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

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

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

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

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

Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.6 – Biological Resources
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.7 – Cultural Resources
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.8 – Energy
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

4.9 – Geology and Soils
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tasman East SP EIR: CUL-2.1.

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

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

4.10 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

4.12 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.13 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.14 – Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

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

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

4.15 – Mineral Resources
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.18 – Population and Housing
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.17 – Transportation
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Henry Dr. SP EIR: 18-1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excavation: Trenching will not occur within the TPZ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Planning construction to avoid the historic site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following measures shall be implemented during construction:
- Orange construction barrier fencing shall be installed around the boundaries of portions of the drainage swale that are to be avoided prior to the initiation of construction activities.
- The fenced area will be designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area and will be clearly identified in the construction specifications. - The fencing shall be maintained throughout the grading and construction period. - Grading, construction activities, traffic, equipment, or materials shall be prohibited in fenced wetland areas.

MM BIO-7.1: If avoidance is not proposed, to compensate for the permanent loss of mixed riparian woodland, riparian woodland habitat will be restored or created at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (compensation:impact) on an acreage basis, based on canopy area. This ratio is not higher due to the relatively low quality of the riparian woodland in the Plan Area relative to more extensive, less fragmented riparian woodland elsewhere along the Guadalupe River, but is not lower due to the temporal loss of riparian functions and values that will result from the lag between impacts to the woodland in the Plan Area and maturation of the mitigation habitat.

Compensation will be provided by planting riparian habitat so as to achieve the 2:1 ratio somewhere in the Santa Clara Valley, preferably along the Guadalupe River but along another stream if appropriate. Among other criteria, the mitigation site(s) must not currently be riparian. Mitigation habitat may be hydrologically isolated from the stream in question as long as it is located within 300 feet of the stream, is not separated from the stream by development other than a trail or levee, and is dominated by native riparian trees. Although some portions of the Ulistac Natural Area are more than 300 feet from the Guadalupe River, mitigation anywhere within the Natural Area would satisfy this measure. A qualified biologist shall develop a “Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan” describing the mitigation, which will contain the following components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency permitting conditions):
 Summary of habitat impacts and proposed mitigation ratios  Goal of the restoration to achieve no net loss of habitat functions and values  Location of mitigation site(s) and description of existing site conditions  Mitigation design:
- Existing and proposed site hydrology
- Grading plan if appropriate, including bank stabilization or other site stabilization features
- Soil amendments and other site preparation elements as appropriate - Planting plan
- Irrigation and maintenance plan
- Remedial measures and adaptive management
 Monitoring plan (including final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule). Success criteria will include quantifiable measurements of riparian vegetation type (e.g., dominance by natives) and extent appropriate for the riparian restoration location, and provision of 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
138 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
ecological functions and values equal to or exceeding those in the riparian habitat affected. At a minimum, success criteria will include following:
- At Year 10 post-planting, canopy closure at the mitigation site will be at least 60 percent of the canopy closure at a nearby reference site (i.e., a site supporting the same habitat type as that being established at the mitigation site).  The Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan must be approved by the City of Santa Clara prior to the impact on mixed riparian woodland, and it must be implemented within one year following impacts.

MM BIO-8.1: If encroachment into the riparian buffer with incompatible uses (defined as hardscape or other impermeable surfaces, non-native landscape plantings, and paved permeable surfaces such as permeable pavers) is proposed, no buildings shall be constructed closer to the buffer baseline than are currently present (i.e., in one location, a corner of a building is within approximately 95 feet of the buffer baseline, and that limited area can include a building), unless mitigation is provided in accordance with MM BIO-8.2. In addition, no new buildings or structures, impervious surface, or non-native landscaping shall occur closer to the buffer baseline than is currently present (i.e. 75 feet). Compatible uses within these areas are public trails, native landscaping, and unpaved permeable surfaces (e.g. open ground).

MM BIO-8.2: If any encroachment into the riparian buffer is proposed, compensatory mitigation shall be provided to offset the impacts on the ecological functions and values of the riparian corridor. Such compensatory mitigation will be provided in one of two ways:
 At a minimum ratio of 1:1 (compensation:impact), on an acreage basis excluding wetlands and mixed riparian woodland, existing development (e.g., buildings or hardscape) along the Guadalupe River, either on-site or off-site (e.g., at Ulistac Natural Area), will be removed, and the developed area restored to native habitats and dedicated to natural habitat (rather than active human uses such as urban park).

For example, if a portion of the Plan Area were subject to riparian buffer encroachment, but a commensurate acreage of existing developed areas adjoining the Guadalupe River levee in other parts of the Plan Area were restored to native habitat, that would compensate for the riparian buffer encroachment impact.  At a minimum ratio of 2:1 (compensation:impact) on an acreage basis, riparian woodland habitat will be restored or created as described in Mitigation Measure BIO6.1 above to provide ecological functions and values that offset those lost due to riparian buffer encroachment.

MM BIO-9.1: During construction under the proposed Specific Plan, all seeds and straw materials used on-site shall be weed-free rice straw (or similar material acceptable to the City), and all gravel and fill material will be certified weed free to the satisfaction of the City and any deviation from this shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 139
City of Santa Clara
MM BIO-9.2: During construction of projects under the proposed Specific Plan, vehicles and all equipment shall be washed (including wheels, undercarriages, and bumpers) before and after entering the proposed project footprint. Vehicles will be cleaned at existing construction yards or legally operating car washes.

MM BIO-9.3: Following construction of projects under the proposed Specific Plan, a standard erosion control seed mix (acceptable to the Public Works Director) from a local source would be planted within the temporary impact zones on any disturbed ground that would not be under hardscape, landscaped, or maintained in order to minimize the potential for the germination of the majority of seeds from non-native, invasive plant species.

MM BIO-10.1: Projects proposing or required to retain trees on-site shall implement precautionary measures during site construction to limit adverse environmental effects on ordinanceprotected trees that are to be retained. A tree protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist that, at a minimum, requires installation of an open material (e.g., chain link) fence six feet in height around the drip line and maintenance of the existing grade level around a tree and out to its drip line.

MM BIO-10.2: Project proponents under the Specific Plan will comply with the City Code and submit permit applications for removal of all trees covered by the City’s tree ordinance. Any street trees or heritage trees to be removed would require replacement on-site or off-site at a minimum 2:1 ratio per General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10. To the extent feasible, the replacement trees will be planted on-site and the project proponent will comply with all other tree removal requirements imposed by the City.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1.1: A qualified archaeologist shall monitor the demolition of the building foundations and any other below surface disturbances, such as but not limited to, grading, excavation, roadway improvements, potholing for utilities, utility removal, and addressing storm drain issues. After demolition activities and surface improvements are removed for projects involving excavation, and prior to other construction activities, conduct mechanical presence/absence exploration to a depth ranging from 6.5 to 10 feet below ground surface. Presence/absence efforts shall be conducted by a qualified local archaeologist.

If any cultural resources are identified, all activity in the vicinity of such resources shall stop until a research design and treatment plan shall be prepared to address those types of resources encountered and such plan is approved by the City. Any cultural resources identified shall be evaluated to determine if these resources would qualify for the NRHP or CRHR. If no resources are found during presence/absence testing, the implementation of mitigation measures, MM CUL-1.2 and MM CUL-1.3, would ensure any resources discovered during construction are adequately protected.

MM CUL-1.2: In the event that buried, or previously unrecognized archaeological deposits or materials of any kind are inadvertently exposed during any construction activity, work within 50 feet of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and provide recommendations for further treatment, if warranted. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment of an archeological resource. When preservation in place of an archeological resource is not feasible, data recovery, in accord with a data recovery plan prepared and adopted by the City, is the appropriate mitigation. Construction and 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
140 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
potential impacts to the area within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

MM CUL-1.3: In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM CUL-2.1: Projects involving excavations 25 feet or greater below ground surface would require monitoring by a qualified paleontologist. In the event paleontological resources are discovered all work shall be halted within 50 feet of the find and a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified paleontologist to address assessment and recovery of the resource. A final report documenting any found resources, their recovery, and disposition shall be prepared in consultation with the Community Development Director and filed with the City and local repository.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1.1: Prior to the start of any demolition or construction activity, a property-specific Phase I ESA shall be completed in accordance with ASTM Standard Designation E 1527-13 (or most recent version) to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions, evaluate the property history, and establish if the property is likely to have been impacted by chemical releases. Soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater quality studies shall subsequently be conducted, if warranted based on the findings on the property-specific Phase I ESAs to evaluate if mitigation measures are needed to protect the health and safety of site occupants. All site mitigation measures identified in the property-specific Phase I and II ESAs shall be completed under the oversight of an appropriate regulatory agency, such as the DEH, DTSC, or RWQCB. Any required cleanup/remediation of the site during development activities shall meet all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and requirements. The project applicant shall provide the appropriate oversight agency’s written approval of the site mitigation measures to the City of Santa Clara prior to the issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit.

MM HAZ-1.2: At properties where VOCs are identified as contaminants of concern (COC), the potential for vapor intrusion shall be evaluated. A Vapor Intrusion Investigation Work Plan shall be submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency for review and approval. The plan shall include soil vapor sampling for VOCs in areas of concern. The soil vapor sampling shall be conducted in conformance with DTSC’s July 2015 advisory titled Active Soil Gas Investigations. A minimum of two soil vapor sampling events (with soil vapor concentrations less than the most conservative residential or commercial screening levels – as appropriate) is required to document that mitigation measures are not required; additional sampling events may be required by the overseeing regulatory agency.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 141
City of Santa Clara
MM HAZ-1.3: The need for vapor intrusion mitigation measures will be dependent upon the planned building design and the results of the Vapor Intrusion Investigation. Prior to redevelopment of the site, a report assessing the potential for vapor intrusion shall be submitted to and approved by the overseeing regulatory agency. The assessment shall be conducted in general conformance with DTSC’s Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air (Vapor Intrusion Guidance) dated October 2011.

MM HAZ-1.4: Prior to the start of any construction activity on properties with known contaminants of concern (COC) exceeding the lower of the then-current DTSC, the RWQCB or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) residential screening levels, the project proponent shall submit the following plans to the overseeing regulatory agency for review and approval:
 Corrective Action Plan. An appropriate corrective action plan (e.g. remedial action plan, removal action workplace, etc.) shall be prepared that reflects the results of the above investigations. Site cleanup levels presented in the plan shall be based on a target cancer risk of 0.00001 or, for non-carcinogens, a target hazard quotient (THQ) of 1.0. The lower of the then-current DTSC, RWQCB, or EPA residential screening levels shall be used to interpret the TR and THQ levels or, alternatively, a site-specific human health risk assessment shall be prepared and approved by the overseeing regulatory agency. Higher cleanup goals may be acceptable, if approved in writing by the oversight agency. The project applicant shall provide an oversight agency’s written approval of the corrective action plan to the City of Santa Clara, prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit. Leaving contaminated soil (above residential screening levels and, for metals, above background concentrations) inplace or re-using contaminated soil shall require the oversight agency’s written approval. At a minimum, if contaminated soil is left in-place, a deed restriction or land use covenant shall detail the location of the soil. This document shall include a surveyed map of the location of the impacted soil and shall restrict future excavation in the impacted area unless approved in writing by an oversight agency.  Air Monitoring Plan. This plan shall assess the potential for exposure of construction workers and neighboring occupants adjoining the property to COCs during construction activities; this plan shall specify measures to be implemented if COC concentrations exceed threshold values.
 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan and Associated Documents. If the Vapor Instruction Investigation identifies the need for mitigation measures, a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan shall be prepared that describes the measures to be a result of vapor intrusion.

The Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan will require the project applicant to design the proposed occupied spaces with appropriate structural and engineering features to reduce risk of vapor intrusion into buildings. At a minimum, this design shall include:
1) passive sub-slab ventilation with a spray applied vapor barrier (And with the ability to convert the system from passive to active ventilation), 2) monitoring to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the remedy, and 3) the implementation of institutional controls. Other designs would be acceptable is approved in writing by the overseeing regulatory agency. The Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for agency review and approval. DTSC’s October 2011 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory provides useful guidance in selecting, designing, and implementing appropriate response actions for sites where a potential vapor intrusion risk has been identified.

A completed report shall be submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency upon completion of construction of the mitigation system. The report shall document 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
142 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
installation of the vapor control measures identified in the Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan and present final as-built design drawings. A Long-Term Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) also shall be submitted for agency approval that presents the actions to be taken following construction to maintain and monitor the vapor intrusion mitigation system, and a contingency plan should the vapor mitigation system fail. A financial assurance mechanism shall additionally be established (i.e. proof that adequate funds are available for long-term maintenance and monitoring of the vapor intrusion mitigation system) and described in the OMMP.

MM HAZ-1.5: A Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be developed to establish appropriate management practices for handling and monitoring of impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater that potentially may be encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional and be submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency (e.g. RWQCB, DTSC and/or DEH) for review and approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP also shall be provided to the City of Santa Clara. Prior to the start of any construction activity that involves below ground work (i.e. mass grading, foundation construction, excavating or utility trenching), information regarding site risk management procedures, including copies of the HSP and SMP, shall be provided to the contractors for their review, and each contractor shall provide such information to its subcontractors. The SMP and HSP measures shall be incorporated into the project design documents:
 Site control procedures to control the flow of personnel, vehicles and materials in and out of the site;
 Measures to minimize dust generation, stormwater runoff and tracking of soil off-site;  Protocols for conducting earthwork activities in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater are present or suspected. Worker training requirements, health and safety measures and material handling procedures shall be described;  Perimeter air monitoring for dust during any activity that significantly disturbs impacted site soil (i.e. mass grading, foundation construction, excavating or utility trenching) to document the effectiveness of dust control measures;  Protocols to be implemented if buried structures, wells, debris, or unidentified areas of impacted soil are encountered during site development activities;  Protocols to characterize/profile soil suspected of being contaminated so appropriate mitigation, disposal or reuse alternatives, if necessary, can be implemented. Soil in contact with impacted groundwater shall be assumed contaminated. All soil excavated and transported from this site shall be appropriately disposed of at a permitted facility;
 Stockpiling protocols for “clean” and “impacted” soil;  Decontamination procedures to reduce the potential for construction equipment and vehicles to release contaminated soil onto public roadways or other off-site transfer;  Procedures to evaluate and document the quality of any soil imported to the site. Soil containing chemicals exceeding residential (unrestricted use) screening levels or typical background concentrations of metals shall not be accepted. The DTSC’s Clean Fill Advisory (October 2001 or latest version) provides useful guidance on evaluating imported fill;
 Methods to monitor excavations and trenches for the potential presence of VOC impacted vapors. Mitigation protocols shall be developed and implemented in the event elevated VOC vapors are released during excavation activities that may pose 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 143
City of Santa Clara
a risk to construction worker health and/or risk to the health of occupants of neighboring properties;
 Protocols to evaluate if the residual contaminants will adversely impact the integrity of below ground utility lines and/or structures (i.e. the potential for corrosion due to subsurface contamination)
 Measures to reduce soil vapor and groundwater migration through trench backfill and utility conduits. Such measures shall include placement of low-permeability backfill “plugs” at specified intervals on-site and at all locations where the utility trenches (within impacted soil or groundwater) extend off-site. In addition, utility conduits that are placed below groundwater shall be installed with water-tight fittings to reduce the potential for groundwater to migrate into the conduits.  Measures to help reduce the potential for the downward migration of contaminated groundwater if deep foundation systems are proposed. These measures shall be identified in the geotechnical investigation report and implemented as part of the development plans.

MM HAZ-1.6: The project applicant’s environmental professional shall assist in the implementation of the SMP and shall, at a minimum, perform part-time observation services during demolition, excavation, grading and trenching activities. Upon completion of construction activities, the environmental professional shall prepare a report documenting compliance with the SMP; this report shall be submitted to the oversight regulatory agency and the City of Santa Clara.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM HYD-1.1: A catch basin shall be installed on Lafayette Street or at a suitable location approved by the City Engineer that connects to the existing storm drain system on Calle Del Mundo.

This new catch basin would provide an alternate path for flow that would otherwise have entered the development area prior to placement of project fill. The design of the new catch basin and new storm drain shall be subject to approval of the City. The new catch basin and new storm drain shall be complete and connected to the existing storm drain system on Calle Del Mundo must be made concurrent with redevelopment of the site in the northwest corner of the Plan Area.

NOISE
MM NV-1.1: Comply with construction hours ordinance to limit hours of exposure. The City Code limits construction activities within 300 feet of residentially zoned property to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays.

MM NV-1.2: Minimize or avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas, such as shared property lines with residential land uses. Whenever possible, use cast-in-drilledholes piles for projects requiring deep foundations to reduce construction vibration.

MM NV-1.3: When vibration-sensitive structures are within 18 feet of a project development site or within 86 feet of a project proposing pile-driving, survey condition of existing structures and, when necessary due to the structure type and resulting vibration due to the construction activities proposed, perform site-specific vibration studies to direct construction activities. Contractors shall continue to monitor effects of construction activities on surveyed sensitive structures, notify the Community Development Director 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
144 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
of any damage caused by vibration, and offer to repair or compensate for any such damage caused by vibration within a time period established by the Community Development Director upon receiving notice pursuant to this measure. The results of the vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.

MM NV-1.4: Construction management plans for construction projects that have the potential to exceed the 0.3 in/sec. PPV threshold, particularly those involving pile driving, shall include predefined vibration reduction measures, notification requirements for properties within 200 feet of scheduled construction activities, and contact information for on-site coordination and complaints. The construction management plan shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit.

MM NV-1.5: Include a disclosure in the lease of future tenants within the Tasman East Specific Plan properties that provides information regarding the on-going construction activities within the area.

MM NV-2.1: Develop and adhere to a construction noise control plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit, including, but not limited to, the following available controls:
 Ensure that construction activities (including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements) within 300 feet of residentially zoned property are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays.  Ensure that excavating, grading and filling activities (including warming of equipment motors) within 300 feet of residentially zoned property are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays or holidays.  Contractors equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Contractors utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 Locate loading, staging areas, stationary noise-generating equipment, etc. as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.

Temporary noise barriers can reduce construction noise levels by five dBA.  Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project area.
 Comply with Air Resource Board idling prohibitions of uneasy idling of internal combustion engines.
 Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences or noise-sensitive land uses.
 A temporary noise control blanket barrier could be erected, if necessary, along building facades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were unresolvable by proper scheduling.  Route construction-related traffic along major roadways and as far as feasible from sensitive receptors.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 145
City of Santa Clara
 Businesses, residences or noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to construction sites should be notified of the construction schedule in writing. Designate a “construction liaison” that would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the liaison at the construction site.
 Include a disclosure in the lease of future tenants within the Tasman East Specific Plan properties that provides information regarding the on-going construction activities within the area.

MM NV-2.2: If pile driving occurs, the following best management practices shall be included in the construction noise control plan:
 Schedule pile driving during a period when school is not in session.  During pile driving, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
 During pile driving activities, install “acoustical blankets” to provide shielding for receptors located within 100 feet of the site, or use a noise attenuating shroud on the pile driving hammer.

TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-1.1(9): Tasman Drive and Centennial Drive (City of Santa Clara) – Add a third eastbound through lane.

MM TRANS-1.2(10): Lafayette Street and Great America Way (City of Santa Clara) – Signalize this intersection prior to occupancy of planned development comprising 30 percent of the project trip generation.

MM TRANS-1.3(11): Lafayette Street and Calle Del Mundo (City of Santa Clara) – Signalize this intersection prior to occupancy of planned development comprising 70 percent of the project trip generation.

MM TRANS-1.4(37): Montague Expressway and Mission College Boulevard (County of Santa Clara) – This intersection is located in the City of Santa Clara and under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The VTP 2040 project would add a third southbound leftturn lane to the intersection. The project shall make a fair-share contribution towards the additional turn lane.

MM TRANS-3.1(1): Great America Parkway and Westbound 237 Ramps (City of San José/CMP) – Restripe he southbound approach to one through/right-lane and one right-lane, which would not require right-of-way and/or narrowing of the median and would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS.

MM TRANS-3.2(9): Tasman Drive and Centennial Drive (City of Santa Clara) – Add a third eastbound and a third westbound through lane.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
146 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
MM TRANS-3.3(10): Lafayette Street/ Great America Parkway and 11. Lafayette Street/Calle Del Mundo – Signalize intersections prior to occupancy of development comprising 30 percent and 70 percent, respectively, of the project trip generation.

MM TRANS-3.4(37): Montague Expressway and Mission College Boulevard (County of Santa Clara) – The VTP 2040 project would add a third southbound left-turn lane to the intersection. The project shall make a fair-share contribution towards the additional turn lane. In order to fully mitigate the project’s impact, a second northbound left turn lane would be needed but right-of-way constraints make this mitigation infeasible. Additionally, an interchange is identified at this intersection as a Tier 2 priority per the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study.

MM TRANS-4.1: Sidewalk improvements to Tasman Drive between Calle Del Sol and the Lafayette Street overcrossing would reduce the safety hazard impacts to pedestrians to a less than significant level. Construction of a sidewalk on this segment of Tasman Drive is a required mitigation for Phase 1 of the City Place project. In the event the new residential buildings within the Plan Area fronting Tasman Drive are constructed prior to City Place Phase 1, such development shall construct the necessary improvements prior to occupancy of the building and would be reimbursed by City Place. Sidewalk improvements to Tasman Drive between Calle Del Sol and the Lafayette Street overcrossing, as needed to address pedestrian safety hazards, shall be in place prior to occupancy of any new residential buildings within the Plan Area fronting Tasman Drive.

MM C-TRANS-3.1(12): Lafayette Street and Calle De Luna – Reconfiguring the westbound approach to one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane would fully mitigate the impact to an acceptable LOS D and would not require additional right-of-way.

MM C-TRANS-3.2(13): Lafayette Street and Calle De Primavera - Reconfigure the westbound approach to two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane.

MM C-TRANS-3.3(21): Tasman Drive and Calle Del Sol - Reconfigure the southbound approach to two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane would fully mitigate the impact.

The following subsequent Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures are incorporated by reference and are applicable to the proposed project:

AIR QUALITY
MM 5-2A: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The City shall require new development projects occurring under implementation of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Control Mitigation Measures to address fugitive dust emissions that would occur during earthmoving activities associated with project construction. These measures include:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 147
City of Santa Clara

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM 5-2B: Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The City shall require applicants to submit a quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The estimated construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions shall be compared against the thresholds of significance maintained by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:
 Selection of specific construction equipment (e.g., specialized pieces of equipment with smaller engines or equipment that will be more efficient and reduce engine runtime);
 Requiring equipment to use alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas), meet cleaner emission standards (e.g., U.S.

EPA Tier IV Final emissions standards for equipment greater than 50-horsepower), and/or utilizing added exhaust devices (e.g., Level 3 Diesel Particular Filter);  Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes;  Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;  Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; and
 Application of Low-VOC paints to interior and/or exterior surfaces (e.g., paints that meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements).

MM 5-2C: Use Low- and Super Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings. The City shall require the use of Low- and Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings in maintaining buildings in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area through Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Ground Lease. Developed parcels shall require within their CC&Rs and/or ground leases requirements for all future interior spaces to be repainted with architectural coatings that meet the “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements. “Low-VOC” refers to paints that meet the more stringent regulatory limits 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
148 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
of South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMD Rule 1113. “Super-Compliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “Low-VOC” limits.

MM 5-2D: Implement TDM Program. Proposed residential, retail, commercial, and office land uses within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area shall prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs consistent with the requirements outlined Section 7.3 of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. Projects shall achieve a minimum reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 20 percent compared to baseline conditions (i.e., without internal or external reductions accounted for, such as geographic location, land use interconnectivity, etc.), with at least 10 percent of the reduction coming through project-specific TDM measures (e.g., transit subsidies, telecommuting options, etc.).

MM 5-3A: Implement Mitigation Measure 5-2B.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM 6-2: In order to keep current the biological resource evaluation prepared for the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR, upon receiving applications for site-specific projects within the Specific Plan Area, the City shall evaluate the need for a specific biological resource survey of the project site and adjacent area that may be indirectly impacted by project work. If no biological resources are determined to be at risk as determined by a qualified biologist, no further survey shall be required. However, if the City determines that biological resources within the project area require further analysis, the project proponent shall be required to conduct a biological resource survey of the habitat and special-status species that may be impacted by project activities, either directly or indirectly. A report shall be provided to the City detailing survey methods, results, and avoidance and minimization measures required to protect any special-status species with potential to be impacted, in accordance with the regulatory protocols of the responsible jurisdictional agencies for the resource in question, including, but not limited to: USFWS, CDFW, and USACE. If no further surveys/investigation is requested by a permitting or other regulatory agency upon receipt of biological survey report, work may proceed as planned.

MM 6-3: Before any project work within the Specific Plan Area, a qualified botanist shall conduct site-specific, focused surveys according to CDFW guidelines to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species on the individual project site and any adjacent potential area of disturbance. A comprehensive, site-wide survey should be conducted within May to September before project work begins, to encompass the Congdon’s tarplant and arcuate bush mallow’s blooming periods. Following the completion of the surveys, a survey results report shall be prepared and provided to the City. This report should include, but should not be limited to, the following: (1) a description of the survey methodology; (2) a discussion of the survey results; and (3) a map showing the survey area and the location of any special-status plants encountered. If no rare plants are found, then no further mitigation would be required.

If rare plants are found during the survey, the number of individuals present shall be documented and the limits of population shall be marked with flagging. The flagged border of the population shall be avoided by construction personnel for the duration of the project. If the species cannot be avoided or may be indirectly impacted, the applicant shall notify CDFW to discuss avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures as 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 149
City of Santa Clara
appropriate for each species population, including measures to be taken and protocols to be followed if special-status plants are inadvertently disturbed during construction activities.

CDFW may require the preparation and implementation of a mitigation plan that details avoidance, preservation, and/or compensation for the loss of individual special-status plant species. Mitigation may include the purchase of mitigation bank credits, preserving and enhancing existing on-site populations, creation of off-site populations through seed collection and/or transplantation and monitoring these populations to ensure their successful establishment, and/or preserving occupied habitat off-site in perpetuity.

Specific amounts and methods of mitigation and/or credits shall be determined in formal consultation with CDFW and USFWS.

MM 6-4: The demolition of any buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, and/or removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no demolition, gravel disturbance vegetation, or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no further action is required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds at most 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, including prior to grading or other construction activity. If demolition of buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, or vegetation removal efforts do not begin within the 14 days following the nesting bird survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as reasonably accessible areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist and dependent on species’ life history requirements.

If an active nest is discovered in the areas to be directly physically disturbed, or in other habitats within the vicinity of construction boundaries and may be disturbed by construction activities (as determined by the qualified biologist), clearing and construction shall be postponed until the qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest fails, or the nest is otherwise determined to be inactive by the biologist (i.e. predation).

To avoid impacts to roosting bats that may rarely utilize the Specific Plan Area vegetation and/or vacant buildings for day roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for roosting bats at most 14 days prior to the start of demolition of any vacant buildings left with entry and egress points accessible to bats or removal of suitable bat roosting vegetation. If roosting bats are detected, the biologist shall enact a minimum of a 150-foot no-work buffer and confer with CDFW to determine potential roost protection or roost eviction practices. After conferring with CDFW, the protective buffer may be adjusted based on specific roost needs. Once bats have been suitably protected by a buffer and/or safely evicted from roosting sites (as approved by CDFW), construction may resume outside the buffered area.

A nesting bird and roosting bat survey report prepared with the methods and results of the pre-project survey will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities. Any additional construction monitoring, as determined through any necessary coordination/discretionary approvals with the resource agencies, will be documented per requirements set forth in an approved mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
150 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 7-1: For any individual project within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource, the resource shall be assessed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historic resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historic resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Adhere to at least one of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:
 Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or
 Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

If neither measure (a) nor measure (b) is feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order:
(c) Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation.

The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies.
(d) Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 151
City of Santa Clara
(e) Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character-defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use on-site, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance.
(f) Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Specific Plan Area.

MM 7-2: During the City’s standard project-specific review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts of the action on, archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area - i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site - shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures, as described directly below.

Following field inspection and completion of all necessary phases of study as determined by the archaeologist and the City, damage to any identified archaeological resources shall be avoided or mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner Preservation may be accomplished by:
 Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site;  Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element;  Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
152 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
When in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center. If Native American artifacts are indicated, the studies shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.

Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites).

Mitigation measures recommended by these two groups (CHRIS and NAHC), as reviewed and approved by the City, shall be undertaken prior to and during construction activities. Although the precise details of the mitigation measures would be specific to the particular project site, the measures shall be consistent with the avoidance and mitigation strategies described above in this programmatic mitigation measure.

A data recovery plan and data recovery for a historic resource shall not be required if the City determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in an EIR or are available for review at the CHRIS Northwest Information Center (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b]).

Resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a Plan Area construction activity, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.

If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM 8-3: Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required individual project- and site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies for site-specific proposals, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Such recommendations shall address design- and construction-level details regarding engineering issues and solutions such as the type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, the details of retaining structures, and any need for subsurface water extraction.

MM 8-4: For all public improvement and private development projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area, the following measures shall be implemented:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 153
City of Santa Clara
 Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards;
 Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
 Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall be provided to a local museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a local museum repository for permanent curatorship and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.

NOISE
MM 13-1: Reduce Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Specific Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least one week prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the Applicant/project representative and the City of Santa Clara responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per Section 8). This notice shall be provided to: A) The owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas; B) The owner/occupants of commercial buildings (including Mission College) within 200 feet of construction work areas or within 400 feet of construction work areas if pile driving equipment will be used; and C) Mission College when construction work areas are within 500 feet of College athletic fields.
2) Notify Calaveras Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. Prior to the start of construction activities within 500 feet of Calaveras Creek Trail, signs shall be posted along the trail warning of potential temporary elevated noise levels during construction.

Signs shall be posted within 250 feet of impacted trail segments (i.e., portions of the trail within 500 feet of a work area) and shall remain posted throughout the duration of all 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
154 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
substantial noise generating construction activities (typically demolition, grading, and initial foundation installation activities).
3) Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 9.10.230.

Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, unless otherwise authorized by City permit. The applicant/project representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of this requirement.
4) Control Construction Traffic and Site Access. Construction traffic, including soil and debris hauling, shall follow City-designated truck routes and shall avoid routes (including local roads in the Plan Area) that contain residential dwelling units to the maximum extent feasible given specific project location and access needs. 5) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used in the Plan Area: A) To the extent feasible, contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities; B) Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential and commercial land uses as possible; C) All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three- or four-sided enclosure provide the structure/barrier breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operations; D) Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, etc. These devices shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities; E) Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust; F) The applicant/project representative and/or their contractor shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators; G) No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
6) Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures: The following measures shall apply to construction activities in the Plan Area: A) Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing, or other pulverization activities, shall be employed to the maximum extent feasible; B) Demolition Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 250 feet of a commercial building (including Mission College), a physical noise barrier capable of achieving a minimum 10 dB reduction in construction noise levels shall be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements. Potential barrier options capable of achieving a 10 dB reduction in construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i) A six-foot-high concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 155
City of Santa Clara
loss value of 20 dB; ii) Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB; iii) any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving a 10 dBA reduction in construction noise levels during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities; iv) The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site); and C) Pile Driving: If pile driving activities are required within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a commercial building (including Mission College), the piles shall be pre-drilled with an auger to minimize pile driving equipment run times.
7) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Noise Evaluation. Prior to the start of any specific construction project lasting 12 months or more, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction noise evaluation prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that: A) Identifies the planned project construction sequence and equipment usage; B) Identifies typical hourly average construction noise levels for project construction equipment; C) Compares hourly average construction noise levels to ambient noise levels at residential and commercial land uses near work areas (ambient noise levels may be newly measured or presumed to be consistent with those levels shown in Table 13-2 and 13-3 of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and D) Identifies construction noise control measures incorporated into the project that ensure: i) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 60 dBA Leq at a residential dwelling unit and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year; and ii) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 70 dBA Leq at a commercial building (including Mission College) and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year. Such measures may include, but are limited to: a) The requirements of Sections 4, 5, 6, and 8; B) Additional project and/or equipment-specific enclosures, barriers, shrouds, or other noise suppression methods. The use of noise control blankets on building facades shall be considered only if noise complaints are not resolvable with other means or methods.
8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The Construction Noise Complaint Plan shall: A) Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues; B) Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints; C) At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint; D) The elements of the Construction Noise Complaint Plan may be included in the project-specific noise evaluation prepared to satisfy Section 7 or as a separate document.
9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure: The City shall require future occupants/tenants in the Plan Area receive disclosure that properties in the Plan Area may be subject to elevated construction noise levels from development in the Plan Area. This disclosure shall be provided as part of the mortgage, lease, sublease, and/or other contractual real-estate transaction associated with the subject property.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
156 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
MM 13-2: Reduce Construction Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Specific Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. See Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1.
2) Restrict Work Hours. See Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2.
3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment if Feasible. The use of large vibratory rollers, vibratory/ impact hammers, and other potential large vibration-generating equipment (e.g., hydraulic breakers/hoe rams) shall be prohibited within 100 feet of any residential building façade and 50 feet of any commercial building façade during construction activities. Plate compactors and compactor rollers are acceptable, and deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled.
4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. If it is not feasible to prohibit vibratory equipment per Section 3) due to site- or project-specific conditions or design considerations, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction vibration evaluation that: A) Identifies the project’s planned vibration-generating construction activities (e.g., demolition, pile driving, vibratory compaction); B) the potential project-specific vibration levels (given project-specific equipment and soil conditions, if known) at specific building locations that may be impacted by the vibrationgenerating work activities (generally buildings within 50 feet of the work area); C) Identifies the vibration control measures incorporated into the project that ensure equipment and work activities would not damage buildings or result in vibrations that exceed Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold for peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.1 inches/ second (in/sec). Such measures may include, but are not limited to: i) the requirements of Sections 1, 2, and 3; ii) the use of vibration monitoring to measure actual vibration levels; iii) the use of photo monitoring or other records to document building conditions prior to, during, and after construction activities; and iv) the use of other measures such as trenches or wave barriers; D) Identifies the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues; and E) Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first subbullet above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing groundborne vibration levels to peak particle velocity levels that do not exceed accepted guidance or thresholds for structural damage that are best applicable to potentially impacted buildings (e.g., see Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Draft EIR Table 13-6) and Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold (PPV of 0.1 in/sec, see Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Draft EIR Table 13-7).

MM 13-3: Control Fixed and Other On-site Noise-Generating Sources and Activities. To ensure on-site, operations-related equipment and activities associated with the Specific Plan do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, future development projects 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 157
City of Santa Clara
shall submit a project-specific operational noise analysis to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, or as otherwise determined by the City. The noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall identify all major fixed machinery and equipment, non-residential truck docks/dedicated loading zones, waste collection areas, and above ground parking garages included in the final project design/site plan. The noise analysis shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in Municipal Code Section 9.10.040, Schedule A and the noise compatibility guidelines in General Plan Table 8.14-1. Fixed machinery and equipment may include, but is not limited to, pumps, fans (including air intake or exhaust fans in parking garages), compressors, air conditioners, generators, and refrigeration equipment. The control of noise from such equipment may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets, or behind a parapet wall or other barrier/shielding. Truck docks/dedicated loading zones consist of a loading dock or other dedicated area for the regular loading and unloading of retail, commercial, or other non-residential goods from delivery trucks. The control of noise from such truck docks/loading areas, waste collection areas, and parking garages may be accomplished by placing such areas away from sensitive land uses, restricting activities or operating hours for certain areas, or other design means.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 7-2: During the City’s standard project-specific review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts of the action on, archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area - i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site - shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures, as described directly below.

In addition, the City shall continue to notify the Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Specific Plan Area of the discretionary, public improvement and private development projects if those proposed improvements or projects are subject to a CEQA Negative Declaration (including Mitigated Negative Declaration) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with California Assembly Bill 52, and if a Native American tribe requests consultation, conduct a good faith consultation. 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
158 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Following field inspection and completion of all necessary phases of study as determined by the archaeologist and the City, damage to any identified archaeological resources shall be avoided or mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner Preservation may be accomplished by:
 Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site;  Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element;  Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

When in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center. If Native American artifacts are indicated, the studies shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.

Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites).

If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed. 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 159
City of Santa Clara

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MM 18-1: Consistent with SB 221 and SB 610, no tentative map, Architectural/Design Review, or development agreement for a proposed, individual project shall be approved until the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Department confirms that water supplies are adequate for each individual project. Such confirmation shall include an updated description of the citywide water supply situation (including any plans for pumping additional groundwater) at that future time, reflecting any progress on City plans for expanding its recycled water program and any City requirements for implementing additional “best management practices” (BMPs) related to recycled water use and/or water conservation. These City actions would ensure a continual monitoring of citywide water supply throughout implementation of the Specific Plan.

The following subsequent Freedom Circle Future Focus Area EIR mitigation measures are incorporated by reference and are applicable to the proposed project:

AESTHETICS
MM 4-3: As required by the City of Santa Clara General Plan, the City shall prepare a future comprehensive planning study for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (whether a specific plan or another type of plan) and it shall include the following performance and design standards and guidelines that apply to all future individual development proposals in the Plan Area to minimize visual impacts by: (a) those enhancing form and design in the Plan Area; (b) those incorporating land use densities and associated changes in intensity consistent with the General Plan; (c) those encouraging street trees and landscaping along corridors to beautify the streetscape; (d) those coordinating signage color, shape, and graphic styles with the City’s signage system; (e) those including standards to ensure compatibility of new development with nearby existing and planned development; (f) those establishing standards related to building form, mass, and scale that enhance the pedestrian realm and provide transitions to adjacent lower-density development and public spaces; (g) those including guidelines and standards for pedestrian amenities; and (h) those fostering site design so that building height and massing would not overshadow new parks and plazas and/or interfere with solar collectors. Incorporation of such performance and design standards and guidelines in the required comprehensive planning study for the Plan Area would minimize conflicts with General Plan policies pertaining to visual character.

AIR QUALITY
MM 5-3A: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The City shall require new development projects occurring under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Control Mitigation Measures to address fugitive dust emissions that would occur during earthmoving activities associated with project construction. These measures include:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
160 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

MM 5-3B: Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The City shall require applicants to submit a quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The estimated construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions shall be compared against the thresholds of significance maintained by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:
 Selection of specific construction equipment (e.g., specialized pieces of equipment with smaller engines or equipment that will be more efficient and reduce engine runtime);
 Requiring equipment to use alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas), meet cleaner emission standards (e.g., U.S.

MM 5-3C: Use Low- and Super Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings During Operational Activities. The City shall require the use of Low- and Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings in maintaining buildings in Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan through Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Ground Lease. Developed 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 161
City of Santa Clara
parcels shall require within their CC&Rs and/or ground leases requirements for all future interior and exterior spaces to be repainted with architectural coatings that meet the “Low-VOC” or “Super- Compliant” requirements. “Low-VOC” refers to paints that meet the more stringent regulatory limits of South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMD Rule 1113. “Super-Compliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “Low-VOC” limits.

MM 5-3D: Implement TDM Program. Proposed residential and office land uses within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan shall prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that achieve a minimum reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 20 percent compared to baseline conditions (i.e., without internal or external reductions accounted for, such as geographic location, land use interconnectivity, etc.), with at least 10 percent of the reduction coming through projectspecific TDM measures (e.g., transit subsidies, telecommuting options, etc.).

MM 5-4A: See Mitigation Measure 5-3A.

MM 5-4B: Use Low- and Super Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings During Construction.

During construction, the City shall require the Greystar Project use architectural coatings for exterior applications that meet “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” standards, as defined in South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMD Rule 1113. “SuperCompliant” refers to paints that have been reformulated to levels well below the “LowVOC” limits.

MM 5-5: See Mitigation Measure 5-3B.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM 6-2: Upon receiving applications for projects within the project area, the City shall evaluate the need for a specific biological resource survey of the project area and adjacent area that may be indirectly impacted by project work. If no biological resources are determined to be at risk for an individual project (i.e., potential for bird and bat species, within and directly adjacent to the project area, to occur and/or be affected by project activities is negligible), no further survey shall be required. However, if the City determines that biological resources within the proposed project area require further analysis, the project proponent shall be required to conduct a biological resource survey of the habitat and special-status species that may be impacted by project activities, either directly or indirectly. A report shall be provided to the City detailing survey methods, results, performance standards, and avoidance and minimization measures required to protect any special-status species with potential to be impacted, consistent with the regulatory agency protocols.

MM 6-3: Before any project work within the project area, including the Greystar project site, a qualified botanist shall conduct site-specific, focused surveys according to CDFW guidelines to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species on the individual project site and any adjacent potential area of disturbance. A comprehensive, site-wide survey should be conducted within May to September before project work begins, to encompass the Congdon’s tarplant and arcuate bush mallow’s blooming periods. Following the completion of the surveys, a survey results report shall be prepared and provided to the City. This report should include, but should not be limited to, the following: (1) a description of the survey methodology; (2) a discussion of the 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
162 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
survey results; and (3) a map showing the survey area and the location of any specialstatus plants encountered. If no rare plants are found, then no further mitigation would be required.

If rare plants are found during the survey, the number of individuals present shall be documented, and the limits of population shall be marked with flagging. The flagged border of the population shall be avoided by construction personnel for the duration of the project. If the species cannot be avoided or may be indirectly impacted, the applicant shall notify CDFW to discuss avoidance, minimization, and other measures as appropriate for each species population, including measures to be taken and protocols to be followed if special-status plants are inadvertently disturbed during construction activities.

Specific amount and method of mitigation and/or credits shall be determined in formal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS.

MM 6-4: The demolition of any buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, and/or removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no demolition, gravel disturbance, vegetation, or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no further action is required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds at most 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, including prior to grading or other construction activity. If demolition of buildings, disturbance of gravel substrate, or vegetation removal efforts do not begin within the 14 days following the nesting bird survey, another survey shall be required. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as reasonably accessible areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist and dependent on species’ life history requirements.

If an active nest is discovered in the areas to be directly physically disturbed, or in other habitats within the vicinity of construction boundaries and may be disturbed by construction activities (as determined by the qualified biologist), clearing and construction shall be postponed within a species-specific no-work buffer (to be determined by the qualified biologist and based on the species life history and regulatory requirements) until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest fails, or the nest is otherwise determined to be inactive by the biologist (i.e., predation).

To avoid impacts to roosting bats that may rarely utilize the project area vegetation, roof tiles, and/or vacant buildings for day roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for roosting bats no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of demolition of any vacant buildings left with entry and egress points accessible to bats or removal of suitable bat roosting vegetation. If demolition of buildings or vegetation removal efforts do not begin within the 14 days following the roosting bat survey, another 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 163
City of Santa Clara
survey shall be required. If roosting bats are detected, the biologist shall enact a minimum of a 150-foot no-work buffer and confer with CDFW to determine potential roost protection or roost eviction practices. After conferring with CDFW, the protective buffer may be adjusted based on specific roost needs. Once bats have been suitably protected by a buffer and/or safely evicted from roosting sites (as approved by CDFW, avoiding take as defined by CESA and the CFGC), construction may resume outside the buffered area.

A nesting bird and roosting bat survey report of the methods and results of the pre-project survey will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities for individual projects. Any additional construction monitoring, as determined through any necessary coordination/discretionary approvals with the resource agencies, will be documented per requirements set forth in an approved mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the entirety of the project.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 7-1: For any individual discretionary project under the subsequent comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) adopted by the City to guide Plan Area development that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource, the resource shall be assessed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historic resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historic resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Adhere to at least one of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:
 Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or
 Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decision-making authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5). (b) If the City determines that measure (a) is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource is avoided.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
164 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
If the City determines that neither measure (a) nor measure (b) is feasible, to the extent required by CEQA, additional analysis shall be conducted in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 15162, particularly in order for specific project alternatives to be designed and evaluated. If the City determines that neither measure (a) nor (b) is found to be feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order:
(c) Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation.

The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies.
(d) Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction.
(e) Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character-defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use onsite, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance.
(f) Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Plan Area.

MM 7-3: During the City’s standard project-specific review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects under the subsequent comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) adopted by the City to guide development in the Plan Area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts of the action on, archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area – i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site – shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures, as described directly below.

In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection to (1) assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, (2) determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and (3) assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing (e.g., excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities (i.e., during grading or trenching). 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 165
City of Santa Clara
In addition, the City shall continue to notify the Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Plan Area of the discretionary, public improvement and private development projects if those proposed improvements or projects are subject to a CEQA Negative Declaration (including Mitigated Negative Declaration) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with California Assembly Bill 52, and if a Native American tribe requests consultation, conduct a good faith consultation.

Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites).

Resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a Plan Area construction activity, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
166 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.

If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed.

MM 7-4: Prior to construction activities, resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant and approved by the City and shall meet U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards.

Training shall include a written handout and focus on how t identify cultural/Native American resources that may be encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event. On-site archaeological monitor duties and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation shall also be explained, in case either or both becomes necessary.

During ground-disturbing project construction activities, if subsurface cultural resources are encountered, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described below. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.

All cultural/archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified professional archaeologist. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes and/or Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring shall be initiated if requested by the Tribes and/or Individuals. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan that avoids or mitigates, to the maximum extent possible, damage to any identified resources. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:
 Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site;  Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element;  Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or  Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

If in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. The study shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center, and if Native American artifacts are indicated, the study shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 167
City of Santa Clara
Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites).

Any additional mitigation measures recommended by these two groups (CHRIS and NAHC), as reviewed and approved by the City, shall be undertaken prior to and during construction activities. Although the precise details of those measures would be based on the nature and extent of the resource(s) uncovered on the site, the measures shall be consistent with the avoidance and mitigation strategies described above in this mitigation measure.

In addition, if the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, cultural and/or archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for cultural and/or archaeological resources shall be required.

The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors.

The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.

If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (as appropriate).

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM 8-5: Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required individual project- and site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies for site-specific proposals, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Such recommendations could address design- and construction-level details regarding the type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, the details of retaining structures, any need for subsurface water extraction, and other engineering issues and solutions.

MM 8-6: The City shall require the applicant to provide a final geotechnical report, prepared by a geotechnical engineer, for City review and approval. The final geotechnical report (as discussed in Impact 8-2 above) shall include a supplemental field investigation that includes: (1) new borings as necessary to confirm subsurface conditions; (2) review of final project plans and specifications with recommendations based on professional geotechnical engineering (such as final foundation design recommendations and potential need for piles); (3) any other engineering studies to address design- and construction-level details related to type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, details of retaining structures or subsurface water extraction, and other engineering issues and solutions as may be determined necessary in consultation with the City; and (4) observation of site preparation, foundation installation, shoring installation, and construction by a professional geotechnical engineer. 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
168 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
The mitigations and recommendations in the final geotechnical report, subject to review and approval by the City, shall be complied with and would provide reasonable, professional assurances that the project incorporates design and engineering refinements to reduce the degree of impacts to less-than-significant levels by either avoiding identified soil and geologic impact areas altogether (i.e., basic project design changes) or by rectifying the impact through conventional engineering and construction procedures (e.g., suitable foundation design and construction). Incorporation of these measures into project final plans prior to issuance of permits and City inspection and verification procedures prior to project operation is required.

MM 8-7: For all public improvement and private development projects in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Area, the following measures shall be implemented:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
 Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards;
 Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
 Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

MM 8-8: The Greystar project shall be required, as a condition of project approval, to implement the following measures:
(1) Education Program. The project applicant shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 169
City of Santa Clara
 Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards;
 Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
 Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

GREENHOUSE GASES
MM 9-1A: See Mitigation Measure 5-3D.

MM 9-1B: Utilize GHG-Free Electricity. The City shall require new development projects occurring under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to source 100% of their electricity from GHG-free sources. GHG-free electricity may come from on-site renewable electricity generation (e.g., photovoltaic systems), enrollment in a GHG-free electricity program (e.g., Silicon Valley Power’s Santa Clara Green Power program), or any combination of measures that ensure electricity consumed by projects subject to discretionary approval come entirely from GHG-free sources, as determined by the City.

NOISE
MM 13-1: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Focus Area Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least one week prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the Applicant/project representative and the City of Santa Clara responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per Section 8). This notice shall be provided to: A) The 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
170 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas; and B) The owner/occupants of commercial buildings (including institutional buildings) within 200 feet of construction work areas or within 400 feet of construction work areas if pile driving equipment will be used.
2) Notify San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. Prior to the start of construction activities within 500 feet of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, signs shall be posted along the trail warning of potential temporary elevated noise levels during construction. Signs shall be posted within 250 feet of impacted trail segments (i.e., portions of the trail within 500 feet of a work area) and shall remain posted throughout the duration of all substantial noise generating construction activities (typically demolition, grading, and initial foundation installation activities). 3) Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 9.10.230.

The use of noise control blankets on building facades shall be considered only if noise complaints are not resolvable with other means or methods. 8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The Construction Noise Complaint Plan shall: A) Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues; B) Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints; C) At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
172 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint; D) The elements of the Construction Noise Complaint Plan may be included in the project-specific noise evaluation prepared to satisfy Section 7 or as a separate document.
9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure: The City shall require future occupants/tenants in the Plan Area receive disclosure that properties in the Plan Area may be subject to elevated construction noise levels from development in the Plan Area. This disclosure shall be provided as part of the mortgage, lease, sub-lease, and/or other contractual real-estate transaction associated with the subject property.

MM 13-2: Reduce Greystar Project Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Greystar Project construction activities, the City shall ensure the Applicant:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Notify San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2.
3) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 3. 4) Control Construction Traffic and Site Access. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 4. 5) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 5.
6) Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures: See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section. The project will not require pile driving and, therefore, pile driving control measures identified in Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 C) are not applicable. See below for noise barrier mitigation requirements per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 B).
7) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Noise Evaluation. Not applicable. The construction noise analysis presented in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report constitutes the Projectspecific construction noise evaluation per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 7. 8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 8. 9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure: See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 9. 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 173
City of Santa Clara
Per Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 6 B), the following noise barriers shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of active work areas: A) For all demolition, site preparation, grading, and foundation work within 100 feet of the commercial property (Pedro’s Restaurant and Cantina) that borders the site’s southwest perimeter: i) a 6-foottall barrier shall be installed starting at Freedom Circle and extending south along the property boundary to the site’s southern property line (approximately 640 linear feet). B) For all demolition, site preparation, grading, and foundation work within 150 feet of commercial properties across Freedom Circle: i) a 6-foot-tall barrier shall be provided along the length of the property line that fronts Freedom Circle, excepting construction access points as needed (approximately 1,130 linear feet). C) Noise barriers shall consist of ½” plywood or any other material weighing 4 pounds per square foot or more or having a minimum documented transmission loss value of 20 dBA. The barriers may be erected on temporary retaining walls or temporary K-rails or other solid structures (which shall be considered as part of the total height of the barrier). Boards shall be staggered one over two, or joints otherwise fastened and sealed, to prevent sound transmission through joints. There shall be no openings or gaps in the barrier. The barrier shall be regularly inspected (e.g., weekly) and maintained during construction activities (e.g., warped or cracked boards shall be replaced upon discovery). D) The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work within the distances specific above (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site).

MM 13-3: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Vibration Levels.

To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Focus Area Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2. 3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The use of large vibratory rollers, vibratory/impact hammers, and other potential large vibration-generating equipment (e.g., hydraulic breakers/hoe rams) shall be prohibited within 100 feet of any residential building façade and 50 feet of any commercial building façade during construction activities. Plate compactors and compactor rollers are acceptable, and deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled.
4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. If it is not feasible to prohibit vibratory equipment per Section 3) due to site- or project-specific conditions or design considerations, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction vibration evaluation that: A) Identifies the project’s planned vibration-generating construction activities (e.g., demolition, pile driving, vibratory compaction); B) Identifies the potential project-specific vibration levels (given project-specific equipment and soil conditions, if known) at specific building locations that may be impacted by the vibrationgenerating work activities (generally buildings within 50 feet of the work area); C) Identifies the vibration control measures incorporated into the project that ensure 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
174 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
equipment and work activities would not damage buildings or result in vibrations that exceed Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold for peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.1 inches/second (in/sec). Such measures may include, but are not limited to: i) the requirements of Sections 1, 2, and 3; ii) the use of vibration monitoring to measure actual vibration levels; iii) the use of photo monitoring or other records to document building conditions prior to, during, and after construction activities; and iv) the use of other measures such as trenches or wave barriers; D) Identifies the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues; and E) Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first condition D) above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing groundborne vibration levels to peak particle velocity levels that do not exceed accepted guidance or thresholds for structural damage that are best applicable to potentially impacted buildings (e.g., see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-6) and Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold (PPV of 0.1 in/sec, see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-7).

MM 13-4: Reduce Greystar Project Construction Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Greystar project construction activities, the City shall require the Applicant:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2. 3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 3. 4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13- 1, Section 3. Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 4 A) – C) are not applicable because the construction vibration analysis presented in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR constitutes the Project-specific construction vibration evaluation per Mitigation Measure 13-3, Section 4.

MM 13-5: Control Fixed and Other Onsite Noise-Generating Sources and Activities in the Freedom Circle Area Plan. To ensure on-site, operations-related equipment and activities associated with the Focus Area Plan do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, future development projects shall submit a project-specific operational noise analysis to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, or as otherwise determined by the City. The noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall identify all major fixed machinery and equipment, non-residential truck docks/dedicated loading zones, waste 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 175
City of Santa Clara
collection areas, and above ground parking garages included in the final project design/site plan. The noise analysis shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in Municipal Code Section

9.10.040, Schedule A and the noise compatibility guidelines in General Plan Table 8.14-

1. Fixed machinery and equipment may include, but is not limited to, pumps, fans (including air intake or exhaust fans in parking garages), compressors, air conditioners, generators, and refrigeration equipment. The control of noise from such equipment may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets, or behind a parapet wall or other barrier/ shielding. Truck docks/dedicated loading zones consist of a loading dock or other dedicated area for the regular loading and unloading of retail, commercial, or other non-residential goods from delivery trucks. The control of noise from such truck docks/loading areas, waste collection areas, and parking garages may be accomplished by placing such areas away from sensitive land uses, restricting activities or operating hours for certain areas, or other design means.

MM 13-6: Control Greystar Project Parking Garage Ventilation System Noise Levels. To ensure potential parking garage ventilation systems do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in noise levels, the City shall require the Applicant to prepare an acoustical study that identifies the final type, location, and sound power level of all parking garage ventilation systems. The study shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in Municipal Code Section 9.10.040, Schedule A. The control of noise from ventilation systems may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets), the installation of louvres or baffles, or other design means.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 7-3: During the City’s standard project-specific review process for all future, discretionary, public improvement and private development projects under the subsequent comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) adopted by the City to guide development in the Plan Area, the City shall determine the possible presence of, and the potential for new or substantially more severe impacts of the action on, archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The City shall require individual project applicants or environmental consultants to contact the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the particular project is located in a sensitive area. Future discretionary development projects that CHRIS determines may be located in a sensitive area – i.e., on or adjoining an identified archaeological site – shall proceed only after the project applicant contracts with an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, to conduct a determination in regard to cultural values remaining on the site and warranted mitigation measures, as described directly below.

In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection to (1) assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, (2) determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and (3) assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing (e.g., excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities (i.e., during grading or trenching). 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
176 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
In addition, the City shall continue to notify the Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Plan Area of the discretionary, public improvement and private development projects if those proposed improvements or projects are subject to a CEQA Negative Declaration (including Mitigated Negative Declaration) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with California Assembly Bill 52, and if a Native American tribe requests consultation, conduct a good faith consultation.

Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites).

Resource identification training procedures shall be implemented for construction personnel, conducted by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. In the event that subsurface cultural resources are otherwise encountered during approved ground-disturbing activities for a Plan Area construction activity, work within 50 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds following the procedures described above. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Although work may continue beyond 50 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 177
City of Santa Clara
feet, the archaeologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to archaeological resources.

If human remains are found, the rules set forth in State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) apply and shall be followed.

If in-place mitigation is determined by the City to be infeasible, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequate recovery of culturally or historically consequential information about the site (including artifacts discovered on the site), subject to review and approval by the City, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. The study shall be submitted to the CHRIS Northwest Information Center, and if Native American artifacts are indicated, the study shall also be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). CHRIS and NAHC are recognized as experts in their respective disciplines.
5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
178 Addendum to the General Plan EIR
Public Review Draft November 1, 2023
Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites).

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MM 18-1: The WSA prepared for the proposed Focus Area Plan includes development in the Plan Area that has not been identified in the General Plan (i.e., exceeds the General Plan land use projections for 2035, the General Plan horizon year), and therefore, because the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was based on General Plan buildout projections, this WSA is inconsistent with General Plan and UWMP buildout projections.

Until the Focus Area Plan development exceeding General Plan growth projections is included in the General Plan and the UWMP (i.e., the 2020 UWMP), the Focus Area Plan is inconsistent with the General Plan/Urban Water Management Plan.

MM 18-5: The City shall require individual projects implemented under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (and the future, required comprehensive planning study – e.g., specific plan) to make a fair-share contribution to the wastewater pump station improvements necessary to accommodate cumulative development in Santa Clara. The fair-share contributions for future projects developed under the Focus Area Plan and required comprehensive planning study shall be determined based on a detailed wastewater pump station engineering study prepared by the City and each project’s percent of wastewater contribution to cumulative flow capacity needs above the current pump capacity. This mitigation would provide funding for wastewater pump station upgrades, which would reduce the Plan’s contribution to the cumulative impact to a less-thansignificant level. The City would be required to plan and construct the improvements.

Because the timing of these improvements cannot be guaranteed or estimated at this 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 179
City of Santa Clara
time (spring 2021), the combined wastewater capacity of the two pump stations could be exceeded by development proposals already under consideration. Therefore, the City shall continually monitor pump station capacity in order to coordinate the pump station improvements with development proposals. Until pump station capacity improvements adequate to accommodate the incremental increases in wastewater flows are completed, the City shall delay individual project building permits. In addition, as a standard condition of approval, each individual project would need to provide sanitary sewer information to the City, and no project would be approved by the City until the City determines that sufficient sewer capacity exists.

Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 180
City of Santa Clara
6 References

6.1 – List of Preparers
City of Santa Clara (Lead Agency)
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
(408) 615-2478
 John Davidson, Principal Planner
MIG (Environmental Analysis)
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507
951-787-9222
 Pamela Steele, Principal
 Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services
 Cameron Hile, Senior Analyst

6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
None.
5 – References
Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendments 181
City of Santa Clara

6.3 – Bibliography
California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Web:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. [Accessed September 2023].

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Ventura County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Web: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. [Accessed September 2023].

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highways Maps. Web:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-iscenic-highways. [Accessed September 2023].

California Environmental Protection Agency. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Web: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed September 2023].

California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Active CDO and CAO. Web:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed September 2023].

California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action Pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Web:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed September 2023].

CalRecycle. Identify Disposal Facility Capacity Shortfalls. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/facility/disposalgap.aspx [Accessed September 2023].

California Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Web: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. [Accessed September 2023].

California Water Resources Control Board. List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites. Web:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed September 2023].

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on an Agreement with Oak View Group Global Partnerships, LLC for Naming Rights and Sponsorships for the Santa Clara Convention Center and Related Budget Amendment

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Promote Sustainability and Environmental Protection

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) procurement process to solicit proposals from qualified firms to identify, value, sell, negotiate, and implement naming rights and sponsorship opportunities at the Santa Clara Convention Center (SCCC). Following an evaluation process, staff is recommending the City enter into a naming rights and sponsorships agreement with Oak View Group Global Partnerships, LLC (OVGGP) for the Santa Clara Convention Center. An initial three-year term from July 22, 2024 through July 21, 2027 is proposed with two one-year options to renew.

BACKGROUND
The City owns the Santa Clara Convention Center and has contracted with OVG360 (formerly Spectra) since 2019 for the management and operations of the Center. The SCCC was originally built in 1986, expanded in 2009, and due to limited funding sources, historically has received little capital investment for much-needed repair, restoration and replacement of existing systems and infrastructure. With a joint investment from the City and OVG360 in FY 2019/20 and additional investment dollars from Levy - the SCCC’s food and beverage provider - the SCCC has completed smaller capital improvement projects such as the installation of new carpet, the re-polishing of flooring, the repainting of the SCCC’s interior, and enhancements to the shared spaces in the SCCC.

It is anticipated that in-progress capital improvement projects, such as the indoor digital signage project and updates to the kitchens, will be completed in FY 2024/25 with the use of carryover capital improvement program (CIP) funds.

As approved as part of the Adopted FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget, funding was appropriated to replace the airwall system in the Grand Ballroom and to fund aesthetic updates to the restroom facilities; however, there continues to be insufficient funding available to meet the other aging front of the house/aesthetics, systems, equipment, and infrastructure needs of the SCCC. Over the five-year CIP cycle, there were $15.8 million of unfunded projects identified and finding resources to support capital costs continue to be a challenge.

Increasingly, staff is looking for new ways to attract financial resources - including the opportunities which can arise from naming rights and sponsorships. The SCCC is in critical need of capital investment funds, and revenue generated from naming rights and sponsorships is a viable City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
opportunity to create a funding stream to support capital improvement projects at the SCCC.

DISCUSSION
On March 15, 2024, the City released a RFP for Naming Rights and Sponsorships for the Santa Clara Convention Center. The RFP solicitated proposals from qualified firms to identify, value, sell, negotiate, and implement naming rights and sponsorship opportunities with the desired goal of completing phased work prior to December 31, 2025, in preparation for Super Bowl LX (SBLX) in February 2026 and FIFA World Cup 2026 (FWC26) in June - July 2026. It is the intent to garner heightened attention and leverage the national attention Santa Clara will receive as host to SBLX and FWC26.

Procurement Process
The City published the RFP using Periscope, the City’s e-procurement tool, and outreached directly to firms that provide professional naming rights and sponsorships services. A total of 21 companies viewed the RFP.

Two proposals were received by the April 8, 2024 deadline:
· Oak View Group Global Partnerships, LLC (Philadelphia, PA) · The Superlative Group (Cleveland, OH)
Proposal Evaluation Process: The written proposals were evaluated and scored against the criteria and weights demonstrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1
Evaluation Criteria Weight
Proposal Responsiveness / Minimum Qualifications / Firm Profile 10% Firm Experience & Qualifications 40%
Work Plan / Project Understanding 25%
Cost / Fee Proposal 25%
Total 100%
Both firms participated in oral presentations for the purpose of introducing key members of the project team and allowing the City to fully understand the Proposer’s ability to meet the evaluation criteria. Oral presentations were considered in the final scoring.

Evaluation Team: Proposals were evaluated and scored independently by City staff including an Assistant City Manager and Assistant to the City Manager. The scores were discussed within a team setting facilitated by a City Contracts Manager from the Finance Department, and the team consensus was that OVGGP received the higher overall score and therefore recommended for final award of contract.

Award Recommendation: Staff recommends award of the agreement to Oak View Group Global Partnerships, LLC as the most advantageous and best value proposal per the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. While both Proposers are industry leaders with extensive client lists, the following are key differentiators that were noted by the evaluation team which resulted in a higher score for City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
OVG Global Partnerships:
· OVGGP presented an extensive ecosystem of partnerships locally, nationally, and globally. · OVGGP presented currently existing partnerships that could be incorporated with the SCCC. · OVGGP presented an extensive track record of successful naming rights deals in both the public and private industries.
· OVGGP presented internal resources including an extensive executive team of industry experts with comprehensive management experience and relationships. · OVGGP presented a regular cadence of internal networking and coordination meetings among regional directors to avoid duplication of prospects and leads.

Term of Agreement: The initial term of the proposed agreement is three years. The City may exercise up to two one-year options to extend the agreement at the end of the initial term, at the sole discretion of the City and subject to the appropriation of funds. The City has the ability to terminate the agreement without cause upon 90 days written notice.

Summary of Agreement: The proposed agreement would provide OVGGP with the rights to market and sell naming rights and sponsorship opportunities at the Santa Clara Convention Center. Services will be provided in two phases with the goal of completing work and executing agreements prior to December 31, 2025.

Phase 1 - Asset Inventory and Valuation: Phase 1 is expected to be completed within the first 90 days of contract execution (July 2024 - October 2024). OVGGP will conduct an asset inventory and valuation to identify the essential assets that are available for revenue generation. This includes a full audit of existing assets, ideation of new assets, valuation of assets, and the provision of a detailed report to the City on all values for each asset, along with potential partnership tiers, comparable naming rights deals, and recommendations for the sales team.

Phase 2 - Sales and Marketing of Naming Rights and Sponsorships: Phase 2 is expected to be completed within 14 months of the completion of Phase 1 (October 2024 - December 2025). For Phase 2, OVGGP will hire a dedicated staff person responsible for generating revenue from local, regional, and national companies through the sale of integrated sponsorships and naming rights partnerships throughout the Santa Clara Convention Center.

This position will serve as the Department Head for local operations, be responsible for the sales and service for all corporate partnerships and be responsible for achieving measurable financial results (Please refer to Attachment B - Director of Partnerships for detailed duties and responsibilities). Activities during Phase 2 includes the development of sales and marketing strategies, creation of a list of target entities, creation of sales and marketing materials and implementation of a sales campaign, provision of monthly reports to keep City team apprised of prospects, leading negotiations with prospective entities, and assisting with coordinating efforts to ensure timely delivery of naming rights and sponsorship agreements. Additionally, OVGGP will provide ongoing marketing and sales/support services as required by the City.

City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
Cost Summary: OVGGP will receive fixed compensation plus commissions for services provided under the Agreement.

Fixed Compensation: The total fixed compensation for the initial three-year term of the agreement is a not-to exceed amount of $496,859. This includes costs to complete Phase 1: Asset Inventory and Valuation (up to $46,859), and costs to support OVGGP’s dedicated sales and marketing person (up to $150,000 annually, up to $140,000 in salary and benefits and up to $10,000 reimbursement for travel and entertainment expenses).

Commissioned Services: As consideration for the performance of OVGGP to network, prospect, and sell SCCC naming rights and sponsorships in Phase 2, OVGGP will be entitled to receive additional compensation in the form of commissions:

Facility Naming Rights: Commission of 13% on income from SCCC naming rights agreement procured by OVGGP for the initial term of the naming rights agreement.

Sponsorships: Commission of 18% on income from other sponsorship agreements procured by OVGGP for the initial term of the sponsorship agreements.

Revenue generated from naming rights and sponsorships will offset the cost of services provided in Phase 1 and 2.

OVG Global Partnerships
The proposed agreement with OVGGP is a separate agreement from the OVG360 Management Agreement as activities related to naming rights and sponsorships fall under a different business unit within Oak View Group. OVGGP will work collaboratively with OVG360, Levy, and the City in the coordination and implementation of naming rights and sponsorship agreements to ensure little to no disruption to day-to-day operations.

City Council Policy
City Council Policy 035 - Naming of Facilities outlines criteria and procedures for the naming of City of Santa Clara building and facilities. The policy’s overarching objectives are to establish and maintain a system to ensure that decisions on naming opportunities are made in an equitable and consistent manner and that the naming actions maintain current and future alignment with the City’s Mission Statement and Code of Ethics and Values.

While City Council Policy 035 includes naming rights and sponsorships, the SCCC is unique from other City facilities and the approval process as outlined in City Council Policy 035 would not apply.

The SCCC is one of the City’s lines of business, its uses are commercial in nature, and it serves to generate revenue by attracting and hosting local, state, national and international events.

Additionally, with the need to execute SCCC naming rights and sponsorships agreements prior to 2026, timing is of the essence and a naming rights agreement will be brought forth to City Council directly.

Naming Rights and Sponsorship Agreements Approval Authority Naming rights are the highest level of sponsorship and as noted previously, a SCCC naming rights agreement will be subject to City Council approval. As sponsorships come in many forms, at varying levels, and may change frequently for different purposes, staff is recommending that City Council City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
delegate authority to the City Manager to negotiate and execute sponsorship agreements related to the naming of SCCC assets and for sponsorship agreements valued up to $1,000,000, not including the principal naming rights partner for the Convention Center and the Mission City Ballroom.

Delegated authority to the City Manager will allow for a high volume of agreements to be reviewed and processed expeditiously in a shorter amount of time. Example areas in the facility and service categories that may be sponsored under $1,000,000 include, but are not limited to:
· Lobby spaces
· Entry ways
· Outdoor patio
· Conference/meeting rooms
· Exhibit hall
· Pouring rights (beverage sponsorship)
Table 2 below demonstrates the proposed approval authority levels for sponsorship agreements.

Table 2
Organization Role
OVGGP Responsible for valuation, sales and marketing, prospecting, proposing sponsors to City, negotiating agreement terms in coordination with the City Manager’s Office.

OVG360 Approval of sponsorship agreements obtained by OVG360 through its normal course of business (i.e., related to events that take place at the SCCC; sponsorship agreements related to advertising within the SCCC). These types of sponsorships fall under OVG30’s purview, as an agent of the City, under the current Management Agreement.

City Manager Approval of sponsorship agreements valued up to $1,000,000, including the naming of SCCC assets, with the exception of the principal naming rights partner for the Convention Center and the Mission City Ballroom.

City Council Approval of sponsorship agreements valued at more than $1,000,000 and the SCCC naming rights agreement.

Proposed SCCC Naming Rights and Sponsorships Guidelines As SCCC naming rights and sponsorships is a new undertaking for the City, standard guidelines do not currently exist. Staff are working to establish criteria by which the City may accept sponsors for the SCCC. Initially proposed guidelines and restrictions are as follows:

Proposed Guidelines
· The City shall retain ownership and control of the venue, property, programs, or services. · Sponsorships must not impair the City’s ability to manage the facility, property programs, or services.
· Sponsorships will be negotiated and decided upon on an individual basis and the agreement will not detract from the character, integrity, aesthetic quality, or safety of the property or unreasonably interfere with its use, function, and purpose. · Revenue generated by naming rights and sponsorships will be used to support enhancements City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
and capital improvement projects for the SCCC.
· The City will not endorse the products, services, or ideas of any awarded Sponsor. · Sponsorship agreements must be for a fixed term. Every sponsorship agreement will have a sunset clause.
· At its sole discretion, the City will reserve the right to terminate sponsorship agreements prior to the scheduled termination date, without refund or consideration, should it feel it is necessary to do so.
· Sponsorship agreements may only be transferred or assigned by a sponsorship holder with the consent of the City. Where a company changes its name, the naming rights may, with the consent of the City and at the expense of the naming rights holder, be modified to reflect the new name.
· There shall be no actual or implied obligation for the City to purchase the product or services of a sponsorship holder.

Prohibited Content
· Obscenity;
· Pornography;
· Incitement to imminent lawless action;
· Speech presenting a grave and imminent threat;
· Fighting words;
· Fraudulent material;
· True threats;
· Defamatory, libelous, or slanderous material;
· Solicitations to commit, or speech integral to, criminal conduct; · Promotion of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or adult entertainment; · Promotion of oil and gas products;
· Political campaign speech, or speech that supports or opposes or appears to support or a ballot measure or initiative, or refers to any person in or campaigning for public office; or · Religious speech that advocates or opposes a religion or religious belief.

Prohibited Advertising
Sponsorship materials that advocate, contain price information or are indication of associated savings or value, request a response, or contain comparative or qualitative descriptions of products, services, or organizations.

Staff will continue to refine the guidelines and will work with the City Attorney’s Office to incorporate applicable language into future sponsorship agreements for use by both OVG360 and the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

FISCAL IMPACT
The budget amendment appropriates funding for this agreement to the Materials, Services, and Supplies budget from available fund balance in the Convention Center Enterprise Fund.

Budget Amendment
FY 2024/25
Current Increase/
(Decrease)
Revised
Convention Center Enterprise Fund
Expenditures Materials, Services, and
Supplies
$ 202,655 $ 496,859 $ 699,514
Fund Balance Unrestricted Ending Fund
Balance
$ 2,435,993 ($496,859) $ 1,939,134

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Oak View Group Global Partnerships, LLC for Naming Rights and Sponsorships for the Santa Clara Convention Center consistent with the terms and form of agreement in the staff report for an initial term starting on or around July 22, 2024 and ending on or around July 21, 2027, in the amount not to exceed $496,859 plus commissions;

2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute up to two one-year extension options to extend the term and increase the compensation amount of the agreement to $796,859 plus commissions, subject to budget appropriations;

3. Authorize the City Manager to make minor modifications to the agreement, if needed.

4. Approve and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute sponsorship agreements valued up to $1,000,000, including the naming of SCCC assets with the exception of the principal naming rights partner for the Convention Center and the Mission City Ballroom.

5. Approve the FY 2024/25 budget amendment in the Convention Center Enterprise Fund to increase the Materials, Services, and Supplies budget in the amount of $496,859 and decrease in the unrestricted ending fund balance in the amount of $496,859 (five affirmative Council votes required for the use of unused balances).

6. All agreements to be subject to review and approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Reviewed by: Chuck Baker, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-547 Agenda Date: 7/16/2024

ATTACHMENTS

1. Agreement for Services Between the City of Santa Clara, California, and OVG Global Partnerships, LLC.

2. Director of Partnerships Job Description
City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 8 Printed on 7/12/2024
powered by Legistar™
Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 1
Rev. 07-01-18
EBIX Insurance No. *S20000_____

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES

BETWEEN THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND

OVG GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS, LLC

PREAMBLE
This Agreement is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City) and OVG Global Partnerships, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Contractor). City and Contractor may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.”

RECITALS
A. Parties intend to set forth the rights, duties and responsibilities of the Parties in connection with venue naming rights, marketing and sponsorship sales related to the Santa Clara Convention Center (“SCCC”);
B. City desires to secure the services more fully described in this Agreement, at Exhibit A, entitled “Scope of Services”;
C. Contractor represents that it, and its subcontractors, if any, have the professional qualifications, expertise, necessary licenses, and desire to provide certain goods and/or required services of the quality and type which meet objectives and requirements of City; and,
D. The Parties have specified herein the terms and conditions under which such services will be provided and paid for.

The Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS
The documents forming the entire Agreement between City and Contractor shall consist of these Terms and Conditions and the following Exhibits and Documents:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Schedule of Fees
Exhibit C – Insurance Requirements
Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 2
Rev. 07-01-18
The documents listed below, which Contractor acknowledges having submitted to City and which are on file with the City Clerk, are incorporated by reference:

OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Best and Final Offer, submitted to City April 24, 2024
OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Proposal, dated April 8, 2024 This Agreement, including the Exhibits and other documents set forth above, contains all the agreements, representations, and understandings of the Parties, and supersedes and replaces any previous agreements, representations, and understandings, whether oral or written. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any of the Exhibits and the Terms and Conditions, the Terms and Conditions shall govern and control.

2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
A. Initial Term. Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on July 22, 2024, and terminate on July 21, 2027.

B. Option Terms. Upon expiration of the Initial Term, City has the option and sole discretion to extend this Agreement for up to two additional one-year terms by serving notice to Contractor prior to the end of the existing term, with the final term ending on July 21, 2029 assuming all options are exercised. The Initial Term plus any such renewal terms is sometimes referred to herein as the “Term”.

Initial Term
July 22, 2024 – July 21, 2025
July 22, 2025 – July 21, 2026
July 22, 2026 – July 21, 2027
Option Term One Renewal
July 22, 2027 – July 21, 2028
Option Term Two Renewal
July 22, 2028 – July 21, 2029
C. No Automatic Renewals. There shall be no automatic renewal of this Agreement upon the expiration of the Initial Term or either Option Terms.

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES & PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
Contractor shall perform those Services specified in Exhibit A within the time stated in Exhibit A. Time is of the essence.

Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 3
Rev. 07-01-18

4. WARRANTY
Contractor expressly warrants that all materials and services covered by this Agreement shall be fit for the purpose intended, shall be free from defect and shall conform to the specifications, requirements, and instructions upon which this Agreement is based. Contractor agrees to promptly replace or correct any incomplete, inaccurate, or defective Services at no further cost to City when defects are due to the negligence, errors, or omissions of Contractor. If Contractor fails to promptly correct or replace materials or services, City may make corrections or replace materials or services and charge Contractor for the cost incurred by City. Contractor expressly disclaims all other warranties in connection with the Services, including, without limitation, any warranties that Contractor will be successful in obtaining any sponsorships or achieving any level of sponsorship revenues.

5. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR - STANDARD OF CARE
Contractor represents and maintains that it has the expertise in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services, and its duties and obligations, expressed and implied, contained herein, and City expressly relies upon Contractor’s representations regarding its skills and knowledge. Contractor shall perform such Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with industry standards for public assembly venue sales services in the State of California.

6. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
A. Fixed Compensation. In consideration for Contractor’s complete performance of Services, City shall pay Contractor for all materials provided and Services rendered by Contractor in accordance with Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES.”
B. Total fixed maximum compensation of this Agreement is Four Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand, Eight Hundred Fifty-Nine Dollars ($496,859), subject to budget appropriations, which includes all payments that may be authorized for Services and for expenses, supplies, materials, and equipment required to perform the Services. All work performed or materials provided in excess of the maximum compensation shall be at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall not be entitled to any payment above the maximum compensation under any circumstance.

C. Commissioned Services. As consideration for the performance of the Contractor to network, prospect, and sell venue naming rights and sponsorships, Contractor shall be entitled to receive additional compensation in the form of commissions upon the City’s collection of such revenue in accordance with Exhibit B, “entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES.’
Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 4
Rev. 07-01-18

7. TERMINATION
A. Termination for Convenience. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause or penalty, by giving not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice to Contractor.

B. Termination for Default. If Contractor fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Contractor.

C. Upon termination, each Party shall assist the other in arranging an orderly transfer and close-out of services. As soon as possible following the notice of termination, but no later than ten (10) days after the notice of termination, Contractor will deliver to City all City information or material that Contractor has in its possession.

8. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
City and Contractor bind themselves, their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written approval of City. Contractor shall not hire subcontractors without express written permission from City.

Contractor shall be as fully responsible to City for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, as Contractor is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by it.

9. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement shall not be construed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action under this Agreement for any cause whatsoever.

10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Contractor and all person(s) employed by or contracted with Contractor to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement are independent contractors and do not act as agent(s) or employee(s) of City. Contractor has full rights to manage its employees in their performance of Services under this Agreement.

11. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIAL
All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, manufacturing procedures, data, drawings, descriptions, documents, discussions or other information developed or received by or for Contractor and all other written information submitted to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Contractor and shall not, without the prior written consent of City, Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 5
Rev. 07-01-18
be used for any purposes other than the performance of the Services nor be disclosed to an entity not connected with performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to Contractor which is otherwise known to Contractor or becomes generally known to the related industry shall be deemed confidential.

12. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL
All material, which shall include, but not be limited to, data, sketches, tracings, drawings, plans, diagrams, quantities, estimates, specifications, proposals, tests, maps, calculations, photographs, reports, designs, technology, programming, works of authorship and other material developed, collected, prepared or caused to be prepared under this Agreement shall be the property of City but Contractor may retain and use copies thereof. City shall not be limited in any way or at any time in its use of said material. However, Contractor shall not be responsible for damages resulting from the use of said material for work other than Project, including, but not limited to, the release of this material to third parties.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, City acknowledges that the Services and any resulting deliverables may include designs, concepts, techniques, specifications, information, materials, documentation, software programs, products collections, samples, knowledge, research, systems, methods, templates, procedures, processes, prototypes, protocols, pictures and other artistic works, know-how, applications, registrations, inventions (whether or not patentable), works of authorship, or other intellectual property developed, owned and/or used in whole or in part by Contractor pursuant to a valid license, including all worldwide rights in any of the above under patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other tangible or intellectual property law, whether prior or subsequent to the date of this Agreement (collectively, “Contractor Intellectual Property”). Contractor Intellectual Property and all rights therein, including any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right associated with Contractor Intellectual Property shall be owned exclusively by Contractor or its licensors, as the case may be. To the extent necessary to use the Services or any resulting deliverables as contemplated by this Agreement, Contractor hereby grants to City a nonexclusive, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the Contractor Intellectual Property contained in the Services and any resulting deliverables.

13. RIGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONTRACTOR
City, through its authorized employees, representatives or agents shall have the right during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date of final payment for goods or services provided under this Agreement, to audit the books and records of Contractor relating to this Agreement for the purpose of verifying any and all charges made by Contractor in connection with Contractor compensation under this Agreement, including termination of Contractor.

Contractor agrees to maintain sufficient books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles to establish the correctness of all Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 6
Rev. 07-01-18
charges submitted to City. Any expenses not so recorded shall be disallowed by City. Contractor shall bear the cost of the audit if the audit determines that there has been a substantial billing deviation in excess of five (5) percent adverse to the City.

Contractor shall submit to City any and all reports concerning its performance under this Agreement that may be requested by City in writing. Contractor agrees to assist City in meeting City’s reporting requirements to the State and other agencies with respect to Contractor’s Services hereunder.

14. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
A. To the extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, including all costs and attorney’s fees in providing a defense to any such claim or other action, and whether sounding in law, contract, tort, or equity, in any manner arising from, or alleged to arise in whole or in part from, or in any way connected with the Services performed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement – including claims of any kind by Contractor’s employees or persons contracting with Contractor to perform any portion of the Scope of Services – and shall expressly include passive or active negligence by City connected with the Services. However, the obligation to indemnify shall not apply if such liability is ultimately adjudicated to have arisen through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of City; the obligation to defend is not similarly limited.

B. Contractor’s obligation to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless in full City and City’s employees, shall specifically extend to any and all employment-related claims of any type brought by employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other agents of Contractor, against City (either alone, or jointly with Contractor), regardless of venue/jurisdiction in which the claim is brought and the manner of relief sought.

C. To the extent Contractor is obligated to provide health insurance coverage to its employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (“Act”) and/or any other similar federal or state law, Contractor warrants that it is meeting its obligations under the Act and will fully indemnify and hold harmless City for any penalties, fines, adverse rulings, or tax payments associated with Contractor’s responsibilities under the Act.

15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
During the term of this Agreement, and for any time period set forth in Exhibit C, Contractor shall provide and maintain in full force and effect, at no cost to City, insurance policies as set forth in Exhibit C.

Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 7
Rev. 07-01-18

16. WAIVER
Contractor agrees that waiver by City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. Neither City’s review, acceptance nor payments for any of the Services required under this Agreement shall be constructed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.

17. NOTICES
All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to City addressed as follows:

City of Santa Clara
Attention: City Manager’s Office
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
and by e-mail at [email protected]
And to Contractor addressed as follows:

OVG Global Partnerships, LLC
5050 S. Syracuse St., Suite 800
Greenwood Village, CO 80237
and by e-mail at [email protected]
The workday the e-mail was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given.

An e-mail transmitted after 1:00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the following business day.

18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state, and local government as it pertains to Contractor’s performance of the Services under this Agreement, including but not limited to “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” (“SCCC”). In particular, Contractor’s attention is called to the regulations regarding Campaign Contributions (SCCC Chapter 2.130), Lobbying (SCCC Chapter 2.155), Minimum Wage (SCCC Chapter 3.20), Business Tax Certificate (SCCC section 3.40.060), and Food and Beverage Service Worker Retention (SCCC Chapter 9.60), as such Chapters or Sections may be amended from time to time or renumbered. Additionally, Contractor has read and agrees to comply with City’s Ethical Standards (http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=58299).

Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 8
Rev. 07-01-18

19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Contractor certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no City officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of Contractor and that no person associated with Contractor has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Agreement. Contractor is familiar with the provisions of California Government Code section 87100 and following and certifies that it does not know of any facts which would violate these code provisions. Contractor will advise City if a conflict arises.

20. FAIR EMPLOYMENT
Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex, color, religion, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, military and veteran status, or ethnic background, in violation of federal, state, or local law.

21. NO USE OF CITY NAME OR EMBLEM
Contractor shall not use City’s name, insignia, or emblem, or distribute any information related to services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without express written consent of City.

22. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. The venue of any suit filed by either Party shall be vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or if appropriate, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California.

23. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
In case any one or more of the provisions in this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.

24. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment duly authorized and executed by the Parties to this Agreement.

Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC Page 9
Rev. 07-01-18

25. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

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

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

OVG GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS, LLC
A Delaware limited liability corporation
Dated:

By (Signature):

Name:

Title:

Principal Place of
Business Address:
2020 Syracuse St.

Denver, CO 80211
Email Address:

Telephone: ( )
Fax: ( )
“CONTRACTOR”
Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit A-Scope of Services Page 1 Rev. 07-01-18

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Services to be performed for the City by the Contractor under this Agreement are set forth below.

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1.The Santa Clara Convention Center (“SCCC”) is owned by the City of Santa Clara is located directly across from Levi’s® Stadium, home of the San Francisco Forty Niners football team, The Stadium will be the host venue for Super Bowl LX (SBLX) in February 2026 and the FIFA World Cup (FW2026) in June – July 2026. Phases 1 and 2 as described below must be completed prior to December 31, 2025, in preparation for SBLX and FWC26.

1.2.Contractor has the right and shall be solely responsible for and may sell SCCC naming rights and sponsorships on such terms, conditions and at such prices as recommended by the Contractor and approved by the City.

1.3.Contractor shall be acting as an independent contractor and does not have authority to act for or bind the City. Naming rights and/or sponsorship agreements are subject to City Council and/or City Manager approval. All naming rights and sponsorships agreements shall be between the City and the sponsor.

2. PROJECT WORK PLAN AND DELIVERABLES

2.1.PHASE 1: Asset Inventory and Valuation – To be completed within the first 90 days of contract execution (July 2024 – October 2024):

2.1.1. Contractor shall be responsible for identifying new and appraising existing sponsorships and naming rights opportunities.

2.1.2. Contractor shall identify assets throughout the Santa Clara Convention Center (“SCCC”) that warrant inclusion in an integrated partnership/sponsorship program.

2.1.3. Contractor shall provide an asset inventory and establish marketing sponsorship rate for each SCCC asset.

2.1.4. Contractor shall identify other value-add items the SCCC can include in a sponsorship/marketing packet that may appeal to prospective partners.

2.1.5. Upon visiting and inspecting sponsorships and/or site plans, Contractor shall develop and provide City with a Sponsorship Strategy and Rate Card including all the methodology to issue a final “opinion of value” for each Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit A-Scope of Services Page 2 Rev. 07-01-18
asset, including a report outlining comparable naming rights deals in the market, possible sponsorship packages and their associated value, identifying target sponsoring organizations and discussing the overall marketing sales strategy.

2.1.6. Contractor shall develop sales and 360-degree marketing strategies including types of sales and marketing collateral that will be developed to market the SCCC nationally.

2.2.PHASE 2: Sales and Marketing of Naming Rights and Sponsorships – To be completed within 14 months of the completion of Phase 1 (October 2024 – December 2025).

2.2.1. Contractor shall hire a dedicated staff person responsible for generating revenue from local, regional, and national companies through the sale of integrated sponsorships and naming rights partnerships throughout the Santa Clara Convention Center. This position shall serve as the department head for local operations, be responsible for the sales and service for all corporate partnerships and be responsible for achieving measurable financial results.

2.2.2. Contractor shall create a list of target entities for naming rights and sponsorships for City review including deep category analysis and brand alignment. City shall approve prospect list prior to Contractor team engaging in marketplace.

2.2.3. Contractor shall create digital sales and marketing materials to communicate the value of securing naming rights or sponsorships of SCCC assets.

2.2.4. Contractor shall provide monthly reports to keep City team apprised of prospecting status.

2.2.5. Contractor shall lead negotiation with prospective entities to secure naming rights and sponsorships on behalf of the City.

2.2.6. Venue naming rights and/or sponsorship agreements (“Sponsorship Agreements”) are subject to City Council and/or City Manager approval.

Once Contractor has secured interest from a prospective and negotiated deliverables and cost of the opportunity, Contractor shall attend City Council and related meetings, as required, to facilitate the approval of naming rights opportunity and associated contracted sponsor (a “Sponsor”).

2.2.7. Once a Sponsorship Agreement is approved by City and executed, during the Term of the Agreement, Contractor shall ensure both the City and corporate sponsor activate and perform all elements of each such Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit A-Scope of Services Page 3 Rev. 07-01-18
Sponsorship Agreement, provided that such obligations shall be solely to oversee performance of Sponsorship Agreements, and Contractor shall have no liability or responsibility to the extent either City or a Sponsor fail to perform its obligations under a Sponsorship Agreement, and Contractor’s obligations hereunder with respect to enforcing Sponsorship Agreements shall be limited to notifying City of a Sponsor’s noncompliance, and Contractor shall have no rights or authority to deliver legal notices or exercise any remedies under Sponsorship Agreements. Contractor shall provide contact who will be responsible for coordinating efforts between City and Sponsors to ensure the timely delivery of all contracted Sponsorship Agreement elements.

2.2.8. Contractor shall provide ongoing auditing and reporting of Sponsorship Agreement performance on a monthly basis. Ongoing auditing and reporting will ideally lead to case studies that Contractor can produce to elevate other City naming rights opportunities that remain available.

2.2.9. Contractor shall provide professional office and reporting services.

2.2.10. Contractor shall provide ongoing marketing and sales/support services as required by the City.

Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit B-Schedule of Fees Page 1 Rev. 07-01-18

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF FEES
Contractor will bill City as stipulated below for Services provided by Contractor in a format approved by City and subject to verification and approval by City. City will pay Contractor within thirty (30) days of City’s receipt of an approved invoice.

1. TOTAL FIXED COMPENSATION

1.1.The total fixed maximum compensation of this Agreement is Four Hundred Ninety-six Thousand, Eight Hundred Fifty-Nine Dollars ($496,859.00) during the Initial Term of the Agreement.

1.2.Phase 1: Asset Inventory and Valuation Fee

1.2.1. City shall pay Contractor a not-to-exceed amount of Forty-Six Thousand, Eight-Hundred Fifty-Nine Dollars ($46,859.00) for work completed in Phase

1. 1.2.2. The hours to complete Phase 1 requirements is estimated below:

Department Title Hourly Rate Est. Hours for
Project
Analytics Coordinator 160
Analytics Manager 160
Analytics Senior Director 120
Solutions Senior Director 16
Solutions Senior Manager 16
Creative Directors 8

1.2.3. Contractor shall bill City on a monthly basis for Phase 1 work. The final payment for Phase 1 work shall be paid upon the Contractor’s satisfactory submission of agreed upon Phase 1 deliverables to City.

1.3.Phase 2: Sales and Marketing of Naming Rights and Sponsorships.

1.3.1. City shall cover costs (salary, taxes, benefits) associated with Contractor’s full-time dedicated salesperson, titled the Director of Partnerships, not to exceed One-Hundred Twenty-Thousand Dollars ($140,000.00) annually.

1.3.2. City shall reimburse Contractor for travel and entertainment expenses (T&E) not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) annually.

Reasonable fiscal stewardship shall be exercised when using T&E funds.

Each invoice submitted is subject to verification and approval by the City and shall include reasonable supporting documentation evidencing that Contractor incurred the invoiced expense. City shall not be responsible for any additional T&E expenses in the event this amount is exceeded.

Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit B-Schedule of Fees Page 2 Rev. 07-01-18

1.3.3. Contractor will bill City on a quarterly basis for Phase 2 work.

1.3.4. The total maximum fixed compensation City shall pay Contractor for all fees, costs, and expenses for Phase 2 provided under this Agreement is Four-Hundred Fifty-Thousand Dollars ($450,000) during the initial threeyear term of the Agreement.

1.3.5. No additional services shall be performed unless both Parties execute an Amendment outlining the additional services and compensation for such services.

2. COMMISSIONED SERVICES

2.1.Based on collections from sponsors, City agrees to compensate Contractor as follows:

2.1.1. Venue Naming Rights: Commission of 13% on income from venue naming rights agreement procured by Contractor for the initial term of the naming rights agreement.

2.1.2. Sponsorships: Commission of 18% on income from sponsorship agreements procured by Contractor for the initial term of the sponsorship agreements.

2.2.Upon collection of naming rights/and or sponsorships income received by the City, City shall provide Contractor notice of its net revenue share within ninety (90) days of receipt, accompanied by documentation supporting the City’s calculation of Contractor compensation.

Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit C-Insurance Page 1 Rev. 07-01-18

EXHIBIT C

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

A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

1. Commercial General Liability Insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01. Policy limits are subject to review, but shall in no event be less than, the following:
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence
$2,000,000 General Aggregate
$2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate
$1,000,000 Personal Injury

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

3. The following provisions shall apply to the Commercial Liability policy as well as any umbrella policy maintained by the Contractor to comply with the insurance requirements of this Agreement:
a. Coverage shall be on a “pay on behalf” basis with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits;
b. There shall be no cross-liability exclusion which precludes coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another; and c. Coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made, or a suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

B. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE
Business automobile liability insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as ISO form CA 00 01 with policy limits a minimum limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident using, or providing coverage at Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit C-Insurance Page 2 Rev. 07-01-18
least as broad as, Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01. Liability coverage shall apply to all owned (if any), non-owned and hired autos.

C. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

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

3. This policy must include a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents.

D. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the Contractor. Covered services as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim or two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate. Any coverage containing a deductible or self-retention must first be approved in writing by the City Attorney’s Office.

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

1. Additional Insureds. City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents are hereby added as additional insureds in respect to liability arising out of Contractor’s work for City, using Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 20 10 11 85, or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent.

2. Primary and non-contributing. Each insurance policy provided by Contractor shall contain language or be endorsed to contain wording making it primary insurance as respects to, and not requiring contribution Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit C-Insurance Page 3 Rev. 07-01-18
from, any other insurance which the indemnities may possess, including any self-insurance or self-insured retention they may have. Any other insurance indemnities may possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with Contractor’s insurance.

3. Cancellation.
a. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided due to non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of non-renewal.
b. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided for any cause save and except non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of nonrenewal.

4. Other Endorsements. Other endorsements may be required for policies other than the commercial general liability policy if specified in the description of required insurance set forth in Sections A through E of this Exhibit C, above.

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

1. Contractor agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the Services, who is brought onto or involved in the performance of the Services by Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor, except as with respect to limits. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor agrees that upon request by City, all agreements with, and insurance compliance documents provided by, such subcontractors and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.

2. Contractor agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Contractor for the cost of additional insurance coverage required Agreement with OVG Global Partnerships, LLC/Exhibit C-Insurance Page 4 Rev. 07-01-18
by this Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.

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

G. EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE
Prior to commencement of any Services under this Agreement, Contractor, and each and every subcontractor (of every tier) shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide and maintain not less than the minimum insurance coverage with the endorsements and deductibles indicated in this Agreement. Such insurance coverage shall be maintained with insurers, and under forms of policies, satisfactory to City and as described in this Agreement. Contractor shall file with the City all certificates and endorsements for the required insurance policies for City’s approval as to adequacy of the insurance protection.

H. EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Contractor or its insurance broker shall provide the required proof of insurance compliance, consisting of Insurance Services Office (ISO) endorsement forms or their equivalent and the ACORD form 25-S certificate of insurance (or its equivalent), evidencing all required coverage shall be delivered to City, or its representative as set forth below, at or prior to execution of this Agreement.

Upon City’s request, Contractor shall submit to City copies of the actual insurance policies or renewals or replacements. Unless otherwise required by the terms of this Agreement, all certificates, endorsements, coverage verifications and other items required to be delivered to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be mailed to:

EBIX Inc.

City of Santa Clara, City Manager’s Office
P.O. Box 100085 – S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John’s Creek, GA 30097
Telephone number: 951-766-2280
Fax number: 770-325-0409
Email address: [email protected]

QUALIFYING INSURERS
All of the insurance companies providing insurance for Contractor shall have, and provide written proof of, an A. M. Best rating of at least A minus 6 (A- VI) or shall be an insurance company of equal financial stability that is approved by the City or its insurance compliance representatives.

OAK VIEW GROUP – GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS
DIRECTOR OF PARTNERSHIPS – (SANTA CLARA, CA)
Oak View Group is a sports and entertainment company engaged in a wide variety of activities, including arena development, facility management, arena and stadium alliance, sponsorships and partnerships, security services, publications, conferences, and consulting. The company, privately held, is headquartered in Denver, Colorado with offices throughout the world. This position on our Global Partnerships team is located at the Santa Clara Convention Center located in Santa Clara, CA.

Job Summary/General Description:

This position will be responsible for generating revenue from local, regional, and national companies through the sale of integrated sponsorships and naming rights partnerships throughout the Santa Clara Convention Center. This position will serve as the department head for local operations and be responsible for the sales and service for all corporate partnerships. Compensation will consist of base salary plus sales commissions. This position will be responsible for achieving measurable financial results.

Duties and Responsibilities:
• Work with VP of OVG Global Partnerships to develop a strategic plan to drive revenue for the venue.
• Work with the Senior Director, Brand Consulting and Solutions to identify and quantify revenue generating opportunities and locations throughout the venue. • Responsible for establishing new marketing partnerships to achieve annual revenue goals. • Conduct cold calls as a way of securing appointments to sell to new prospects among local and national companies.
• Analyze specific marketing needs of prospects based on partner objectives, market strategies, category potential, activation potential and financials. • Support and work closely with regional management and on-site local management. • Effectively present proposals in front of individuals and large groups. • Develop meaningful business relationships with existing and potential sponsors. • Communicate well across all areas of the company including broadcast, accounting, marketing, community relations and ticket operations.
• Work closely with the Operations and Marketing teams to ensure that current clients receive superior service and fulfillment of each contract.
• Develops sales action plans to ensure hitting budget goals. • Prospect, sell, cultivate, and maintain the corporate sponsorships for the venue in both new and renewal business.
• Execute all aspects of corporate partnership fulfillment. • Develop relationships with brands in region for potential synergy across OVG portfolio. • Develop relationships with other OVG venues in the region for potential synergies with corporate partners and prospects.
• Work with outside agencies to get all corporate partnerships signage created and placed. • Create annual recaps for corporate partners, when applicable. • Service all corporate sponsorships through various means including direct contact, newsletters, corporate partner gatherings, etc.
• Create new client initiatives to better serve the corporate partners. • Design of sales proposals and presentations for potential corporate partners. • Work and attend events, promotions, and OVG360 Corporate Sales events.

Qualifications (educational criteria, experience and other basic knowledge requirements):
• Bachelor’s degree or the equivalent training & experience. • 5+ years of sales experience with emphasis in major league team sports, larger market media (TV, radio) and/or sponsorship sales.
• Proven track record of developing and managing highly strategic corporate partnerships; Strong prospecting, analytical, presentation and communication skills. • Proven success in establishing and meeting challenging sales objectives in a high profile, competitive marketplace.
• Comfortable managing tight deadlines and meeting aggressive sales goals and expectations. • Strong professional relationship skills; Ability to establish and maintain long-term strategic relationships with corporate clients, direct reports and co-workers. • Must be a skilled negotiator with the ability to effectively represent the standards and philosophy of the department.
• Strong time management and organizational skills.
• Experience with Salesforce/KORE (CRM) is preferred
• Able to work non-traditional hours, in non-traditional settings. • Must be highly self-motivated and adept at working both independently and as part of a team. • Manage multiple projects simultaneously in a fast-paced environment. • Ability to work nights, all events, weekends, events and holidays as required.

Intellectual/Social, Physical Demands and Work Environment:
• The intellectual/social, physical demands and work environment characteristics described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

Intellectual/Social demands:
• While performing the essential functions of this job, the employee is continuously asked to multi-task under time limits. Position requires constant attention to precise details and accuracy of specified standards including following simple to complex (more than 3 steps) instructions, and concentration which frequently extends beyond 30 minutes at a time. Employees in this role will constantly be in leadership role; this requires directing others either verbally or in writing to complete tasks in prescribed time frame. This position also requires constant use of interpersonal skills including but not limited to: ability to direct/motivate/inform staff and foster collaboration, being able to recognize and resolve conflicts, being able to openly communicate in writing and verbally with clients.

Physical demands:
• While performing the essential functions of the job, the employee constantly operates a computer and other office devices such telephones, copy machines, fax machines, etc; occasionally moves about inside the office to access storage areas, cabinets and office machinery; constantly moves about the facility/outside the facility to meet with clients/supervise staff; constantly communicates via telephone, email and in-person with others to exchange accurate information.

Work environment:
• The essential functions of this position are performed indoors. The noise level in the work environment can range from minimal to loud during events depending on the employee’s location and is minimal during non-event times.

EEO Statement
• Oak View Group is committed to equal employment opportunity. We will not discriminate against employees or applicants for employment on any legally recognized basis (“protected class”) including, but not limited to veteran status, uniform service member status, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, genetic information or any other protected class under federal, state, or local law.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentJuly 16, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
July 16, 2024