCo/ManCo does not consider the tickets to be sold or otherwise offered to the public and no additional incremental revenue generated. Figure 13 reflects the $13,328 in surcharges StadCo/ManCo remitted to the Stadium Authority associated with Rental and Trophy Suite tickets for the ten sampled events.

Rental Suites Trophy Suites
Total
Surcharge
Remitted to
SA
# of
Suites
# of
Tickets Surcharge # of Suites
# of
Tickets Surcharge
284 5,797 $7,360 233 4,270 $5,968 $13,328
Figure 13: Rental and Trophy Suite Ticket Surcharges Remitted to Stadium Authority (Note: Number of suites and tickets were estimated for events that did not have surcharge data)
With respect to Figure 13 above, the numbers are estimates as a result of the data available not being disaggregated by suite type or event.

StadCo/ManCo failed to adhere to its own understanding of the surcharge obligations outlined in the Lease Agreement by not submitting surcharges to the Stadium Authority on all Rental and Trophy Suite tickets associated with 6 of the 10 sampled non-NFL events. Specifically, ManCo did not remit about $27,000 in surcharges on tickets associated with:
• Rental Suites. Based on best available ticket data, the $4 surcharge applied to 5,797 tickets distributed to rental suites equates to about $23,188 in required surcharges, but StadCo only remitted $7,360, a difference of $15,828.
• Trophy Suites. Based on best available ticket data, the $4 surcharge should have applied to about 4,270 tickets which equates to about $17,080, but StadCo/ManCo only remitted $5,968, a difference of $11,112.

Page 59 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
According to StadCo/ManCo, prior to 2019, the $4 non-NFL event ticket surcharge was not applied to any tickets associated with any luxury suites due to its past incorrect interpretation of the Lease Agreement and the process has subsequently been changed to submit surcharges on all non-NFL event tickets associated with Rental and Trophy suite tickets. However, StadCo/ManCo specifically did not state which Lease Agreement provisions were misinterpreted or the specific change that resulted in the modified surcharge application process.

The Stadium Authority Receipt of Non-NFL Ticket Surcharge “Exemptions” Measure J noted that the Stadium Authority intended to raise funds through a surcharge on nonNFL event tickets. Measure J simply stated that a $4 surcharge “per ticket” would be imposed. (Measure J, Article 13 at 13.5.) Neither Measure J nor the Stadium Lease specifically exempts any ticket categories from being assessed the non-NFL event ticket surcharge that must be remitted to the Stadium Authority. Rather, only the Stadium Lease describes when the surcharge is applicable, which is on tickets that are “sold or otherwise offered to the general public.” Due to the absence of specific exclusions, StadCo/ManCo interpreted that the surcharge requirements did not apply to complimentary tickets, potentially reducing surcharge revenue the Stadium Authority may be entitled to receive under the Stadium Lease.

Finding 9a: StadCo/ManCo interprets the Stadium Lease to require nonNFL ticket surcharges be applied to tickets associated with Rental and Trophy Luxury Suites, but failed to remit all corresponding surcharges to the Stadium Authority.

Finding 9b: StadCo/ManCo interprets the Stadium Lease to not require non-NFL ticket surcharges to be applied to Seating Bowl complimentary tickets and Owners Club Luxury Suite tickets.

Finding 9c: Suite ticket revenue submitted to the Stadium Authority does not account for suite ticket revenue for certain suite attendees.

Page 60 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
According to StadCo/ManCo’s interpretation of Lease Agreement Section 12.1, the Stadium Authority is not eligible to receive the $4 non-NFL event ticket surcharge on complimentary tickets provided to guests, which include:
• Seating Bowl Complimentary Tickets—provided to guests attending the event in the general area of the stadium.
• Owner’s Club Suite Tickets—provided to StadCo’s Owner’s Club leaseholders where tickets to all non-NFL events are bundled in the suite lease.

However, StadCo/ManCo’s perspective that the Stadium Authority is not entitled to receive surcharges on Seating Bowl Complimentary tickets seems to conflict with Stadium Lease 12.1 specifying that, beyond applying to sold tickets, the non-NFL event ticket surcharge extends to tickets “otherwise offered to the general public.” Because the Lease Agreement specifically identified and listed “sold” tickets from “otherwise offered to the general public” tickets, one could reasonably argue that the lease provisions would apply to complimentary tickets “offered” or made available to the public as guests attending the event in the Seating Bowl.

Additionally, StadCo/ManCo offered several reasons why the Stadium Authority ticket surcharge does not apply to Owner’s Club suite tickets. First, StadCo/ManCo asserts that the tickets issued to Owner’s Club suite leaseholders are not sold or available to the public, making the surcharge not applicable. Second, StadCo/ManCo also asserts that Lease Agreement Section

4.3.1 permits Owner’s Club Suite leaseholders to access their suite during Stadium Authority events through “credentials” rather than a ticket. However, these reasons contradict the Lease Agreement language and are inconsistent with its own implemented practices for several reasons.

Although StadCo/ManCo may perceive Owner’s Club Suite tickets as not being “sold” because they are bundled as part of the initial paid lease; non-NFL event tickets are included as part of the Owner’s Club Suite lease agreements that contribute to the value of the overall lease when initially sold. Thus, when one or more of the bundled tickets are distributed for the non-NFL events, it could be argued that the tickets were “offered to the public” and subject to the surcharge.

In addition, StadCo/ManCo’s belief that the surcharge does not apply to Owner’s Club Suite tickets contradicts its own interpretation and practice that the surcharge does apply to its Trophy Suite tickets, especially considering that neither type of ticket is sold individually, and both are linked to tickets bundled with leases. Moreover, Lease Agreement Sections 4.8.1 and 12.8 stipulate that suite licensees have the right to occupy suites during non-NFL events upon purchasing tickets, suggesting that the leaseholders, including Owner’s Club, must purchase tickets, which should be considered as a “sale”, rendering the surcharge applicable. Further, the Stadium Authority did not ensure the Lease Agreement limits the number of tickets StadCo can provide to its employees and guests without having to remit any surcharges to the Stadium Authority.

Page 61 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
For these reasons, StadCo/ManCo’s interpretation that the Stadium Authority is not entitled to receive surcharges on various ticket categories is inconsistent with Measure J and with other provisions of the Lease Agreement. Figure 14 reflects the nearly 80,000 tickets where Stadium Authority did not receive the $4 ticket surcharge associated with the ten sampled events for a total of more than $300,000 but may have been entitled to that surcharge.

Seating Bowl Owner’s Club Suites Tickets
# of Tickets # of Suites # of
Tickets
75,408 195 3,795 79,203
Figure 14: Estimated Complimentary Tickets and Owner’s Club Suite Tickets Where Stadium Authority Did Not Receive Surcharge (Note: Number of Owner’s Club suites and tickets are estimates. Exact figures were not available for analysis because data provided by ManCo were not disaggregated by suite type and by event.) Rental Suite Ticket Revenue
According to Lease Agreement Section 4.3.1, the Stadium’s 174 luxury suites are considered StadCo’s exclusive facilities and provides StadCo with the right to use and operate the suites.

For the Owner’s Club and Trophy Suites, StadCo has leases that allow the lease owners to attend all non-NFL events with event tickets bundled within the Lease Agreement. In other words, these lease owners do not have to purchase individual tickets on an event-by-event basis to attend.

StadCo also rents some suites on an individual event-by-event basis where tickets must be purchased by the renter for each individual non-NFL event.

According to Lease Agreement Section 12.8:
• StadCo may authorize the right for individuals to occupy luxury suites during non-NFL events upon the purchase of tickets for the event. This means every person must purchase a ticket to enter and use a luxury suite at a non-NFL event. • Amounts paid to occupy the suites above the cost of the tickets constitute StadCo revenue. This means the ticket portion, or “Suite Ticket Revenue”, belongs to the Stadium Authority.

Rental suites involve tickets that are sold to guests for specific non-NFL events, which makes the Suite Ticket Revenue amount determination relatively simple. As reflected in Figure 15, StadCo remitted $635,553 in Rental Suite Ticket Revenue to the Stadium Authority associated with rental suites for the ten sampled events.

Page 62 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Rental Suites
# of Suites # of Tickets Suite Ticket
Revenue
284 5,797 $635,553
Figure 15: Rental Suite Ticket Revenue Remitted to Stadium Authority (Note: Average ticket prices used to calculate suite ticket revenue are estimates) However, because some non-NFL event tickets associated with other luxury suites, such as Trophy Suites, are not individually purchased, but are bundled within agreements with suite leaseholders, it is more complicated to determine the Suite Ticket Revenue due to the Stadium Authority. To address this, Lease Agreement Section 4.8.1 explains how Suite Ticket Revenue associated with these suites is determined. Specifically, the maximum ticket price cannot exceed the weighted average selling price of all other tickets for the event. In practice, according to StadCo/ManCo, the average ticket price in a specific location of the Stadium is used to calculate the portion of suite sales attributable to Suite Ticket Revenue.

As reflected in Figure 16, StadCo/ManCo remitted $476,711 in Trophy Suite Ticket Revenue to Stadium Authority associated with the ten sampled events.

Trophy Suites
# of Suites # of Tickets Suite Ticket
Revenue
233 4,270 $476,771
Figure 16: Trophy Suite Ticket Revenue Remitted to Stadium Authority (Note: Number of suites and tickets are estimates. Exact figures were not available for analysis because data provided by ManCo were not disaggregated by suite type and by event.) Finding 10b: The Stadium Authority is unaware of the market revenue potential for non-NFL events at the Stadium. The Stadium Authority does not know what net revenues should be expected for non-NFL, ticketed and non-ticketed, events.

Finding 10a: Most revenue from non-NFL events goes to the promoter, which is typical. StadCo can make money on luxury suites regardless of the event's profitability for the Stadium Authority.

Page 63 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
While StadCo/ManCo interprets the Lease Agreement to require Suite Ticket Revenue associated with Rental and Trophy Suites to be remitted to the Stadium Authority, it interprets the Lease Agreement to not require this ticket revenue associated with other types of luxury suites.

Specifically, according to StadCo, tickets associated with Owner’s Club are not considered sold or offered to the public and as such, Suite Ticket Revenue does not have to be remitted to the Stadium Authority, the same reasons given that the ticket surcharge is also not assessed related to these suites, as discussed in the previous section. StadCo/ManCo’s interpretation that tickets associated with these suites are not considered sold seems to conflict with Lease Agreement Section 12.8 which states that tickets must be purchased to occupy a suite, as described earlier.

StadCo/ManCo’s interpretation that the Stadium Authority is not entitled to receive Suite Ticket Revenues associated with Owner’s Club suites requires further examination by the Stadium Authority. Figure 17 reflects an estimate of more than $400,000 in Suite Ticket Revenue (associated with the ten sampled events) that the Stadium Authority did not receive, but may have been entitled to, based on the average ticket price of Trophy Suite Tickets reflected in Figure

17. Owner’s Club Suites
# of Suites # of Tickets
Comped
Estimated Value
of Tickets
Comped
195 3,795 $432,382
Figure 17: Estimated Owner’s Club Suite Tickets Where Stadium Authority Did Not Receive Suite Ticket Revenue. (Note: Figures are estimates. Exact figures were not available for analysis because data provided by ManCo were not disaggregated by suite type and by event.)
Measure J Promise to Generate City Revenue: The Problem with Buffet Costs
The Stadium Authority owns the SBLs and all associated revenues. SBL sales were a major source of money for financing the Stadium's construction. There are 942 “Legacy” SBL holders that originally paid at least $80,000 for their seat licenses, and they were promised forty years of Finding 11: Per the Stadium Lease, the Stadium Authority failed to negotiate pertinent details about buffet costs in the contract, such as parameters on cost thresholds and alcohol. The Stadium Authority accepted responsibility for buffet costs but failed to follow up when the expense was omitted from ManCo’s budgets.

Page 64 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
complimentary buffets at 49ers games. The Stadium Authority does not dispute that it is responsible for these costs. The buffet cost per season was approximately $1 million.

Since the Stadium opened in 2014, ManCo has been responsible for providing a buffet amenity to these SBL holders. However, ManCo did not bill the Stadium Authority for the buffet costs for the first four years of the Stadium operations, and buffet costs were not included in the annual budgets submitted to the Stadium Authority for approval. If buffet costs had been budgeted, these costs would presumably have been included in the rent re-set arbitration.

A legal dispute started in 2019 when ManCo billed the Stadium Authority for over $4 million for buffet costs for the fiscal years covering 2014-2018. The Stadium Authority leaders do not dispute they are responsible to pay for the costs of buffets. The dispute over the $4 million invoice has occurred for several reasons. The bills were all submitted after the budget years had concluded; the most delinquent invoice was four years old. During the annual budget process, ManCo failed to include the buffet costs in the annual Stadium operations budgets. When finally submitted, the invoices provided insufficient details to support the more than $4 million of expenses.

The information on the invoices often included an expense incurred for alcoholic beverages served at the expense of the Stadium Authority, a public entity. When City staff became aware that the Stadium Authority was expected to cover the cost of alcohol, they were surprised. Almost all of the invoices charge for the same number of guests for every single game during a particular season, with no variation. The invoices lacked any details regarding what kind of food was served and lacked any supporting documentation. The lack of information makes it difficult to know how StadCo determines the number of guests served.

This legal dispute over expensive high-end buffets appears to be another example of a naïve or uninformed contract negotiating position by City/Stadium Authority leaders. The Stadium Lease clearly says that the Stadium Authority will provide buffets for high-end SBL holders. However, the Stadium Authority failed to ensure the Stadium Lease, until now, had any limitations on buffet costs (like a PSC Threshold), and it had/has no clarity about whether alcoholic beverages are covered under buffet costs. This dispute was settled under the May 2024 settlement agreement key elements include:
• The Stadium Authority must pay all costs for all future buffets for the 942 “Legacy” SBL holders for all 49ers games.
• The cost per game is, for the first time, capped at $90,000 per game with a 3% annual inflation adjustment.
• All claims by StadCo for payment of buffet costs for all prior years, from 2014 forward, are dismissed.

Page 65 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Community Promises Not Fulfilled
In a letter dated January 10, 2012, from 49er CEO Jed York to Santa Clara Youth Soccer League Executive Board Members, the 49ers stated that they were cognizant that “NFL game day traffic will make trips to the [Youth Soccer] park more complicated.” The letter further stated:

To demonstrate our commitment to our community’s young soccer players and their families we are proposing that the 49ers underwrite several regulation-sized additional soccer fields in Santa Clara. These fields would be dedicated and maintained for the use of the Santa Clara Youth Soccer League during NFL game days...We have been part of the Santa Clara community for 22 years and we are committed to remaining a good neighbor to the soccer community.

Instead of following through with the above-stated intentions, the 49ers spent years trying to gain access to the 10.8 acres of fields near the Stadium to use as parking during NFL events, including a complicated offer in 2015 where the 49ers would lease the fields year-round, with the promise of eventually underwriting the construction of new fields. The offer died at a City Council meeting packed with angry soccer parents (City of Santa Clara, 2015).

Since 2017 (excluding 2020), half of the 49ers’ 44 weekend home games overlap with soccer matches at the Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park (SCYSP), which means children and their families have to get special passes to access roads and deal with rowdy fans who think they can cut through the SCYSP parking lot to get to the Stadium (Simon, 2024).

In addition to failing to exhibit goodwill towards their neighbors by not following through on promises made to SCYSP, the 49ers have failed to provide a usable space as a Community Room within the Stadium. Measure J promoted the idea of the Stadium as a Community Facility and in the Stadium Lease, the 49ers agreed to provide a meeting space, as outlined in the Stadium Plans, for community groups and non-profits. The Stadium Authority could schedule Civic Events at any time but would need approval from StadCo during the NFL Season. (Stadium Lease, Amended, Section 4.7.2, 2013).

Finding 12: A Multi-Use Community Facility at the Stadium was one of Measure J’s original promises and was memorialized in the Stadium Lease. The current designated space for the Community Room at the Stadium is not easily accessible nor is it pragmatic for most civic events.

Page 66 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Stadium Authority has been negotiating for access to a suitable room since 2012; at one point the 49ers offered the Stadium Authority a space being used as a storage area. The peak negotiations occurred in 2017 and 2018, during which time the Stadium Authority developed a reservation process and policy in anticipation of getting a space. Rental of the room includes a minimum four-hour commitment; the associated costs include, at a minimum, security, Guest Services/Engineering, Janitorial, and Room Logistics (set up and tear down of room). If the civic group requires any of the following, the cost is extra: catering (only Stadium concessionaire), furniture rental, AV rental, and IT support (City of Santa Clara, Council Meeting, 2017). Based on all of these factors, the use of the Community Room is likely very costly and has proven to not be very pragmatic.

Although there is currently a space called the “Community Room” in the Stadium, it has been used exclusively by the 49ers Foundation primarily to host the 49ers STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math) Education program. The room is currently located on the field level of the Stadium, in a service area, lacks windows, and has a maximum occupancy of 225 people. Even if the Stadium Authority had full access to that particular room, escorts are required to enter and leave the Stadium; this is an issue if a civic event is in the evening.

Functions at night require additional staff including security, and some staff require a four-hour minimum for a booked event. Additionally, it is a 15-minute walk from the parking lot and there is a fee.

To date, the promise of the Community Room for civic events has not come to fruition.

FIFA – World Cup Soccer 2026
The City and the Stadium will host six FIFA World Cup games in 2026. Selection as a host city/site is a prestigious recognition for the City, the Bay Area, and the Stadium as a world-class venue. Beyond the recognition, the games are expected to provide economic benefits for many City and Bay Area businesses from an influx of out-of-town visitors.

The World Cup bid was negotiated and controlled by ManCo and the Bay Area Host Committee (BAHC), without any initial input from City staff or the Stadium Authority. The BAHC is a local Finding 13: The FIFA World Cup commitments for the City and the Stadium Authority were made without consultation with the City/Stadium Authority.

Page 67 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
organization that was initially created in preparation for Super Bowl 50. Recently it has restructured itself and now works to attract major sporting events to the Bay Area. The President of the 49ers, and ManCo, Al Guido, was also the President of the BAHC when he signed agreements relating to FIFA on behalf of the Stadium Authority. Many consider his multiple roles representing the Stadium’s management company and the BAHC a conflict of interest.

Until recently, City/Stadium Authority leaders had no information about the obligations and costs that they had been committed to. The Civil Grand Jury learned that the City/Stadium Authority requested documents relating to their host obligations from the 49ers, BAHC, and FIFA before February 2023 and they were initially denied. Since then, City/Stadium Authority staff have negotiated access to some documents and successfully made redacted copies available via the City’s public website.. Additionally, City/Stadium Authority staff is working on an Assignment and Assumption Agreement and other agreements with ManCo and the BAHC, which will outline all of the services that will be required from the City including public safety commitments. The Civil Grand Jury learned that City officials are counting on the BAHC to raise the funds that will be needed to pay for all of the PSCs for the World Cup.

Recent media reporting has stated that the City Attorney has informed the City Council that the Stadium Authority could face multimillion-dollar losses, as much as $38 million, from hosting the World Cup (Williams and Kroichick, 2024). Other large cities hosting World Cup games, such as Vancouver, Toronto, and Los Angeles, each estimate hosting costs of over $100 million.

The World Cup matches are not expected to make any money for the Stadium Authority or contribute any money to the City’s General Fund, and extensive efforts to prepare the Stadium for World Cup matches will limit opportunities for other large non-NFL events in 2026. So, while many area businesses will profit from having World Cup events at the Stadium, the Stadium Authority may be financially penalized. The 49ers/ManCo are supposed to make every effort to maximize the Stadium Authority non-NFL events income, but by successfully bidding for the World Cup without consulting with the Stadium Authority officials, the 49ers/ManCo will likely drive down 2026 Stadium Authority income and Performance Rent for the City.

Stadium Authority Staff
As noted previously, City directors have a dual role as Stadium Authority officers. The lack of a separate Stadium Authority department structure requires staff to divide their time between City business and Stadium Authority business. The relationship between the City, Stadium Authority, and the various 49er entities is complex, but an added dimension has been the difficult partner the 49ers have proven to be.

Page 68 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
The Civil Grand Jury wants to point out that many of the problems detailed above were the work of City and Stadium Authority staff who are no longer with the organization. The City and Stadium Authority has recently brought in new leadership. The Civil Grand Jury acknowledges that the City/Stadium Authority staff were responsive to the Civil Grand Jury investigation and cooperative. While it remains unclear whether new staff can hold StadCo/ManCo accountable because that will also take the willingness of the City Council/Board, the Civil Grand Jury is encouraged by knowledgeable and professional staff.

Page 69 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

CONCLUSION
Ten years after the Stadium opened, this report provides a critical retrospective on the promises of Measure J and the resulting contracts between the 49ers, the City, and the Stadium Authority.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that some important aspects of Measure J have gone well, especially the taxpayer protections for the City and its residents. For other benefits promised under Measure J, the results, as detailed in this report, are decidedly mixed. While many of Measure J's promises have been fulfilled, the voters anticipated greater benefits.

City leaders were excited to entice a major sports franchise with the prospect of a new worldclass stadium, and they were impatient to finalize negotiations on contractual terms and conditions for the Stadium. The City appeared to be outmatched by the expertise of the 49ers’ negotiators. City staff understood then that many of the terms in the agreements strongly favored the interests of the 49ers, and some of the staff even understood that the 49ers had sophisticated long-term goals that would significantly favor 49er interests. The resulting Stadium contracts are complicated and intricately interwoven.

At the heart of the relationship between the 49ers and Stadium Authority, there is an imbalance of power. The Stadium Authority and City negotiators bear great responsibility for this imbalance. Stadium contracts ceded control and important benefits to the 49ers. Since then, while the 49ers have been difficult partners/tenants, the 49ers were emboldened by the agreements, and the Stadium Authority has historically failed to assert its remaining limited rights and controls. This report has a number of Findings that fault the Stadium Authority’s actions. Sadly, there are fewer Recommendations, as many of the Findings relate to poor Board decisions made for over a decade that cannot easily be undone. The City and the Stadium Authority were clearly outplayed by the San Francisco 49ers.

Rick Eckstein, a Villanova University sociology professor who co-wrote a book about public financing of stadiums, said that sports teams are typically much more sophisticated than the cities and counties with whom they negotiate stadium deals. “The teams are always about two or three steps ahead of the municipalities in being clever,” Eckstein said. (Weider, 2019)

Page 70 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
From the beginning, the City was impatient and overmatched in its negotiation posture with the 49ers to the long-term detriment of the City/Stadium Authority.

Recommendation 2
The City should commission its own report to determine the Stadium's actual economic impact over the last decade. This recommendation should be implemented by July 1, 2025.

Finding 4
The City/Stadium Authority agreed to use ManCo, an affiliate of the 49ers, with an inherent conflict of interest to handle the Stadium Authority’s financial interests in non-NFL events.

Page 71 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Recommendation 4
None
Finding 5
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the Management Agreement included a fair termination clause.

Recommendation 5
None
Finding 6a
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure the Management Agreement provided the Stadium Authority with full access to financial records.

Finding 6b
ManCo’s financial transparency with the Stadium Authority has improved with the implementation in 2022 of a new financial management system.

Finding 6c
Transaction-level testing generally supports ManCo’s reporting of financial results for non-NFL events.

Recommendations 6a, 6b and 6c
None
Finding 7a
The City/Stadium Authority failed to ensure that the original Management Agreement and the 2022 settlement agreement contained sufficient language requiring specific items or methods and performance metrics to prioritize Stadium Authority revenue generation. This has resulted in a failure to hold ManCo accountable for the success of non-NFL events.

Finding 7b
The Stadium Authority failed to use the prescribed Marketing Correction Plan per Article 3.3.1 of the Management Agreement process to hold ManCo accountable for unsuccessful non-NFL event bookings.

Recommendation 7
The Stadium Authority should retain the expertise needed to meaningfully weigh in on ManCo’s Marketing Plan to ensure that the Stadium Authority’s profitability is maximized. The Stadium

Page 72 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Authority should also establish a yearly audit procedure to measure and analyze each season's Marketing Plan against its outcomes, updating future plans based on this analysis. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Finding 8a
There is no evidence showing that ManCo is negotiating to maximize Stadium Authority profits for non-NFL events.

Recommendation 8
As part of the Marketing Plan, Stadium Authority should require that ManCo produce a marketing plan that maximizes profits for the Stadium Authority and incentivizes ManCo marketing staff to prioritize the profitability of the Stadium Authority. This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Finding 9b
StadCo/ManCo interprets the Stadium Lease to not require non-NFL ticket surcharges to be applied to Seating Bowl complimentary tickets and Owners Club Luxury Suite tickets.

Finding 9c
Suite ticket revenue submitted to the Stadium Authority does not account for suite ticket revenue for certain suite attendees.

Page 73 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Finding 10a
Most revenue from non-NFL events goes to the promoter, which is typical. StadCo can make money on luxury suites regardless of the event's profitability for the Stadium Authority.

Finding 10b
The Stadium Authority is unaware of the market revenue potential for non-NFL events at the Stadium. The Stadium Authority does not know what net revenues should be expected for nonNFL, ticketed and non-ticketed, events.

Recommendation 10
The Stadium Authority should hire a professional third-party consultant, not affiliated with the 49ers, to analyze the reasonable expectations for non-NFL events such as:
• An analysis of the market revenue potential for non-NFL events at the Stadium. • An analysis of ManCo's Marketing Plans, comparing successful (FY 2022-23) and unsuccessful (FY 2017-18) bookings to potential market revenue. • A plan with measurable objectives and incentives for ManCo to achieve these results.

This recommendation should be implemented by December 31, 2024.

Recommendation 11
None
Finding 12
A Multi-Use Community Facility at the Stadium was one of Measure J’s original promises and was memorialized in the Stadium Lease. The current designated space for the Community Room at the Stadium is not easily accessible nor is it pragmatic for most civic events.

Recommendation 12
The Stadium is not an appropriate location for a Community Facility. The Stadium Authority should work with the 49ers to identify and procure an alternative space for community needs.

This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2025.

Page 74 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Finding 13
The FIFA World Cup commitments for the City and the Stadium Authority were made without consultation with the City/Stadium Authority.

Page 75 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of Santa Clara/Stadium Authority
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 6c,
7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9a, 9b,
9c, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Page 76 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED

REFERENCES
Bibliography
2015-2016 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report. “The City of Santa Clara, The Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Levi’s Stadium, and Measure J.” (https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2016/MeasureJ.pdf). Accessed May 20, 2024.
2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report. “Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Santa Clara City Council.”
(https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/Unsportsmanlike%20Conduct %20-%20Santa%20Clara%20City%20Council.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2023. 2024 Levi’s Stadium Events Marketing Plan. January 31, 2024. (https://santaclara.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1125936&GUID=B33995A0- 7585-4821-B8CC-3F7B2025CE38). Accessed June 6, 2024.

Associated Press. “Voters Reject New Stadium For Giants.” Deseret News. November 7, 1990. (https://www.deseret.com/1990/11/7/18889965/voters-reject-new-stadium-for-giants/).

Accessed May 20, 2024.

Avalos, George. “Levi’s Stadium will create many jobs, but many low-paid or temporary.” East Bay Times. July 11. 2014. (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2014/07/11/levisstadium-will-create-many-jobs-but-many-low-paid-or-temporary/). Accessed June 5, 2024.

Ballotpedia. Santa Clara Stadium for the 49ers, Measure J (June 2010). 2010. (https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_the
Stadium_for_the_49ers,_Measure_J_(June_2010)#cite_note-8). Accessed April 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Agenda Report. July 6, 2010.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3701/635713044859030 000). Accessed June 5, 2024
City of Santa Clara. Agenda Report. March 12, 2012.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7036/635713044859030 000). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Page 77 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
City of Santa Clara. Agenda Report. August 24, 2017.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/54659/63648172806507 0000). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. City Council Priorities. April 19, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/ourcity/government/mayor-and-council/city-council-priorities). Accessed June 5, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. City News. August 12, 2018.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/36951/). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. City News. March 5, 2019.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/38743/3171). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. City News. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/44971/3171?backlist= %2F-curm-1). Accessed June 5, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Parks. n.d.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/ServiceDirectory/ServiceDirectory/2 85/2654). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure and Lobbyist Filings. n.d. (https://public.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=CSC). Accessed June 5, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. San Francisco 49ers Football Stadium. Ballot question language. 2013. (https://web.archive.org/web/20130423163859/http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page =1197). Accessed April 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. San Francisco 49ers Football Stadium. 2013. (https://web.archive.org/web/20130423163859/http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page =1197). Accessed April 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Past Agenda Reports - 49ers. April 2, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/santa-clara-stadium-authority/stadiumauthority-board/past-agenda-reports-49ers). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Page 78 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
City of Santa Clara. Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board. January 29, 2024. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/santa-clara-stadium-authority/stadiumauthority-board). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. “Welcome to the City of Santa Clara Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure and Lobbyist Filings.” 2024. (https://public.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=CSC).

Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Council Meeting. April 21, 2015.
(https://santaclara.granicus.com/player/clip/625?view_id=1&redirect=true). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Council Meeting. December 1, 2020. (https://santaclara.granicus.com/player/clip/1413?view_id=1&redirect=true). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Council Meeting. February 22, 2022. (https://santaclara.granicus.com/player/clip/1683?view_id=1&meta_id=143438&redire ct=true). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Council Meeting. January 24, 2017. (https://santaclara.granicus.com/player/clip/662?view_id=1&redirect=true). Accessed May 20, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. Council Meeting. September 26, 2023. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-FyVKpLYI). Accessed May 20, 2024.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Assessor. May 20, 2019. (https://www.sccassessor.org/images/49erAppealMedia%20ReleaseFinal.pdf).

Accessed May 20, 2024.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Registrar of Voters. “Complete text of Measure J.” 2010. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/78490/63800647323140 0000). Accessed March 13, 2024.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Registrar of Voters. “Past Election Information and Results.” 2024. (https://vote.santaclaracounty.gov/elections/past-election-informationand-results). Accessed May 13, 2024.

Page 79 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Gardiner, Dustin. “‘Potential Takeover’: 49ers’ Unprecedented Election Spending in Santa Clara.” San Francisco Chronicle. October 30, 2022.
(https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Santa-Clara-election-49ers17542952.php). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Killion, Ann. “Future of 49ers Unclear no Matter Which Way New the Stadium Vote Goes.” Sports Illustrated. June 4, 2010. (https://www.si.com/more-sports/2010/06/04/49ersstadiumvote). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Levi’s Stadium Website. 49ers and Levi’s Stadium to Host Job Fair for GameDay Employment Opportunities. May 21, 2024. (https://www.levisstadium.com/2024/05/49ers-and-levisstadium-to-host-job-fair-for-gameday-employment-opportunities-2/). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Levi’s Stadium Website, Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, Home. n.d. (https://www.levisstadium.com/seats/). Accessed May 17, 2024.

Logan, Tim. “In the Stadium Financing Game, Goldman Sachs Dominates.” The Los Angeles Times. May 23, 2015. (https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadiumgoldman-20150524-story.html). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Lu, Marcus. “The World’s Most Valuable Sports Teams in 2024.” Visual Capitalist. March 12, 2024. (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-most-valuable-sports-teams-2024/).

Accessed May 20, 2024.

Matier, Phil and Andy Ross. “49ers No Match for Santa Clara Youth Soccer League.” San Francisco Chronicle. April 25, 2015. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matierross/article/49ers-no-match-for-Santa-Clara-Youth-Soccer-League6223247.php#photo-7859195). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Mintz, Howard. “49ers Dig into Political Playbook for Stadium Ballot Measure.” Mercury News. December 9, 2009. (https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/12/09/49ers-dig-intopolitical-playbook-for-stadium-ballot-measure/). Accessed April 20, 2024.

Mintz, Howard. “49ers Open Checkbook for Santa Clara Stadium Campaign.” East Bay Times.

February 2, 2010. (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/02/02/49ers-open-checkbookfor-santa-clara-stadium-campaign/). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Page 80 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Mintz, Howard. “49ers Spent Nearly $5 Million on Santa Clara Stadium Election. Mercury News. August 2, 2010. (https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/08/02/49ers-spent-nearly5-million-on-santa-clara-stadium-election-2/). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Murray, William, D. “Giants Lose Stadium Vote for Third Time.” UPI. November 7, 1990. (https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/11/07/Giants-lose-stadium-vote-for-thirdtime/2069657954000/). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Newhan, Ross. “Voters Reject Stadium Tax for Giants in Santa Clara.” Los Angeles Times.

November 8, 1990. (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-08-sp-5468- story.html). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Ozanian, Mike and Justin Teitelbaum. “NFL Team Valuations.” Forbes. August 30, 2023. (https://www.forbes.com/lists/nfl-valuations/?sh=4b41ee861738). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Santa Clara Stadium Authority. “Adopted Fiscal Year 2019/20 Operating, Debt Service and Capital Budget.” February 2019.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63796/63787789552357 0000). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Santa Clara Stadium Authority. “Informational Report on Stadium Litigation.” September 29, 2020.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70162/63737222336430 0000). Accessed June 6, 2024.

Santa Clara Stadium Authority. “Proposed Fiscal Year 2024/25 Operating, Debt Service and Capital Budget.” February 2024.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83290/63844899851253 0000). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Simers, T.J. “LA 49ers? Not so Outlandish Now.” Los Angeles Times. June 4, 1997. (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-04-me-65348-story.html).

Accessed May 20, 2024.

Simon, Alex. “The 49ers and Santa Clara’s Decade-Long Fight Over...Youth Soccer.” SF Gate. January 20, 2024. (https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/youth-soccer-park-santaclara-49ers-fight-18617699.php). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Page 81 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Simon, Alex. “Economists blast 49ers' report on Levi's Stadium's local impact.” SF Gate.

October 4, 2023. (https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/levis-stadium-economicimpact-santa-clara-county-18404728.php). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Simon, Mark. “Giants Roots’ Run Deep in Santa Clara.” SF Gate. August 2, 2001. (https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Giants-roots-run-deep-in-Santa-Clara2893266.php). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Stadium Management Agreement. March 28, 2012.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46731/63607142990883 0000). Accessed June 5, 2024.

Stadium Lease Agreement. June 19, 2013.
(https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46687/63607142873577 0000). Accessed June 5, 2024.

Thompson, Gabriel. “I was a Super Bowl Concession Worker.” Slate. February 9, 2016. (https://slate.com/business/2016/02/i-sold-beer-and-hot-dogs-at-the-super-bowl-andgot-paid-a-pittance.html). Accessed May 20, 2024.

UPI. “Giants Make Pitch to Santa Clara.” UPI. January 17, 1990. (https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/01/17/Giants-make-pitch-to-SantaClara/6547632552400/). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Weider, Ben. “San Francisco 49ers stadium tax fight heads to court.” McClatchy DC. May 20, 2019. (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article230604464.html).

Accessed June 3, 2024.

Williams, Lance, and Ron Kroichick. 49ers-Santa Clara Feud Rises Again: Mayor says Team Wants to Oust City Manager. San Francisco Chronicle. February 24, 2022. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/49ers/article/49ers-Santa-Clara-feud-rises-againMayor-says-16942673.php). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Williams, Lance, and Ron Kroichick. “Court Approves $180 Million Property Tax Cut for 49ers in Levi’s Stadium Dispute.” San Francisco Chronicle. December 13, 2023. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/49ers/article/court-approves-180m-tax-cut-49erslevi-s-18550228.php). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Page 82 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
Williams, Lance, and Ron Kroichick. “World Cup Could Cost Santa Clara $38 million after 49ers’ Opaque Deals, City Attorney Warns Council.” San Francisco Chronicle. May 17, 2024. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/49ers/article/world-cup-cost-santa-clara38-million-49ers-19460705.php). Accessed May 20, 2024.

Page 83 of 83 ends

OUTPLAYED
This report was ADOPTED by the 2023-24 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 13th day of June, 2024.
______________________________
Karen Enzensperger
Foreperson
July 3, 2024
VIA EMAIL – [email protected]
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Dear SCSA Board and Chair,
I write to provide you with our perspective on the latest offering from the Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury regarding Levi’s Stadium, entitled “Outplayed.” The report starts with the erroneous premise that the City of Santa Clara negotiated a bad deal, specifically criticizing the lack of incentives to increase non-NFL event (NNE) revenue for the SCSA as the “most important” issue to be addressed. As outlined in this letter, the initial premise of the report is incorrect, and the NNE incentives are appropriate and operating as intended.

It’s important to note the report acknowledges that the Measure J taxpayer protections, approved by the voters in 2010, have all been fulfilled, and that the SCSA has been a financial success. After subpoenaing thousands of documents and questioning staff for more than a hundred hours, the jury did not find a single violation of the stadium contracts or the law by the 49ers.

The City of Santa Clara Got a Good Deal
The report posits that the City of Santa Clara negotiated a bad deal but doesn’t offer any comparisons to other stadium deals to support that premise. The fact is the City got a deal that other NFL cities envy: The 49ers pay the SCSA more rent than any other NFL team, the 49ers have delivered well over $1B in revenue to the SCSA in seat licenses, ticket surcharges, and sponsorship revenues – more than any other team in the NFL, and the City’s general fund has received millions of dollars from the stadium deal, all with a taxpayer investment of zero dollars. In fact, the stadium has been so successful in its first decade that the SCSA has surpassed its original financial projections on nearly all fronts. Capital reserves are filling decades ahead of schedule and stadium debt is being repaid far earlier than expected, saving nearly $100M in interest costs.

The price to the City of Santa Clara to build Levi’s Stadium was an unused overflow parking lot already encumbered by a long-term lease, and the same $40M of 2 redevelopment money that was slated to be lost if it wasn’t used. In return, Santa Clara received a multi-purpose stadium that is generating revenue for the general fund, jobs for residents, and revenue for the city’s local businesses and hotels. That’s a good deal for the city and its residents.

Given that the underlying “bad deal” premise of the report is false, the findings that rely on that premise should be disregarded.

Non-NFL Event Profits are at Record Highs
Much of the report focuses on NNE profits – money the SCSA earns from concerts, soccer matches, etc. As a preliminary matter, it’s worth noting that NNE profits are a relatively small component of the SCSA’s overall revenues – in the range of 3% to 10% of total revenues. We assume the report focuses on this revenue stream because critics of the 49ers have been misleading the public for years that the 49ers are stealing money from concerts despite continuous evidence to the contrary. There have been numerous audits and investigations of this topic over the years, all of which have concluded – just as this report concluded – that there is no “missing money.” There were, however, several years of NNE losses due to some college football games that didn’t sell well, coupled with policies like the curfew, which hurt stadium business.

But even those dynamics were contained to a few extreme outliers in the history of events booked at Levi’s Stadium. As your staff has informed you repeatedly, the last two years of NNE profits were the highest in the stadium’s history, totaling $20 million to the SCSA since COVID-19. Since COVID-19, major NNE events have averaged over $1 million in profit to the SCSA and are on track to do so again this year.

Regarding the report’s concern about incentives, under the management agreement, the stadium manager receives a fixed “Base Management Fee,” plus an incentive fee based on NNE net income. That incentive fee is called the “Marketing and Booking Fee” and ranges from 10%-20% of the net income above a predetermined benchmark. The report correctly points out that the stadium manager earned $90,000 in incentive fees for FY 2022-23, but the Grand Jury states in the report that that amount is too low to “…prioritize Stadium Authority profitability over StadCo profitability associated with non-NFL events.”
That finding is incorrect for several reasons.
• The report fails to cite any stadium management agreements from other venues to support its contention that the incentive fee is inadequate and, while the stadium manager would be happy to entertain an increase in its compensation, we don’t believe it would have any impact on NNE profits. • The incentives for this type of sales work (funded from NNE profits) are paid to the sales team who are responsible for bringing in the revenue, based on the financial performance of the events. The Grand Jury was unable to determine if the employees’ commission structure is adequate, which is unsurprising since 3 neither the Grand Jury nor its experts have any experience in event sales. In contrast, the 49ers have decades of experience in this area. The program we established for the sales of SBLs for the SCSA is one of the most successful sales programs of any venue in the world and was engineered by the same executive team who created the NNE sales program. Our NNE sales team is among the best trained and best managed in the nation.
• The results speak for themselves. Following the SCSA Board decision to eliminate the Mayor’s music ban and the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, NNE profits are the highest they have ever been, bringing in $20 million in profit for the SCSA. Over the last two fiscal years, major events have averaged over $1 million in profit for the SCSA per event and are on track to deliver the same this year.
• The report’s assertion that the stadium manager should “…prioritize Stadium Authority profitability over StadCo profitability associated with non-NFL events” is out of step with both the stadium management agreement and the 2022 settlement agreement, both of which are explicit in directing the stadium manager to book events that are good for the stadium, the SCSA and the 49ers.

That is exactly how we have always operated. In fact, in 2020, a county assessment board found that our work on behalf of the Stadium Authority is “fair and impartial” - a point later affirmed by a Santa Clara Superior Court and ignored by this report.
• Finally, the report spends several pages criticizing the NNE marketing plan, stating that “…the Board is aware of Stadium Authority staff’s dissatisfaction with ManCo’s marketing plans.” The reality is that the latest marketing plan was endorsed by SCSA staff and approved by the SCSA Board at its meeting on March 12th this year.

The Mayor’s Music Ban
The report also attempts to whitewash the financial damage the Mayor inflicted on the SCSA’s concert business when she began imposing weeknight curfews of 10PM. The report says: “… a comparison of non-NFL ticketed events held during both profitable and non-profitable years reflected in Figure 9 showed no significant difference in the number or ratio of events held on weeknights versus weekends.” Here are the facts overlooked by the report, showing the SCSA lost millions as a result of the ban.
• Prior to lifting the Mayor’s Music Ban, Levi’s Stadium was scheduled to host the Ed Sheeran tour in 2018. Because of the 10PM curfew, the promoter moved that show to PacBell park in San Francisco. This concert would have generated roughly $1M for the SCSA, and employed four thousand local workers. [SF Chronicle, “Ed Sheeran says ‘no thanks’ to Levi’s Stadium show: Curfew kills the buzz,” Sept. 24, 2017]
4 • Since the Board voted to end the music ban, the SCSA has approved four separate waivers for weeknight concerts to play beyond the 10PM curfew, and those concerts have generated $5.3M for the SCSA. If the 10PM curfew had remained in place, the SCSA would not have received that revenue. For your awareness, the Board has granted a fifth waiver for the upcoming Rolling Stones concert on July 17, generating additional revenue that would have been lost without the curfew waiver from the Board.

As you can see, although the report claims there was “no significant” financial impact from the 10PM curfew, the data tells a much different story.

Community Promises Fulfilled
Although the report makes clear that all of the requirements of Measure J have been met, it nonetheless asserts that the 49ers have not fulfilled their promises to the community, and it provides two pieces of evidence to support this assertion – both of them are incorrect.

Community Room
The report asserts that the 49ers have failed to provide the Community Room described in the Stadium Lease. The report claims: “The Stadium Authority has been negotiating for access to a suitable room since 2012; at one point the 49ers offered the Stadium Authority a space being used as a storage area.”
This is incorrect. The location of the Community Room was negotiated with City Staff before stadium construction commenced in 2012, and that location is clearly indicated in Exhibit C to the Stadium Lease. The other complaints in the report about the community room are similarly incorrect:
• City Staff was fully aware of the screening and escort requirements for public access to the stadium. This has been a best practice for many years at high profile venues.
• The report then complains that the stadium is a 15-minute walk from the parking lot and there is a fee. Again, all of that was discussed with City Staff before the stadium was built.

More importantly, the report suggests that the 49ers STEAM program is somehow displacing the community room when, in fact the STEAM program, 49ers EDU, has reached 500,000 Bay Area students and educators through digital and in-person programming, with the majority coming from Title 1 designated schools and historically underserved communities.

Santa Clara Youth Soccer League
The second (and final) example the report cites regarding the 49ers “unfulfilled community promises” is also incorrect. The report states that the 49ers “…upset locals 5 over their failure to follow up on promises made to the Santa Clara Youth Soccer League…”. As evidence of this purported broken promise, the report includes an excerpt from the 49ers 2012 letter to the soccer league regarding our proposal to partner with the SCUSD to create new youth soccer fields at the local schools, with the 49ers paying for new fields and ongoing maintenance.

But the report conveniently omits the very next sentence of that same letter which explains the SCUSD would need to approve the use of their land for the soccer fields.

Ultimately SCUSD declined that proposal, so the deal fell apart. Later, the 49ers offered to gift the City $3M for its youth sports program – no strings attached. Mayor Gillmor declined that offer.

Closing
We remain frustrated by the continued attempts by biased critics to find fault in the work we do on behalf of the SCSA. Furthermore, these baseless accusations are resulting in the expenditure of public resources, meaning taxpayers are being stuck with the bill for repeatedly debunking the same myths over and over again.

Nonetheless, this jury ultimately came to the same conclusions other investigations have – Levi’s Stadium is a success. The new leadership of the SCSA can take pride in making meaningful changes that have improved business operations, transparency, and collaboration – as was also affirmed by this report. We remain immensely proud of the contributions the 49ers have made to this community, which include delivering $1 billion to the Stadium Authority, and adding $2 billion to the local economy.

Sincerely,
Larry MacNeil
CC: Jovan Grogan
Glen Googins
Chuck Baker
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-500 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
On February 23, 1976, the City Council approved a partnership with the County of Santa Clara (County) to administer the City’s Weed Abatement Program. Over the past four decades, the County has managed the program efficiently and effectively. The program plays a crucial role in mitigating risks associated with overgrown vegetation and the accumulation of combustible materials, which can pose fire hazards, while also maintaining community aesthetic standards to prevent urban blight.

This agreement has significantly reduced program costs for the community through economies of scale.

The contract between the County and the Santa Clara City Code designates the City Council as the final arbiter of all appeals. On January 31, 2024, in accordance with Title 8, Chapter 15 of the Santa Clara City Code (SCCC), the City Council held an initial public hearing and declared weeds a nuisance. A second public hearing was convened on February 20, 2024, to address objections regarding the inclusion of certain properties in the 2024 County Weed Abatement Commencement Report and to order the abatement of the nuisance caused by growing weeds. Fifteen property owners contested their inclusion in the report and the associated fees.

In response to the input at the February 20th public hearing, the City Council directed staff to conduct a thorough review of property owners' appeals, ensuring all contested cases are carefully examined, and evaluate programmatic options for next year. Staff surveyed cities that do not participate in the County Weed Abatement Program, evaluating options for programmatic improvements. The survey of cities that do not currently participate in the County program has been completed, and the review of programmatic options is currently underway. Staff will present their analyses and recommendations to Council later this year.

Staff sent certified letters to the 15 property owners who contested their inclusion in the 2024 Commencement Report. Each property owner was asked to provide documentation supporting their request for removal from the program, justification for non-compliance, and current photographs demonstrating compliance with County standards. After a thorough review of the appeal information, 6 of the 15 properties were removed from the commencement report based on Council guidance during the February 20, 2024, hearing. The County Weed Abatement Manager was notified and confirmed the removal of these properties. All 15 property owners were notified by certified mail of City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-500 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
the final determination of their appeals.

Once the appeal process was completed, the County Weed Abatement Program manager instructed its staff to conduct the required inspections and its contractor to abate identified hazards on the respective lots and parcels of land within Santa Clara that remained out of compliance. This inspection and abatement work has now been completed for this year.

The 2023 County Weed Abatement report (Attachment 2), approved by the City Council on July 11, 2023, had a total of 123 non-compliant parcels or lots of land with an assessed cost of $105,043.94 to property owners. Of this amount, 62 parcels required ongoing compliance inspections, totaling $5,704. 42 parcels failed the inspection and received a first administrative citation, amounting to $25,662. The County’s contractor abated 19 parcels for a total cost of $73,677.94.

DISCUSSION
The Santa Clara County, Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager has prepared the 2024 County Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report (Weed Abatement Assessment Report) (Attachment 3) listing the respective lots or parcels of land within Santa Clara upon which the County conducted inspections and/or abatement services.

In accordance with SCCC 8.15.090, this Public Hearing allows members of the public to present objections to their inclusion in the County’s Weed Abatement Assessment Report and confirms the cost of inspections and abatement as a Special Assessment on the respective properties described therein. Per SCCC 8.15.080, notice of this Public Hearing was published and posted with a copy of the County's Weed Abatement Assessment Report on July 3, 2024, and July 10, 2024.

For 2024, the Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program identified a total of 205 non-compliant parcels or lots of land. Subsequently, the County notified the property owners of the costs associated with inspections and/or the abatement as outlined in the 2024 Weed Abatement Assessment Report - Exhibit A (Attachment 3), totaling $57,398.06. Of this amount, 160 parcels only required ongoing compliance inspections, totaling $15,360.00. 41 parcels failed the inspection and received a first administrative citation, amounting to $26,322. The County's contractor abated 4 parcels for $15,716.06.

The Fire Department is seeking Council approval to adopt a resolution confirming the 2024 Weed Abatement Assessment Report and ordering the cost of abatement to be a special assessment on the respective properties (Attachment 1). A representative from the County Weed Abatement Program will be present at the public hearing with detailed records of the weed abatement activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Santa Clara contracts with the County of Santa Clara to perform and implement the weed abatement program within the City. The County of Santa Clara has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Guideline 15308.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Santa Clara administers the weed abatement program in collaboration with the Santa Clara County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, utilizing minimal staff time. The County's costs for inspection or abatement services, including administrative fees, are assessed on City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-500 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
the respective lots or parcels of land. The assessments, detailed in Exhibit A of the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report (Attachment 3) totaling $57,398.06 will be imposed as liens on the listed properties and will not be borne by the City. All charges for weed abatement services will be included as a special assessment on the following year's Property Tax statement.

In accordance with the 2022 Amended and Restated agreement, if the tax assessments are insufficient to cover the program's costs, the County will invoice the participating jurisdictions/agencies for their pro-rata share of the program's shortfall in December. If a shortfall occurs, the Fire Department will absorb the City's pro-rata share costs in its Community Risk Reduction Division's Operating Budget. Currently, there is no fiscal impact on the Fire Department's budget.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
The City Clerk has published the required notice of this hearing in the Santa Clara Weekly. The report by the County Weed Abatement Program has been posted on the bulletin board outside the City Council Chambers at City Hall located at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050, on the bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall; and at the entrance of the Fire Department, located at 777 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050.

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
Adopt a Resolution confirming the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and ordering the cost of abatement to be a Special Assessment on the respective properties described therein pursuant to SCCC 8.15.090 and 8.15.100.

Reviewed by: Ruben Torres, Fire Chief
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein

2. 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report (County Exhibit A), Santa Clara County, Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency

3. 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report, City of Santa Clara City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Confirming the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and the Assessment Page 1 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
CONFIRMING THE 2024 WEED ABATEMENT REPORT AND

ORDERING THE COST OF ABATEMENT TO BE A SPECIAL

ASSESSMENT ON THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED

THEREIN
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.15.080 of "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California," ("SCCC") the Fire Chief duly published and posted a Notice to Destroy Weeds on January 30, 2024, giving notice to the designated property owners to remove all weeds from their property and in alleys, if any, behind their property, and between lot lines as extended, or weeds would be destroyed or removed, and the nuisance abated by City authorities;
WHEREAS, the Notice to Destroy Weeds also advised that if the City is required to perform weed abatement, the cost of the destruction or removal, including an administrative fee, will be assessed upon the lots or lands from which weeds have been destroyed or removed, and such costs shall constitute a lien upon said lots until paid or will be collected upon the next tax roll upon which general municipal taxes are collected; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 20, 2024, to consider all objections to the proposed destruction or removal of such weeds, and at the hearing, the City Council did, by Resolution No. 24-1593, order the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency to abate nuisances designated under SCCC Chapter 8.15 or cause the same to be abated by having the weeds destroyed or removed by cutting, mowing, or any other method; WHEREAS, affected property owners have been requested to destroy or remove the weeds at the property owner's expense and removal of weeds were required to have taken place prior to the inspection of the County Weed Abatement Program or its authorized representatives; WHEREAS, following said inspection, which revealed that property owners had failed to remove the weeds, the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency can direct the weeds to be removed;
Resolution/Confirming the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and the Assessment Page 2 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager sent the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report to the City and filed the report with the City Clerk referring to each separate lot or parcel of land by description sufficient to identify it, together with the costs proposed to be assessed against it; WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 8.15.080, the City Clerk timely posted the report and published the Notice of Hearing on the report, which includes an assessment of weed abatement services and an opportunity to object;
WHEREAS, the Notice of Hearing on the report and assessment for weed abatement further specified the day, hour, and place as July 9, 2024, for when the assessment list and report would be presented to the City Council for consideration and confirmation, and that any persons interested who have an objection to the report and assessment list may appear at the designated time and place to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing has been held, and the report has been considered by the City Council along with any other statements by staff, and all objections or protests have been heard and duly considered.

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

1. That all protests or objections of every kind and nature to the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and Assessment List are hereby overruled.

2. That the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report from the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager, attached herein as Exhibit A is hereby confirmed.

3. That the list of the properties on the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report shall be assessed in the amount listed with the property description on the report.

4. That pursuant to the provisions in SCCC Chapter 8.15, if the cost assessed against each of the properties is not paid with applicable property taxes, a lien shall be placed on the property. The lien shall continue until the assessment and any or all interest or penalties is paid, Resolution/Confirming the 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and the Assessment Page 3 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
or until it is discharged of record.

5. The City Manager or their designee and the Chief of the Fire Department, are hereby directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager of the County of Santa Clara, California, who shall enter the amount on the County Assessment Records opposite the description of the particular property and the amount shall be collected together with all other taxes against the property.

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

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. 2024 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report – County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
1 2220 Calle De Luna 097-05-057 Tasman East Parcel 57 Owner Llc 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine 92612 $611.00 7000 2 2200 Calle De Luna 097-05-058 Nash-holland Calle De Luna 898 Washington St #500 VANCOUVER WA 98660-3536 $611.00 7000 3 2333 Calle Del Mundo 097-05-110 Lafayette Cdm Apartments Llc 3000 Executive Py 450 SAN RAMON 94583 $92.00 7000 4 1861 Nelson 097-19-040 Dillon Kathleen A 1861 Nelson Dr SANTA CLARA 95054 $1,116.00 7000 5 2232 Calle Del Mundo 097-46-027 Gs Tasman East Subsidiary Llc 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $92.00 7000 6 2350 Calle De Luna 097-46-031 Tasman Asl Propco Llc 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $92.00 7000 7 2300 Calle De Luna 097-46-032 Rcr Tasman I Llc 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $92.00 7000 8 5150 Calle Del Sol 097-46-033 Rcr Tasman I Llc 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $92.00 7000 9 3590 Haig 101-07-002 Nguyen, Nguyen Hoang And Hang Le 1533 Silver Ranch Ln SAN JOSE 95138-0000 $92.00 7000 10 3563 Macintosh 101-07-043 Wang, Zihang 3563 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2246 $92.00 7000 11 3542 Macintosh 101-07-059 Wlaschin, Robert A And Chan, 3542 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2245 $611.00 7000 12 3539 Macgregor 101-08-019 Nokleby, James D And Elsa M Trustee 1368 Botticelli Bnd CHICO 95928-3846 $92.00 7000 13 0 104-01-077 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $10,610.00 7014 14 4850 Old Ironsides 104-04-064 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $611.00 7029 15 2950 Democracy 104-04-065 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $611.00 7029 16 4805 Patrick Henry 104-04-111 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $611.00 7029 17 4855 Patrick Henry 104-04-112 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $611.00 7029 18 3050 Democracy 104-04-113 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $611.00 7029 19 0 Patrick Henry 104-04-121 San Francisco City And County Of 525 Golden Gate Av 10th Fl SAN FRANCISCO 94102 $10,669.40 7029 Report Date: 7/6/2023 (List Sorted by APN) Page 1
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
20 3055 Patrick Henry 104-04-136 3055 Patrick Henry Development Llc 950 Tower Ln Ste 870 FOSTER CITY 94553 $3,269.15 7029 21 3005 Democracy 104-04-143 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $611.00 7029 22 2945 Tasman 104-04-151 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 4995 Patrick Henry Dr SANTA CLARA 95054-1823 $611.00 7029 23 2336 Silveria 104-05-112 Carter, Scott D And Yu, Yee L 900 Birch Av SUNNYVALE 94086-5139 $92.00 7014 24 0 Fillmore 104-10-077 Sitlani, Manisha K 636 Hamilton Av MILPITAS 95035-3512 $2,026.70 7014 25 4352 Davis 104-11-020 Su, Junjie And Zhong, Xiao Hua 13091 War Bonnet St SAN DIEGO 92129 $92.00 7014 26 0 Bassett 104-11-082 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $10,738.70 7014 27 0 Cheeney 104-12-025 Maruti Builders Llc 859 Alisal Ct MILPITAS 95035-4501 $611.00 7014 28 0 Cheeney 104-12-026 Maruti Builders Llc 859 Alisal Ct MILPITAS 95035-4501 $611.00 7014 29 0 Bassett 104-12-154 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $5,912.45 7014 30 0 Bassett 104-12-162 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $611.00 7014 31 2110 Agnew 104-12-198 Lai, Weinong And Wang, Ying 258 Alameda De Las Pulgas REDWOOD CITY 94062 $92.00 7014 32 3500 Thomas 104-14-125 Lba Rv-company Xii Lp 3209 17th Ave W SEATTLE 98119 $92.00 7014 33 0 104-14-145 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $5,600.60 7014 34 3660 Thomas 104-14-171 Terreno Middlebrookllc 101 Montgomery St Ste 200 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $92.00 7014 35 0 Bassett 104-38-001 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $3,170.15 7014 36 0 Freedom 104-40-021 Freedom Circle Venture Llc 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $611.00 7029 37 3925 Freedom 104-40-036 Freedom Circle Venture Llc 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $611.00 7029 38 2125 Quinn 216-11-017 Adl-tabatabai, Ali 2125 Quinn Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1838 $92.00 7014 Report Date: 7/6/2023 (List Sorted by APN) Page 2
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
39 2473 Elliot 216-11-064 Adiseshan, Mamtha 2473 Elliot St SANTA CLARA 95051-1864 $611.00 7014 40 2516 Parkland 216-16-026 Shen Hua And Tian Tian 2516 Parkland Ct SANTA CLARA 95051 $92.00 7079 41 2305 Amethyst 216-17-006 Suthar, Tushar K And Snehal T 2086 Silence Dr SAN JOSE 95148-1918 $92.00 7014 42 2552 Painted Rock 216-19-035 Toorans, Sue M 2552 Painted Rock Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1124 $611.00 7079 43 2492 Painted Rock 216-19-041 Sv Ventures Usa Llc 35828 Ashton Pl FREMONT 94536 $92.00 7079 44 2625 Meadowbrook 216-19-077 Pham, Alexander Tuan Trustee 3619 Impresario Wy SAN JOSE 95127-0000 $611.00 7079 45 3036 San Juan 220-22-053 Wentz, Dee Trustee 923 Oakdell Pl SAN JOSE 95117-2538 $92.00 7014 46 3121 Santa Maria 220-22-124 Lamachy, Barbara J 3121 Santa Maria Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1619 $611.00 7014 47 2129 Ventura 220-24-001 Minell, Christina L 2129 Ventura Pl SANTA CLARA 95051-1623 $92.00 7014 48 2148 Santa Cruz 220-24-032 Kwan, Wilson 2148 Santa Cruz Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1646 $92.00 7014 49 3040 Santa Maria 220-24-060 Young, Melanie J 3040 Santa Maria Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1647 $611.00 7014 50 2132 Bowers 220-26-012 You, Zeyu 2132 Bowers Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1830 $92.00 7014 51 2755 Lafayette 224-04-062 Witkin Properties Lp 188 Twin Oaks Dr LOS GATOS 95032 $2,185.10 7000 52 651 Martin 224-04-071 Martin Avenue Properties Llc 1840 Century Park East Ste LOS ANGELES 90067 $92.00 7000 53 614 Walsh 224-04-075 Haro, Estanislao T And Martha S 12395 Columbet Av SAN MARTIN 95046 $92.00 7000 54 650 Walsh 224-04-077 Pelio 650 Walsh Llc 14573 Big Basin Wy SARATOGA 95070-6013 $92.00 7000 55 1771 Richard 224-06-149 Kahn, William E Trustee 'po Box 345 SANTA CLARA 95052-0345 $92.00 7000 56 960 Central 224-07-099 Owens Corning Insulating 13155 Noel Rd Fl 12 Lb 71 DALLAS 75240 $4,467.05 7000 57 2347 Warburton 224-13-006 Ng, Ellen Ying 2347 Warburton Av SANTA CLARA 95050-4033 $92.00 7014 Report Date: 7/6/2023 (List Sorted by APN) Page 3
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
58 1754 Los Padres 224-13-072 Prabhakar, Sunil And 1754 Los Padres Bl SANTA CLARA 95050-4022 $92.00 7014 59 2382 Warburton 224-14-107 Al-hemyari, Kadhair 2382 Warburton Av SANTA CLARA 95050-4061 $92.00 7014 60 2277 El Camino Real 224-15-034 Oakland Realty Loanservice 'po Box 450 KINGSBURG 93631 $92.00 7014 61 2252 Cabrillo 224-19-053 Kalashnikov, Max 2252 Cabrillo Av SANTA CLARA 95050-3616 $92.00 7014 62 2255 Cabrillo 224-19-108 Lemmon, Galen L Trustee & Et Al 1591 Carmel Dr SAN JOSE 95125-1863 $92.00 7014 63 1922 Main 224-23-011 Kaur, Daljit 10074 Dona Neely Wy ELK GROVE 95757 $1,551.50 7000 64 1918 Main 224-23-013 Monaco, Lewis F Et Al 1918 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050 $92.00 7000 65 1975 Main 224-23-051 Le, Duc 1975 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050-3808 $611.00 7000 66 1871 Main 224-27-089 Luk, Amy P H Trustee 3410 Geary Bl Ste #343 SAN FRANCISCO 94118 $92.00 7000 67 1611 Main 224-28-010 Cheng, Tai-enn And Lo, Vickie 1611 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050 $611.00 7000 68 1160 Walsh 224-58-003 Ragingwire Data Centers Inc 'po Box 348060 SACRAMENTO 95834 $92.00 7000 69 2290 De La Cruz 230-03-092 Dp Ventures Llc 555 Twin Dolphin Drive Ste # Redwood City 94065 $92.00 7000 70 0 230-03-094 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $611.00 7000 71 0 230-03-095 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $611.00 7000 72 2600 De La Cruz 230-03-105 C1-santa Clara Llc 2101 Cedar Springs Rd Ste DALLAS 75201 $611.00 7000 73 2655 The Alameda 230-12-012 Kapital Alameda Llc 1999 Bascom Av S 250 CAMPBELL 95008 $611.00 7000 74 1154 Madison 269-13-034 Rawls, Tamlyn V 1154 Madison St SANTA CLARA 95050-4757 $611.00 7000 75 1175 Lafayette 269-16-056 Kilig 1031 Llc 535 Middlefield Rd Ste 190 MENLO PARK 94025 $92.00 7000 76 1945 Murguia 269-31-014 Maverick, Muriel E Trustee 1945 Murguia Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6933 $611.00 7014 Report Date: 7/6/2023 (List Sorted by APN) Page 4
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
77 689 Moreno 269-31-056 Brown, Jennifer Nicole 884 Bernardo Av S SUNNYVALE 94087-1527 $92.00 7014 78 1974 Murguia 269-32-028 Gupta, Abhinav And Pandey, Shalu 18845 Devon Ave SARATOGA 95070-4607 $92.00 7014 79 584 Winchester 269-33-036 Conforti, James M Trustee 584 Winchester Bl N SANTA CLARA 95050-5720 $92.00 7014 80 2013 Stanley 269-39-021 Driskell, Jeffrey 2013 Stanley Av SANTA CLARA 95050-5718 $611.00 7014 81 311 Maria 269-45-014 Padula, Thomas J And Cardone, 860 Pedro Av BEN LOMOND 95005-9409 $92.00 7014 82 444 Winchester 269-45-093 Ranch Realty Llc 2790 Newhall St Ste A SANTA CLARA 95050 $92.00 7014 83 2245 Newhall 269-58-014 De Sousa Pinto Joao Moreira 2245 Newhall St SANTA CLARA 95050 $611.00 7000 84 3530 El Camino Real 290-01-114 Blaine Properties Llc 454 Raquel Ln LOS ALTOS 94022-2138 $92.00 7014 85 3570 El Camino Real 290-01-117 Matusich, William Trustee & Et Al 2323 Bascom Av S CAMPBELL 95008 $92.00 7014 86 0 El Camino Real 290-02-087 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr SANTA CLARA 95054 $1,685.15 7014 87 2240 El Camino Real 290-10-090 Us Alliance Holden Of 2525 Camelback Rd E Ste 500 PHOENIX 85016 $611.00 7014 88 2232 El Camino Real 290-10-091 Us Alliance Holden Of 2525 Camelback Rd E Ste 500 PHOENIX 85016 $611.00 7014 89 1118 Las Palmas 290-14-095 Tobacco, Richard J 1118 Las Palmas Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3922 $611.00 7014 90 1355 Buchanan 290-14-150 Guinasso, Edwin A Trustee 1355 Buchanan Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3950 $92.00 7014 91 1177 White 290-14-180 Foster, Joseph A Et Al 1177 White Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3933 $92.00 7014 92 1304 Crowley 290-16-011 Mcnutt, Cordie E Et Al 1304 Crowley Av SANTA CLARA 95051-3806 $92.00 7014 93 2911 Orthello 290-17-078 Gee, Gail J Et Al 62772 Sand Lilly Wy Nw BEND 97703 $92.00 7014 94 3012 Orthello 290-18-006 Oprica, Dan 3012 Orthello Wy SANTA CLARA 95051-3758 $611.00 7014 95 2932 Orthello 290-18-010 Yamaichi, Russell J Trustee 2932 Orthello Wy SANTA CLARA 95051-3768 $611.00 7014 Report Date: 7/6/2023 (List Sorted by APN) Page 5
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
96 2852 Orthello 290-18-014 Xiong, Chengyu And Deng, Xianmin 1055 Blaney Av S SAN JOSE 95129 $92.00 7014 97 3100 Orthello 290-19-047 Wheaton, Martin D And Tepmongkol, 3100 Orthello Wy SANTA CLARA 95051-3760 $92.00 7014 98 3521 Homestead 290-23-053 Sbh Homestead Propsllc 3000 Sandhill Rd Bldg 1-250 MENLO PARK 94025 $92.00 7014 99 970 White 290-30-010 Chigozie Llc 2645 Admiral Cl HAYWARD 94545 $92.00 7014 100 940 White 290-30-015 Gipson, Galen R And Janice D 1857 Harris Av SAN JOSE 95124-1014 $92.00 7014 101 2551 Patricia 290-31-002 Aguilera Ralph D And M C 2551 Patricia Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5326 $2,819.49 7014 102 2557 Patricia 290-31-003 Hoffman, James H And Linda E 2557 Patricia Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5326 $92.00 7014 103 2513 Hayward 290-31-052 2513 Hayward Drive Llc 78 Robleda Dr ATHERTON 94027 $92.00 7014 104 1014 Las Palmas 290-31-054 Enyedi, Robert And Daniela Trustee 1014 Las Palmas Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5309 $611.00 7014 105 1078 Blackfield 290-32-009 Lin, Marian Chung-hui Trustee 1078 Blackfield Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-5301 $92.00 7014 106 2891 Homestead 290-39-080 Apex Fund Llc 2891 Homestead Rd SANTA CLARA 95051 $92.00 7014 107 1224 Block 290-42-076 Dionisio, John R And Nahurski 1224 Block Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-4411 $1,502.00 7014 108 617 Flannery 293-18-049 Recharla, Venkata Naga Suresh And 617 Flannery St SANTA CLARA 95051-5544 $92.00 7014 109 623 Malarin 294-07-024 Mcreynolds, Marilyn L Trustee 623 Malarin Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6958 $1,546.55 7014 110 635 Malarin 294-07-027 Schekall, Stanley And Regina 635 Malarin Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6958 $92.00 7014 111 2257 Forbes 294-08-054 Souza, Allan C Et Al 2257 Forbes Av SANTA CLARA 95050-5631 $611.00 7014 112 735 Los Olivos 294-15-070 Gebing, John And Cecile Trustee 735 Los Olivos Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-5526 $611.00 7014 113 2728 Forbes 294-26-021 Lam, Laisz D Trustee 2728 Forbes Av SANTA CLARA 95051-6249 $611.00 7014 114 2615 Maplewood 294-29-021 Francisco, Christina 2615 Maplewood Ln SANTA CLARA 95051-6235 $92.00 7014 Report Date: 7/6/2023 (List Sorted by APN) Page 6
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
115 3502 Gibson 296-18-011 Thodiyil, John A And Fu, Bo Ling 5917 Armaga Sprig Rd Unit E RCH PALOS VERDA 90275-4844 $92.00 7006 116 3472 Gibson 296-18-015 Brannan, Jim 3472 Gibson Av SANTA CLARA 95051-6649 $1,655.45 7006 117 3524 Elmhurst 296-19-021 Sareeta Simanchala Panda And Jeff 3524 Elmhurst Ave. Santa Clara 95051 $92.00 7006 118 150 Elmhurst 296-19-022 Mehta, Yatrik H And Minal Y 150 Elmhurst Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-6647 $1,526.75 7006 119 3472 Elmhurst 296-19-027 Li, Wenhua And Wang, Xiangzhou 1656 Channing Av PALO ALTO 94303-2804 $611.00 7006 120 367 Cypress 303-06-061 Chace, Nancy L 367 Cypress Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6435 $92.00 7014 121 977 Wood Duck 313-19-032 Campbell, Jean T Trustee 977 Wood Duck Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-4516 $1,625.75 7014 122 3800 Homestead 316-09-044 Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 1 Kaiser Plaza 15th Fl OAKLAND 94612 $611.00 7014 123 3800 Homestead 316-09-045 Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 1 Kaiser Plaza 15th Fl OAKLAND 94612 $611.00 7014 TOTAL $105,043.94
Report Date: 7/6/2023 (List Sorted by APN) Page 7
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
1 2220 Calle De Luna 097-05-057 Tasman East Parcel 5 Owner Llc 18201 Von Karman Avenue, IRVINE 92612 $642.00 2 2200 Calle De Luna 097-05-058 Nash-holland Calle De Luna 1111 Main St Ste 700 VANCOUVER 98660 $642.00 3 2333 Calle Del Mundo 097-05-110 Lafayette Cdm Apartments Llc 3000 Executive Pkwy Unit 450 SAN RAMON 94583 $96.00 4 1673 Eisenhower 097-17-013 Yabes, Aurelio B And Carmelita B 3928 Caxton Ct SAN JOSE 95130-1211 $642.00 5 1861 Nelson 097-19-040 Dillon, Kathleen 338 Coleman Dr SAN RAFAEL 94901-1211 $96.00 6 2272 Calle Del Mundo 097-46-025 True Solar Usa Inc 2272 Calle Del Mundo SANTA CLARA 95054-1005 $96.00 7 2230 Calle Del Mundo 097-46-027 Ci-gs Tasman East Apartments Llc 450 Sansome Street, Suite 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $96.00 8 2350 Calle Del Mundo 097-46-031 Tasman Asl Propco Llc 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $96.00 9 2300 Calle Del Mundo 097-46-032 Rcr Tasman I Llc 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $96.00 10 5150 Calle Del Sol 097-46-033 Rcr Tasman I Llc 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $96.00 11 3590 Haig 101-07-002 Nguyen, Nguyen Hoang And Hang Le 1533 Silver Ranch Ln SAN JOSE 95138-0000 $96.00 12 982 Laurie 101-07-020 Azul, Edwin C And Evangeline B 982 Laurie Ave SANTA CLARA 95054-2243 $96.00 13 3523 Macintosh 101-07-039 Karnad, Nikhil And Kawlekar , 3523 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2246 $96.00 14 3533 Macintosh 101-07-040 Gavina, Romel R Et Al 3533 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2246 $96.00 15 3563 Macintosh 101-07-043 Wang, Zihang 3563 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2246 $96.00 16 3542 Macintosh 101-07-059 Wlaschin, Robert A And Chan , 3542 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2245 $96.00 17 3539 Macgregor 101-08-019 Nokleby, James D And Elsa M Trustee 2950 Sierra Sunrise Ter Apt CHICO 95928 $96.00 18 512 Aldo 101-09-013 Kouvalas-prew, Pauline F Trustee Po Box 6604 SAN JOSE 95150 $96.00 19 973 Laurie 101-22-029 Tran, Trung And Do , Thuy Bich 973 Laurie Ave SANTA CLARA 95054-2242 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 1
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
20 Lafayette 104-01-077 Southern Pacific Transportation Co 65 Cahill St SAN JOSE 95110 $96.00 21 4850 Old Ironsides 104-04-064 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Blvd Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $642.00 22 2950 Democracy 104-04-065 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Blvd Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $642.00 23 4805 Patrick Henry 104-04-111 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Blvd Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $642.00 24 4855 Patrick Henry 104-04-112 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Blvd Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $642.00 25 3050 Democracy 104-04-113 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Blvd Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $642.00 26 Patrick Henry 104-04-121 San Francisco City And County Of 525 Golden Gate Av 10th Fl SAN FRANCISCO 94102 $642.00 27 3055 Patrick Henry 104-04-136 3055 Patrick Henry Development Llc 950 Tower Ln Ste 870 FOSTER CITY 94553 $96.00 28 3005 Democracy 104-04-143 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Blvd Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $642.00 29 2945 Tasman 104-04-151 Innovation Commons Owner Llc 433 Airport Blvd, Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 $642.00 30 4625 Lakeshore 104-05-092 Multani, Amarjit S 4625 Lakeshore Dr SANTA CLARA 95054-1338 $96.00 31 2335 Alcalde 104-05-103 Bhatnagar, Amit And Oza , Tarjani 3366 Meridian Ave SAN JOSE 95124-3227 $96.00 32 2355 Alcalde 104-05-105 Hilario, Rufina F Trustee 2355 Alcalde St SANTA CLARA 95054-1305 $96.00 33 2375 Alcalde 104-05-107 Nguyen, Phuong Thanh And Tran , 2635 Britt Way SAN JOSE 95148-2573 $96.00 34 2336 Silveria 104-05-112 Carter, Scott D And Yu , Yee L 900 Birch Ave SUNNYVALE 94086-5139 $96.00 35 2337 Silveria 104-05-113 Lai, Tzer S Trustee & Et Al 2337 Silveria Ct SANTA CLARA 95054-1352 $96.00 36 4767 Gillmor 104-05-116 Vu, To Hoai Thi 4767 Gillmor St SANTA CLARA 95054-1325 $96.00 37 Filmore 104-10-077 Vnus Investment Group Llc 7300 Alexis Manor Pl SAN JOSE 95120-0000 $96.00 38 Bassett 104-11-082 Southern Pacific Transportation Co 65 Cahill St San Jose 95110 $642.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 2
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
39 Cheeney 104-12-025 Maruti Builders Llc 859 Alisal Ct MILPITAS 95035-4501 $96.00 40 Cheeney 104-12-026 Maruti Builders Llc 859 Alisal Ct MILPITAS 95035-4501 $96.00 41 Bassett 104-12-154 Southern Pacific Transportation Co 65 Cahill St SAN JOSE 95110 $96.00 42 Bassett 104-12-162 Southern Pacific Transportation Co 65 Cahill St SAN JOSE 95110 $642.00 43 Mission College 104-13-103 Amazon Data Services Inc P.o. Box 80416 SEATTLE 98108-0416 $96.00 44 Bassett 104-14-145 Southern Pacific Transportation Co 65 Cahill St SAN JOSE 95110 $96.00 45 3660 Thomas 104-14-171 Terreno Middlebrook Llc 101 Montgomery St Ste 200 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 $642.00 46 Bassett 104-38-001 Southern Pacific Transportation Co 65 Cahill St SAN JOSE 95110 $96.00 47 Freedom 104-40-021 Freedom Circle Venture Llc 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $96.00 48 3925 Freedom 104-40-036 Freedom Circle Venture Llc 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $96.00 49 4546 Lakeshore 104-45-011 Gordon, Kevin And Ho , Emily 10420 Miguelita Rd SAN JOSE 95127-2716 $96.00 50 2368 Sawyer 104-46-032 Crawley William Lassahn Fiduciary 2075 Pioneer Court SAN MATEO 94403 $96.00 51 2343 Rambo 104-46-072 Rangel, Anthony T And Misty 2343 Rambo Ct SANTA CLARA 95054-1340 $96.00 52 2782 Lyle 216-02-077 Chepulskyy, Roman And Oliynyk , 2782 Lyle Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-3024 $96.00 53 2722 Lyle 216-02-079 Jain, Varun And Hrishikesh , Swathi 586 Jayne Ct SAN JOSE 95133-0000 $96.00 54 2116 Quinn 216-09-069 Chen, Zixu Et Al 2116 Quinn Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1839 $96.00 55 2473 Elliot 216-11-064 Adiseshan, Mamtha 2473 Elliot St SANTA CLARA 95051-1864 $642.00 56 2475 Painted Rock 216-16-007 Cai, Haowei Et Al 2475 Painted Rock Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1121 $96.00 57 2485 Painted Rock 216-16-008 Lindsey, Concepcion Trustee 898 Amador Ave SUNNYVALE 94085-3427 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 3
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
58 2495 Painted Rock 216-16-009 Files, Nancy D 2495 Painted Rock Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1121 $96.00 59 2515 Painted Rock 216-16-011 Xu, Steven P Et Al 2515 Painted Rock Dr SANTA CLARA 95051 $96.00 60 2516 Parkland 216-16-026 Shen, Hua And Tian , Tian 2516 Parkland Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-1127 $96.00 61 2305 Amethyst 216-17-006 Suthar, Tushar K And Snehal T 2086 Silence Dr SAN JOSE 95148-1918 $96.00 62 2948 Chromite 216-18-040 Uy, Tesin T Trustee 668 Bancroft St SANTA CLARA 95051-5656 $96.00 63 2552 Painted Rock 216-19-035 Toorans, Sue M 2552 Painted Rock Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1124 $96.00 64 2492 Painted Rock 216-19-041 Sv Ventures Usa Llc 35828 Ashton Pl FREMONT 94536 $96.00 65 2452 Painted Rock 216-19-045 Yu, Dennis And Tao , Zui 2452 Painted Rock Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1122 $96.00 66 2427 Amethyst 216-19-057 Tt Investment Properties Llc 2225 Sherwin Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-5112 $96.00 67 2437 Amethyst 216-19-058 Wang, Zhuoxian 2437 Amethyst Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1136 $642.00 68 2517 Amethyst 216-19-070 Koogeelam, Strutner 2517 Amethyst Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1138 $642.00 69 2533 Amethyst 216-19-074 Jiang, Chenzi And Chen , Zixing 2533 Amethyst Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1138 $96.00 70 2625 Meadowbrook 216-19-077 Pham, Alexander Tuan Trustee 3619 Impresario Way SAN JOSE 95127-0000 $96.00 71 2532 Amethyst 216-20-082 Tanaka, Maila 2532 Amethyst Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1139 $96.00 72 2526 Amethyst 216-20-083 Wen, Jida 267 Alturas Ave SUNNYVALE 94085-3001 $642.00 73 2426 Amethyst 216-20-097 Haro, Andrea R Trustee 2426 Amethyst Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1137 $96.00 74 2536 Amethyst 216-22-072 Talla, Sahajananda And Thota , 2536 Amethyst Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1155 $96.00 75 2900 Lakeside 216-30-048 Cs Lakeside Santa Clara Llc 17 Coporate Plaza Unit 200 NEWPORT BEACH 92660 $642.00 76 3635 Peterson 216-30-049 Bxp Peterson Lp 4 Embarcadero Ctr Lobby Ste 1 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 4
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
77 2101 Rockhurst 220-13-041 Belardes, Marcus J And Denise E 2101 Rockhurst Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-1927 $96.00 78 3565 Notre Dame 220-18-028 Chun, Youngil Trustee & Et Al 1451 W Boros Ct LA HABRA 90631 $96.00 79 3036 San Juan 220-22-053 Wentz, Dee Trustee Po Box 111597 CAMPBELL 95011-1597 $642.00 80 2230 Santa Cruz 220-22-121 Meng, Pengquan Et Al 2230 Santa Cruz Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1658 $96.00 81 3121 Santa Maria 220-22-124 Lamachy, Barbara J 3121 Santa Maria Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1619 $96.00 82 3131 Santa Maria 220-22-125 Li, Bing And Xue , Feng 3131 Santa Maria Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1619 $96.00 83 3171 Santa Maria 220-22-129 Zhou, Zilong 3171 Santa Maria Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1619 $96.00 84 2129 Ventura 220-24-001 Minell, Christina L 2129 Ventura Pl SANTA CLARA 95051-1623 $96.00 85 2148 Santa Cruz 220-24-032 Kwan, Wilson 2148 Santa Cruz Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1646 $96.00 86 3040 Santa Maria 220-24-060 Toh, Yuting Et Al 3040 Santa Maria Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1647 $96.00 87 2763 Cabrillo 220-25-105 Fung Kwok Wing And Carriq Trustee 2368 Shoreside Ct SANTA CLARA 95054 $96.00 88 2132 Bowers 220-26-012 You, Zeyu 2132 Bowers Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-1830 $96.00 89 2973 Jerald 220-32-033 Huston, T M 2973 Jerald Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-2927 $96.00 90 850 Walsh 224-04-005 L.a.w. Llc 330 Commercial St SAN JOSE 95112-4403 $96.00 91 2755 Lafayette 224-04-062 Witkin Properties Lp 188 Twin Oaks Dr LOS GATOS 95032-5649 $642.00 92 651 Martin 224-04-071 Martin Avenue Properties Llc 2820 Northwest Pkwy SANTA CLARA 95051 $96.00 93 614 Walsh 224-04-075 Haro, Estanislao T And Martha S 12395 Columbet Ave SAN MARTIN 95046 $96.00 94 960 Central 224-07-099 Amazon Data Services, Llc Attn: Real P.o. Box 80416 SEATTLE 98108-0416 $642.00 95 2330 Bray 224-14-072 Osterello, Michael D Et Al 2330 Bray Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-4010 $642.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 5
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
96 2277 El Camino Real 224-15-034 Oakland Realty Loan Service Po Box 450 KINGSBURG 93631 $96.00 97 1693 Los Padres 224-17-054 Decot, David C 1693 Los Padres Blvd SANTA CLARA 95050-4042 $96.00 98 2252 Cabrillo 224-19-053 Kalashnikov, Max 2252 Cabrillo Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-3616 $96.00 99 2075 Cabrillo 224-19-093 Polon, Joan Trustee 2075 Cabrillo Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-3612 $96.00 100 2255 Cabrillo 224-19-108 Lemmon, Galen L Trustee & Et Al 1591 Carmel Dr SAN JOSE 95125-1863 $96.00 101 1857 Cabrillo 224-21-021 Zheng, Dao-chen And Wang , Hui 824 Nash Rd LOS ALTOS 94024-4624 $96.00 102 1836 Cabrillo 224-21-028 Dhople, Danika M Trustee 1836 Cabrillo Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-3707 $96.00 103 1282 Cabrillo 224-22-086 Hu, Weize 1282 Cabrillo Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-3502 $96.00 104 1922 Main 224-23-011 Kaur, Daljit 10074 Dona Neely Way ELK GROVE 95757 $96.00 105 1918 Main 224-23-013 Monaco, Lewis F Et Al 1918 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050 $96.00 106 1975 Main 224-23-051 Le, Duc 1975 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050-3808 $96.00 107 1688 Main 224-26-021 Serassio, James P Trustee 1688 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050-4245 $96.00 108 1871 Main 224-27-089 Luk, Amy P H Trustee 3410 Geary Blvd Ste #343 SAN FRANCISCO 94118 $642.00 109 1611 Main 224-28-010 Cheng, Tai-enn And Lo , Vickie 1611 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050 $96.00 110 1621 Main 224-28-011 Archibeque, Flora A 5520 Maplecrest Ct SAN JOSE 95123-3025 $96.00 111 998 Civic Center 224-28-053 Le, Tom Tuong Quoc Trustee 9453 El Valle Ave FOUNTAIN VALLEY 92708 $96.00 112 2391 Cabrillo 224-31-031 Cheung, Yuk Fan Trustee 2019 Brown Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-2314 $96.00 113 2028 Staats 224-31-090 Ansari, Bijan 2028 Staats Way SANTA CLARA 95050-3333 $642.00 114 2245 Ellena 224-32-085 Hoang, Vinh Q 4271 Ruby Ave SAN JOSE 95135-0000 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 6
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
115 2265 Ellena 224-32-087 Hoang, Vinh Q 4271 Ruby Ave SAN JOSE 95135-0000 $96.00 116 2266 Pasetta 224-32-095 Chan, Kwokkin Clarence And Kong , 2051 Junction Ave Ste. 108 SAN JOSE 95131-2100 $96.00 117 1061 Richard 224-62-022 Orlando-hinz, Maria Trustee 860 Hermiston Dr SAN JOSE 95136-1512 $96.00 118 2240 De La Cruz 230-03-077 Ettefagh, Farajolla Trustee & Et Al 2342 Stevens Creek Blvd SAN JOSE 95128 $96.00 119 525 Mathew 230-03-090 Newark Group Industries Inc 525 Mathew St SANTA CLARA 95050-3001 $96.00 120 2290 De La Cruz 230-03-092 Dp Ventures Llc 555 Twin Dolphin Dr Unit 600 REDWOOD CITY 94065 $96.00 121 Central 230-03-094 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $7,486.35 122 230-03-095 Union Pacific Co 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 $1,660.20 123 2600 De La Cruz 230-03-105 Troutman Sanders Llp 600 Peachtree Street Ne, Suite ATLANTA 30308 $642.00 124 2655 The Alameda 230-12-012 Kapital Alameda Llc 1999 S Bascom Ave Unit 250 CAMPBELL 95008 $96.00 125 1206 Sherwood 230-16-030 Shen, Yichao And Zheng , Xiaoxiao 193 Athena Ct MOUNTAIN VIEW 94043-0000 $642.00 126 417 Mathew 230-47-093 International Union Of 1620 N Market Blvd SACRAMENTO 95834 $642.00 127 1695 Fremont 269-12-019 Kung, Alma And Shen , Angela 1241 Gainsborough Dr SUNNYVALE 94087-2714 $642.00 128 1154 Madison 269-13-034 Rawls, Tamlyn V 1154 Madison St SANTA CLARA 95050-4757 129 1425 Benton 269-13-037 Hu Jie And Ma Guanying 4560 Balmoral Park Ct FREMONT 94538 $96.00 130 1106 Monroe 269-13-062 Velasco, Bambi Et Al 6239 Pecan Ave Unit 2 ORANGEVALE 95662 $96.00 131 1175 Lafayette 269-16-056 Kilig 1031 Llc Et Al 1225 Altamead Dr LOS ALTOS 94024-5557 $96.00 132 1945 Murguia 269-31-014 Maverick, Muriel E Trustee 1945 Murguia Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-6933 $96.00 133 689 Moreno 269-31-056 Brown, Jennifer Nicole 884 S Bernardo Ave SUNNYVALE 94087-1527 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 7
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
134 2013 Stanley 269-39-021 Driskell, Jeffrey 2013 Stanley Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-5718 $642.00 135 2245 Newhall 269-58-014 De Sousa Pinto, Joao Moreira 2245 Newhall St SANTA CLARA 95050-5810 $96.00 136 3590 El Camino Real 290-01-115 Matusich, William Trustee & Et Al 2323 S Bascom Ave CAMPBELL 95008 $96.00 137 3570 El Camino Real 290-01-117 Matusich, William Trustee & Et Al 2323 S Bascom Ave CAMPBELL 95008 $96.00 138 El Camino Real 290-02-087 At&t Comms Of Calif Inc 1090 E Duane Ave SUNNYVALE 94085 $96.00 139 2240 El Camino Real 290-10-090 Us Alliance Holden Of 2525 E Camelback Rd Ste 500 PHOENIX 85016 $642.00 140 2232 El Camino Real 290-10-091 Us Alliance Holden Of 2525 E Camelback Rd Ste 500 PHOENIX 85016 $642.00 141 1118 Las Palmas 290-14-095 Tobacco, Richard J 1118 Las Palmas Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3922 $642.00 142 1295 Buchanan 290-14-144 Ibragimov, Eedem And Grigina , 1295 Buchanan Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3950 $96.00 143 1355 Buchanan 290-14-150 Guinasso, Edwin A Trustee 1355 Buchanan Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3950 $96.00 144 1226 Buchanan 290-14-163 Otzman, Cameron And Yi Chun 1226 Buchanan Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3963 $96.00 145 1177 White 290-14-180 Foster, Joseph A Et Al 1177 White Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3933 $642.00 146 2991 Orthello 290-17-082 Schultz, Janet Trustee 2991 Orthello Way SANTA CLARA 95051-3756 $96.00 147 3012 Orthello 290-18-006 Oprica, Dan 3012 Orthello Way SANTA CLARA 95051-3758 $96.00 148 2932 Orthello 290-18-010 Yamaichi, Russell J Trustee 2932 Orthello Way SANTA CLARA 95051-3768 $96.00 149 2852 Orthello 290-18-014 Xiong, Chengyu And Deng , Xianmin 1055 S Blaney Ave SAN JOSE 95129 $96.00 150 3100 Humbolt 290-19-019 To, Duc Tan And Nguyen , Michelle 3129 Butte St SANTA CLARA 95051-3711 $96.00 151 3100 Orthello 290-19-047 Wheaton, Martin D And 3100 Orthello Way SANTA CLARA 95051-3760 $96.00 152 978 White 290-30-008 Li, Yuxin And Zhao , Guoping 1118 Greystone St STILLWATER 74074 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 8
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
153 944 White 290-30-014 Lin, Thura And Jenny C T 944 White Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5315 $96.00 154 2551 Patricia 290-31-002 Aguilera, Ralph D And M C 2551 Patricia Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5326 $642.00 155 2557 Patricia 290-31-003 Hoffman, James H And Linda E 2557 Patricia Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5326 $96.00 156 2513 Hayward 290-31-052 2513 Hayward Drive Llc 78 Robleda Dr ATHERTON 94027 $642.00 157 2509 Hayward 290-31-053 Morrill, Westbrook K Iii And Hilary 2509 Hayward Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5303 $96.00 158 1014 Las Palmas 290-31-054 Enyedi, Robert And Daniela Trustee 1014 Las Palmas Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5309 $642.00 159 953 White 290-31-069 Tang, Yuan 953 White Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5314 $96.00 160 1088 Blackfield 290-32-008 Zhai, Yan And Zhou , Wenxuan 1088 Blackfield Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-5301 $96.00 161 1078 Blackfield 290-32-009 Lin, Marian Chung-hui Trustee 1078 Blackfield Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-5301 $96.00 162 2891 Homestead 290-39-080 Apex Fund Llc 2891 Homestead Rd SANTA CLARA 95051-5223 $642.00 163 1224 Block 290-42-076 Dionisio, John R And Nahurski 1224 Block Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-4411 $96.00 164 2930 Homestead 293-17-084 Woodham Property Po Box 2041 LOS GATOS 95031-2041 $96.00 165 617 Flannery 293-18-049 Recharla 35847 Caxton Pl FREMONT 94536-3411 $96.00 166 593 Flannery 293-19-032 Bradley, Janice L Et Al 672 Tramway Dr MILPITAS 95035-3605 $96.00 167 2936 Forbes 293-19-034 Brown, Brenda J Rucker Trustee 2936 Forbes Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6114 $96.00 168 492 Woodhams 293-20-018 Andrews, John R And Sandra K 492 Woodhams Rd SANTA CLARA 95051-5629 $96.00 169 462 Woodhams 293-20-020 Thayer, Kevin 462 Woodhams Rd SANTA CLARA 95051-5629 $642.00 170 2274 Forbes 294-05-005 Bryant, Scott And Susie 2274 Forbes Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-5608 $96.00 171 2264 Forbes 294-05-006 Thompson, Ross W And Susan 2264 Forbes Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-5608 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 9
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
172 605 Malarin 294-07-021 Devendrappa, Darshan M And 605 Malarin Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-6958 $96.00 173 623 Malarin 294-07-024 Mcreynolds, Marilyn 28500 Bradley Rd Apt 123 MENIFEE 92586-3044 $335.51 174 635 Malarin 294-07-027 Schekall, Stanley And Regina 635 Malarin Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-6958 $96.00 175 653 Malarin 294-07-030 Franklin, Andrew J And Nicola J 653 Malarin Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-6958 $96.00 176 634 Malarin 294-07-051 Li, Jingjing And Zhang , Yiqian 634 Malarin Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-6942 $96.00 177 2257 Forbes 294-08-054 Souza, Allan C Et Al 2257 Forbes Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-5631 $96.00 178 759 Clara Vista 294-15-042 Tran, Andre Huy Et Al 759 Clara Vista Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-5152 $96.00 179 758 Clara Vista 294-15-043 Ashraf, Ameen And Shagufta , Shaella 758 Clara Vista Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-5153 $642.00 180 725 Los Olivos 294-15-068 Sluman, Christopher B And Kathryn 725 Los Olivos Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-5526 $96.00 181 735 Los Olivos 294-15-070 Gebing, John And Cecile Trustee 735 Los Olivos Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-5526 $96.00 182 759 Los Olivos 294-15-075 Kiros, Eskinder 759 Los Olivos Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-5526 $96.00 183 2628 Forbes 294-24-017 Ochsner, Timothy S 2628 Forbes Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6218 $96.00 184 2728 Forbes 294-26-021 Lam, Laisz D Trustee 2728 Forbes Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6249 $96.00 185 2615 Maplewood 294-29-021 Francisco, Christina 2615 Maplewood Ln SANTA CLARA 95051-6235 $96.00 186 2771 Pruneridge 294-31-038 Ghiya, Rakesh And Shalini Trustee 2771 Pruneridge Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6237 $96.00 187 2791 Pruneridge 294-31-040 Singh, Rahul N And Ghosh , Smita 2791 Pruneridge Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6237 $96.00 188 2790 Pruneridge 294-32-034 Li, Benny W And Luo , Yuya 2790 Pruneridge Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6238 $96.00 189 163 Claremont 296-16-015 Chok, Wye-chi And Rachel Leigh 163 Claremont Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6641 $96.00 190 92 Claremont 296-17-005 Wang, Wen Chun And Yang , Michelle 92 Claremont Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6640 $96.00 Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 10
2024 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS

TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
191 3502 Gibson 296-18-011 Thodiyil, John A And Fu , Bo Ling 5917 Armaga Spring Rd Unit E RANCHO PALOS VERDES 90275-4844 $96.00 192 3498 Gibson 296-18-012 Tibbetts Family Revoc Tr 8/3/12 11016 162nd Ave Ne REDMOND 98052 $96.00 193 3562 Bennett 296-18-038 Lin, Jimmy J And Jeanne C Trustee 18300 Lexington Dr MONTE SERENO 95030-3121 $96.00 194 3552 Bennett 296-18-039 Sa, Silin And Yang , Yang 417 S Genevieve Ln SAN JOSE 95128-5111 $96.00 195 158 Claremont 296-19-001 Hamburger, Maria Trustee 158 Claremont Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6642 $96.00 196 132 Claremont 296-19-005 Lee, Chayong And Kim , Haejin 132 Claremont Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6642 $96.00 197 150 Elmhurst 296-19-022 Mehta, Yatrik H And Minal Y 150 Elmhurst Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-6647 $642.00 198 3472 Elmhurst 296-19-027 Li, Wenhua And Wang , Xiangzhou Et 1656 Channing Ave PALO ALTO 94303-2804 $96.00 199 3491 Elmhurst 296-19-031 He, Jiang Trustee & Et Al 3491 Elmhurst Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6643 $96.00 200 3533 Elmhurst 296-19-036 Chen, Taiying And Shih , Ying 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy MOUNTAIN VIEW 94043-0000 $96.00 201 3551 Elmhurst 296-19-039 Ramesh, Suhas Kumar S And 3551 Elmhurst Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-6645 $96.00 202 367 Cypress 303-06-061 Chace, Nancy L 367 Cypress Ave SANTA CLARA 95050-6435 $96.00 203 973 Wood Duck 313-19-031 Evans Franco, Kristina Trustee 3605 Kirk Rd SAN JOSE 95124-3817 $96.00 204 977 Wood Duck 313-19-032 Campbell, Jean T Trustee 977 Wood Duck Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-4516 $96.00 205 3800 Homestead 316-09-044 Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 1 Kaiser Plaza 15th Fl OAKLAND 94612 $96.00 206 3800 Homestead 316-09-045 Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 1 Kaiser Plaza 15th Fl OAKLAND 94612 $6,234.00 TOTAL $57,398.06
Report Date: 6/25/2024 (List Sorted by APN) Page 11
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-600 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Actions on the Zoning Code Update Related to the Adoption of the Zoning Map, Including: General Plan Amendments to Change the Residential Land Use Designations on Identified Properties to Preserve Residential Capacity, per State Law; A “Cleanup” Ordinance to Amend Title 18 (“Zoning”); and Adoption of the Zoning Map, Consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High-Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
At the January 9, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council adopted the comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The next step in the Zoning Code (Code) adoption process is to apply the new Code as zoning districts to the City’s Zoning Map. The Zoning Map is required by State law to be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram. Concurrent General Plan Amendments are being proposed so the City also adheres to all relevant State laws, which require the City to maintain residential capacity and ensure that the policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent. Also included is the first Zoning Code “clean-up” ordinance. As the Zoning Code update was a substantial body of work, staff will be bringing additional clean-up ordinances in the future to address clerical inconsistencies within the document or areas needing further clarification based on implementation of the new Zoning Code. The cleanup ordinance includes provisions for mobile food vendors and changes to the setbacks in single-family districts, consistent with the single-family residential design guidelines. For a complete discussion of the clean-ups made to the updated Zoning Code along with a description of the General Plan Amendments required by State law, see the May 22, 2024 report to Planning Commission, provided as Attachment 1.

DISCUSSION
May 12, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
At the May 22, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, Planning staff gave a presentation on the Zoning Map, the General Plan Amendments associated with the Zoning Map needed to retain residential capacity, and the proposed Zoning Code clean-up.

Staff highlighted the proposed changes in the clean-up ordinance, including two changes to singlefamily zoning regulations: an increase in the required corner side setback from five feet to 10 feet, and the addition of second-story stepbacks, consistent with the adopted single-family residential design guidelines.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 6 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-600 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
The Commission discussed the proposed increased corner side setback, and asked whether the change from five to 10 feet would create new legal nonconforming properties. Staff responded that until the adoption of the new Zoning Code (February 2024) the required corner side setback was 15 feet, and no building permits for additions or new single family houses have been issued that would utilize the five foot corner side setback that has been available with the Zoning Code Update.

The Commission then discussed the merits of second-story stepbacks, and asked staff why this requirement was being added to the Zoning Code. Staff responded that stepbacks are a part of the City’s adopted single-family residential design guidelines and that cities are being required by the state to make residential standards objective in nature.

Commissioner Huang indicated that he thought requiring stepbacks was not consistent with development patterns of single-family houses. Commissioner Huang also indicated that he was not in favor of increasing the required corner side setback from five feet to 10 feet.

Staff also noted other a few other changes to the Zoning Code, including a new section regulating mobile food vendors, and minor additions to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations, including limiting the height of one-story detached ADUs to 18 feet in height, and requiring second-story windows of detached ADUs to either not face an adjoining property, or to have window sill heights of more than five feet.

The Chair then opened the public hearing. There was one speaker: Nagaraj Annaiah, who owns a commercial building at 1570 Lafayette Street, just north of El Camino Real. Mr. Annaiah indicated that he was interested in starting a daycare on the site, along with the neighboring property at 1550 Lafayette, which he also owns. The property at 1570 Lafayette Street has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and will be rezoned to R1-6L as part of the adoption of the Zoning Map to make the zoning district conform with the General Plan designation. The owner expressed an interest in having his property rezoned to MU-CC, Community Mixed Use, consistent with the adjoining property at 1550 Lafayette Street.

The Commission asked staff about the possibility of rezoning the property to MU-CC, Commercial Mixed Use. Staff indicated that any such rezoning or required General Plan Amendment would need to be properly noticed prior to taking an action on the item. The Assistant City Attorney offered that the Planning Commission could recommend that 1570 Lafayette be added to the boundaries of the El Camino Real Specific Plan, which would allow for this General Plan and rezoning change to occur through a planned City process.

The Commission then voted to close the public hearing, and the Chair asked the rest of the Commission for a motion on the items.

Regarding the proposed General Plan Amendments, a motion was made by Commissioner Biagini and seconded by Commissioner Crutchlow to approve staff recommendation with the additional recommendation that City Council add 1570 Lafayette Street to the El Camino Real Specific Plan, which was approved (7-0-0).

Regarding the Zoning Code clean-up, Commissioner Huang made a motion to recommend the adoption of the clean-up ordinance, but not including the provisions that would increase the required corner side setback or require second-story stepbacks (seconded by Cherukuru). The motion failed City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 6 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-600 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
(2-5-0, Huang and Cherukuru in favor).

Commissioner Crutchlow then made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning code clean-up, per the staff recommendation (Bouza seconding), which passed (5-2-0).

Commissioner Crutchlow then made a motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Map, with Commissioner Bouza providing the second. The motion was unanimously approved, (7-0-0).

The Planning Commission’s recommendation that City Council add 1570 Lafayette Street to the El Camino Real Specific Plan has been incorporated into the resolution to adopt the proposed General Plan Amendments.

June 12, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
At the June 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission heard a zoning code amendment to add a definition of the term “Use by Right,” which would apply to parcels indicated to be housing opportunity sites in the inventories of the two previous Housing Elements, which are the State Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) 4th and 5th Housing Element cycles which concluded in 2015 and 2023 respectively for residential developments where 20% of the units are proposed as affordable. The term “Use by Right” would allow those sites to be developed consistent with objective standards but without a discretionary process. Staff gave a presentation on the proposed code changes, noting that the proposed code amendment was a condition of the certification of the Housing Element from HCD. The proposed code language implements the provisions of AB 1397, adopted by the State legislature in 2017. AB 1397 took effect on January 1, 2018, and applies to all cities, regardless of whether or not they adopt an implementing ordinance. Although the implementing ordinance will satisfy a request from HCD and an Action in the City’s Housing Element, the “By Right” requirements of AB 1397 will apply whether the City adopts this ordinance or not. Adding the AB 1397 requirements expressly into the City’s zoning code puts all the applicable rules in one place. Commissioner Biagini made a motion to approve, with Commissioner Crutchlow seconding. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the “Use by Right” definition and AB 1397 language.

The “Use by Right” language and AB 1397 provisions regarding Housing Element sites has been incorporated into the Zoning Code cleanup ordinance (Attachment 4).

Next Steps
If the Zoning Map is adopted, the non-single-family zoning districts of the Zoning Code will be applied to individual parcels per the Zoning Map, with the exception that properties with the following zoning designations will retain those designations:
1) Properties with existing Planned Development zonings; 2) Properties currently zoned TN Transit Neighborhood; and 3) Properties with the HT-Historic Combining overlay.

If the Zoning Map is adopted, the associated Zoning Districts will become effective and applied to individual parcels 30 days after the adoption date.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 6 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-600 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As a part of the Zoning Code adoption process, the City prepared and the Council adopted an Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In taking this action the Council determined that the proposed General Plan Amendments and adoption and implementation of the Zoning Code Update would not result in a substantial change to the General Plan that would require major revisions to the previous EIR; that there is no substantial change in circumstances as a result of modifications to the General Plan or the Zoning Code Update that would cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts; and, that there is no new information of substantial importance that identifies new or more intense significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City other than administrative staff time and consultant time involved in preparing the Zoning Code Update and this report.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
Community participation is a key part of the Zoning Code Update. In addition to a number of meetings with the Old Quad Neighborhood held on June 19, 2018, August 20, 2018, September 17, 2018, October 15, 2018, and December 3, 2018, staff organized community meetings with the general public on February 13 and 28, 2019 to discuss topics for change within the Zoning Code. The topics discussed with community members included the codification of elements of the City’s singlefamily design guidelines; the creation of new zoning districts to implement existing General Plan designations; possible changes to the number of parking spaces required for residential and nonresidential uses; and regulation of short-term rentals, such as Airbnb. Community meetings to gain input on the topic of potential occupancy criteria in single family residences were held on April 29, May 16, and May 29, 2019. The May 16 and May 29 meetings were also live-streamed.

The City received over 500 responses to a community survey on the Zoning Code Update, which was released on June 20, 2019 and made available through July 12, 2019. The survey was announced on the City’s social media accounts, sent to interested parties through e-notify lists and posted on the City’s website.

The City posted the draft Zoning Code Update on the City website for public comment in May and June of 2022. The City received approximately 90 separate comments on the draft Zoning Code Update. Responses to the individual comments have been posted on the City’s website.

The City Council held three joint study sessions with the Planning Commission in the summer and fall of 2019. Topics for the three study sessions included New Districts, Simplified Processes, SingleFamily District Standards, and Placemaking; Safe Parking and Assisted Living; and Uses in SingleFamily Districts and Short-Term Rental Regulations.

In addition to joint study sessions with the City Council, the Planning Commission held study sessions on the Zoning Code Update on August 22, 2018, September 5, 2018 and October 27, 2021.

The Planning Commission also held a study session specifically on parking and outdoor dining regulations on June 16, 2021.

City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 6 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-600 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
The City has also held informational meetings with the various commissions and non-governmental organizations including the Old Quad Residents’ Association on February 10, 2021; The Historical Landmarks Commission on January 6, 2022; the Neighborhood-University Relations Committee on May 23, 2022; the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on August 22, 2022; and a meeting with the head of the Silicon Valley Central Chamber of Commerce on August 18, 2022.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not adopt General Plan Amendments to maintain residential densities consistent with state law, or do not include the property at 1570 Lafayette Street within the boundaries of the El Camino Specific Plan Area.

2. Do not adopt the Zoning Code cleanup ordinance, including changes to single-family setbacks to be consistent with the City’s adopted Residential Design Guidelines.

3. Do not adopt the Zoning Code Map, consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution to Amend the General Plan to maintain residential densities consistent with state law.

2. Direct staff to include, as part of a forthcoming agenda item on the El Camino Specific Plan, an option for the Council to include the parcel at 1570 Lafayette Street within the boundaries of the Plan Area.

3. Waive First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance to Amend Title 18 (“Zoning”) of the Santa Clara City Code (the Zoning Code “Cleanup” Ordinance), including changes to single-family setbacks to be consistent with the City’s adopted Residential Design Guidelines.

4. Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Zoning Map, consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram.

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. May 22, 2024 Report to Planning Commission on the Zoning Code Update

2. Draft Zoning Map

3. Map and list of proposed General Plan Amendments

4. Resolution adopting General Plan Amendments to maintain residential capacity per state law.

5. Ordinance adopting the Zoning Code cleanup

6. Resolution adopting the Zoning Map

7. Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR for the Zoning Code Update City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 6 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-600 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 6 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-182 Agenda Date: 5/22/2024

REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Recommendations related to the adoption of the Zoning Map, including: General Plan Amendments to Change the Residential Land Use Designations on Identified Properties to Preserve Residential Capacity, per State Law; adoption of the Zoning Code Cleanup Ordinance; and adoption of the Zoning Map, consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram

BACKGROUND
At the January 9, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council adopted the comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The next step in the Zoning Code adoption process is to apply the new Code as zoning districts to the City’s Zoning Map. The Zoning Map is required by State law to be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram. Concurrent General Plan Amendments are being proposed so the City also adheres to all relevant State laws. Also included for the Planning Commission’s consideration is the first Zoning Code “clean-up” ordinance. As the Zoning Code update was a substantial body of work, staff will be bringing additional clean-up ordinances in the future to address clerical inconsistencies within the document or areas needing further clarification based on implementation of the new zoning code.

DISCUSSION
The Zoning Map applies the zoning districts of the recently adopted Zoning Code and the development standards of those districts to properties Citywide. An exception is provided for existing Planned Development (PD) zonings, which are planned to be carried over to the new zoning map, with all of the provisions of the adopted PD zonings remaining in place. The newly adopted code provides language to allow for future modifications of existing PD zonings, provided the changes do not involve any expansion or intensification of the use relative to what is provided for in the current PD zoning district. The Santa Clara Station Area Specific Plan and El Camino Real Specific Plan are both under development. To meet the state law requirements of General Plan/Zoning Code consistency described below, both of these areas are being zoned to zoning districts that match their current General Plan designations. Through these Specific Plan processes, it is anticipated that new General Plan land use designations and implementing zoning districts will be brought forward for adoption.

The Zoning Map adoption must comply with various State laws, with General Plan Amendments required to be considered concurrently.

Relevant State Laws
General Plan/Zoning Code Consistency
To fully implement the adopted zoning code, zoning districts need to be applied to all of the parcels of land in the City via a zoning map. The City’s zoning map falls within the City’s regulatory framework as an implementation tool of the City’s General Plan land use diagram and is a companion to the adopted code that expresses the distribution of zoning districts throughout the City.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 5/17/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-182 Agenda Date: 5/22/2024
The creation of the zoning map is constrained by the provisions of State law. State law requires zoning maps to be consistent with a jurisdiction’s General Plan, regardless of whether a jurisdiction is a Charter city like Santa Clara, or a General Law City (Senate Bill 1333, adopted in 2019). Prior to 2019, charter cities were not subject to the requirement to maintain General Plan/Zoning Code consistency. In general, when zoning maps are adopted, the arrangement of zoning districts is based on the City’s General Plan land use diagram to maintain consistency between the two documents.

SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act (2019)
The creation of a zoning map is also subject to the requirements of SB 330, the “Housing Crisis Act,” to maintain housing capacity within a city at 2018 levels. Because the City previously had a Zoning Map that was not entirely consistent with the General Plan land use diagram, the City is required to make a number of General Plan Amendments prior to adopting a zoning map to maintain residential capacity. The City of Santa Clara has a number of residentially designated parcels that are inconsistent with either the underlying density range on the General Plan land use diagram or the existing use of the parcel. There are three broad categories that these required General Plan Amendments can be grouped into, as discussed below.

General Plan Amendments
General Plan Amendments for Multi-Family Parcels Designated Very Low Density Residential There are approximately 607 parcels designated Very Low Density Residential that are currently developed with multi-family uses with densities ranging up to 36 DU/AC. To maintain both residential capacity and General Plan/Zoning Map consistency, these parcels need to be redesignated to higher density land use designations that have a density range consistent with the existing use on site. In the case of properties developed with duplexes, which have two units on a site as opposed to a single-family house, those properties are proposed to be redesignated to Low Density Residential, (LDR), with a density range of 10-18 DU/AC, which is consistent with duplex construction. For buildings with more than two units, the properties are proposed to be redesignated to Medium Density Residential (MDR, 19-36 DU/AC), which allows more than three times the density of the VLDR designation. The list of these parcels is included as Attachment 1.

General Plan Amendments for Parcels with Residential Designations and Non-Residential Uses The provisions of SB330 allow for reductions in residential capacity only if there are offsetting increases in residential capacity heard at the same meeting. The current General Plan land use diagram has approximately 132 parcels with residential designations that should be re-designated to non-residential designations to reflect their current uses, which support public serving uses, such as Open Space, Public/Quasi-Public uses, or public rights-of-way. As such, it is an opportune time to modify the 132 sites with public serving uses to have nonresidential General Plan designations consistent with those uses. For example, creek channel parcels that have been mistakenly designated with residential capacity are being redesignated to Creek, which does not carry with it any development capacity. There are also a number of parcels owned by the City and used for public purposes, or owned by private entities and used for public assembly or other quasi-public uses and currently zoned “B” Public/Quasi-Public under the old zoning code that will be redesignated to the Public/Quasi-Public General Plan designation. These parcels are also listed in Attachment 1.

First Zoning Code Cleanup Ordinance
In combination with the adoption of the zoning map, the City is bringing forward its first “clean-up” City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 5/17/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-182 Agenda Date: 5/22/2024
ordinance for the Zoning Code Update, including:
- Errata to the Zoning Code Update, such as corrected section numbers and cross-references. - Zoning Standards for the operation of mobile food vendors on private property, including codified operational standards to allow for streamlined non-discretionary approvals. - Changes to single-family second-story front and side setbacks (also known as stepbacks), consistent with the City’s adopted residential design guidelines. - Change the side corner lot setback (exterior), from 5 feet to 10 feet to provide a more comfortable interface with the building and the sidewalk and a better transition between neighboring properties which may have a front yard orientation, and thus a deeper front yard, next to the corner property.
- A clarification that the 18’ maximum height limit for detached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) is limited to a one-story configuration.
- Require that windows on Accessory Dwelling Units, which are located above the first story and face neighboring properties, be located with a minimum sill height of five feet to support privacy.

The proposed code changes are attached as Attachment 5.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Given that the Zoning Code Update is an implementation action for the 2010 General Plan Update, the City prepared an Addendum to the 2010-2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to cover adoption of the Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and related General Plan Amendments. The Addendum indicated that the adoption of the Zoning Code Update would not result in environmental impacts beyond those described in the General Plan Update EIR. At the conclusion of the public hearing on November 15, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Addendum, and on December 19, 2023, the City Council adopted the Addendum. The recommended actions all fall within the scope of the adopted Addendum.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the Zoning Code Map and associated General Plan Amendments would fully implement the City’s General Plan land use diagram. No additional resources beyond those indicated at the time of Zoning Code adoption.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
A newspaper notice was published in the May 8, 2024 issue of the Santa Clara Weekly describing the proposed adoption of the Zoning Map, the Zoning Code Cleanup Ordinance, and the General Plan amendments needed to maintain residential capacity per state law. Mailed notices were sent to property owners of the parcels whose General Plan land use designations are being changed. See Attachment 1 for the list of proposed General Plan Amendment sites.

Public contact was also made by posting the Planning Commission agenda on the City’s officialnotice 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] City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 5/17/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-182 Agenda Date: 5/22/2024
<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 General Plan Amendments to maintain residential densities consistent with state law.

2. Provide an alternate recommendation to the City Council than adopting the Zoning Code clean -up ordinance, or any of its additional provisions.

3. Provide an alternate recommendation to the City Council than adopting a Zoning Code Map consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendments to maintain residential densities consistent with state law.

2. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Zoning Code cleanup ordinance, including changes to single-family setbacks to be consistent with the City’s adopted Residential Design Guidelines

3. Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Zoning Code Map consistent with the City’s General Plan land use diagram.

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. General Plan Amendments List

2. Resolution Recommending the City Council Approve the General Plan Amendments

3. Resolution Recommending the City Council Approve the Zoning Code Clean Up Ordinance

4. Resolution Recommending the City Council Approve the Zoning Code Map Update City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 5/17/2024
powered by Legistar™
Legend
Updated Land Use - Zoning
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
TN
CC - Community Commercial
CN - Commercial Neighborhood
C-R - Community Regional
HD-Flex
HI - Heavy Industrial
VHDR - Very High Density Res.

HO-RD - High Intensity Office
LI - Light Industrial
LO-RD - Low Intensity Office
MU-CC - Mixed Use Community Commercial
MU-NC - Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial
MU-RC - Mixed Use Regional Commercial
MU-VHD - Mixed Use Very High Density Res.

OS - Open Space
PQP - Public / Quasi Public
UC - Urban Center
UV - Urban Village
VR - Village Residential
Downtown Form Based
UC-ED
Adopted PD Zonings
City Limits

0.5 Miles
San Tomas Expressway
Central Expressway
Highway 101
Southbay Freeway
El Camino Real
Montague Expressway
Legend
General Plan Amendments
City Limits

0.5 Miles
Key to Abbreviations
Abbreviation Land Use or Map Feature Density Range (dwelling units/acre) or Intensity (FAR)
VLDR Very Low Density Residential Up to 10 DU/AC
LDR Low Density Residential 10-18 DU/AC
MDR Medium Density Residential 19-36 DU/AC
CC Community Commercial 0.5 FAR maximum
RC Regional Commercial 0.6 FAR maximum
NMXU Neighborhood Mixed Use 19-36 DU/AC, minimum 0.1 commercial FAR CMXU Community Mixed Use 19-36 DU/AC, minimum 0.1 commercial FAR RMXU Regional Mixed Use 37-50 DU/AC, minimum 0.15 commercial FAR
LIO/R+D Low-Intensity Office/R+D 1.0 FAR maximum
HIO/R+D High-Intensity Office/R+D 2.0 FAR maximum
LI Light Industrial 0.6 FAR maximum
PQP Public/Quasi-Public n/a
ROW Right of Way Not a land use designation
Creek Creek Not a land use designation
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
3575 De La Cruz Boulevard 101-15-049 0.49 VLDR MDR
4482 Davis Street 104-10-031 0.23 VLDR MDR
4240 Bassett Street 104-12-006 0.14 VLDR MDR
4200 Bassett Street 104-12-009 0.22 VLDR MDR
4261 Davis Street 104-12-016 0.18 VLDR MDR
4252 Davis Street 104-12-020 0.18 VLDR MDR
2086 Agnew Road 104-12-028 0.27 VLDR MDR
4254 Cheeney Street 104-12-031 0.18 VLDR MDR
4224 Cheeney Street 104-12-034 0.18 VLDR MDR
4074 Cheeney Street 104-12-047 0.18 VLDR MDR
1915 Chestnut street 104-12-053 0.17 VLDR MDR
4035 Cheeney Street 104-12-094 0.27 VLDR MDR
1860 Chestnut Street 104-12-138 0.13 VLDR MDR
1840 Chestnut Street 104-12-139 0.13 VLDR MDR
1880 Chestnut Street 104-12-140 0.13 VLDR MDR
4203 Cheeney Street 104-12-151 0.14 VLDR MDR
4264 Cheeney Street 104-12-178 0.18 VLDR MDR
1900 Chestnut Street 104-12-181 0.15 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
2588 Robinson Avenue 216-03-065 0.14 VLDR MDR
2580 Robinson Avenue 216-03-066 0.14 VLDR MDR
2576 Robinson Avenue 216-03-067 0.14 VLDR MDR
2570 Robinson Avenue 216-03-068 0.14 VLDR MDR
2566 Robinson Avenue 216-03-069 0.14 VLDR MDR
2560 Robinson Avenue 216-03-070 0.14 VLDR MDR
2556 Robinson Avenue 216-03-071 0.14 VLDR MDR
2550 Robinson Avenue 216-03-072 0.14 VLDR MDR
2546 Robinson Avenue 216-03-073 0.14 VLDR MDR
2540 Robinson Avenue 216-03-084 0.14 VLDR MDR
2543 Robinson Avenue 216-04-070 0.15 VLDR MDR
1733 Higgins Avenue 216-04-071 0.14 VLDR MDR
1739 Higgins Avenue 216-04-072 0.14 VLDR MDR
1743 Higgins Avenue 216-04-073 0.14 VLDR MDR
1749 Higgins Avenue 216-04-074 0.14 VLDR MDR
1753 Higgins Avenue 216-04-075 0.14 VLDR MDR
2382 Bowers Avenue 216-17-086 0.59 VLDR MDR
3360 Warburton Avenue 220-01-002 0.14 VLDR MDR
3564 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-019 0.15 PQP VLDR
3554 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-020 0.13 PQP VLDR
3544 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-021 0.13 PQP VLDR
3534 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-022 0.13 PQP VLDR
3524 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-023 0.13 PQP VLDR
3514 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-024 0.13 PQP VLDR
3510 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-025 0.13 PQP VLDR
3584 Cabrillo Avenue 220-11-029 0.24 PQP VLDR
1981 Saint Lawrence Drive 220-11-030 0.79 PQP MDR
2076 Jackson Street 224-22-041 0.14 VLDR MDR
2052 Jackson Court 224-22-043 0.18 VLDR MDR
2050 Jackson Court 224-22-044 0.33 VLDR MDR
2048 Jackson Court 224-22-045 0.17 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
2064 Main Street 224-23-002 0.14 VLDR MDR
2062 Main Street 224-23-003 0.22 VLDR MDR
1918 Main Street 224-23-013 0.15 VLDR MDR
2055 Jackson Street 224-23-034 0.14 VLDR MDR
2065 Jackson Street 224-23-035 0.24 VLDR MDR
2085 Jackson Street 224-23-080 0.20 VLDR MDR
2078 Main Street 224-23-081 0.17 VLDR MDR
2010 Main Street 224-23-082 0.65 VLDR MDR
1122 Reed Street 224-24-048 0.11 VLDR MDR
1231 Warburton Avenue 224-24-059 0.30 VLDR MDR
1171 Reeve Street 224-24-090 0.17 VLDR MDR
1565 Monroe Street 224-26-048 0.34 VLDR MDR
1101 Civic Center Drive 224-26-067 0.32 VLDR MDR
1270 Civic Center Drive 224-26-069 0.24 VLDR MDR
1741 Washington Street 224-27-025 0.15 VLDR MDR
1750 Washington Street 224-27-055 0.32 VLDR MDR
1757 Washington Street 224-27-058 0.31 VLDR MDR
1871 Main Street 224-27-089 0.24 VLDR MDR
1008 Reeve Street 224-28-003 0.24 VLDR MDR
1000 Civic Center Drive 224-28-033 0.17 VLDR MDR
1565 Main Street 224-28-040 0.26 VLDR MDR
1076 Reeve Street 224-28-063 0.17 VLDR MDR
2300 Monroe Street 224-31-125 0.35 VLDR MDR
3430 The Alameda 230-07-014 0.13 LDR MDR
550 Benton Street 230-08-020 0.15 LDR LDR
567 Franklin Street 230-08-028 0.28 LDR MDR
575 Franklin Street 230-08-029 0.14 LDR MDR
581 Franklin Street 230-08-030 0.13 LDR MDR
583 Franklin Street 230-08-031 0.10 LDR MDR
1025 Sherman Street 230-08-032 0.21 LDR MDR
1041 Sherman Street 230-08-033 0.22 LDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
533 Mission Street 230-12-082 0.18 VLDR MDR
593 Mission Street 230-12-083 0.18 VLDR MDR
2220 Park Avenue 230-17-049 0.41 VLDR MDR
1442 Lincoln Street 269-02-045 0.13 VLDR MDR
1438 Lincoln Street 269-02-046 0.13 VLDR MDR
1430 Lincoln Street 269-02-047 0.15 VLDR MDR
1420 Lincoln Street 269-02-048 0.10 VLDR MDR
1404 Lincoln Street 269-02-049 0.17 VLDR MDR
1380 Lincoln Street 269-02-050 0.26 VLDR MDR
1366 Lincoln Street 269-02-051 0.12 VLDR MDR
1346 Lincoln Street 269-02-052 0.12 VLDR MDR
1310 Lincoln Street 269-02-053 0.12 VLDR MDR
1645 Harrison Street 269-02-054 0.16 VLDR MDR
1655 Catherine Street 269-02-069 0.12 VLDR MDR
1501 Lewis Street 269-03-011 0.13 VLDR MDR
1559 Lewis Street 269-03-013 0.18 VLDR MDR
1575 Lewis Street 269-03-014 0.18 VLDR MDR
1425 Jefferson Street 269-03-024 0.09 VLDR MDR
1437 Jefferson Street 269-03-025 0.18 VLDR MDR
1455 Jefferson Street 269-03-026 0.18 VLDR MDR
1435 Lewis Street 269-03-034 0.26 VLDR MDR
1441 Lewis Street 269-03-035 0.26 VLDR MDR
1475 Lewis Street 269-03-036 0.09 VLDR MDR
1355 Jefferson Street 269-03-047 0.19 VLDR MDR
1360 Jefferson Street 269-03-055 0.31 VLDR MDR
1391 Lincoln Street 269-03-057 0.21 VLDR MDR
1550 Lewis Street 269-03-061 0.18 VLDR MDR
1591 Lewis Street 269-03-064 0.09 VLDR MDR
1313 Lewis Street 269-03-070 0.16 VLDR MDR
1343 Lewis Street 269-03-071 0.17 VLDR MDR
1359 Lewis Street 269-03-072 0.19 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1290 Lewis Street 269-03-087 0.21 VLDR MDR
1326 Jackson Street 269-03-095 0.13 VLDR MDR
1239 Harrison Street 269-03-097 0.18 VLDR MDR
1259 Harrison Street 269-03-098 0.27 VLDR MDR
1390 Monroe Street 269-03-103 0.27 VLDR MDR
1306 Monroe Street 269-03-110 0.25 VLDR MDR
1357 Harrison Street 269-03-111 0.19 VLDR MDR
1367 Madison Street 269-03-114 0.25 VLDR MDR
1451 Lincoln Street 269-03-121 0.06 VLDR MDR
1591 Lewis Street 269-03-122 0.02 VLDR MDR
1550 Lewis Street 269-03-137 0.18 VLDR MDR
1361 Lincoln Street 269-03-138 0.19 VLDR MDR
1057 Lewis Street 269-05-020 0.16 VLDR MDR
1135 Harrison Street 269-05-032 0.24 VLDR MDR
1161 Harrison Street 269-05-033 0.18 VLDR MDR
1175 Harrison Street 269-05-034 0.17 VLDR MDR
1189 Harrison Street 269-05-035 0.17 VLDR MDR
1194 Lewis Street 269-05-038 0.18 VLDR MDR
1045 Lewis Street 269-05-055 0.27 VLDR MDR
927 Harrison Street 269-05-074 0.40 VLDR MDR
1301 Washington Street 269-05-077 0.26 VLDR MDR
819 Harrison Street 269-06-033 0.13 VLDR MDR
829 Harrison Street 269-06-034 0.13 VLDR MDR
1150 Pierce Street 269-11-057 0.22 VLDR MDR
1208 Pierce Street 269-11-059 0.21 VLDR MDR
1682 Harrison Street 269-12-008 0.15 VLDR MDR
1264 Lincoln Street 269-12-011 0.15 VLDR MDR
1262 Lincoln Street 269-12-012 0.15 VLDR MDR
1252 Lincoln Street 269-12-013 0.15 VLDR MDR
1236 Lincoln Street 269-12-014 0.15 VLDR MDR
1210 Lincoln Street 269-12-016 0.16 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1697 Fremont Street 269-12-020 0.15 VLDR MDR
1672 Fremont Street 269-12-038 0.30 VLDR MDR
1194 Lincoln Street 269-12-040 0.15 VLDR MDR
1176 Lincoln Street 269-12-041 0.15 VLDR MDR
1156 Lincoln Street 269-12-042 0.15 VLDR MDR
1136 Lincoln Street 269-12-044 0.15 VLDR MDR
1126 Lincoln Street 269-12-045 0.15 VLDR MDR
1110 Lincoln Street 269-12-046 0.15 VLDR MDR
1678 Harrison Street 269-12-058 0.15 VLDR MDR
1668 Harrison Street 269-12-059 0.15 VLDR MDR
1608 Harrison Street 269-12-062 0.14 VLDR MDR
1226 Lincoln Street 269-12-073 0.15 VLDR MDR
1540 Harrison Street 269-13-002 0.12 VLDR MDR
1510 Harrison Street 269-13-003 0.17 VLDR MDR
1260 Jefferson Street 269-13-005 0.17 VLDR MDR
1105 Lincoln Street 269-13-025 0.15 VLDR MDR
1185 Lincoln Street 269-13-028 0.12 VLDR MDR
1255 Lincoln Street 269-13-050 1.07 VLDR MDR
1155 Lincoln Street 269-13-072 0.14 VLDR MDR
1248 Washington Street 269-15-020 0.16 VLDR MDR
1011 Fremont Street 269-15-021 0.15 VLDR MDR
1041 Fremont Street 269-15-022 0.15 VLDR MDR
1161 Benton Street 269-15-038 0.13 VLDR MDR
1145 Jackson Street 269-15-040 0.17 VLDR MDR
1124 Washington Street 269-15-053 0.39 VLDR MDR
1174 Harrison Street 269-15-056 0.02 VLDR MDR
1194 Fremont Street 269-15-057 0.16 VLDR MDR
1284 Jackson Street 269-15-067 0.23 VLDR MDR
846 Fremont Street 269-16-038 0.38 VLDR MDR
1170 Alviso Street 269-16-043 0.10 VLDR MDR
1140 Alviso Street 269-16-065 0.11 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1130 Alviso Street 269-16-066 0.11 VLDR MDR
1650 Homestead Road 269-19-051 0.16 VLDR MDR
954 Lincoln Street 269-19-058 0.17 PQP MDR
964 Lincoln Street 269-19-062 0.17 PQP MDR
1751 Homestead Road 269-19-064 0.27 PQP VLDR
848 North Winchester
Boulevard
269-19-067 0.19 VLDR MDR
1801 Homestead Road 269-19-068 0.21 PQP VLDR
1811 Homestead Road 269-19-069 0.22 PQP VLDR
1651 Homestead Road 269-19-088 0.17 PQP VLDR
1671 Homestead Road 269-19-089 0.17 PQP VLDR
1691 Homestead Road 269-19-090 0.17 PQP VLDR
1701 Homestead Road 269-19-091 0.16 PQP VLDR
1721 Homestead Road 269-19-092 0.16 PQP VLDR
1731 Homestead Road 269-19-093 0.19 PQP VLDR
1076 Jefferson Street 269-20-001 0.54 VLDR MDR
1057 Lincoln Street 269-20-008 0.17 VLDR MDR
1075 Lincoln Street 269-20-009 0.17 VLDR MDR
1093 Lincoln Street 269-20-010 0.18 VLDR MDR
1527 Homestead Road 269-20-030 0.17 VLDR MDR
1465 Homestead Road 269-20-045 0.20 VLDR MDR
1493 Homestead Road 269-20-046 0.15 VLDR MDR
942 Jefferson Street 269-20-049 0.18 VLDR MDR
955 Lincoln Street 269-20-054 0.64 VLDR MDR
1642 Lexington Street 269-25-047 0.16 VLDR MDR
1659 Santa Clara Street 269-25-073 0.15 VLDR MDR
1560 Homestead Road 269-26-002 0.18 VLDR MDR
1567 Lexington Street 269-26-011 0.27 VLDR MDR
1593 Lexington Street 269-26-012 0.29 VLDR MDR
1491 Lexington Street 269-26-026 0.16 VLDR MDR
1576 Lexington Street 269-26-029 0.11 VLDR MDR
1560 Lexington Street 269-26-030 0.11 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1540 Lexington Street 269-26-031 0.16 VLDR MDR
786 Jefferson Street 269-26-032 0.21 VLDR MDR
741 Lincoln Street 269-26-040 0.18 VLDR MDR
761 Lincoln Street 269-26-041 0.17 VLDR MDR
1584 Lexington Street 269-26-042 0.15 VLDR MDR
1457 Santa Clara Street 269-26-053 0.17 VLDR MDR
1475 Santa Clara Street 269-26-054 0.17 VLDR MDR
1485 Santa Clara Street 269-26-055 0.18 VLDR MDR
1490 Lexington Street 269-26-062 0.18 VLDR MDR
1340 Homestead Road 269-26-067 0.20 VLDR MDR
856 Monroe Street 269-26-070 0.19 VLDR MDR
1327 Lexington Street 269-26-072 0.21 VLDR MDR
1251 Santa Clara Street 269-26-100 0.22 VLDR MDR
715 Monroe Street 269-26-101 0.18 VLDR MDR
846 Main Street 269-28-005 0.08 VLDR MDR
1056 Lexington Street 269-28-050 0.41 VLDR MDR
1634 Santa Clara Street 269-34-009 0.17 VLDR MDR
1760 Market Street 269-34-030 0.17 CC VLDR
1750 Market Street 269-34-031 0.19 CC VLDR
1640 Market Street 269-34-035 0.17 VLDR MDR
590 Lincoln Street 269-34-036 0.18 VLDR MDR
578 Lincoln Street 269-34-037 0.18 VLDR MDR
560 Lincoln Street 269-34-038 0.45 VLDR MDR
530 Lincoln Street 269-34-039 0.16 VLDR MDR
1690 Market Street 269-34-047 0.10 VLDR MDR
587 Isabella Street 269-34-048 0.12 VLDR MDR
1784 Market Street 269-34-057 0.12 CC VLDR
575 North Winchester
Boulevard
269-34-058 0.15 CC VLDR
1555 Market Street 269-35-008 0.17 VLDR MDR
1567 Market Street 269-35-009 0.10 VLDR MDR
625 Lincoln Street 269-35-011 0.14 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
669 Lincoln Street 269-35-012 0.13 VLDR MDR
679 Lincoln Street 269-35-013 0.13 VLDR MDR
689 Lincoln Street 269-35-014 0.14 VLDR MDR
1550 Market Street 269-35-031 0.31 VLDR MDR
1591 Bellomy Street 269-35-040 0.25 VLDR MDR
545 Lincoln Street 269-35-041 0.12 VLDR MDR
569 Lincoln Street 269-35-042 0.15 VLDR MDR
589 Lincoln Street 269-35-060 0.27 VLDR MDR
1307 Bellomy Street 269-36-030 0.13 VLDR MDR
1156 Santa Clara Street 269-36-058 0.31 VLDR MDR
660 Main Street 269-36-062 0.15 VLDR MDR
616 Main Street 269-36-065 0.18 VLDR MDR
680 Washington Street 269-36-074 0.70 VLDR MDR
560 Lafayette Street 269-38-044 0.18 VLDR MDR
841 Bellomy Street 269-38-067 0.16 LDR MDR
569 Lafayette Street 269-38-074 0.18 LDR MDR
545 Alviso Street 269-38-084 0.21 LDR MDR
775 Bellomy Street 269-38-087 0.21 LDR MDR
1864 Bellomy Street 269-39-076 0.18 VLDR MDR
561 Saratoga Avenue 269-39-094 0.48 VLDR MDR
559 Saratoga Avenue 269-39-097 0.15 VLDR MDR
1550 Bellomy Street 269-40-005 0.76 VLDR MDR
1490 Bellomy Street 269-41-017 0.14 VLDR MDR
1301 Jonathan Street 269-41-074 0.23 VLDR MDR
1321 Jonathan Street 269-41-075 0.22 VLDR MDR
1341 Jonathan Street 269-41-076 0.22 VLDR MDR
1398 Bellomy Street 269-41-079 0.26 VLDR MDR
298 Madison Street 269-41-091 0.22 VLDR MDR
1284 Bellomy Street 269-42-010 0.26 PQP VLDR
986 Bellomy Street 269-43-031 0.24 VLDR MDR
461 Lafayette Way 269-44-033 0.19 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
431 Lafayette Way 269-44-105 0.62 VLDR MDR
961 College Avenue 269-48-069 0.20 VLDR MDR
231 Washington Street 269-48-070 0.21 VLDR MDR
235 Washington Street 269-48-071 0.18 VLDR MDR
241 Washington Street 269-48-072 0.18 VLDR MDR
245 Washington Street 269-48-073 0.19 VLDR MDR
251 Washington Street 269-48-074 0.20 VLDR MDR
255 Washington Street 269-48-075 0.21 VLDR MDR
261 Washington Street 269-48-076 0.19 VLDR MDR
1530 Pomeroy Avenue 290-02-097 0.25 VLDR MDR
2447 Anna Drive 290-08-098 0.19 VLDR MDR
2453 Anna Drive 290-08-099 0.20 VLDR MDR
2457 Anna Drive 290-08-100 0.20 VLDR MDR
2463 Anna Drive 290-08-101 0.20 VLDR MDR
2467 Anna Drive 290-08-102 0.20 VLDR MDR
2473 Anna Drive 290-08-103 0.20 VLDR MDR
2483 Anna Drive 290-08-104 0.20 VLDR MDR
2487 Anna Drive 290-08-105 0.20 VLDR MDR
2493 Anna Drive 290-08-106 0.28 VLDR MDR
2497 Anna Drive 290-08-150 0.34 VLDR MDR
2431 Anna Drive 290-08-151 0.34 VLDR MDR
2295 Anna Drive 290-09-040 0.47 VLDR MDR
1275 Alice Drive 290-11-149 0.28 VLDR MDR
2550 Arroyo Drive 290-14-230 0.60 VLDR MDR
2520 Arroyo Drive 290-14-231 0.30 VLDR MDR
1400 White Drive 290-14-247 0.41 VLDR MDR
3472 Brookdale Drive 290-23-085 0.13 PQP LDR
3470 Brookdale Drive 290-23-086 0.13 PQP LDR
2020 Benton Street 290-35-047 0.13 LDR MDR
793 Cornell Drive 293-11-053 0.14 VLDR MDR
3014 McKinley Drive 296-37-028 0.28 VLDR MDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
408 Knowles Avenue 303-02-008 0.17 PQP VLDR
406 Knowles Avenue 303-02-009 0.17 PQP VLDR
404 Knowles Avenue 303-02-010 0.17 PQP VLDR
402 Knowles Avenue 303-02-011 0.19 PQP VLDR
412 Knowles Avenue 303-02-017 0.30 PQP VLDR
410 Knowles Avenue 303-02-018 0.17 PQP VLDR
1850 Pruneridge Avenue 303-16-080 1.18 RC MDR
3743 Benton Street 313-30-030 0.21 PQP VLDR
3749 Benton Street 313-30-031 0.21 PQP VLDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
4474 Davis Street 104-10-032 0.22 VLDR LDR
2079 Second Street 104-10-073 0.16 VLDR LDR
4330 Bassett Street 104-11-005 0.15 VLDR LDR
4250 Bassett Street 104-12-005 0.14 VLDR LDR
4230 Bassett Street 104-12-007 0.18 VLDR LDR
4210 Bassett Street 104-12-008 0.18 VLDR LDR
4251 Davis Street 104-12-015 0.18 VLDR LDR
4236 Cheeney Street 104-12-033 0.18 VLDR LDR
4164 Cheeney Street 104-12-039 0.18 VLDR LDR
4128 Cheeney Street 104-12-043 0.18 VLDR LDR
4033 Davis Street 104-12-078 0.18 VLDR LDR
4043 Davis Street 104-12-079 0.18 VLDR LDR
1802 Beech Street 104-12-084 0.25 VLDR LDR
4052 Davis Street 104-12-088 0.18 VLDR LDR
4173 Cheeney Street 104-12-104 0.18 VLDR LDR
2009 Beech Street 104-12-142 0.18 VLDR LDR
3990 Bassett Street 104-12-168 0.28 VLDR LDR
4034 Davis Street 104-12-206 0.18 VLDR LDR
4042 Davis Street 104-12-207 0.18 VLDR LDR
1605 Chestnut Street A 104-12-210 0.21 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
2570 Warburton Avenue 216-03-051 0.14 VLDR LDR
1780 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-052 0.13 VLDR LDR
1776 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-053 0.13 VLDR LDR
1766 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-054 0.13 VLDR LDR
1762 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-055 0.13 VLDR LDR
1756 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-056 0.13 VLDR LDR
1754 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-057 0.18 VLDR LDR
1748 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-058 0.16 VLDR LDR
1744 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-059 0.15 VLDR LDR
1740 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-060 0.15 VLDR LDR
1736 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-061 0.15 VLDR LDR
1728 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-062 0.15 VLDR LDR
1724 Ravizza Avenue 216-03-063 0.17 VLDR LDR
2590 Robinson Avenue 216-03-064 0.22 VLDR LDR
1832 Ravizza Avenue 216-04-084 0.15 VLDR LDR
1822 Ravizza Avenue 216-04-085 0.15 VLDR LDR
2591 Warburton Avenue 216-04-086 0.16 VLDR LDR
1660 Pomeroy Avenue 220-01-008 0.17 VLDR LDR
3315 Clair Court 220-01-009 0.15 VLDR LDR
3325 Clair Court 220-01-010 0.14 VLDR LDR
3335 Clair Court 220-01-011 0.13 VLDR LDR
3341 Clair Court 220-01-012 0.21 VLDR LDR
3570 Marquette Street 220-16-001 0.15 VLDR LDR
2298 Capistrano Drive 220-17-002 0.16 VLDR LDR
2286 Capistrano Drive 220-17-019 0.14 VLDR LDR
2278 Capistrano Drive 220-17-020 0.14 VLDR LDR
2268 Capistrano Drive 220-17-021 0.14 VLDR LDR
2256 Capistrano Drive 220-17-022 0.14 VLDR LDR
2248 Capistrano Drive 220-17-023 0.14 VLDR LDR
2238 Capistrano Drive 220-17-024 0.14 VLDR LDR
2226 Capistrano Drive 220-17-025 0.16 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1163 Warburton Avenue 224-24-055 0.17 VLDR LDR
1193 Warburton Avenue 224-24-056 0.40 VLDR LDR
1685 Jackson Street 224-26-017 0.17 VLDR LDR
1100 Reeve Street 224-26-020 0.12 VLDR LDR
1891 Clifford Street 269-01-030 0.20 VLDR LDR
1894 Clay Street 269-01-031 0.20 VLDR LDR
1433 Scott Boulevard 269-01-074 0.14 VLDR LDR
1891 Clay Street 269-01-076 0.26 VLDR LDR
1515 Scott Boulevard 269-01-077 0.17 VLDR LDR
1443 Scott Boulevard 269-01-086 0.14 VLDR LDR
1886 Clifford Street 269-01-087 0.17 VLDR LDR
1895 Catherine Street 269-01-088 0.26 VLDR LDR
1791 Catherine Street 269-02-034 0.18 VLDR LDR
1435 Pierce Street 269-02-036 0.14 VLDR LDR
1539 Lewis Street 269-03-012 0.18 VLDR LDR
1440 Jackson Street 269-03-080 0.25 VLDR LDR
1400 Jackson Street 269-03-081 0.14 VLDR LDR
1344 Jackson Street 269-03-094 0.11 VLDR LDR
1011 Lewis Street 269-05-054 0.18 VLDR LDR
830 Lewis Street 269-06-029 0.17 VLDR LDR
1384 Alviso Street 269-06-047 0.11 VLDR LDR
1993 Harrison Street 269-08-001 0.20 VLDR LDR
1355 Scott Boulevard 269-08-002 0.19 VLDR LDR
1890 Catherine Street 269-08-003 0.20 VLDR LDR
1992 Harrison Street 269-08-037 0.21 VLDR LDR
1995 Stafford Street 269-08-054 0.22 VLDR LDR
1287 Scott Boulevard 269-08-055 0.18 VLDR LDR
1816 Harrison Street 269-11-058 0.16 VLDR LDR
1198 Pierce Street 269-11-063 0.16 VLDR LDR
1740 Harrison Street 269-12-005 0.15 VLDR LDR
1703 Fremont Street 269-12-021 0.15 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1160 Fremont Street 269-15-029 0.18 VLDR LDR
1262 Harrison Street 269-15-065 0.13 VLDR LDR
1067 Jefferson Street 269-20-023 0.14 VLDR LDR
1368 Homestead Road 269-26-066 0.18 VLDR LDR
749 Monroe Street 269-26-102 0.21 VLDR LDR
1697 Market Street 269-34-021 0.18 VLDR LDR
1703 Market Street 269-34-023 0.18 VLDR LDR
1787 Market Street 269-34-046 0.18 VLDR LDR
1434 Market Street 269-35-045 0.12 VLDR LDR
560 Madison Street 269-35-047 0.19 VLDR LDR
1345 Market Street 269-36-008 0.18 VLDR MDRE
623 Monroe Street 269-36-054 0.19 VLDR LDR
660 Lafayette Street 269-38-102 0.20 VLDR LDR
336 Monroe Street 269-41-056 0.18 VLDR LDR
293 Madison Street 269-41-077 0.20 VLDR LDR
297 Madison Street 269-41-078 0.18 VLDR LDR
879 Linden Drive 269-51-022 0.16 VLDR LDR
885 Linden Drive 269-51-023 0.15 VLDR LDR
905 Linden Drive 269-51-024 0.15 VLDR LDR
935 Linden Drive 269-51-025 0.15 VLDR LDR
967 Linden Drive 269-51-026 0.15 VLDR LDR
975 Linden Drive 269-51-027 0.15 VLDR LDR
985 Linden Drive 269-51-028 0.15 VLDR LDR
95 Washington Street 269-51-029 0.17 VLDR LDR
1625 Newhall Street 269-51-043 0.16 VLDR LDR
33 Wistaria Way 269-51-044 0.21 VLDR LDR
43 Wistaria Way 269-51-045 0.15 VLDR LDR
53 Wistaria Way 269-51-046 0.14 VLDR LDR
65 Wistaria Way 269-51-047 0.14 VLDR LDR
73 Wistaria Way 269-51-048 0.14 VLDR LDR
85 Wistaria Way 269-51-049 0.17 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
872 Linden Drive 269-51-050 0.23 VLDR LDR
900 Linden Drive 269-51-063 0.18 VLDR LDR
80 Wistaria Way 269-51-064 0.18 VLDR LDR
70 Wistaria Way 269-51-065 0.18 VLDR LDR
60 Wistaria Way 269-51-066 0.18 VLDR LDR
50 Wistaria Way 269-51-067 0.18 VLDR LDR
42 Wistaria Way 269-51-068 0.18 VLDR LDR
1651 Newhall Street 269-51-069 0.21 VLDR LDR
540 Park Court 269-52-074 0.12 VLDR LDR
2173 Park Avenue 269-52-075 0.13 VLDR LDR
1309 Pomeroy Avenue 290-03-014 0.16 VLDR LDR
2490 Anna Drive 290-08-041 0.19 VLDR LDR
2482 Anna Drive 290-08-042 0.18 VLDR LDR
2462 Anna Drive 290-08-061 0.18 VLDR LDR
2450 Anna Drive 290-08-062 0.18 VLDR LDR
2432 Anna Drive 290-08-081 0.18 VLDR LDR
2320 Anna Drive 290-08-082 0.19 VLDR LDR
1492 Maryann Drive 290-08-149 0.18 VLDR LDR
1491 Los Padres Boulevard 290-09-010 0.17 VLDR LDR
2280 Anna Drive 290-09-014 0.16 VLDR LDR
2261 Harrison Street 290-09-026 0.19 VLDR LDR
1327 Block Drive 290-09-027 0.17 VLDR LDR
1347 Block Drive 290-09-028 0.17 VLDR LDR
1365 Block Drive 290-09-029 0.17 VLDR LDR
1385 Block Drive 290-09-030 0.17 VLDR LDR
1407 Block Drive 290-09-031 0.17 VLDR LDR
1425 Block Drive 290-09-032 0.17 VLDR LDR
1445 Block Drive 290-09-033 0.17 VLDR LDR
1465 Block Drive 290-09-034 0.17 VLDR LDR
2260 Anna Drive 290-09-039 0.19 VLDR LDR
2275 Anna Drive 290-10-021 0.19 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1213 Alice Drive 290-11-103 0.16 VLDR LDR
1223 Alice Drive 290-11-144 0.16 VLDR LDR
1233 Alice Drive 290-11-145 0.16 VLDR LDR
1245 Alice Drive 290-11-146 0.16 VLDR LDR
1253 Alice Drive 290-11-147 0.16 VLDR LDR
1263 Alice Drive 290-11-148 0.16 VLDR LDR
2502 Arroyo Drive 290-14-005 0.18 VLDR LDR
2492 Arroyo Drive 290-14-069 0.18 VLDR LDR
1057 White Drive 290-14-117 0.18 VLDR LDR
1069 White Drive 290-14-118 0.19 VLDR LDR
1079 White Drive 290-14-119 0.18 VLDR LDR
1097 White Drive 290-14-120 0.19 VLDR LDR
1109 White Drive 290-14-174 0.21 VLDR LDR
1117 White Drive 290-14-175 0.15 VLDR LDR
1127 White Drive 290-14-176 0.15 VLDR LDR
1139 White Drive 290-14-177 0.15 VLDR LDR
1149 White Drive 290-14-178 0.15 VLDR LDR
1159 White Drive 290-14-179 0.15 VLDR LDR
1179 White Drive 290-14-180 0.15 VLDR LDR
1187 White Drive 290-14-181 0.15 VLDR LDR
1197 White Drive 290-14-182 0.15 VLDR LDR
1207 White Drive 290-14-183 0.15 VLDR LDR
1219 White Drive 290-14-184 0.17 VLDR LDR
1237 White Drive 290-14-185 0.16 VLDR LDR
1257 White Drive 290-14-186 0.14 VLDR LDR
1277 White Drive 290-14-187 0.14 VLDR LDR
1299 White Drive 290-14-188 0.14 VLDR LDR
1309 White Drive 290-14-189 0.14 VLDR LDR
1317 White Drive 290-14-190 0.14 VLDR LDR
1329 White Drive 290-14-191 0.14 VLDR LDR
1339 White Drive 290-14-192 0.14 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1349 White Drive 290-14-193 0.14 VLDR LDR
1357 White Drive 290-14-194 0.14 VLDR LDR
1367 White Drive 290-14-195 0.14 VLDR LDR
1370 White Drive 290-14-196 0.15 VLDR LDR
1360 White Drive 290-14-197 0.14 VLDR LDR
1350 White Drive 290-14-198 0.14 VLDR LDR
1342 White Drive 290-14-199 0.14 VLDR LDR
1332 White Drive 290-14-200 0.14 VLDR LDR
1322 White Drive 290-14-201 0.14 VLDR LDR
1312 White Drive 290-14-202 0.14 VLDR LDR
1302 White Drive 290-14-203 0.14 VLDR LDR
1280 White Drive 290-14-204 0.14 VLDR LDR
1260 White Drive 290-14-205 0.14 VLDR LDR
1242 White Drive 290-14-206 0.14 VLDR LDR
1230 White Drive 290-14-207 0.14 VLDR LDR
1220 White Drive 290-14-208 0.14 VLDR LDR
1210 White Drive 290-14-209 0.14 VLDR LDR
1200 White Drive 290-14-210 0.14 VLDR LDR
1192 White Drive 290-14-211 0.14 VLDR LDR
1182 White Drive 290-14-212 0.14 VLDR LDR
1170 White Drive 290-14-213 0.14 VLDR LDR
1160 White Drive 290-14-214 0.14 VLDR LDR
1152 White Drive 290-14-215 0.14 VLDR LDR
1140 White Drive 290-14-216 0.14 VLDR LDR
1130 White Drive 290-14-217 0.14 VLDR LDR
1120 White Drive 290-14-218 0.15 VLDR LDR
2586 Benton Street 290-14-222 0.19 VLDR LDR
1090 White Drive 290-14-223 0.23 VLDR LDR
1070 White Drive 290-14-224 0.19 VLDR LDR
1060 White Drive 290-14-225 0.18 VLDR LDR
1050 White Drive 290-14-226 0.16 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
1110 White Drive 290-14-236 0.19 VLDR LDR
1112 Kiely Boulevard 290-18-049 0.18 VLDR LDR
2821 Benton Street 290-18-050 0.15 VLDR LDR
2831 Benton Street 290-18-051 0.15 VLDR LDR
2841 Benton Street 290-18-052 0.15 VLDR LDR
2853 Benton Street 290-18-053 0.15 VLDR LDR
2861 Benton Street 290-18-054 0.15 VLDR LDR
2873 Benton Street 290-18-055 0.15 VLDR LDR
2883 Benton Street 290-18-056 0.18 VLDR LDR
2891 Benton Street 290-18-057 0.18 VLDR LDR
2903 Benton Street 290-18-058 0.18 VLDR LDR
2913 Benton Street 290-18-059 0.18 VLDR LDR
2921 Benton Street 290-18-060 0.18 VLDR LDR
2933 Benton Street 290-18-061 0.18 VLDR LDR
2943 Benton Street 290-18-062 0.18 VLDR LDR
2953 Benton Street 290-18-063 0.18 VLDR LDR
2963 Benton Street 290-18-064 0.18 VLDR LDR
2971 Benton Street 290-18-065 0.18 VLDR LDR
1101 Moraga Street 290-18-066 0.18 VLDR LDR
2395 Patricia Drive 290-32-037 0.18 VLDR LDR
1297 Block Drive 290-42-001 0.18 VLDR LDR
2252 Harrison Street 290-42-002 0.16 VLDR LDR
2228 Harrison Street 290-42-003 0.16 VLDR LDR
2220 Harrison Street 290-42-004 0.16 VLDR LDR
2210 Harrison Street 290-42-005 0.16 VLDR LDR
2198 Harrison Street 290-42-006 0.16 VLDR LDR
2188 Harrison Street 290-42-007 0.16 VLDR LDR
2178 Harrison Street 290-42-008 0.16 VLDR LDR
2160 Harrison Street 290-42-009 0.16 VLDR LDR
2150 Harrison Street 290-42-010 0.16 VLDR LDR
2140 Harrison Street 290-42-011 0.16 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
2128 Harrison Street 290-42-012 0.16 VLDR LDR
2110 Harrison Street 290-42-013 0.16 VLDR LDR
2100 Harrison Street 290-42-014 0.16 VLDR LDR
2088 Harrison Street 290-42-015 0.17 VLDR LDR
2078 Harrison Street 290-42-016 0.19 VLDR LDR
3417 Brookdale Drive 290-44-130 0.22 VLDR LDR
3433 Brookdale Drive 290-52-023 0.19 VLDR LDR
3441 Brookdale Drive 290-52-024 0.18 VLDR LDR
3451 Brookdale Drive 290-52-025 0.18 VLDR LDR
3463 Brookdale Drive 290-52-026 0.18 VLDR LDR
3473 Brookdale Drive 290-52-027 0.18 VLDR LDR
3551 Eden Drive 293-05-016 0.17 VLDR LDR
3556 Dominican Drive 293-05-019 0.15 VLDR LDR
767 Los Padres Boulevard 294-16-010 0.17 VLDR LDR
290 Calvert Drive 296-01-005 0.16 VLDR LDR
294 Calvert Drive 296-01-006 0.17 VLDR LDR
373 Harvard Avenue 296-03-053 0.19 VLDR LDR
383 Harvard Avenue 296-03-054 0.18 VLDR LDR
393 Harvard Avenue 296-03-055 0.18 VLDR LDR
3366 Pruneridge Avenue 296-05-048 0.26 VLDR LDR
3362 Pruneridge Avenue 296-05-052 0.28 VLDR LDR
3107 McKinley Drive 296-12-032 0.20 VLDR LDR
3109 McKinley Drive 296-12-033 0.18 VLDR LDR
3113 McKinley Drive 296-12-034 0.18 VLDR LDR
3119 McKinley Drive 296-12-035 0.18 VLDR LDR
3123 McKinley Drive 296-12-036 0.18 VLDR LDR
3125 McKinley Drive 296-12-037 0.18 VLDR LDR
79 Gilbert Avenue 296-12-038 0.20 VLDR LDR
3223 McKinley Drive 296-13-052 0.17 VLDR LDR
3245 McKinley Drive 296-13-053 0.22 VLDR LDR
64 Cronin Drive 296-14-017 0.22 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
65 Arcadia Avenue 296-14-018 0.19 VLDR LDR
64 Arcadia Avenue 296-14-051 0.21 VLDR LDR
57 Muir Avenue 296-14-052 0.20 VLDR LDR
48 Muir Avenue 296-15-019 0.17 VLDR LDR
83 Cabot Avenue 296-17-003 0.17 VLDR LDR
3490 Bennett Avenue 296-17-004 0.18 VLDR LDR
3513 Bennett Avenue 296-18-021 0.16 VLDR LDR
3525 Bennett Avenue 296-18-022 0.16 VLDR LDR
3529 Bennett Avenue 296-18-023 0.16 VLDR LDR
3535 Bennett Avenue 296-18-024 0.16 VLDR LDR
3543 Bennett Avenue 296-18-025 0.16 VLDR LDR
3555 Bennett Avenue 296-18-026 0.16 VLDR LDR
3563 Bennett Avenue 296-18-027 0.16 VLDR LDR
3575 Bennett Avenue 296-18-028 0.16 VLDR LDR
3583 Bennett Avenue 296-18-029 0.16 VLDR LDR
3582 Mauricia Avenue 296-18-030 0.18 VLDR LDR
3579 Mauricia Avenue 296-18-031 0.18 VLDR LDR
3583 Mauricia Avenue 296-18-032 0.18 VLDR LDR
3587 Mauricia Avenue 296-18-033 0.18 VLDR LDR
3593 Mauricia Avenue 296-18-034 0.18 VLDR LDR
3590 Mauricia Avenue 296-18-035 0.18 VLDR LDR
3582 Bennett Avenue 296-18-036 0.16 VLDR LDR
3570 Bennett Avenue 296-18-037 0.16 VLDR LDR
3562 Bennett Avenue 296-18-038 0.16 VLDR LDR
3550 Bennett Avenue 296-18-039 0.16 VLDR LDR
3542 Bennett Avenue 296-18-040 0.16 VLDR LDR
3530 Bennett Avenue 296-18-041 0.16 VLDR LDR
3526 Bennett Avenue 296-18-042 0.16 VLDR LDR
3522 Bennett Avenue 296-18-043 0.16 VLDR LDR
3510 Bennett Avenue 296-18-044 0.16 VLDR LDR
92 Cabot Avenue 296-18-045 0.18 VLDR LDR
Parcels proposed for redesignation to maintain existing residential densities Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
3130 McKinley Drive 296-21-021 0.17 VLDR LDR
3126 McKinley Drive 296-21-022 0.17 VLDR LDR
3122 McKinley Drive 296-21-023 0.16 VLDR LDR
Parcels with Public/Quasi-Public Uses to be redesignated Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
449 Montague Expressway 097-08-112 0.19 NMXU PQP
4305 Lafayette Street 097-08-113 1.93 HIO/R+D PQP
4601 Eisenhower Drive 097-17-126 0.90 MDR PQP
City Land - no address 097-18-002 0.17 VLDR PQP
802 Laurie Avenue 101-08-009 0.30 VLDR PQP
921 Clyde Avenue 101-20-007 1.33 MDR PQP
2525 Tasman Drive 104-03-040 4.46 RC PQP
2900 Mission College
Boulevard
104-16-110 1.92 LI PQP
2375 Agmew Rd 104-34-052 0.64 LDR PQP
SCC Transit 104-43-038 0.07 RC PQP
4801 Great America Parkway 104-43-051 9.81 RC PQP
2600 Tasman Drive 104-43-052 40.22 RC PQP
5000 Stars and Stripes Drive 104-43-058 2.14 RC PQP
City Land - no address 104-43-059 13.83 RC PQP
4851 Marie P Debartolo Way 104-43-060 1.45 RC PQP
City Land - no address 104-43-061 5.98 RC PQP
3050 Semiconductor Drive 205-39-024 0.67 MDR PQP
2545 Warburton Avenue 216-04-090 2.59 VLDR PQP
1819 Bowers Avenue 216-06-040 0.31 VLDR PQP
1821 Bowers Avenue 216-06-041 0.52 VLDR PQP
City Land - no address 216-06-074 0.21 VLDR PQP
2445 Cabrillo Avenue 216-10-003 1.23 VLDR PQP
2495 Cabrillo Avenue 216-10-098 1.93 VLDR PQP
3301 Agate Drive 216-26-001 0.16 MDR PQP
Parcels with Public/Quasi-Public Uses to be redesignated Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
2747 Bowers Avenue 216-28-062 1.96 LI PQP
City Land - no address 216-31-032 1.03 RC PQP
1685 Pomeroy Avenue 220-01-022 0.75 VLDR PQP
1935 Townsend Avenue 220-08-013 0.11 MDR PQP
2383 Pacific Drive 220-18-038 1.72 VLDR PQP
2415 Pacific Drive 220-18-050 0.23 VLDR PQP
3536 Monroe Street 220-18-051 1.52 MDR PQP
2263 Calabazas Boulevard 220-22-028 0.17 VLDR PQP
1912 Bowers Avenue 220-30-012 0.61 VLDR PQP
1255 Space Park Drive 224-08-082 6.08 LI PQP
2970 Lafyette Street 224-08-153 7.72 LI PQP
City Land - no address 224-49-004 0.26 MDR PQP
1700 Lincoln Street 224-49-005 3.28 MDR PQP
City Land - no address 224-49-011 0.12 CMXU PQP
3260 The Alameda 230-08-016 0.23 LDR PQP
1755 Catherine Street 269-02-037 0.54 VLDR PQP
1590 El Camino Real 269-03-132 0.04 CMXU PQP
1177 Alviso Street 269-16-080 1.04 NMXU PQP
1087 Scott Boulevard 269-18-021 0.19 VLDR PQP
1798 Homestead 269-18-043 0.20 VLDR PQP
1095 Homestead Road 269-22-094 1.26 CMXU PQP
1200 Franklin Mall 269-22-112 0.58 CMXU PQP
820 Benton Street 269-23-077 0.56 CMXU PQP
807 Franklin Street 269-23-081 1.17 CMXU PQP
1072 Alviso Street 269-23-082 0.17 CMXU PQP
1298 Homestead Road 269-26-079 0.13 CMXU PQP
750 Washington Street 269-28-051 1.20 VLDR PQP
1717 Bellomy Street 269-34-054 1.52 CC PQP
1540 Market Street 269-35-032 0.06 VLDR PQP
1092 Santa Clara Street 269-36-072 0.13 VLDR PQP
2795 The Alameda 269-38-108 0.80 NMXU PQP
Parcels with Public/Quasi-Public Uses to be redesignated Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
475 Lafayette Drive 269-43-039 0.21 VLDR PQP
3665 Flora Vista Avenue 290-01-123 3.17 CMXU PQP
1265 Pomeroy Avenue 290-19-101 0.22 VLDR PQP
1290 Pomeroy Avenue 290-20-061 2.31 MDR PQP
3550 Benton Street 290-22-153 0.69 VLDR PQP
887 Pomeroy Avenue 290-23-054 1.53 MDR PQP
875 Quince Avenue 290-24-045 4.00 VLDR PQP
3111 Benton Street 290-27-006 3.15 VLDR PQP
1050 Kiely Boulevard 290-27-013 1.41 MDR PQP
1005 San Tomas Expressway 290-32-018 0.11 VLDR PQP
951 San Tomas Expressway 290-37-005 0.10 MDR PQP
City Land - no address 290-37-006 0.09 MDR PQP
2499 Homestead Road 290-37-058 3.76 MDR PQP
2821 Homestead Road 290-39-004 0.26 MDR PQP
2831 Homestead Road 290-39-064 1.36 MDR PQP
575 Pomeroy Avenue 293-09-005 0.41 VLDR PQP
3090 Homestead Road 293-11-057 1.81 VLDR PQP
3137 Forbes Avenue 293-13-002 2.24 VLDR PQP
3095 Forbes Avenue 293-16-056 0.21 VLDR PQP
2900 Homestead Road 293-17-085 0.56 MDR PQP
3094 Aspen Drive 293-20-001 0.21 VLDR PQP
2911 Pruneridge Avenue 293-21-022 0.64 VLDR PQP
511 Magnolia Lane 293-28-036 0.28 VLDR PQP
2526 Homestead Road 294-19-054 1.08 VLDR PQP
1957 Pruneridge Avenue 303-03-025 2.54 VLDR PQP
2323 Pruneridge Avenue 303-11-059 0.25 VLDR PQP
City Land - no address 303-12-090 0.57 VLDR PQP
City Land - no address 303-12-093 0.11 MDR PQP
3700 Benton Street 313-19-014 0.58 MDR PQP
City Land - no address 313-31-002 0.11 VLDR PQP
657 Hubbard Avenue 316-08-014 0.19 VLDR PQP
Parcels with Public/Quasi-Public Uses to be redesignated Site Address APN Acreage Current GP Proposed GP
5050 Stars and Stripes Drive 104-43-062 10.87 RC POS
Right-of-Way Parcels to be redesignated
Site Address APN Acreage Current GP
Proposed
Designation
Trail ROW 104-04-087 0.38 LI POS
Trail ROW 104-04-104 0.87 LIO/R+D POS
Trail ROW 104-05-122 1.48 VLDR POS
Trail ROW 104-39-022 0.39 HIO/R+D POS
Trail ROW 104-45-014 1.21 VLDR POS
Creek Channel 216-06-073 0.28 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 216-24-103 0.29 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 216-24-104 1.94 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 216-30-030 0.11 LIO/R+D Creek
Creek Channel 216-30-034 1.40 LIO/R+D Creek
Creek Channel 216-31-054 0.36 LIO/R+D Creek
Creek Channel 216-31-064 1.91 LIO/R+D Creek
Creek Channel 220-01-042 0.66 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 220-07-134 0.84 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 220-08-017 1.07 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 220-13-102 0.56 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 220-14-035 0.45 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 220-28-023 0.78 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 290-02-080 0.98 MDR Creek
Creek Channel 290-03-037 0.38 MDR Creek
ROW 290-03-065 1.09 MDR ROW
ROW 290-04-022 0.14 MDR ROW
ROW 290-04-039 0.49 CMXU ROW
Creek Channel 290-15-001 0.85 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 290-20-001 0.14 MDR Creek
Creek Channel 290-20-003 0.44 MDR Creek
Creek Channel 290-22-155 0.90 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 290-58-025 2.45 MDR Creek
Creek Channel 290-58-026 0.19 MDR Creek
Creek Channel 293-09-017 2.62 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 296-06-032 3.59 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 313-31-006 3.65 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 316-08-004 0.34 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 316-08-082 0.97 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 316-12-099 2.23 VLDR Creek
Creek Channel 296-05-050 0.02 VLDR Creek
Southern Pacific - no address 216-28-124 0.17 MDR ROW
Resolution/Zoning Map General Plan Amendments Page 1 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS OF SELECTED PARCELS IN ORDER TO

MAINTAIN RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY CONSISTENT WITH STATE
LAW, IN COMBINATION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY’S

ZONING CODE MAP
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2024, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) adopted the City’s Zoning Code Update, the first comprehensive update of the Code in over 50 years; and WHEREAS, the 2010-2035 General Plan is the City’s vision for future development; and WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Code is the primary regulatory tool that implements the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, under Government Code Section 65860, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of a jurisdiction are required to be consistent with each other; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code is administered on a parcel-by-parcel basis through a Zoning Map with specific zoning districts applied to each parcel; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Map that is consistent with the City’s General Plan, as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Map is also consistent with the provisions of state law requiring the maintenance of aggregate residential capacity at 2018 levels; and WHEREAS, the City has a number of parcels developed with apartment buildings but designated for Very Low Density Residential uses on the City’s General Plan Land Use diagram; and WHEREAS, the City also has approximately 30 parcels of City right-of-way designated for residential; approximately 20 parcels designated for residential that are developed with City facilities; and approximately 30 parcels designated for residential that are developed with houses of worship; and
WHEREAS, SB 330 (2019), the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” only allows for the reduction of residential capacity on a parcel if there are other actions processed concurrently that help to Resolution/Zoning Map General Plan Amendments Page 2 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
maintain residential capacity; and
WHEREAS, the City has duly noticed each General Plan Amendment in accordance with Government Code Section 65353 and SCCC 18.146.020, by publishing notice of the public hearing in the Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, on May 8, 2024, by mailing notice to each affected property owner as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll, on May 3, 2024, and by mailing notice to each local agency expected to provide essential facilities or services to the affected parcels, including the Valley Water and the Santa Clara Unified School District, on May 3, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendments; and WHEREAS, before acting on the General Plan Amendments associated with the Zoning Code Update, the Council reviewed and considered the potential environmental impacts and determined that as the primary implementation tool of the General Plan, the environmental effects of the proposed Zoning Code Update and associated actions were consistent with 2010-2035 General Plan EIR, as addended, and that the proposed General Plan Amendments did not alter the conclusions of the adopted General Plan EIR, as addended, or create new environmental impacts.

WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Code Map, along with associated text and General Plan amendments and Zoning Code cleanup actions, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed General Plan Amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Map including the proposed General Plan Amendments, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendments.

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

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

Resolution/Zoning Map General Plan Amendments Page 3 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023

2. That City Council adopts the Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Diagram shown in Attachment 1 to ensure consistency between existing residential uses, General Plan land use designations, and proposed zoning districts.

3. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective thirty (30) calendar days after the date of adoption.

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. General Plan Amendments Map and List
S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 1 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING “CLEANUP” AMENDMENTS TO

THE ZONING CODE UPDATE, ADDING PROVISIONS FOR

MOBILE FOOD VENDORS, MODIFYING SINGLE-FAMILY

SETBACK REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY’S ADOPTED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

GUIDELINES, CLARIFYING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED

HEIGHT OF SINGLE-STORY ACCESSORY DWELLING

UNITS, AND UPDATING CROSS REFERENCES IN TITLE
18 (“ZONING”) OF “THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SANTA
CLARA, CALIFORNIA”
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2024 the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) adopted the first comprehensive update of the City’s Zoning Code in over 50 years; and WHEREAS, the 2010-2035 General Plan is the City’s vision for future development; and WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Code is the primary regulatory tool that implements the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, under Government Code Section 65860, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of a jurisdiction are required to be consistent with each other; and WHEREAS, there is a need to update the newly adopted Code to address errata and omissions from the original approval, including provisions for Mobile Food Vendors and for exempt and allowed Temporary Uses: and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to clarify the height limit for one-story Accessory Dwelling Units by adding that development standard to the code; and WHEREAS, the City also wishes to modify the single-family provisions to include second-story setbacks (also known as stepbacks); and
WHEREAS, the City also wishes to clarify the maximum height of one-story Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 2 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
WHEREAS, the City is including changes to the Zoning code requested by the state Department of Housing and Community Development through the Housing Element Update process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Zoning Code cleanup ordinance; and
WHEREAS, before acting on the Zoning Code Update, the City reviewed and considered the potential environmental impacts of the Zoning Code Update and determined that as the primary implementation tool of the General Plan, the environmental effects of the proposed Zoning Code Update were consistent with 2010-2035 General Plan EIR, as addended, and that the proposed Zoning Code Update did not alter the conclusions of the adopted General Plan EIR, as addended create new environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Code cleanup ordinance, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the Zoning Code cleanup ordinance (5-2-0, Huang and Cherukuru voting against); and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code to implement the provisions of AB 1397 (2017), including the definition of the term “Use by Right”, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the AB 1397 code amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Code cleanup ordinance, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 3 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
proposed amendments.

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

SECTION 1: That Paragraph 5, “High-Density Residential Zone (R4)”, of Subsection B of Section 18.10.010, “Purposes of Residential Zones”, of Chapter 18.10, “Residential Zones”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” (“SCCC”) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“5. High-Density Residential Zone (R4). The purpose of the R4 High MediumDensity Zone is to provide land areas for the construction, use, and occupancy of multifamily dwellings (i.e., rowhouses, townhouses, low-rise apartments). It is the intent of this zone to encourage development types that use innovative site planning provide on-site recreational amenities and be located near neighborhood commercial centers. The residential density range for this zone is 37-50 dwelling units per acre. This zone implements the Medium-Density land use designation in the General Plan.

SECTION 2: That Table 2-1, “Residential Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements”, of Chapter 18.10, “Residential Zones”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended by deleting the enumerated use, “Dwelling, Second Unit”.

SECTION 3: That Table 2-3, “Residential Zone Development Standards”, of Chapter

18.10, “Residential Zones”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 4 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-3
Residential Zone Development Standards
Development Feature
(minimum unless
otherwise indicated)
R1-6L R1-8L R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Additional
Regulations
Parcel Area (minimum) area required for each NEWLY CREATED parcel.

Parcel Area 6,000 8,000 7,000 8,500 8,500 10,000 None
Street Frontage (feet) 60 70 50 60 70 70 None
Structure Coverage (maximum percentage)
Parcel Area (less than
10,000 sq. ft.) 40% 40% 45% 60% 80% None None
Parcel Area (10,000 sq. ft. or
greater) 40% 40% 45% None None None None
Setbacks (minimum) -Property lines are measured in feet, with those adjacent to the street measured from the face of the curb., adopted plan line, or edge of right-of-way.

Front 20 20 15 10 10 10 10 Section 18.30.050
Front, second story 25 25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Side, Corner 10 10 10 10 15 15 15
Side, corner second
story 15 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Side, Interior 5 6 and 9 5 5 10 10 10 Section 18.10.040(B) Section 18.30.050
Side, interior, second
story 10 11 and
14 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Rear, single-story 20 20 10 10 20 20 20 Section 18.30.050 Rear, multi-story 20 20 15 15 20 20 20 Section 18.30.050 Length of driveway
approach 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Height (maximum) measured in feet
Height (within 20 feet of
the R1-6L, R1-8L, and
R2 zones)
25 25 32 32 32 32 32 Section 18.30.040
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 5 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-3
Residential Zone Development Standards
Development Feature
(minimum unless
otherwise indicated)
R1-6L R1-8L R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Additional
Regulations
Height (all other zones) 25 25 32 40 80 100 200 Section 18.30.040 Number of Stories (maximum)
Number of Stories and the
Daylight Plane
All structures adjacent to R1 and R2 zones shall include a 45-degree daylight plan off the property line to implement a compatible transition between structures.

Number of Stories 2 2 2 4 8 10 20
Gross Residential Density (minimum to maximum) shown in number of dwelling units per acre Allowable Density 0.1-10 0.1-10 8-19 20-36 37-50 51-99 85-350 Recreation Space for Multi-Family Dwellings (minimum) measured in square feet per dwelling unit
Private Recreation Space
(required for a minimum of 50
percent of units)
None None None 60 60 40 40
Common Recreation Space
(per unit) None None None 200 200 200 200
Additional Regulations
Residential Accessory
Structures Chapter 18.32
Basements Section 18.30.070
Density Bonus and
Affordable Housing Chapter 18.66
Fences, Walls, Hedges, and
Screens Chapter 18.34
Landscaping Standards Chapter 18.36
Open Space Standards City Code Chapter 17.35
Off-Street Parking
Regulations and Design
Standards
Chapter 18.38
Performance Standards Chapter 18.40
Sign Standards Chapter 18.42
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page
6 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 7 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
SECTION 4: That a new Paragraph 5 is added to Subsection B, “Specific Residential Regulations” of Section 18.10.040, “Other Applicable Regulations”, of Chapter 18.10, “Residential Zones”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC to read as follows:
“5. Townhouses in R-2 and R-3 districts. Townhouses that have frontage on a public street are required to have their front door on the front elevation.” SECTION 5: That a new Paragraph 6, “Regulations Applicable to Multifamily Sites Used in the 4th and 5th Cycles of the City’s Housing Element” is hereby added to Subsection B, “Specific Residential Regulations”, of Section 18.10.040, “Other Applicable Regulations”, of Chapter 18.10, “Residential Zones”, of Title 18 (entitled “Zoning”), of the SCCC to read as follows:
“6. Regulations Applicable to Multifamily Sites Used in the 4th and 5th Cycles of the City’s Housing Element. Pursuant to AB 1397 (2017): 1) for all nonvacant sites included in the inventory of the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023), and 2) for all vacant sites included in the inventory of both the 4th Cycle (2007-2014) and 5th Cycle (2015-2023) Housing Elements, the City shall allow Use-By-Right for housing development pursuant to Government Code 65583.2(c), when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.”
SECTION 6: That Table 2-7 of Chapter 18.12, “Commercial Land Uses and Permit Requirements”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 8 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-7
Commercial Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Commercial Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions). C-N C-C C-R Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Caretaker Housing - P P Section 18.60.060
Dwelling, Multifamily MUP MUP MUP Section 18.10.040(C)
Section 18.12.040(A)(7)
Employee Housing - - -
Home Occupations - - -
Section 18.12.040(B)
Section 18.60.120
Live-Work Facilities MUP MUP MUP Section 18.12.040(B)
Section 18.60.130
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Facilities - P P
Supportive Housing - - P
Transitional Housing Facilities - - P
Human Services Uses
Assisted Living Facilities - CUP - Section 18.60.080
Child Day Care Facilities P P P Section 18.60.070
Residential Care Facilities, six or
fewer residents P P P
Residential Care Facilities,
seven or more residents MUP MUP MUP
Community Care Facilities CUP CUP CUP
Child Day Care Homes, Up to 14
Children - - -
Low-barrier Navigation Centers P P
Emergency Shelters - P P
Section 18.12.040
Section 18.60.110
Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly Uses
Cemeteries and Mausoleums - CUP -
Commercial Recreation
Facilities, Indoor CUP P P
Commercial Recreation
Facilities, Outdoor - P P
Fitness Facilities MUP P P
Libraries P P P
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes - P P
Museums - P P
Parks and Public Plazas P P P
Recreational Vehicle Parks - - CUP
Places of Assembly P P P
Public Schools P P P
Private Schools CUP CUP CUP
Public/Private Colleges and
Universities P P P
Theaters and Auditoriums - P P
Vocational/Trade Schools P P P
Utility, Transportation, and Communication Uses
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 9 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-7
Commercial Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Commercial Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions). C-N C-C C-R Additional Regulations
Broadcasting and Recording
Studios - P P
Parking Structures - CUP CUP
Public Safety Facilities P P P
Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers, Colocation/Small CellP P P
Section 18.12.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers, Minor
(less than 70 feet)
MUP MUP MUP Section 18.12.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers, Major (70
feet or higher)
CUP CUP CUP Section 18.12.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Transit Stations and Terminals - CUP CUP
Utility Facilities and
Infrastructures CUP CUP CUP
Diesel Back-up Generators P P P Section 18.60.260
Photovoltaic Systems P P P
Retail, Service, and Office Uses
Adult Businesses Uses - - CUP Chapter 18.62
Alcoholic Beverage Sales and
Service P P P Section 18.60.040
Ambulance Services - CUP CUP
Animal Sales and Grooming
Facilities P P P Section 18.12.040(B)
Banks and Financial
Establishments, General P P P
Banks and Financial
Establishments, Stand-alone
ATM
P P P
Bars CUP CUP CUP
Bed and Breakfast Inns CUP - - Chapter 18.60.050
Building Material Stores and
Yards - P P
Business Support Centers P P P
Drive-in/Drive-through
Establishments CUP CUP CUP Section 18.60.100
Equipment Sales and Rentals - P P
Garden Centers/Plant Nurseries - P P
Hotels and Motels CUP CUP CUP
Kennels - CUP CUP Section 18.12.040(A)
Live Entertainment, Incidental P P P
Live Entertainment, Standalone
Uses MUP/CUP MUP/CUP MUP/CUP Section 18.12.040(A)
Maintenance and Repair
Services - P P
Medical Services P P P
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 10 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-7
Commercial Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Commercial Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions). C-N C-C C-R Additional Regulations
Mobile Food Vendors P/MUP P/MUP P/MUP Section 18.60.280 Nightclubs CUP CUP CUP
Offices P P P
Outdoor Displays and Sales MUP CUP CUP Section 18.60.150 Outdoor Dining and Seating MUP MUP MUP Section 18.60.140 Personal Services P P P
Personal Services, Restricted - MUP MUP Section 18.60.170 Restaurants P P P
Retail Establishments
General, Small Format P P P
General, Medium Format - MUP MUP
General, Large Format - CUP CUP
Smoking Lounges - MUP CUP Chapter 8.37
Veterinary Facilities - MUP P Section 18.12.040(A)
Vehicle Oriented Uses
Car Wash and Detailing
Facilities, Full-Service - CUP MUP
Car Wash and Detailing
Facilities, Self-Service - MUP P
Mobile Fueling Delivery P P P
Vehicle Service Stations - MUP CUP Section 18.60.220
Vehicle Rental Facilities, General - CUP MUP
Vehicle Rental Facilities, Limited - P P
Vehicle Rental Facilities, Office
Only P P P
Vehicle Sales Facilities, General - - CUP Section 18.60.210 Vehicle Sales Facilities,
Wholesale
- CUP CUP Section 18.60.210
Vehicle Repair Facilities, Minor - - P
Section 18.12.040(A)
Section 18.60.200
Vehicle Repair Facilities, Major - CUP CUP Section 18.12.040(A) Section 18.60.200
Vehicle Parts Sales - P P
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses
Personal Storage Facilities - - CUP
Printing and Publishing Facilities - P P
Wineries, Distilleries, Breweries,
and Micro-Breweries - MUP MUP
SECTION 7: That Table 2-10, “Mixed Use Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements” of Chapter 18.14, “Mixed Use Zones”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 11 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-10
Mixed Use Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Mixed Use Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for
land use definitions). MU-NC MU-CC MU-RC MU-VHD Additional Regulations Residential Uses
Caretaker Housing CUP - - P Section 18.60.060
Dwelling, Multifamily P P P P
Section 18.10.040(C)
Section 18.14.040(S)
Employee Housing P - - -
Home Occupations P P P P
Section 18.14.040
Section 18.60.120
Live-Work P P P P
Section 18.14.040
Section 18.60.130
Single-Room
Occupancy (SRO)
Facilities - P P -
Supportive Housing P P P P
Transitional Housing - - - P
Human Services Uses
Assisted Living
Facilities - CUP - CUP Section 18.60.080
Child Day Care
Facilities P P P P Section 18.60.070
Community Care
Facilities CUP CUP - CUP
Residential Care
Facilities, six or fewer
residents

P P - P
Residential Care
Facilities, seven or
more residents

MUP MUP - MUP
Day Care Homes, Up
to 14 Children P P P -
Low Barrier Navigation
Centers P P P P
Emergency Shelters - - - P Section 18.60.110
Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly Uses
Cemeteries and
Mausoleums - - - CUP
Community Gardens MUP MUP MUP -
Commercial
Recreation Facilities,
Indoor

MUP P P CUP
Commercial
Recreation Facilities,
Outdoor
- - - P
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 12 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-10
Mixed Use Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Mixed Use Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for
land use definitions). MU-NC MU-CC MU-RC MU-VHD Additional Regulations Fitness Facilities P P P P
Libraries P P - P
Museums P P P P
Parks and Public
Plazas P P P P
Places of Assembly MUP CUP CUP P
Public Schools P P P P
Private Schools CUP CUP CUP CUP
Public/Private Colleges
and Universities P P P P
Theaters and
Auditoriums P P P P
Vocational/Trade
Schools - P P P
Utility, Transportation, and Communication Uses
Broadcasting and
Recording Studios - - - P
Park and Ride
Facilities P P P -
Parking Structures MUP MUP MUP P Section 18.14.040
Public Safety Facilities P P P P
Wireless
Telecommunications
Facilities and Towers,
Co-location/Small Cell

P P P P
Section 18.14.040
Chapter 18.66
Wireless
Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers,
Minor (less than 70
feet)
MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 18.14.040
Chapter 18.66
Wireless
Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers,
Major (70 feet or
higher)
- CUP CUP CUP Section 18.14.040
Chapter 18.66
Transit Stations and
Terminals P P P CUP
Utility Facilities and
Infrastructure CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 18.14.040
Photovoltaic Systems P P P P
Retail, Service, and Office Uses
Alcoholic Beverage
Sales and Service P P P P Section 18.60.040
Ambulance Services CUP CUP - CUP
Animal Sales and
Grooming Facilities P P P P Section 18.14.040
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 13 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-10
Mixed Use Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Mixed Use Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for
land use definitions). MU-NC MU-CC MU-RC MU-VHD Additional Regulations Banks and Financial
Establishments,
General

P P P P
Banks and Financial
Establishments, Standalone ATMP P P P
Bars CUP CUP CUP CUP
Bed and Breakfast Inns - - - CUP
Business Support
Centers P P MUP P
Drive-in/Drive-through
Establishments CUP - - CUP Section 18.60.100
Equipment Sales and
Rentals - - - P
Garden Centers/Plant
Nurseries - - - P
Hotels and Motels P P P CUP Section 18.14.040
Kennels MUP MUP - - Section 18.14.040
Live Entertainment,
Incidental P P P P
Live Entertainment,
Standalone MUP/CUP MUP/CUP MUP/CUP MUP/CUP Section 18.14.040 Maintenance and
Repair Services P P P P
Mobile Food Vendors P/MUP P/MUP P/MUP P/MUP Section 18.60.280 Nightclubs CUP - CUP CUP
Offices P P P P
Outdoor Dining and
Seating MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 18.60.140
Outdoor Displays and
Sales CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 18.60.150
Personal Services P P P P
Personal Services,
Restricted MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 18.60.170
Restaurants P P P P
Retail Establishments:

General, Small
Format P P P P
General, Medium
Format P MUP P MUP
General, Large
Format CUP - CUP CUP
Veterinary Facilities P P P MUP Section 18.14.040
Vehicle Oriented Uses
Vehicle Service
Stations - CUP CUP -
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 14 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-10
Mixed Use Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Mixed Use Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for
land use definitions). MU-NC MU-CC MU-RC MU-VHD Additional Regulations Vehicle Rental
Facilities, Limited MUP - - -
Vehicle Rental
Facilities, Office Only P - - -
Vehicle Repair
Facilities, Minor MUP - - -
Section 18.14.040
Section 18.60.200
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses
Printing and Publishing
Facilities P P P P
Wineries, Distilleries,
Breweries, and MicroBreweriesMUP MUP MUP MUP
SECTION 8: That a new Subsection O, “Regulations Applicable to Mixed Use Sites Used in the 4th and 5th Cycles of the City’s Housing Element” is hereby added to Section

18.14.040, “Other Applicable Regulations”, of Chapter 18.14, “Mixed Use Zones”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC to read as follows:
“O. Regulations Applicable to Mixed Use Sites Used in the 4th and 5th Cycles of the City’s Housing Element. Pursuant to AB 1397 (2017): 1) for all nonvacant sites included in the inventory of the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023), and 2) for all vacant sites included in the inventory of both the 4th Cycle (2007-2014) and 5th Cycle (2015-2023) Housing Elements, the City shall allow Use-By-Right for housing development pursuant to Government Code 65583.2(c), when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.”
SECTION 9: That Table 2-13, “Office and Industrial Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements”, of Chapter 18.16, “Office and Industrial Zones” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 15 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Table 2-13
Office and Industrial Zones
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Office and Industrial Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions). LO-RD HO-RD LI HI Additional
Regulations
Residential Uses
Caretaker Housing CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 18.60.060
Transitional Housing Facilities - - MUP -
Human Services Uses
Community Care Facilities MUP - - -
Low-barrier Navigation Centers - - MUP -
Emergency Shelters - - MUP - Section 18.16.040
Section 18.60.110
Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly Uses
Cemeteries and Mausoleums - - CUP CUP
Crematories - - CUP CUP
Fitness Facilities P P - - Section 18.16.040(B)
Commercial Recreation
Facilities, Outdoor MUP MUP - -
Commercial Recreation
Facilities, Outdoor, Ancillary P P - - Section 18.16.040(B) Parks and Public Plazas P P P P
Public Schools P - - -
Private Schools CUP - - -
Public/Private Colleges and
Universities CUP - - -
Equipment/Machine/Vehicle
Training Facilities CUP CUP P -
Vocational/Trade Schools CUP - - -
Utility, Transportation, and Communication Uses
Broadcasting and Recording
Studios P - - -
Fuel Storage and Distribution
Centers - - - CUP
Park and Ride Facilities P P P P
Parking Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP
Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities and Towers, Colocation/Small CellP P P P
Section 18.16.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers, Minor
(less than 70 feet)
MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 18.16.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Wireless Telecommunication CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 18.16.040(A) Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 16 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-13
Office and Industrial Zones
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Office and Industrial Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions). LO-RD HO-RD LI HI Additional
Regulations
Facilities and Towers, Major
(70 feet or higher)
Chapter 18.66
Transit Stations and Terminals P P P P
Utility Facilities and
Infrastructure CUP CUP CUP CUP
Electric Power Plants MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 18.60.260 Diesel Back-up Generators P P P P Section 18.60.260
Water Wells MUP MUP MUP MUP
Photovoltaic Systems P P P P
Fuel Cells P P P P
Retail, Service, and Office Uses
Ambulance Services P P - -
Banks and Financial
Establishments, General P P - -
Banks and Financial
Establishments, Stand-alone
ATM

P P - -
Business Support Centers P P P P
Call Centers P P CUP -
Data Centers CCUP CCUP CCUP CCUP Section 18.16.040(B)
Section 18.60.090
Data Centers, Ancillary P P P
Section 18.16.040(B)
Section 18.60.090
Equipment Sales and Rental
Facilities P P P - Section 18.16.040(B)
Hotels and Motels P P CUP CUP Section 18.16.040(A)
Kennels P - - - Section 18.16.040(B)
Maintenance and Repair
Services P P P -
Medical Services P P - -
Mobile Food Vendors P/MUP P/MUP P/MUP P/MUP Section 18.60.280 Offices P P - -
Outdoor Dining and Seating
(Ancillary) P P CUP -
Section 18.16.040(A)
Section 18.60.140
Personal Services (Ancillary) P P - - Section 18.16.040(A) Restaurants (Ancillary) P P MUP MUP Section 18.16.040(A) Retail Establishments
(Ancillary) P P P P
Section 18.16.040(A)
Section 18.16.040(B)
Vehicle Oriented Uses
Mobile Fueling Delivery P P P P
Vehicle Service Stations - - - CUP Section 18.60.220
Vehicle Repair Facilities, Minor - - P - Section 18.60.200 Vehicle Repair Facilities, Major - - CUP P Section 18.60.200 Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 17 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-13
Office and Industrial Zones
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
Office and Industrial Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions). LO-RD HO-RD LI HI Additional
Regulations
Vehicle Storage Facilities MUP P MUP P
Vehicle Dismantling Facilities - - - CUP
Vehicle Impound Facility - - - CUP
Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses
Freight Yards/Truck Terminals - - CUP CUP
Hazardous Material Storage
Facilities - - - CUP
Industrial, Minor - P P P
Industrial, Major - - CUP P
Laundry and Dry-Cleaning
Plants - - P P
Printing and Publishing
Facilities P P P P
Recycling Facilities
Reverse Vending and
Collection Boxes - - P P Section 18.60.180
Collection Small - - P P Section 18.60.180
Collection, Processing, and
Transfer - - CUP CUP Section 18.60.180
Research and Development
Facilities P P P P
Storage
Personal Storage Facilities CUP - CUP -
Warehouse P P P P
Wholesaling and Distribution
Centers - CUP P P
SECTION 10: That Table 2-16, “Special Purpose Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements”, of Chapter 18.18, “Special Purpose Zones” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 18 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-16
Special Purpose Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements Special Purpose Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions).

OS PQP Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Supportive Housing Facilities - CUP
Transitional Housing Facilities - CUP
Human Services Uses
Child Day Care Facilities - MUP Section 18.60.070
Community Care Facilities - MUP
Low-barrier Navigation Centers - MUP
Emergency Shelters - MUP Section 18.18.040
Section 18.60.110
Medical Services, Hospitals - CUP
Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly Uses
Cemeteries and Mausoleums - CUP
Community Gardens MUP P Section 18.18.040
Libraries P P
Museums - P
Parks and Public Plazas P P
Commercial Recreation
Facilities, Outdoor P CUP Section 18.18.040(B)
Places of Assembly - CUP
Public Schools - P
Private Schools - CUP
Public/Private Colleges and
Universities - CUP
Theaters and Auditoriums - CUP
Vehicle Oriented Uses
Mobile Fueling Delivery - P
Utility, Transportation, and Communication Uses
Public Safety Facilities - P
Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities and Towers, Colocation- P
Section 18.18.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers, Minor
(less than 70 feet)
MUP MUP Section 18.18.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities and Towers, Major
(70 feet or higher)
- CUP Section 18.18.040(A)
Chapter 18.66
Transit Stations and Terminals - P
Utility Facilities and
Infrastructure CUP CUP
Electric Power Plants - MUP Section 18.60.260
Diesel Back-up Generators - MUP Section 18.60.260
Water Wells - MUP
Photovoltaic Systems - P
Fuel Cells - P
Retail, Service, and Office Uses
Mobile Food Vendors - P/MUP Section 18.60.280
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 19 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 2-16
Special Purpose Zones Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements Special Purpose Zones
Permit Requirements
P
MUP
CUP
TUP
-
Allowed by Right
Minor Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.124)
Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 18.122)
Not allowed
Land Use
(see Article 8 for land use
definitions).

OS PQP Additional Regulations
Offices - P
Outdoor Dining and Seating - MUP
Retail Establishments, Ancillary - MUP
SECTION 11: That Paragraph c, “Emergency Shelters”, of Subsection A, “General Purpose Regulations”, of Section 18.18.040, “Other Applicable Regulations”, of Chapter

18.18, “Special Purpose Zones” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby deleted.

SECTION 12: That Subsection B, “Height Measurement,” of Section 18.30.040, “Height Measurements and Exceptions,” of Chapter 18.30, “Site Planning and General Development Standards,” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“B. Height Measurement. The height of a structure shall be measured as the vertical distance from the elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure. This would be the coping of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof. For structures, Height is a vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the coping that defines the volume of the building of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. See Figure 3-2 (Height Measurement).”
SECTION 13: That Section 18.30.020, “Permitted Projections into Required Setback Areas” of Chapter 18.30, “Site Planning and General Development Standards”, of Title Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 20 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.30.020 – Permitted Projections into Required Setback Areas In applying the regulations of this Section, the following features of a structure shall not be included in the parcel coverage and may project into a required setback to the extent specified. None of the identified exceptions shall be permitted if they encroach into an adopted plan line, right-of-way, or public use easement.

A. Bay windows, Chimneys, Cornices, canopies, eaves or other projections that do not increase the volume of space enclosed by the structure may project up to two feet into a required side yard setback or three feet into a required front or rear yard setback.

B. Fire escapes may project into a required setback up to four feet, six inches.

C. Covered front porches including architectural features and roof projections, patios, decks, stairs, ramps, railings and landings may project up to six feet into a required front or corner side yard setback and may project up to three feet from the parcel line in any rear yard setback.

D. In order to qualify for this exception, bay window and chimney projections may not occupy more than 33 percent of the length of the structure wall on which they are located.

E. Equipment and/or structures enclosing equipment (e.g., solar panels, water storage tanks, heating and air conditioning equipment, or similar mechanical equipment that does not emit noise) that are attached to a primary structure or an accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach into a required rear or side setback area, provided they do not encroach more than 50 percent of the depth of the rear or side setback.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 21 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
F. Decks limited to maximum 3 feet in height may project up to 10 feet into any required rear setback, provided they maintain a minimum 3 foot interior side setback.” SECTION 14: That the title for Chapter 18.22, “Residential Accessory Structures” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC be renumbered to Chapter 18.32.

SECTION 15: That Section 18.32.020, “Permit Requirements”, of Chapter 18.32, “Residential Accessory Structures”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.32.020 – Permit Requirements
A. Permit Requirements. Except as otherwise exempt in Subsection B. b, residential accessory structures require Site Plan and Design Review Check as described in Chapter 18.120 (Site Plan and Design Review).

B. Exemptions. The following residential accessory structures are exempt from permits and approvals governed by this Title, provided they comply withany specified limitations all of the requirements listed below. Exempt accessory structures may also require building permits in keeping with the California Building Code.

1. Enclosed and/or solid-roofed accessory structures that are 120 square feet or smaller and no greater than 16 feet in height.

2. Structures shall not be located in a required front yard.

3. In order to maintain necessary fire breaks, all combustible residential accessory structures shall be set back a minimum of four feet from side and rear property lines with a minimum six-foot separation between structures.” SECTION 16: That Subsection 18.34.040.B, “Retaining Walls”, of Section 18.34.040, “Maximum Heights”, of Chapter 18.34, “Fences, Walls, Hedges, and Screens”, of Title 18, Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 22 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
“Zoning” of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“B. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls are limited to three feet in height with a sixfoot fence above, and one additional food foot of lattice. For Pproperties with a grade differential of greater than four feet, a taller retaining wall is permissible, subject to Director approval. See Figure 3-5 (Retaining Wall Height Measurement).” SECTION 17: That Section 18.36.070, “Additional Requirements for Residential Zones”, of Chapter 18.36, “Landscaping Standards”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.36.070 - Additional Requirements for Residential Zones All new development front yard landscaping shall include, at a minimum, one 15-gallon size tree and an irrigation system used only to establish the landscaping to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. This requirement shall be in addition to any other tree installation requirements required by law, such as street trees which shall to be approved by the Department of Public Works.”
SECTION 18: That Section 18.42.070, “Exempt Signs” of Chapter 18.42, “Sign Standards”, of Title 18, “Zoning” of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.42.070 – Exempt Signs
A. Exempt Signs. The following signs are allowed without a Sign Permit in any zone and shall not be included in the determination of type, number, or area or signs allowed on each parcel. Exempted signs shall be required to adhere to the regulations established for each sign type as provided in this Section.

Signs required by Federal/State law;

1. Official signs posted by a governmental body, including, flags, banners, Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 23 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
emblems, traffic or highway signs, railroad crossing signs, or similar regulatory or warning devices and legal notices;

2. Holiday displays and decorations, only when not creating a traffic hazard or located within any visual setback area in the sight distance triangle;

3. Commemorative plaques, tables, date of construction, and similar signs constructed of permanent material. Only one sign for each structure, not to exceed two square feet in area for each sign is allowed;

4. Signs located inside a structure, mall, or other similar structure, provided these signs are not conspicuously visible and readable from a public street or adjacent properties not under the same ownership;

5. Murals or other artistic paintings on walls, provided no names, information, logos, emblems or other similar information or illustrations of activities associated with uses on the premises or in the vicinity are included in the mural or painting;

6. "No Trespassing" signs. Each sign limited to one square foot in area. Signs may be placed at each corner and each entrance to a parcel and at intervals of not less than 50 feet or in compliance with legal requirements;

7. Real estate signs.
a. “For Rent”, “For Sale”, and “For Lease” signs shall be posted on the subject parcel, including common driveways, that is being advertised by an authorized agent;
b. Real estate signs shall not exceed six square feet for single-family residential and 32 square feet for multi-family or non-residential for each side of a doublesided sign; Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 24 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
c. There shall be no more than one sign per street frontage; and d. Illuminated real estate signs are prohibited.

9. Signs placed by utilities or other publicly regulated service providers indicating location of underground facilities, danger, and aids to service or safety, including official advisory and signal flags;

10. Copy changes in approved changeable copy signs;

11. Signs or notices incidental to a commercial, mixed-use, or industrial establishment (e.g., hours of operation, credit card information, emergency contact information, help wanted, open-close) provided the signs do not contain any commercial messages, the establishment logo, and in total do not exceed four square feet in area for all incidental signs;

12. Memorial tablets or signs and iconic markers;

13. Window signs not exceeding 25 percent of a tenant’s total window space.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, window signs shall not include the outline of windows with neon/LED light borders;

14. Signs related to the operation of a Mobile Food Vending Facility, provided that the aggregate sign area of all signs on the site, including the signs related to the operation of a Mobile Food Vending Facility, does not exceed the sign area standards in the district in which the Mobile Food Vending Facility is operating.

B. Routine Maintenance. Painting, repainting, or cleaning of a sign shall not be considered erecting or altering a sign. No Sign Permit shall be required unless structural changes are proposed to be made.

C. Building Permit may be required. Under certain circumstances, temporary signs Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 25 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
and other exempt signs may require a Building or Electrical Permit, as required by the uniform codes adopted by the City.”
SECTION 19: That Subsection C of Section 18.42.170, “Signs in Office and Industrial Zones” of Chapter 18.42, “Sign Standards” of Title 18, “Zoning” of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“C. General Commercial and Mixed-Use Office and Industrial Sign Location Regulations. Sign shall be placed a minimum of five feet from the front property line and shall not be located within a dedicated utility easement.” SECTION 20: That the table of contents entry for Section 18.60.120, Home Occupations, of Chapter 18.60, “Standards for Specific Land Uses”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.60.120 – 8ome Home Occupations”
SECTION 21: That Section 18.60.020, “Accessory Dwelling Units”, of Chapter 18.60, “Standards for Specific Land Uses”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.60.020 – Accessory Dwelling Units
A. Ministerial ADU Approval on Single-Family Parcels. The City shall ministerially approve the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) through the issuance of a Zoning Clearance on any single-family residential parcel to create any of the following:

1. One detached ADU;

2. One attached ADU or one attached JADU, subject to the following:
a. The attached ADU has exterior access and matches the height of the existing or proposed building or an existing accessory structure; Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 26 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
b. The attached ADU is within the building space of an existing accessory structure or Single Family Dwelling (SFD) or a proposed SFD. Enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages, are considered part of the proposed or existing SFD. c. The JADU has exterior access and is contained within the Building Space of an existing or proposed Single Family Dwelling (SFD); or d. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.

3. One converted ADU satisfying the requirements of subsection 18.60.020.J.

4. Any combination of one detached ADU described in Subsection 1 Above, one attached JADU described in Subsection 2.c or 2.d, above, and one converted ADU described in Subsection 3 above.

B. Ministerial ADU Approval on Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Parcels. The City shall ministerially approve ADUs through the issuance of a Zoning Clearance on any multi-family residential or mixed-use parcel to create any of the following:

1. Up to two detached ADUs that comply with ADU height and setback standards;

2. At least one attached ADU in a multi-family or mixed-use structure, and additional attached ADUs up to 25 percent of the number of existing dwelling units, provided that any attached ADUs are placed within areas of the structure that are not currently used as livable space, including storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages; or
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 27 of 57
Rev: 09/2019

3. A combination of the ADUs listed in Subsections 1. and 2., above.

4. For ADUs subject to ministerial approval in one of the categories above, the following shall apply:
a. Legal nonconforming zoning conditions (setbacks, parcel coverage, etc.) do not need to be brought into conforming status in order to obtain the Building Permit for the ADU. In addition, illegal conditions unrelated to the construction of the ADU do not have to be corrected as a prerequisite to the construction of the ADU.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City reserves its rights to require correction of any illegal conditions through standard code enforcement processes. b. All rentals of ADUs and JADUs shall be for a term longer than 30 days beginning in 2020.

C. Proposed ADUs Not Meeting Above Requirements. Proposed ADUs not falling within any of the categories listed above may potentially still be approved but shall meet the standards specified in SCCC Chapter 18.10 or 18.12 and undergo Architectural Review in compliance with Chapter 18.12076.

D. Development Standards Applicable to All ADUs.

1. Parcel size: No minimum parcel size is required to construct an ADU or JADU on a single-family, multi-family. Or mixed-use property.

2. Minimum floor area: 150 square feet.

3. Parking: No parking spaces are required for an ADU or JADU.

4. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure for the SFD is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or JADU or converted to an ADU or JADU, those off-street parking spaces need not be replaced.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 28 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
E. Development Standards for ADUs and JADUs on Single-Family, MultiFamily, and Mixed-Use Parcels.

1. Detached ADUs.
a. Height limit: 1 story, 18 feet, excepting building elements that meet the development standards in Subsection 2, below.
b. Maximum number of stories: 1.5. b. Setback, rear: 4
feet.
c. Setback, side: 4 feet.
d. Setback, corner side: 4 feet.
e. Unit size maximum, parcels less than or equal to 5,500 square feet:
1,000 square feet.
f. Unit size maximum, parcels greater than 5,500 square feet: 1,200 square feet.
g. Detached ADUs may include a detached garage.

2. Additional development standards for detached ADUs greater than one story and 18 feet in height.
a. Height limit: 1.5 stories, 25 feet
b. Setback, rear, one-story elements: 4 feet.
c. Setback, rear, multi-story elements: 15 feet.
d. Setback, side, one-story elements: 4 feet
e. Setback, side, multi-story elements: 9 feet
f. Maximum width for dormers: 40 percent of the subject building elevation.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 29 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
g. Egress windows: Egress windows shall face the primary residence, as opposed to the neighboring properties.

3. Attached ADUs.
a. Height, number of stories: 25 feet and 2 stories
b. Setback, front: Meet the setback for the subject zone, except as provided in paragraphs H and I.
c. Setback, side: 4 feet.
d. Setback, rear, one-story elements: 4 feet.
e. Setback, rear, multi-story elements: 15 feet.
f. Unit size: 1,000 square feet or 50 percent of the size of the main unit (minimum of 800 square feet), whichever is less.
g. All attached ADUs subject to ministerial approval shall be constructed within the setbacks required and at a maximum height of 25 feet will still qualify as being within the “building envelope space” if it includes an expansion of an existing SFD or accessory structure by up to 150 square feet for purpose of creating ingress/egress. Such an expansion may exceed the zoning requirements for the main SFD (such as parcel coverage and setbacks).
h. For the purposes of ADUs, “Bbuilding Envelope space” shall mean the walls of a proposed SFD or an existing SFD or accessory structure. However, an attached ADU will still qualify as being within the “building envelope space” if it includes an expansion of an existing accessory structure by up to 150 square feet for purpose of creating ingress/egress. Such an expansion may exceed the zoning requirements for the main SFD (such as parcel coverage and setbacks).

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 30 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
F. Development Standards for JADUs. JADUs are attached ADUs built within the building envelope space of an existing or proposed structure.

1. The maximum area of a JADU is 500 square feet.

2. All JADUs must be constructed within the walls of a proposed or existing SFD. The 150-square foot “building envelope space” expansion is not available for JADUs. JADUs are not permitted in accessory structures.

3. A JADU shall contain an efficiency kitchen (a cooking facility with appliances, a food preparation counter, and storage cabinets).

4. A JADU may include separate bathroom facilities or may share bathroom facilities with the main SFD. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.

5. Owner-occupancy is required in the single-family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit will be permitted. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created junior accessory dwelling unit.

Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

6. The recordation of a deed restriction is required, which shall run with the land, shall be filed with the permitting agency, and shall include both of the following:
a. A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers.
b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU that conforms Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 31 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
with this section of the Zoning Code.

G. ADUs subject to Parcel Coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and Open Space Requirements. ADUs and JADUs are subject to front setback requirements, parcel coverage, FAR, and open space requirements, but only to the extent that such requirements would still allow for:

1. A detached ADU of 800 square feet, that is at least 18 feet in height with four-foot rear yard and four-foot side yard setbacks. Setbacks and side yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other applicable City development standards.

2. An attached ADU, staying within the existing bBuilding Envelope space, and constructed in compliance with all other applicable City development standards.

H. ADUs Not Meeting Ministerial Approval Standards. ADUs and JADUs not meeting ministerial approval standards under Paragraph A, are subject to Architectural Review in compliance with Chapter 18.76 and shall meet all applicable Zoning Code regulations.

I. ADUs Proposed in The Location of Existing Accessory Structures. No setbacks are required for conversions of existing structures (garages or other accessory structure) that are constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as the existing structure.

J. ADUs on Historically Designated Properties.

1. The City is expressly allowed to regulate parking, height, setback, landscape, Architectural Review, maximum unit size, to require standards that prevent adverse impacts on any properties listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 32 of 57
Rev: 09/2019

2. The addition of an ADU to a property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources requires a Significant Properties Alteration (SPA) Permit.

K. Standards Applicable to Converted ADUs. The following standards apply only to converted accessory dwelling units:

1. Definition. A converted ADU is an ADU converted from an existing primary dwelling or accessory structure, including but not limited to attached garages, storage areas, or similar uses, or an accessory structure including but not limited to a studio, pool house, or other similar structure.

2. Limited Expansion. Conversions may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing structure if the expansion is for the sole purpose of accommodating ingress and egress to the converted structure.

3. Exterior Access Required. The converted space or structure shall have exterior access.

4. Setbacks. An accessory dwelling unit or portion of an accessory dwelling unit located within the existing space of an existing dwelling or within an existing detached accessory structure shall not require a setback from the rear, street side, or interior side property lines.

5. Parking. No additional off-street parking is required for the converted accessory dwelling unit. If replacement parking is provided, the replacement spaces shall be located in any configuration on the same parcel as the accessory dwelling unit and may include but is not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces.

Replacement parking may only occur on driveways leading to a required parking space Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 33 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
or in rear yard on a paved surface.

6. Unit Size Requirements. The conversion of an existing accessory structure or a portion of the existing primary dwelling to an accessory dwelling unit is not subject to unit size requirements established in this Section. For example, if an existing 2,000 square-foot accessory structure was converted to an accessory dwelling unit, it would not be subject to the established unit size requirements.” B. Ministerial ADU Approval on Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Parcels. The City shall ministerially approve ADUs through the issuance of Zoning Clearance on any multi-family residential or mixed-use parcel to create any of the following:

1. Up to two detached ADUs that comply with ADU height and setback standards; At least one attached ADU in a multi-family or mixed-use structure, and additional attached ADUs up to 25 percent of the number of existing dwelling units, provided that any attached ADUs are placed within areas of the structure that are not currently used as livable space, including storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages; or
A combination of the ADUs listed in Subsections 1. and 2., above.

For ADUs subject to ministerial approval in one of the categories above, the following shall apply:
a. Legal nonconforming zoning conditions (setbacks, parcel coverage, etc.) do not need to be brought into conforming status in order to obtain the Building Permit for the ADU. In addition, illegal conditions unrelated to the construction of the ADU do not have to be corrected as a prerequisite to the construction of the ADU. Notwithstanding Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 34 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
the foregoing, the City reserves its rights to require correction of any illegal conditions through standard code enforcement processes. b. All rentals of ADUs and JADUs shall be for a term longer than 30 days beginning in 2020.

Proposed ADUs not falling within any of the categories listed above may potentially still be approved but shall meet the standards specified in SCCC Chapters 18.10 or 18.12 and undergo Architectural Review in compliance with Chapter 18.76.

SECTION 22: That Subsection B of Section 18.60.090, “Data Centers” of Title 18 (entitled “Zoning”), of “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” (“SCCC”) is revised as follows:
“Permit Requirements. Data Centers are allowed as specified in Table 2-13 2-9 (Office and Industrial Zone Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements).

SECTION 23: That Subsection D, “Developmental and Operational Standards,” of Section 18.60.110, “Emergency Shelters” of Chapter 18.60, “Standards for Specific Land Uses,” of Title 18, Zoning, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“D. Developmental and Operational Standards. The following standards shall apply to all Emergency Shelters:

1. Parcel Coverage and Maximum Occupants. Maximum Number of Beds. The maximum number of occupants to be served at any given time beds shall not exceed 50.

2. Separation of Uses. A minimum distance of 300 feet shall be maintained from any other emergency shelter.

3. Length of Stay. The maximum stay at the facility shall not exceed 180 total days in any 365-day period.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 35 of 57
Rev: 09/2019

4.3. Intake Areas. On-site client waiting and intake areas shall be located inside the structure, when feasible, and shall be screened from public and private property. If not feasible, an exterior waiting area shall be provided which:
a. Contains a minimum of 10 square feet per bed provided at the facility; b. Shall be in a location not adjacent to the public right-of-way; and c. Shall be visibly separated from public view by a minimum six-foot-tall visual screening.

54. Intake Area Hours. Hours of intake shall be between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Overnight occupants shall not be allowed to leave the facility on foot before 7:00 a.m. the following morning.

6.5. On-site Employee Requirements. A minimum of one employee for each 15 beds provided, in addition to security personnel, shall be on duty and remain on-site during operational hours whenever occupants are on the site.

7.6. Required Security. Security personnel shall be provided during operational hours whenever clients are on the site and when people are waiting outside the facility.

8.7. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the entire outdoor area of the site. Exterior lighting shall be stationary, directed downward and away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and be of an intensity compatible with the neighborhood and the regulations of Section 18.40.080 (Outdoor Lighting).

9.8. Allowable On-site Services. The emergency shelter may provide the following services and facilities to occupants in a designated area separate from the sleeping areas:
a. A recreation area either inside or outside the shelter. If located outside, the Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 36 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
area shall be screened from public view.
b. A counseling center for job placement, educational, health care, legal, or mental health services.
c. Laundry facilities sized to properly serve the number of occupants at the shelter.
d. Kitchen for the preparation of meals.
e. Dining hall.
f. Client storage areas (i.e., for the overnight storage of bicycles and personal items).
g. Similar services supporting the needs of homeless occupants.

10.9. Annual Report to the City. The operator of the facility shall provide, via the Homelessness Management Information System as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, at the City’s request, an annual report of the use of the facility and determination of compliance with the City’s development standards for the use. The report shall include information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income, and exit destinations.

11.10. On-site Management. Professional and on-site management, with experience managing emergency shelters, shall be provided at all times.” SECTION 24: That a new Section 18.60.280, “Mobile Food Vendors” is hereby added to Chapter 18.60, “Standards for Specific Land Uses” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC to read as follows:
“18.60.280 – Mobile Food Vendors
A. Purpose and Intent. The intent of these regulations is to encourage mobile food Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 37 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
vending that is compatible with associated and surrounding uses and do not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular circulation or create an unsightly appearance.

B. General Developmental Standards. The following developmental standards shall apply to all Mobile Food Vendors:

1. Location. Mobile Food Vendors shall occupy a fixed, specifically approved location that does not disrupt the normal function of the site or its circulation and does not encroach upon driveways, emergency vehicle/fire access lanes, landscaped areas, pedestrian walkways or pathways, bicycle lanes, seating, enhanced pedestrian amenities (e.g., waste receptacles and drinking fountains), or any other requirement listed in the Building Code. Outdoor dining and seating shall not be located within the public right-ofway, in designated vehicle drive aisles, or within required landscape planter areas.

2. Hours of Operation. For Mobile Food Vendors that are located within 100 feet of a residential use, hours of operation are limited to 7 am to 10 pm daily.

3. Signs. No additional business identification or advertising signs for Mobile Food Vendors shall be allowed above the maximum allowable sign area for the corresponding primary use as established in Chapter 18.42 (Sign Standards).

4. Maintenance. Mobile Food Vendor areas shall be kept free of garbage and other debris and shall not encroach into required sidewalk clearance areas.

5. Distance from Residential Uses. Except as otherwise expressly allowed in this Zoning Code, no Mobile Food Vendor shall be located less than 100 feet from the property line of a residentially zoned parcel without prior approval of a Minor Use Permit.

6. Operational Standards. The following operational standards shall apply to all Mobile Food Vendors:

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 38 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
a. Permittee to Ensure Maintenance. The permittee shall be responsible for, and exercise reasonable care in, the inspection, maintenance, and cleanliness of the area containing the Mobile Food Vendor, including any design requirements hereafter enacted, from the structure frontage to the curb. b. Permittee to Ensure Compliance. The permittee shall restrict the Mobile Food Vendor to the approved location and ensure compliance with all applicable laws, including laws against blocking the public right-of-way, health and safety laws, public cleanliness laws, and laws regulating the sale and public consumption of alcohol. c. Alcoholic Beverage Sales. Areas in which alcoholic beverages are served shall comply with the standards established by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
d. Clean-up Facilities. The property owner shall provide adequate clean-up facilities for Mobile Food Vendors, and associated procedures, in the following manner.
i. Cleaning Schedule. Outdoor dining areas shall be cleaned on a continual basis for removal of litter and food items which constitute a nuisance to public health and safety; and,
ii. Waste Receptacles. Outdoor dining areas shall contain waste receptacles, which shall not be allowed to overflow, for use by the public and/or restaurant employees.
e. Required Parking. No additional parking shall be required for the Mobile Food Vending area associated with the primary use. Up to four parking spaces can be occupied by the Mobile Food Vending Facility.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 39 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
f. Amplified Sound. No amplified sound associated with the Mobile Food Vendor Use is allowed.
g. Temporary Canopies. Any temporary canopies associated with seating areas are required to be removed on a nightly basis.

C. Permit Requirements.

1. All Mobile Food Vendor subject to the requirements of this Section shall be allowed as specified in Article 2 (Zones, Allowable Uses, and Development Standards).

2. Mobile Food Vendors are allowed as follows:
a. When operating for less than two hours, no permit is required, except as otherwise provided below;
b. When operating for more than two hours but less than four hours on a site: A Zoning Clearance is required, but no Minor Use Permit, except as otherwise provided below; and
c. When operating for more than four hours on a site, or when operating within 100 feet of a residentially zoned parcel, measured from the Mobile Food Vending Facility to the property line, for any length of time: A Minor Use Permit is required.

3. When a Zoning Clearance is required, the Mobile Food Vendor is subject to the following standards:
a. The Property Owner’s written authorization is required. b. The applicant shall provide a site plan that details the Mobile Food Vending location, seating location and location of required trash receptacles. All plans are subject to approval by the Fire and Building Departments. c. The applicant is required to provide County Public Health clearance.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 40 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
d. The applicant is required to provide trash cans for on-site litter control.
e. Seating is limited to a maximum area of 500 square feet and a maximum of 24 seats.
f. Any improvements do not interfere with a continuous pedestrian path of travel in compliance with State and Federal accessibility regulations that will not obstruct fire, pedestrian, and wheelchair access.

4. When a Minor Use Permit is required, in order to approve the proposed Mobile Food Vendor, the Director shall make the Zoning Clearance standards above, the standard findings required for the Minor Use Permit, as well as all the following additional findings:
a. Allows a continuous pedestrian path of travel in compliance with State and Federal accessibility regulations that will not obstruct fire, pedestrian, and wheelchair access.
b. Does not unduly interfere with pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. c. Does not unduly interfere with access of public employees and utility workers to meters, fire hydrants, or other objects (street hardware) in the right-of-way. d. Allows an unobstructed view of traffic devices.”
SECTION 25: That Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of Section 18.60.270, “Developments Located Within the Airport Influence Area” of Chapter 18.60, “Standards for Specific Land Uses”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“2. To ensure compliance with safety zone policies in the SJC Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), all proposed housing development within the various safety Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 41 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
zones must conform to the applicable density allowances and open space/open area requirements as outlined in in Section 4.3.5.1 and Table 4-2 of the SJC CLUP.” SECTION 26: That Subsection B, “Quasi-Judicial Actions and Permits”, of Section

18.110.020, “Discretionary Permits and Actions,” of Chapter 18.110, “General Provisions,” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Quasi-Judicial Actions and Permits, Director Approval. Except when combined with legislative actions, the Director is the designated Review Authority for theArchitectural Review, Minor Use Permits and Temporary Use Permits. The Planning Commission is the designated Review Authority for Variances Conditional Use Permits and Variances. following quasi-judicial permits and actions. Additionally Alternatively, the Director may refer applications to the Planning Commission. A public hearing is required for the following quasi-judicial actions in compliance with Chapter 18.146 (Public Notices and Hearings).

1. Architectural Reviews with a Public Hearing. A review process providing for review of projects for compliance with the provisions of this Zoning Code and with any site plan or architectural design guidelines adopted by the City as specified in Chapter

18.1202 (Architectural Review), for which a public hearing is required by Section

18.120.020.D. The Director’s and Commission’s review roles are specified in Chapter

18.122 and Table 6-1.

2. Historic Preservation—Significant Property Alteration (SPA) Permits for either Minor or Major Alterations. A permit allowing for the alteration of properties and buildings on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), as specified in Chapter 18.130, Historic Preservation. SPA permits are heard by the Director, with Major SPA permits Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 42 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
reviewed and recommended on by the Historical Landmarks Commission.

3. Minor Use Permits. A administrative permit authorizing the operation of a specific use of land or a structure in a particular location in compliance with the provisions of this Zoning Code and the procedures specified in Chapter 18.114 (Conditional and Minor Use Permits).

4. Temporary Use Permits. A permit authorizing specific limited term uses in compliance with conditions and performance criteria specified in Chapter 18.1242 (Temporary Use Permits).”
SECTION 27: That Subsection C, “Legislative Actions,” and Subsection D, “Subdivision Maps and Other Approvals,” of Section 18.110.020, “Discretionary Permits and Actions,” of Chapter 18.110, “General Provisions,” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC are hereby renumbered as new Subsections D and E, respectively.

SECTION 28: That a new Subsection C, “Quasi-Judicial Actions and Permits, Planning Commission Approval,” is hereby added to Section 18.110.020, “Discretionary Permits and Actions,” of Chapter 18.110, “General Provisions,” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC to read as follows:
“C. Quasi-Judicial Actions and Permits, Planning Commission Approval. Except when combined with legislative actions, The Planning Commission is the designated Review Authority for the following quasi-judicial permits and actions. Additionally, the Director may refer applications to the Planning Commission. A public hearing is required for the following quasi-judicial actions in compliance with Chapter 18.146 (Public Notices and Hearings).

1. Conditional Use Permits. A permit conditionally authorizing a specific use of Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 43 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
land or a structure in a particular location in compliance with the provisions of this Zoning Code and the procedures specified in Chapter 18.114 (Conditional and Minor Use Permits).

2. Variances. An action granting exception to the development standards of this Zoning Code in cases where strict compliance would result in a unique hardship in compliance with Chapter 18.126 (Variances and Minor Modifications).” SECTION 29: That Table 6-1, “Review Authority”, of Chapter 18.112, “Application Processing Procedures” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Table 6-1
Review Authority
Type of Action Applicable
Code
Citation
Role of Review Authority(1)(2)
Director Planning
Commission Council
A. Administrative Permits and Actions
Architectural Review
Review of Single-Family Res. 18.120 Decision Appeal Appeal Review of All Other Items 18.120 Decision Appeal
Density Bonus for Affordable Housing 18.64 Decision Appeal Minor Modifications 18.124 Decision Appeal
Minor Use Permits 18.114 Decision Appeal
Off-Site Parking Permit 18.116 Decision Appeal
Reasonable Accommodation 18.118 Decision Appeal
Sign Permits/Comprehensive Sign
Programs

18.44 Decision Appeal
Temporary Use Permits 18.122 Decision Appeal
Zoning Clearances 18.126 Issuance Appeal
B. Quasi-Judicial Permits and Actions
Conditional Use Permits 18.114 Decision Appeal
Major Modifications 18.114 Decision Appeal
Minor Modifications 18.114 Decision Appeal
Historic Preservation – Minor SPAs for
Minor Alterations

18.130 Decision Appeal
Historic Preservation – Major SPAs for
Major Alterations

18.130 Decision Appeal
Variances 18.124 Decision Appeal
C. Legislative Actions
General Plan Text/Map Amendments 18.142 Recommend Decision Specific Plans and Amendments 18.150 Recommend Decision Zoning Code Text/Zoning Map
Amendments

18.142 Recommend Decision
D. Subdivision Maps and Other Approvals
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 44 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
Table 6-1
Review Authority
Tentative Maps, Final and Parcel Maps See Title 17 (Development), Chapter 17.05 (Subdivisions) Lot Line Adjustments, Mergers, and
Approvals
See Title 17 (Development), Chapter 17.05 (Subdivisions) Notes:

1. "Decision" means that the Review Authority makes the final decision on the matter; "Appeal" means that the Review Authority may consider and decide upon appeals to the decision of an earlier decision making body, in compliance with Chapter 18.144 (Appeals); “Issuance” means that the Review Authority may consider and grant the request in compliance with this Zoning Code; “Recommend” means that the Review Authority should provide preliminary review and forward input to the decision-making Review Authority for consideration.

2. Any Review Authority may defer action and refer the request to the next higher Review Authority level for consideration and final action. In cases where the Council is specified as the Review Authority, the Council shall be the final level of review.

SECTION 30: That Section 18.116.030, “Administrative Off-Site Parking Permit Required”, of Chapter 18.116, “Off Site Parking Permits” of Title 18, “Zoning, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“18.116.030 – Administrative Off-Site Parking Permit Required All property owners, except the City, Sports and Open Space Authority, Housing Authority, Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Stadium Authority, who seek to provide parking on their parcel or site for a project or use located elsewhere, shall first obtain an Administrative Off-Site Parking Permit. Applications for Off-Site Parking Permits shall include all of the following:

A. Aerial Photo(s). Aerial photo(s) illustrating the boundaries of the parcel or site generating the parking demand and the parcel or site providing the off-site parking.

Aerial photo(s) shall clearly indicate the distance between the project site and the off-site parking locations. A pedestrian path of travel between the parcels or sites shall also be illustrated on the aerial photo(s).

B. Site Plan. A site plan for the site or parcel where the off-site parking will be provided. The site plan shall clearly illustrate all parking spaces, the dimensions of Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 45 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
parking spaces, a parking space count, any parking spaces reserved for on-site use(s), driveways, curb cuts, drive aisles, landscaping, signs, and light standards.

C. Written Description. A written description of the off-site parking, which shall include, but not be limited to all of the following:

1. Days/hours of availability for off-site parking;

2. The term of the off-site parking availability (e.g., annual, until sale of property, etc.);

3. Responsible party for off-site parking management;

4. A written statement acknowledging that designated off-site parking spaces are exclusively for the benefit of off-site uses, and are not available for concurrent use to meet on-site parking demand;

5. Description/count of parkinig parking spaces available under the Off-Site Parking Permit; and

6. Existing uses on the parcels or sites providing the off-site parking, and the associated parking requirement.

D. Fee. Application submittal fees in compliance with Section 18.112.040 (Application and Other Related Fees).”
SECTION 31: That Subsection K, “Appeals”, of Section 18.120.020, “Architectural Review Process”, of Chapter 18.120, “Architectural Review”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“K. Appeals.

1. Single-Family Residential Project.
a. In the event the applicant or any interested party are not satisfied Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 46 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
with the decision of the Director or designee for a single-family residential project, they may within seven days after such decision, appeal in writing to the Planning Commission, in compliance with the procedures specified in Chapter 18.144 (Appeals).
b. In the event the applicant or any interested party are not satisfied with the decision of the Planning Commission for a single-family residential project, they may within seven days after such decision, appeal in writing to the Council, in compliance with the procedures specified in Chapter 18.144 (Appeals).

2. Other Than a Single-Family Residential Project.
a. For a project other than a single-family residential project, in the event the applicant or any interested party are not satisfied with the decision of the Director they may within seven days after such decision, appeal in writing to the Council, in compliance with the procedures specified in Chapter 18.144 (Appeals).
b. Said appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice in writing to that effect with the City Clerk.

3. Appeals Shall be Heard de Novo. All appeals of Architectural Review approvals will be heard de novo.

4. Director May Refer to the Council. The Director may refer any application for Architectural Review consideration to the Council for its decision with the same effect as if an appeal had been taken.”
SECTION 32: That Subsection A, “Approvals, Permits, and Variances”, of Section Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 47 of 57
Rev: 09/2019

18.128.030, “Effective Dates of Permits”, of Chapter 18.128, “Permit Implementation, Time Limits, and Extensions” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“A. Approvals, Permits, and Variances.

1. Decisions ona a Reasonable Accommodation, Temporary Use Permit, and Zoning Clearance shall become effective immediately following its approval/issuance.

2. Decisions on an Architectural Review, Conditional Use Permit, Minor Modifications, Minor Use Permit, or Variance shall become effective on the eighth calendar day following the actual date the decision was rendered by the applicable Review Authority, unless an appeal is filed in compliance with Chapter 18.144 (Appeals) prior to the effective date.”
SECTION 33: That Subsection C, “Appeal”, of Section 18.128.100, “Condition Compliance Required”, of Chapter 18.128, “Permit Implementation, Time Limits, and Extensions” of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“C. Appeal. If the applicant wishes to appeal any or all the final conditions of approval, the applicant shall file an appeal within five days following the actual date the decision was rendered by the applicable review authority in compliance with Chapter

18.144 (Appeals).”
SECTION 34: That the current Sections 18.122.040, “Application Filing, Processing, and Review”, through 18.122.090, “Post-Decision Procedures”, inclusive, are hereby renumbered as Sections 18.122.060 through 18.122.110, inclusive.

SECTION 35: That a new Section 18.122.040, “Exempt Temporary Uses”, is hereby Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 48 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
added to Chapter 18.122, “Temporary Use Permits”, of Title 18, “Zoning” of the SCCC to read as follows:
“18.122.040 - Exempt Temporary Uses
The following minor and limited duration temporary uses are exempt from the permit requirement for a Temporary Use Permit. Temporary uses that do not fall within the categories defined below shall comply with Section 18.122.050 (Allowed Temporary Uses), below.

A. Construction Sites – On-Site.

1. On-site contractors' construction and/or storage uses, in conjunction with an approved construction project on the same parcel.

2. One caretaker unit may be present on-site during non-construction hours.

3. The construction and/or storage use shall be removed immediately upon completion of the construction project, or the expiration of the companion Building Permit, authorizing the construction project, whichever first occurs.

B. Emergency Facilities. Emergency public health and safety needs/land use activities, as determined by the Director.

C. Garage and Yard Sales. Residential garage and yard sales for the purpose of selling used household merchandise not to exceeding two, two-day periods each year.

D. Events on Publicly Owned Property. Events that are conducted solely on publicly owned property and are sponsored by educational, fraternal, or service organizations directly engaged in civic or charitable efforts, subject to the approval of the Director.”
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 49 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
SECTION 36: That a new Section 18.122.050, “Allowed Temporary Uses”, is hereby added to Chapter 18.122, “Temporary Use Permits”, of Title 18, “Zoning” of the SCCC to read as follows:
“18.122.050 – Allowed Temporary Uses
The following temporary uses are allowed on private property, subject to the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit, and only when conducted in compliance with the specified time limits and Section 18.124.090 (Conditions of Approval), below. A Temporary Use Permit shall not be issued if another temporary use has occurred on the subject property within the previous 30 (whether by the same applicant or otherwise).

A. Contractors’ Construction Sites – Off-Site. The temporary use of a site for an off-site contractor’s construction, staging, or storage area(s). The permit may be effective for up to 180 days and extended in 180-day increments, with Director approval, or the expiration of the companion Building Permit, authorizing the construction project, whichever first occurs.

B. Special Events.

1. Amusement rides, arts and crafts exhibits, auctions, carnivals, circuses, concerts, fairs, festivals, flea markets, food markets/events, outdoor entertainment/ festivals/sporting events, petting zoos, religious revivals, rodeos, rummage sales (not garage or yard sales), tent camps, and swap meets limited to six consecutive days or less within any 30-day period, or six two-day weekends, within a 12- month period. When an annual plan is submitted to and approved by the Director, the frequency and duration of these special events may be extended.

2. Outdoor display and sale events conducted by a retail business, Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 50 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
including auto dealerships, holding a valid Business License, issued in compliance with SCCC Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations), may be allowed a maximum of six outdoor sale events (excluding City-sponsored activities). For purposes of this Subsection, an outdoor sale event shall be no longer than seven consecutive days in duration. When an annual plan is submitted to and approved by the Director, the frequency and duration of these special events may be extended.

3. Outdoor meetings and group activities/assemblies for two or less seven consecutive day events, within a 12-month period.

4. Seasonal sales (i.e., Halloween pumpkin sales and Christmas tree sale lots) in compliance with SCCC Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) provided, the length of the activity may not exceed 45 days in any 365-day period

5. Car washes, limited to one event each month for each site, not exceeding three days in length, and prohibited within the residential zones. Sponsorship shall be limited to charitable, educational, fraternal, religious, schools, or service organizations directly engaged in civic or charitable efforts, or to tax exempt organizations in compliance with 501(c) of the Federal Revenue and Taxation Code.

C. Temporary Residential Real Estate Sales Offices. One temporary real estate office may be located in any approved residential subdivision located within any residential or mixed-use zone in the City.

1. The temporary real estate office shall be used only for the sale of residential or commercial property located within the subdivision in which the office is located.

2. The temporary real estate office shall be removed at the end of two Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 51 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
years following the date of the recording of the final map of the subject subdivision in which the office is located.

3. If any parcels within the subdivision have not been sold at the end of the original two-year period, the Director may approve extensions for the continuation of the real estate office on a month-to-month basis.

D. Temporary Structures. A temporary classroom, office, or similar portable structure, including a manufactured or mobile unit, may be approved, for a maximum period of 12 months, as an accessory use or as the first phase of a development project, on sites located within the commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones of the City.

E. Temporary Work Trailers. A permit for temporary work trailer(s) may be approved by the Director for up to 12 months, as a temporary work site for employees of a business:

1. During construction or remodeling of a permanent commercial, industrial, or mixed-use structure, when a valid Building Permit is in force; or

2. Upon demonstration by the applicant that the temporary work site is a short-term necessity, while a permanent work site is being obtained.

F. Other Similar Temporary Uses. Similar temporary uses that, in the opinion of the Director, are compatible with the subject zone and surrounding land uses.

G. Temporary Uses Needing Additional Days to Operate. Applications for temporary uses (other than the uses specified in Subparagraph B., above that are proposed to last more than six days (but not more than 45 days) or those proposed for a period of more than 15 consecutive days shall require the approval by the Director of a Minor Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 18.114.”
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 52 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
SECTION 37: That Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby renumbered from Chapter 18.60 to Chapter 18.160, with Sections 18.60.010 to

18.60.260, inclusive, being renumbered to Sections 18.160.010 to 18.160.260, inclusive.

SECTION 38: That the definitions for “Banks and Financial Institution” and “Banks and Financial Institution, Stand-alone ATM” located in Section 18.160.020, “’B’ Definitions” of Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC are hereby amended to read as follows:
“Banks and Financial Institution Establishments. Commercial establishments including federally chartered banks, savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, and credit unions providing retail banking services to individuals and businesses.

Banks and Financial Institution Establishments, Stand-alone ATM. Standalone commercial establishments typically in the form of a self-serve kiosk located in retail shopping centers, areas for commercial entertainment, or adjacent to pedestrian walkways, that provide retail banking services to individuals and businesses.” SECTION 39: That the definitions for the terms “Recreational Facility, Indoor Amusement” and “Recreational Facility, Outdoor Amusement” in section 18.160.180, “‘R’ Definitions”, be re-named “Commercial Recreational Facility, Indoors” and “Commercial Recreational Facility, Outdoors”, respectively, and are moved to Section 18.160.030, “‘C’ Definitions” of Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18, “Zoning” of the SCCC.

SECTION 40: That the definition for “Emergency Shelter” listed in Section 18.160.050, “’E’ Definitions” of Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18 “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 53 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
“Emergency Shelter. Housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to an occupancy of six months or less by homeless persons or families, where no one may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay; as defined and used in California Health and Safety Code Section 50801. The definition also includes other interim interventions, including, but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.”
SECTION 41: That a new definition for “Fitness Facilities” is hereby added to Section

18.160.060, “’F’ Definitions” of Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC to read as follows:
“Fitness Facilities. A business or an organization charging a membership or use fee, including private clubs and gymnasiums, that provides exercise machines, free weights, swimming pool, spa, steam room or fitness training and classes for use by clients.”
SECTION 42: That a new definition for “Maintenance and Repair Services” is hereby added to Section 18.160.130, “’M’ Definitions” of Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC to read as follows:
“Maintenance and Repair Services. On-site repair and incidental sales of supplies for small household goods, machinery, tools, equipment, and appliances, conducted within an enclosed building. This classification includes furniture refinishing and repair and excludes maintenance and repair of vehicles or industrial equipment.” SECTION 43: That a new definition for “Parking Facility” is hereby added to Section

18.160.160, “’P’ Definitions” of Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC to read as follows:

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 54 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
“Parking Facility. A parking lot or parking structure customarily used for the temporary parking of motor vehicles. Parking facilities can be either a primary use or an accessory use.”
SECTION 44: That the existing definition for “Public Parks and Playgrounds” is hereby re-named “Parks and Plazas” in Section 18.160.160, “’P’ Definitions” of Article 8, “Definitions”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC and the definition is amended to read as follows:
“Public Parks and Playgrounds. Outdoor recreation facilities that provide a variety of recreational opportunities including playground equipment, open space areas for active and passive recreation and picnicking, and sport and active recreational facilities. May also include enclosed structures providing for recreational opportunities. “Parks and Plazas. Public parks, including playgrounds and athletic fields/courts and public plazas and outdoor gathering places, for community use.” SECTION 45: That a new definition for the term “Use by Right” is hereby added immediately after the definition of the term “Use” to Section 18.160.210, “U” Definitions, of Article 8, “Definitions” of Title 18, “Zoning”, the SCCC to read as follows:
“Use by Right. Shall mean that for residential development projects subject to either Section 18.10.040.B.6 or 18.14.040.O, the City’s review of an owner-occupied or multifamily residential use shall not require a Conditional Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, Planned Development Rezoning, or other discretionary review, except that such projects shall still be subject to architectural review pursuant to Chapter 18.120 and any subdivision shall be subject to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. However, such architectural review or subdivision shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 55 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.” SECTION 46: That properties in the Transit Neighborhood (TN) zoning district shall be considered “Mixed-Use” properties to which Table 3-9 applies in Section 18.42.110, “Standards for Signs Requiring a Sign Permit” of Chapter 18.42, “Sign Standards”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC.

SECTION 47: That Paragraph 1, “Commercial Ancillary Uses”, of Subsection B, “General Office and Industrial Regulations”, of Section 18.16.040, “Other Applicable Regulations”, of Chapter 18.16, “Office and Industrial Zones”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“1. Commercial Ancillary Uses. Commercial support uses are allowed in the LORD and HO-RD zones, and may be granted with approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator in the LI and HI zones when the uses are found to comply with all of the following provisions:
a. The uses are intended to support and serve employees and visitors in the immediate area.
b. Uses shall be located entirely with in structures occupied by the primary use, unless otherwise approved with a Minor Use Permit. c. Ancillary uses shall occupy no more than 10 percent of the gross floor area of any structure or a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, unless otherwise approved with a Minor Use Permit.
d. Ancillary uses are limited to the following:
(1) Retail Establishments.
(2) Personal Services Establishments.

Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 56 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
(3) Restaurants.
(4) Alcohol service incidental to a restaurant.
(5) Drinking Establishments, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. (6) Outdoor Seating, ancillary to a restaurant.
(7) Banks and Financial Establishments.”
SECTION 48: That Paragraph 5 of Subsection D, “Public Hearing Required”, of Section

18.120.020, “Architectural Review Process”, of Chapter 18.120, “Architectural Review”, of Title 18, “Zoning”, of the SCCC is hereby amended to read as follows:
“5. Modifications or additions to existing non-residential development, where the modification or addition is greater than 20,000 square feet in size of net new area.” SECTION 49: That the cross-references to other sections of the code are updated to reflect the correct target destination.

SECTION 50: Savings clause. The changes provided for in this ordinance shall not affect any offense or act committed or done or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or any right established or accruing before the effective date of this ordinance; nor shall it affect any prosecution, suit or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this ordinance. All fee schedules shall remain in force until superseded by the fee schedules adopted by the City Council.
//
//
Ordinance/Insert Brief Name Page 57 of 57
Rev: 09/2019
//
//
SECTION 51: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption; however, prior to its final adoption it shall be published in accordance with the requirements of Section 808 and 812 of “The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California.”
PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this 16th day of July, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:
___________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference: None
Resolution/GP Page 1 of 3
Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTING AN UPDATED ZONING MAP CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE AND THE CITY’S

GENERAL PLAN, AND EXCLUDING SPECIFIC AREAS FROM

THE MAP
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2024, the City of Santa Clara (the “City”) adopted the City’s Zoning Code Update, the first comprehensive update of the Code in over 50 years; and WHEREAS, the 2010-2035 General Plan is the City’s vision for future development; and WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Code is the primary regulatory tool that implements the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, under Government Code Section 65860, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of a jurisdiction are required to be consistent with each other; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code is administered on a parcel-by-parcel basis through a Zoning Map with specific zoning districts applied to each parcel; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Zoning Map that is consistent with the City’s General Plan, as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Map is also consistent with the provisions of state law requiring the maintenance of aggregate residential capacity at 2018 levels; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Map provides for the continuation of existing, adopted Planned Development (PD) zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Map recognizes that the Santa Clara Station Area planning process is underway, and that it is premature to create new zoning districts for that area; and WHEREAS, the City held seven community meetings in 2018 and 2019 on the Zoning Code Update and associated Map Update to solicit community feedback; received 500 responses to a community survey on the Zoning Code Update in 2019; and posted a copy of the draft code for public comment in 2022;
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held three joint study sessions on the Resolution/GP Page 2 of 3
Rev: 7/27/2023
Zoning Code Update and associated Map Update in the summer and fall of 2019; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study sessions on the Zoning Code Update and associated Map Update on August 22, 2018, September 5, 2018 and October 27, 2021, and also held a study session specifically on parking and outdoor dining regulations on June 16, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a study session on the Zoning Code Update and associated Map Update on August 22, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at the conclusion of which, the Council voted to introduce the Zoning Code Update, and on January 9, 2024, at a duly noticed public meeting, the Council voted to adopt the Zoning Code Update; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, before acting on the proposed Zoning Map, the Council reviewed and considered the potential environmental impacts and determined that as the primary implementation tool of the General Plan, the environmental effects of the proposed Zoning Code Update and associated Zoning Map were consistent with 2010-2035 General Plan EIR, as addended, and that the proposed Zoning Map did not alter the conclusions of the adopted General Plan EIR, as addended, or create new environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Map, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Zoning Map, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and provide evidence in support of and in opposition to the proposed Zoning Map.

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

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

2. That the City Council hereby amends the City’s Zoning Map, in the form attached hereto and Resolution/GP Page 3 of 3
Rev: 7/27/2023
incorporated herein by this reference, in order to be consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan land use diagram, subject to the following:
a. That all existing adopted Planned Development zoning districts are carried over to the revised map;
b. That all of the existing HT historic combining designations are carried over to the revised map;
c. That the Santa Clara Station Area, as described in Figure 5.4.4 of the adopted General Plan, shall maintain its existing zoning districts until such time as the Santa Clara Station Area Plan process is completed;
d. That properties in the Transit Neighborhood (TN) zoning district shall maintain their existing zoning designation until such time as the City adopts additional regulations for the new R6 zone and the sites are formally rezoned.

3. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective thirty (30) calendar days from the date of adoption.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Zoning Map
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.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentJuly 16, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
July 16, 2024