Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, November 19, 2024 (part 10 of 11)

Rev. 04/28/2023

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & PLAT
TRACT ONE:

ALL OF PARCELS 7 AND 8, AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP BEING A SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF PARCEL 3, BOOK 368 PM 31, 32, 33 AND A PORTION OF THE LANDS FORMERLY OF FESPAR ENTERPRISES, INC., DESCRIBED IN PARCEL ONE OF 0426 OFFICIAL RECORDS 659", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 16, 1976 IN BOOK 368 OF MAPS, PAGES 36 AND 37.

TRACT TWO:

ALL OF PARCELS 35, 36 AND 37, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 6 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 3399 RECORDED IN BOOK 368 OF MAPS, PAGES 36 AND 37 AND ALSO BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS 26, 30 AND 31 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 386 OF MAPS, PAGES 4 AND 5, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS",

WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JANUARY 25, 1977 IN BOOK 387 OF MAPS, PAGE 44.

TRACT THREE:

PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED AUGUST 07, 1978 IN BOOK 424 OF MAPS, PAGE(S) 24, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION GRANTED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 09, 1987 IN BOOK K287, PAGE 1136, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THAT CERTAIN POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE (55.00 FEET HALF STREET) WITH THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN PARCEL 2 AND PARCEL 3, AS SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE AND SAID COMMON LINE ARE SHOWN UPON SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE NORTH 89° 28' 06" WEST 42.75 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE AND PROCEEDING SOUTH 86° 28' 04" EAST 42.81 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID COMMON LINE BETWEEN PARCELS 2 AND 3; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID COMMON LINE NORTH 00° 31' 54" EAST 2.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

TRACT FOUR:

ALL OF PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP BEING ALL OF PARCELS 41 AND 42, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN "PARCEL MAP" RECORDED IN BOOK 405 OF MAPS, PAGE 3, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 07, 1978 IN BOOK 424, OF MAPS, PAGE 24.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY GRANT DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 09, 1987 IN BOOK K287, PAGE 1123, OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THAT CERTAIN POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE (55.00 FEET HALF STREET) WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, AS SAID DRIVE AND PARCEL ARE SHOWN UPON THE MAP ABOVE REFERRED TO, SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 3 ALSO BEING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 40, AS SAID LINE AND PARCEL 40 ARE SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 405 OF MAPS, PAGE 3, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE PROCEEDING WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE NORTH 89° 28' 06" WEST 200.00 FEET TO THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN SAID PARCEL 3 AND PARCEL 2, AS SAID PARCELS ARE SHOWN UPON THE FIRST PARCEL MAP ABOVE REFERRED TO; THENCE PROCEEDING DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 2 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID COMMON LINE, SOUTH 00° 31' 54" WEST 2.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86° 28' 04" EAST 200.27 FEET TO SAID COMMON LINE BETWEEN PARCEL 3 AND PARCEL 40; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID COMMON LINE NORTH 00° 31' 54" EAST 12.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

TRACT FIVE:

ALL OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP BEING ALL OF PARCEL 41 AND 42, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP, RECORDED IN BOOK 405 OF MAPS, PAGE 3 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 07, 1978 IN BOOK 424 OF MAPS, PAGE 24.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RECORDED MAY 15, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14185766, AS FOLLOWS:

ALL OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 1, AS SAID PARCEL 1 IS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 424 OF MAPS, PAGE 24, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF TASMAN DRIVE AND PATRICK

HENRY DRIVE AS SAID DRIVES ARE SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID TASMAN DRIVE SOUTH 82° 00' 43" EAST 159.80 FEET TO A CURVE; THENCE

CONTINUING EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF TASMAN DRIVE ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WITH A RADIUS OF 2864.84 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 31' 41" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 76.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6° 27' 35" WEST 55.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE AND TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTH 88° 21' 09" WEST 32.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7° 09' 18" WEST 3.43 FEET; THENCE FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF NORTH 82° 56' 21" WEST ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WITH A RADIUS OF

30.2 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 56' 35" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 50.19 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 7° 54' 36" EAST 3.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE NORTH 82° 00' 43" WEST 65.02 FEET TO A CURVE; THENCE

LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE AND PROCEEDING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WITH A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 26' 29" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 55.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51° 02' 20" WEST 1.32 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PATRICK HENRY DRIVE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF NORTH 31° 10' 39" EAST ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY WITH A RADIUS OF

50.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66° 48' 38" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 58.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE; THENCE CONTINUING EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 82° 00' 43" EAST 69.18 FEET TO A CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF TASMAN DRIVE FROM A TANGENT BEARING OF SOUTH 82° 00' 44" EAST ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY WITH A RADIUS OF 2919.84 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 31' 41" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 77.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

TRACT SIX:

ALL OF PARCEL 40, AS SAID PARCEL IS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS 22 AND 23 ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 386 OF MAPS, PAGES 4 AND 5...", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1977 IN BOOK 405 OF MAPS, PAGE 3.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED JANUARY 26, 1988 IN BOOK K428, PAGE 465, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 3 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
TRANSIT DISTRICT BY THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 08, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14176548, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

TRACT SEVEN:

ALL THAT PORTION OF DEMOCRACY WAY LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF OLD

IRONSIDES DRIVE AND EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PATRICK HENRY DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED MARCH 12, 1976 IN BOOK 368 OF MAPS, PAGES 36 AND 37, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.

TRACT EIGHT:

EASEMENT RESERVED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 3, 1950 IN BOOK 2089, PAGE 315, OFFICIAL RECORDS
[Insert Plat]
DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 1 of 7 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023

EXHIBIT B

ALLOCATION OF FAIR SHARE TRAFFIC FEES
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
Project-Specific Fair Share1
0 60 McCarthy Blvd/O'Toole Av and Montague
Expwy (CMP)
Construct a partial grade separated interchange 0.0%3 $0 0% N/A 1 20 Great America Parkway and Great
America Way
Extend WBL lane striping 13.8% $14,017 5% 184
2 53 Lick Mill Boulevard and Montague
Expressway
Extend SBL pocket 1.6% $1,657 5% 184
3 25 Great America Parkway and Patrick Henry
Drive
Class IV separated bikeway on Great America
Pkwy/ Bowers Ave (between Bay Trail & Old
Glory Lane and between US 101 & Chromite
Dr.)

15.1% $394,7824 7% 245
4 25 Great America Parkway and Patrick Henry
Drive
Hetch Hetchy trail (between Guadalupe River
Pkwy & Great America Pkwy & between Patrick
Henry Dr & Calabazas Creek Trail)

15.1% $1,490,9094 7% 245
6 20 Great America Parkway and Great
America Way
Extend SBL pocket 13.8% $43,781 11% 388
7 3 Lawrence Expwy and Sandia
Av/Lakehaven Dr
New signalized intersection at Lawrence
Expressway and Bridgewood Way/Lakewood
Dr (VTP 2040)

5.8% $30,523 14% 489
DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 2 of 7 ends

7.3% $128,886 20% 699
9 40 Mission College Blvd and Montague
Expwy (CMP)
Add 3rd EBL lane and reconfigure the north leg
to include 3 receiving lanes

4.3% $18,878 24% 839
10 41 San Tomas Expressway and Scott
Boulevard (CMP)
Reconfigure EB approach to include 3 LT lanes,
1 TH lane, and 1 shared TH/RT lane, remove
triangular islands, reduce RT radii, signal
modifications.

1.2% $27,180 40% 1,398
11 54 N. 1st Street and Montague Expressway
(CMP)
Construct a grade separated interchange 1.5% $388,103 46% 1,608 12 2 Lawrence Expressway and Tasman Drive Extend SBL pocket 1.6% $3,616 50% 1,747 13 23 Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive Extend NBL pocket 1.4% $3,300 50% 1,747 14 23 Great America Parkway and Tasman Drive Extend WBL pocket 1.4% $3,300 50% 1,747 15 31 Bowers Avenue and Central Expressway
(CMP)
Class IV separated bikeway on Great America
Pkwy/ Bowers Ave (between Bay Trail & Old
Glory Lane and between US 101 & Chromite
Dr.)

4.6% $120,436 50% 1,747
16 48 De la Cruz Boulevard and Central
Expressway (CMP)
Class IV separated bikeway on De La Cruz
Boulevard (between Central & Reed)

1.6% $14,338 58% 2,027
17 48 De la Cruz Boulevard and Central
Expressway (CMP)
Install crosswalk motion sensors, accessible
pedestrian signals, upgraded safety lighting,
travel time data collection systems, traffic
monitoring cameras, and periodic retiming of

1.6% $18,287 58% 2,027
DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 3 of 7 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
signal coordination at intersections along De La
Cruz Boulevard (Multimodal Improvement
Plan).
18 52 Agnew Rd/De La Cruz Blvd and Montague
Expwy (CMP)
Install crosswalk motion sensors, accessible
pedestrian signals, upgraded safety lighting,
travel time data collection systems, traffic
monitoring cameras, and periodic retiming of
signal coordination at intersections along
Agnew Road/De La Cruz Boulevard (Multimodal
Improvement Plan).

2.5% $81,629 58% 2,027
19 44 San Tomas Expressway and El Camino
Real (CMP)
Class IV separated bikeway on El Camino Real
(from city limit to city limit)

2.0% $
85,576
74% 2,586
20 44 San Tomas Expressway and El Camino
Real (CMP)
VTA TSP improvement at this intersection 2.0% $
1,818
74% 2,586
21 24 Great America Parkway and Old Glory
Lane
Class IV separated bikeway on Great America
Pkwy/ Bowers Ave (between Bay Trail & Old
Glory Lane and between US 101 & Chromite
Dr.)

20.4% $533,471

76% 2,656
22 45 Scott Boulevard and Central Expressway Reconfigure southbound approach on Scott Ave. to include 2 LT lanes, 2 TH lanes, and 1
exclusive RT lane, signal modifications, remove
triangular island, reduce RT radii, construct
ADA curb ramps

3.1% $
40,730
85% 2,970
23 47 Lafayette Street and Central Expressway Class IV separated bikeway on Lafayette St (between Laurelwood & Reed)

2.7% $39,839 94% 3,285
24 47 Lafayette Street and Central Expressway Remove triangular islands, reduce corner radii, realign crosswalks, and install ADA curb ramps.

2.7% $62,930 94% 3,285
DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 4 of 7 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
Cumulative Fair Share Contributions2
6 Lawrence Expressway and E. Arques Ave. Construct grade separated interchange 1.8% $291,694 Cumulative2 7 Lawrence Expressway and Kifer Road Construct grade separated interchange 1.0% $164,006 Cumulative2 8 Lawrence Expressway and Reed
Ave/Monroe St
Construct grade separated interchange 1.4% $170,924 Cumulative2 14 Old Ironsides Drive and Tasman Drive Extend WBL pocket 28.7% $62,888 Cumulative4 14 Old Ironsides Drive and Tasman Drive Spot improvements (tighten turning radii on northeast corner)

28.7% $56,913 Cumulative2
16 Old Ironsides Drive and Old Glory Lane Add NB RT lane 52.2% $198,522 Cumulative2 20 Great America Parkway and Great
America Way
Class IV separated bikeway on Great America
Pkwy/ Bowers Ave (between Bay Trail & Old
Glory and between US 101 & Chromite)

13.8% $358,959 Cumulative2
26 Great America Pkwy and Mission College
Blvd
Class IV separated bikeway on Great America
Pkwy/ Bowers Ave (between Bay Trail & Old
Glory and between US 101 & Chromite)

10.0% $261,136 Cumulative2
26 Great America Pkwy and Mission College
Blvd
Install transit signal priority, trail crossing
improvements, crosswalk motion sensors,
upgraded safety lighting, enhance crosswalks,
travel time data collection systems, adaptive
traffic signals and periodic retiming of signal

10.0% $311,418 Cumulative2
DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 5 of 7 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
coordination at intersections along Mission
College Boulevard (Multimodal Improvement
Plan).
37 Agnew/Freedom Circle E & Mission
College Blvd
Class IV bikeway on Mission College Boulevard
(between Great America & Montague)

3.3% $29,485 Cumulative2
40 Mission College Blvd and Montague
Expwy (CMP)
Class IV bikeway on Mission College Boulevard
(between Great America & Montague)

2.4% $21,543 Cumulative2
42 San Tomas Expressway and Walsh
Avenue
Class IV Separated Bikeway on Walsh Ave
(between city limit & Lafayette)

3.2% $104,623 Cumulative2
42 San Tomas Expressway and Walsh
Avenue
Spot improvements (protected intersection
consistent with VTA Bike Plan)

3.2% $63,280 Cumulative2
45 Scott Boulevard and Central Expressway Class II buffered bicycle lane on Scott Blvd (between city limit & Monroe)

3.1% $45,397 Cumulative2
45 Scott Boulevard and Central Expressway Implement bus duckouts and pedestrian pads, crosswalk motion sensors, accessible
pedestrian signals, upgraded safety lighting,
and periodic retiming of signal coordination at
intersections along Scott Boulevard (Multimodal
Improvement Plan).

3.1% $80,296 Cumulative2
46 Scott Boulevard and Walsh Avenue Class IV Separated Bikeway on Walsh Ave (between city limit & Lafayette)

4.2% $137,854 Cumulative2
50 Lick Mill Boulevard and Tasman Drive Class IV separated bikeway on Lick Mill Blvd (between Tasman & Montague)

5.7% $83,387 Cumulative2
DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 6 of 7 ends

1.1% $15,477 Cumulative2
55 Zanker Road and Montague Expressway
(CMP)
HOV-type signal improvements that could
support future Bus Rapid Transit facilities (North
San José Deficiency Plan)

0.7% $146,419 Cumulative2
56 De la Cruz Boulevard and W Trimble Road Class IV separated bikeway on De La Cruz (between Montague Park & Trimble)

1.6% $10,187 Cumulative2
Cumulative Subtotal:
$2,614,408
1Project-Specific Fair Share Contributions. The development level triggering need for improvement is shown only for intersection improvements that were identified under the background plus project scenario. For the purpose of this sensitivity analysis, residential development should be converted to non-residential floor area at a rate of 212 square feet (0.212 ksf) per dwelling unit.

The amount listed under “Fair Share Costs” column shall be paid at issuance of building permit(s) that meet or exceed the square footage total under the “Development Trigger” column. Note, certain development may trigger more than one Fair Share Costs payment depending on the development size.

Grand Total:
$6,162,396
DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 7 of 7 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
2 Cumulative Fair Share Contributions. The need for this improvement would only arise under cumulative plus project conditions. Thus, a sensitivity analysis was not conducted because the Project alone would not trigger the need for this improvement. Fair share payments towards this improvement will be collected at a rate of $0.75 per sf of non-residential development with each phase of development in proportion to the development size using the same non-residential equivalency ratio (0.212 ksf per dwelling unit).

The cumulative contribution rate has been set by adding all the cumulative fair share contributions ($2,614,408) divided by the total maximum development square footage using the residential conversion (3,100 ksf non-residential plus 1,800 x .212 ksf or 382 ksf = 3,392 ksf) or 2,614,408/3,482,000= $0.75 per square foot of non-residential development (subject to the re-conversion for residential of 0.212 ksf per unit). Note that if residential is developed on Area C, there would be sf reduction in maximum non-residential and the overall cumulative fair share contribution would be correspondingly reduced because residential has a lower traffic rate than non-residential uses.

For illustrative example only, a 500 unit residential project (or 106 ksf non-residential) would pay 106 ksf x 0.75 = $79,500 toward cumulative fair share costs. For another example only, a 500,000 office/R&D project would pay, in addition to the project-specific amounts listed under footnote 1 above, 500,000 x 0.75 = $375,000 toward cumulative fair share costs. 3 100% funded by City of San Jose under the terms of the North San Jose Settlement. 4 Subject to credits pursuant Public Works Conditions of Approval Nos. E43 and E44 in Resolution No. _________) DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 1 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023

EXHIBIT C

DEFINITIONS
“Affiliate of Developer” as defined in Section 13.3 of this Agreement. “Agreement” as defined on page 1 (first paragraph) of this Agreement. “AHP” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“Allocation of Fair Share Traffic Fees” as defined in Section 4.9 of this Agreement. “Approvals” as defined in Section 2.3 of this Agreement. “Approved Childcare Alternative” as defined in Section 4.17 of this Agreement. “Approved Grocery Store Alternative” as defined in Section 4.16 of this Agreement. “Building Permit” as defined in Section 1.2a(i) of this Agreement. “CEQA” as defined in Recital L of this Agreement.
“Changes in the Law” as defined in Section 3.1 of this Agreement. “Childcare Facility” as defined in Section 4.17 of this Agreement. “Childcare Facility Marketing Period” as defined in Section 4.17 of this Agreement. “Childcare Performance Milestone” as defined in Section 1.2a(i)(B) of this Agreement. “City” as defined on page 1 (first paragraph) of this Agreement. “COAs” as defined in Recital F of this Agreement.
“Compliance Letter” as defined in Section 8.2 of this Agreement. “Conflicting City Law” as defined in Section 3.2a of this Agreement. “Developer” as defined on page 1 (first paragraph) of this Agreement. “Development Fee Vesting Locking Periods” as defined in Section 4.1 of this Agreement. “Development Fee Vested Period” as defined in Section 4.1 of this Agreement. “Development Plan” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement. “Director” as defined in Section 8.2 of this Agreement. “Effective Date” as defined in Recital N of this Agreement.

DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 2 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
“EIR” as defined in Recital L of this Agreement.
“Existing Public Utilities” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “Fair Share Traffic Fees” as defined in Section 4.9 of this Agreement. “Fees” as defined in Section 4.1 of this Agreement.
“FMV” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement.
“General Plan Amendment” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement. “Grocery Performance Milestone” as defined in Section 1.2a(i)(A) of this Agreement. “Grocery Store” as defined in Section 4.16 of this Agreement. “Grocery Store Marketing Period" as defined in Section 4.16 of this Agreement. “gsf” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Indemnified Parties” as defined in Section 15.8 of this Agreement. “Local Rules” as defined in Section 3.4 of this Agreement. “Maintenance Period” as defined in Section 4.7b of this Agreement. “Minor Change” as defined in Section 11.2b of this Agreement. “Mitigations” as defined in Section 4.5 of this Agreement. “MMRP” as defined in Recital L of this Agreement.
“Mortgage” as defined in Section 12.1 of this Agreement. “Mortgagees” as defined in Section 12.1 of this Agreement. “Operating Memoranda” as defined in Section 22.1 of this Agreement. “Other Regulations” as defined in Section 2.4d of this Agreement. “Parties” as defined on page 1 (first paragraph) of this Agreement. “PD” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“POSP” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“Processing Fees” as defined in Section 4.2 of this Agreement. “Project” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.

DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 3 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
“Project Approvals” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement. “Property” as defined in Recital C of this Agreement.
“Public Art Funding” as defined in Section 4.8 of this Agreement. “Public Arts/Cultural Features” as defined in Section 4.8 of this Agreement. “Rezoning” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“R&D” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Relocation Cost” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “Relocation Work” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “ROW Appraisal” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “SCCC” as defined in Recital B of this Agreement.
“SOC” as defined in Recital L of this Agreement.
“Street Easement Vacation” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “Subsequent Project Approval” as defined in Section 2.3 of this Agreement. “SVP” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Target Maximum Maintenance Cost” as defined in Section 4.7a of this Agreement. “TDMP” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“Term” as defined in Section 1.1 of this Agreement.
“Transfer” as defined in Section 13.1 of this Agreement. “Vested Elements” as defined in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. “VTM” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.

Ordinance/ Mission Point Development Agreement Option B Page 1 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AND KYLLI, INC. FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4995 PATRICK HENRY DRIVE
AND 3005 DEMOCRACY WAY, SANTA CLARA
SCH#2018072068
PLN2017-12924 (General Plan Amendment)
PLN2018-13400 (Rezoning)
PLN22-00635 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map)
PLN21-15387 (Development Agreement)
Revised Project, “Option B”
WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.51 (“Development Agreement Act”) authorize cities to enter into binding development agreements with owners of real property and these agreements govern the development of the property; and WHEREAS, Kylli, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary Innovation Commons Owner, LLC (“Owner”) has requested that the City of Santa Clara ("City") enter into the type of agreement contemplated by the Development Agreement Act; and
WEHERAS, City staff have negotiated and recommended for approval a Development Agreement subject to specific conditions of approval, all attached as Exhibit "Development Agreement for Mission Point – Revised Project", with Owner in connection with the proposed development of up to 4,913,000 gross square feet of new development, including up to 2,600 units (up to 1,800 units in Area D, approximately 1.8 million square feet of residential uses, and up to 800 units in Area C with corresponding reduction in office/research-and-development (“R&D”) uses in Area C), up to three million square feet of office/R&D, approximately 100,000 square feet of retail, and approximately 10,000 square feet of childcare facilities; public right-of-way improvements, and site infrastructure and utilities (“Revised Project”) at 4995 Patrick Henry Drive and 3005 Democracy Way, Santa Clara (“Project Site”);
WHEREAS, the Revised Project approvals will include the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Mission Point Project; General Plan Amendment from High-Intensity Office/Research and Ordinance/ Mission Point Development Agreement Option B Page 2 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
Development (maximum FAR 2.0), to the new Urban Center Mission Point (minimum FAR 1.5) land use designation for Areas “A” and “B” and to the new Urban Center Mixed Use (60 - 250 dwelling units per acre) land use designation for Areas “C” and “D”; Rezoning from High-Intensity Office/Research and Development (“HO-RD”) to Planned Development (“PD”); Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and the adoption of this Development Agreement Ordinance (collectively, the “Approvals”);
WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Code Section 17.10.120 requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing before making a recommendation on the approval of a Development Agreement; WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Development Agreement, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Development Agreement for the Revised Project, and has considered all available facts related to the Development Agreement for the Revised Project;
WHEREAS, before considering the Development Agreement, the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the DEIR, Final EIR (“FEIR”) (including Attachment 3 to the FEIR analyzing the Revised Project) and Appendix to the FEIR, that combined constitute the EIR for the Project (SCH#2018072068);
WHEREAS, notice of the November 19, 2024 public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on November 6, 2024;
WHEREAS, notices of the November 19, 2024 public hearing on the Development Agreement were mailed to all property owners within a quarter mile of the property, according to the most recent assessor’s roll, on November 7, 2024, and to all local agencies expected to provide essential facilities or services to the Project;
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Ordinance/ Mission Point Development Agreement Option B Page 3 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
Development Agreement, for the Revised Project and related applications, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and present evidence, both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed Development Agreement.

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

SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the forgoing recitals are true and correct and by reference makes them a part hereof.

SECTION 2: That the City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City of Santa Clara and Kylli, Inc. for the property located at 4995 Patrick Henry Drive and 3005 Democracy Way (APNs: 104-04-150, 104-04-142, 104-04-143, 104-04-151, 104-04-112, 104-04- 113, 104-04-065, 104-04-111, 104-04-064), incorporated by this reference, subject to such minor and clarifying changes consistent with the terms thereof as may be approved by the City Attorney prior to execution thereof.

SECTION 3: Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65867 and 65867.5, the City Council hereby finds that the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the General Plan, in that the proposed project creates a mixed-use development of the scale and character that complements and is supportive of the surrounding uses and existing and planned transit facilities; creates a mixed-use development that maximizes density with accessibility to alternative transportation modes, and integrates pedestrian, bicycle, transit, open space and outdoor uses to encourage active centers.

SECTION 4: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Development Agreement complies with all requirements of Government Code Section 65865.2, in that the Development Agreement specifies the duration of the Agreement (10 years, with three 5 year extension options), lists the permitted uses of the property (residential, commercial, office/research & development, and mixed use), sets the density and intensity of the proposed uses (60 to 250 dwelling units per acre with up to 3.1 Million square feet of nonresidential development), sets the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings (192 feet, as depicted on the Exhibit “PD Ordinance/ Mission Point Development Agreement Option B Page 4 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
Development Plans - Revised Project” to Resolution No. ___), and includes provisions for the dedication of land for public purposes (up to 7.6 acres).

SECTION 5: The City Manager and/or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to perform all acts to be performed by the City in the administration of the Development Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, including but not limited to conducting annual reviews of compliance as specified therein. The City Manager or designee is further authorized and directed to perform all other acts, enter into all other agreements, and execute all other documents necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance and the Development Agreement.

SECTION 6: Except as specifically set forth herein, this Ordinance suspends and supersedes all conflicting resolutions, ordinances, plans, codes, laws, and regulations.

SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall not be codified in the Santa Clara City Code.

SECTION 7: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final adoption; however, prior to its final adoption it shall be published in accordance with the requirements of Section 808 and 812 of “The Charter of the City of Santa Clara, California.” PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
-
Ordinance/ Mission Point Development Agreement Option B Page 5 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Exhibit “Development Agreement for Mission Point – Revised Project” S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OPTION B

RECORD WITHOUT FEES
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Santa Clara
City Clerk’s Office
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR

MISSION POINT
(MIXED USE)

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
a chartered California municipal corporation,
AND

INNOVATION COMMONS OWNER LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
Effective Date *___________

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OPTION B
Development Agreement/Table of Contents/Mission Point Page i of i Rev. 04/28/2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Term ........................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Development of the Property .................................................................................................. 6

3. Effect of Agreement .............................................................................................................. 10

4. Development Fees, Exactions and Dedications. ................................................................... 11

5. Standard of Review of Permits ............................................................................................. 18

6. Priority .................................................................................................................................. 22

7. Cooperation in Implementation ............................................................................................ 22

8. Periodic Review .................................................................................................................... 22

9. Reimbursements .................................................................................................................... 24

10. Default and Remedies ....................................................................................................... 24

11. Amendment or Termination .............................................................................................. 25

12. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure ................................................................. 26

13. Assignability ..................................................................................................................... 26

14. Controlling Law ................................................................................................................ 28

15. General .............................................................................................................................. 28

16. Termination ....................................................................................................................... 30

17. Notices .............................................................................................................................. 30

18. Developer Independent Contractor ................................................................................... 31

19. Project as a Private Undertaking ....................................................................................... 31

20. Nondiscrimination............................................................................................................. 31

21. Force Majeure ................................................................................................................... 32

22. Operating Memoranda ...................................................................................................... 32

23. Third parties ...................................................................................................................... 32

24. Amendments ..................................................................................................................... 33

25. No Third Party Beneficiary ............................................................................................... 33

26. Dispute Resolution ............................................................................................................ 33

27. Consent ............................................................................................................................. 33

28. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ........................................................................ 33

29. Authority to Execute ......................................................................................................... 33

30. Counterparts ...................................................................................................................... 34

EXHIBITS
A. Legal Description & Plat of Property
B. Allocation of Fair Share Traffic Fees
C. Definitions Glossary

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OPTION B
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 1 of 34
Rev. 04/28/2023

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR

MISSION POINT
(MIXED USE)
This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), dated for reference purposes as of _____________, 2024 is entered into by and between CITY OF SANTA CLARA (“City”), a chartered California municipal corporation, and INNOVATION COMMONS OWNER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”), (collectively the “Parties”) and is effective on the date set forth in Recital N.

RECITALS
Developer and City enter into this Agreement on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions, and the following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement:

A. Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code authorize the City to establish procedures to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property located within the City for development of property.

B. “The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California” (“SCCC”) Section 17.10.010 and following, establishes the authority and procedure for review and approval of proposed development agreements.

C. Developer is currently the legal owner of the property (“Property”) governed by this Agreement. The Property consists of nine (9) separate parcels (APNs 104-04-064, 104- 04-065, 104-04-111, 104-04-112, 104-04-113, 104-04-142, 104-04-143, 104-04-150 and 104-04-151) totaling approximately 48.6 acres, as further legally described and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

D. Developer has submitted the following application(s) to the City (each such application being referenced herein as modified and finally approved by the City Council): (i) a General Plan Amendment to change the use designation of the Property from the existing High-Intensity Office/R&D designation to a newly established designation of Urban Center Mixed Use and Urban Center Mission Point ) (#PLN _____; CEQ ______) (“General Plan Amendment”); (ii) a rezoning of the Property (“Rezoning”) from High Intensity Office/R&D to Planned Development (“PD”) with a Development Plan that includes a Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDMP”), Affordable Housing Plan (“AHP”) and Parks & Open Space Plan (“POSP”) (#PLN _______, CEQ _______) (collectively, the “Development Plan”); and (iii) a vesting tentative subdivision map to merge and re-subdivide the Property, vacate Democracy Way, including relocation of the underground public improvements (#PLN _______, CEQ______) (“VTM"). The applications in the foregoing subparagraphs D. (i),(ii), and (iii) are collectively referred to as the “Project Approvals”.

E. The Project Approvals would authorize the Developer to redevelop the Property with an infill, mixed-use neighborhood consisting of up to 3 million gross square feet (“gsf”) of

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 2 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
office/research and development (“R&D”) space, approximately 100,000 gsf of neighborhood retail space, and up to 2,600 multifamily residences by consolidating, on a smaller portion of the Property, the square footage for office/R&D previously assumed in the City’s General Plan (for the former Yahoo! campus) to accommodate new multifamily housing, including affordable housing, public parks and private open space, neighborhood serving services, childcare and retail, Silicon Valley Power (“SVP”) facilities (collectively, the “Project”).

F. The Project components, including but not limited to the proposed buildings, access and parking facilities, landscaping, parks and open space, and infrastructure improvements, and potential development sequencing to ensure necessary infrastructure support for the Project are all more particularly shown in the Development Plan consisting of *____ sheets of plans dated ________ and on file with City (#PLN _______, CEQ _______), the VTM consisting of * _____ sheets of plans dated _______ and on file with the City (#PLN _______, CEQ______), and the applicable conditions of approval, subject of that certain Notice of Conditions of Approval recorded in the Official Records as Document No. _______ (“COAs”) for the Development Plan and VTM, all incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Certain improvements as set forth in the COAs are necessary to provide infrastructure support for the Project.

G. Through this Agreement, the Parties intend to preserve the size and density of development as set forth in the Project Approvals. City and Developer each acknowledge that development and construction of the Project is a large-scale undertaking involving major investments by Developer and City, and assurances that Developer will be allowed to develop and use the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein and the existing rules governing development of the Property will benefit both Developer and City.

H. City is willing to enter this Agreement for the reasons enumerated in SCCC Section

17.10.010 to (i) eliminate uncertainty in the comprehensive development planning of large-scale projects in the City, such as the Project; (ii) secure orderly development and fiscal benefits for public services, improvements and facilities planning in the City, including the voluntary, supplementary community benefits offered by the Developer; (iii) meet the goals of the General Plan; and (iv) plan for and concentrate public and private resources for the mutual benefit of both Developer and City.

I. Developer acknowledges and recognizes that material inducements for the City to enter into this Agreement include opportunities to:
i. Support the City’s North Santa Clara planning effort by converting an underutilized 48.6-acre site, primarily used as a surface parking lot, to a pedestrian-oriented, high-intensity and high-density mixed-use development that is sustainable and inclusive by design, with a range of building types, connections between people, places, and open space; ii. Broaden the housing supply and business opportunities in North Santa Clara through development of a human-centric, interconnected urban

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 3 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
neighborhood that provides a diverse and complementary mix of residential, commercial, retail and community uses with up to 3 million gsf of office/research and development (“R&D”) space, approximately 100,000 gsf of neighborhood retail space, approximately 10,000 sf childcare and up to 2,600 multifamily residences;
iii. Promote an active pedestrian realm with continuous access to at-grade, podium-level, and rooftop private open space and at-grade public parks with flexible programming that will add substantial public park area and private open space to North Santa Clara;
iv. Promote and support local, regional, and State of California (State) mobility and greenhouse gas reduction objectives to reduce vehicle miles traveled and infrastructure costs through infill and mixed-use development in an existing urbanized and transit-rich area;
v. Facilitate ridership of multimodal transportation and minimize vehicular infrastructure, while providing efficient access to sufficient and flexible parking that meets current and future demand;
vi. Meet and exceed the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and Inclusionary Zoning requirements; and
vii. Promote and facilitate opportunities for childcare and grocery services in North Santa Clara; and
viii. Provide at least $5 Million, subject to CPI, in voluntary funding towards public art and cultural programing; and
ix. Provide up to $3 Million, subject to CPI, in voluntary funding for the Cityled intersection improvements at Mission College and Great America Parkway.
x. Provide up to $3.5 Million, subject to CPI, in voluntary funding for the City’s purchase of a new ladder truck and fire engine; and xi. Provide for the voluntary allocation of point of sale to secure tax revenues from the construction of the Project for the benefit of the City’s general fund.
b. In addition to the benefits of the Project and the voluntary community benefit contributions by Developer, the Project will also provide for, upgraded utility infrastructure, payment of substantial new development impact fees, school fees, increased property taxes to support public services and facilities and provide opportunities for construction and permanent jobs.

J. City’s willingness to enter into this Agreement is a material inducement to Developer to implement the Project, and Developer proposes to enter this Agreement in order (i) to

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 4 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
obtain assurances from City that the Property may be developed, constructed, completed and used pursuant to this Agreement, and in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations of the City, subject to the exceptions and limitations expressed herein and the term of this Agreement; and (ii) to provide for a coordinated and systematic approach to funding the cost of certain public improvements and facilities planned by the City, and to establish the timing and extent of contributions required from Developer for these purposes.

K. Developer requested City enter into this Agreement, and proceedings have been taken in accordance with State law, as set forth below.

L. On *__________, _______, and _________, City’s Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearings on the Project, where following public testimony, the Planning Commission by adoption of Resolutions *_____, ____, ______, and ______ recommended that the City Council (i) approve and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), making findings with respect thereto, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”), and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”); (ii) approve the General Plan Amendment; (iii) approve the Rezoning and Development Plan, including TDMP and AHP, subject to COAs; (iv) approve the VTM, subject to COAs; and (v) approve this Agreement.

M. On *__________, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, where following public testimony, the City Council, by adoption of Resolutions * ____, ___, ____ and ____ (i) approved and certified the EIR pursuant to CEQA, making findings with respect thereto and adopting a MMRP and SOC; (ii) approved the General Plan Amendment; (iii) approved the Rezoning and Development Plan, including TDMP and AHP, subject to COAs; (iv) approved the VTM, subject to COAs; and introduced Ordinance No. *__________, approving this Agreement.

N. On *__________, the City Council adopted Ordinances Nos. *__________ and _______, rezoning the property and approving the Development Plan, and enacting this Agreement, and the Ordinances became effective thirty (30) days later on *__________ (“Effective Date”).

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in California Government Code Section 65864 and following, and SCCC Section 17.10.010 and following, and in consideration of the mutual representations, covenants and promises of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows below. A glossary of defined terms in this Agreement is provided in Exhibit C.

1. TERM

1.1 Effective Date. The term (“Term”) of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date (set forth above) and shall continue for a period of ten (10) years after the Effective Date, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 5 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

1.2 Term Extensions. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1.1 the Term may be extended as follows and each such extension shall be documented by Operating Memoranda pursuant to Section 22.1:
a. First Extension. If either of the following (a)(i) [First Extension Performance Option] or (a)(ii) [First Extension Payment Option], below occur then the Term of this Agreement may, at the request of the Developer, be extended by an additional five (5) years for a total Term of fifteen (15) years:
(i) First Extension Performance Option: a building permit(s) (“Building Permit”) has been issued for a residential building within the Project containing at least ninety (90) units for Very Low Income Households prior to January 15, 2031 and at least two and one half (2.5) acres or more of public or private parks or trail improvements on the Property have been approved and either completed or subject to a binding public improvement agreement and secured by financial security acceptable to the City (e.g., performance bonds), and at least one of the following (A) or (B) has occurred:
(A) Developer satisfies the obligations in Section 4.16 related to delivery of a Grocery Store or an Approved Grocery Alternative (“Grocery Performance Milestone”); or
(B) Developer satisfies the obligations in Section 4.17 related to delivery of Childcare Facility or an Approved Childcare Alternative (“Childcare Performance Milestone”).
(ii) First Extension Payment Option. Developer pays to the City an amount of one dollar ($1.00), as adjusted by CPI from the Effective Date, for all remaining maximum allowed square feet of the Project that are not complete or subject to a Building Permit as of the date the First Extension Payment Option is exercised.
b. Second Extension. If, in addition to satisfaction of (a) [First Extension] above, either of the following (b)(i) [Second Extension Performance Option] or (b)(ii) [Second Extension Payment Option], below occur, then the Term of this Agreement may, at the request of the Developer, be extended, by an additional five (5) years for a total Term of twenty (20) years:
(i) Second Extension Performance Option. A Building Permit has been issued for at least one hundred and eighty (180) total affordable units, and at least 5 acres or more of public or private parks or trail improvements on the Property have been approved and either complete or subject to a binding public improvement agreement and secured by financial security acceptable to the City (e.g., performance bonds), and Developer has completed either the Grocery Performance Milestone or the Childcare Performance Milestone as defined in (a)(i).

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 6 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
(ii) Second Extension Payment Option. Developer pays to the City an amount of one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50), as adjusted by CPI from the Effective Date, for all remaining maximum allowed square feet of the Project that are not complete or subject to a Building Permit as of the date the Second Extension Payment Option is exercised.
c. Third Extension. If, in addition to satisfaction of (a) [First Extension] and (b) [Second Extension], above, either of the following (c)(i) [Third Extension Performance Option] or (c)(ii) [Third Extension Payment Option], below occur, then the Term of this Agreement may, at the request of the Developer, be extended by an additional five (5) years for a total Term of (25) years. (i) Third Extension Performance Option. A Building Permit has been issued for at least two hundred and seventy (270) total affordable units, at least 7.4 acres or more of public or private parks or trail improvements on the Property have been approved and either complete or subject to a binding public improvement agreement and secured by financial security acceptable to the City (e.g., performance bonds), and Developer has completed both the Grocery Performance Milestone and the Childcare Performance Milestone as defined in (a)(i).
(ii) Third Extension Payment Option. Developer pays to the City an amount of two dollars ($2.00), as adjusted by CPI from the Effective Date, for all remaining maximum allowed square feet of the Project that are not complete or subject to a Building Permit as of the date the Third Extension Payment Option is exercised.

1.3 Expiration. Following expiration of the Term or any extension, or if sooner terminated, this Agreement shall have no force and effect, subject, however, to posttermination obligations of Developer and City. The Parties agree that the term of any VTM shall expire and be of no further force or effect upon expiration of this Agreement.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY

2.1 Property. The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is that certain real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The Parties acknowledge that the VTM is intended to resubdivide the entire Property. Therefore, upon the request of Developer, City agrees to meet and confer with Developer on whether, for ease of future reference, to replace the legal description in Exhibit A with the final legal descriptions shown on the recorded Final Map(s) that describe the entire Property, subject to the City’s confirmation that the Final Maps accurately describe the Property. The determination of whether to replace the legal description in Exhibit A with the final legal descriptions shown on the Final Map(s) shall be made at the City’s sole discretion.

2.2 Binding Covenants. It is intended and agreed that the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants that shall run with the Property, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall bind and inure to all successors in interest to the Parties hereto.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 7 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

2.3 Life of Approvals. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a) and this Agreement, the life of the Project Approvals (defined in Recital D) and all subsequent Project approvals, including but not limited to architectural approval(s) and tree removal permit(s) (each a “Subsequent Project Approval” and collectively with the Project Approvals the “Approvals”) shall automatically be extended to and until the later of the following: (1) the end of the Term of this Agreement; or (2) the end of the term or life of any such Approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Vested Elements secured by Developer under this Agreement shall have a life no greater than the Term of this Agreement, and any extension thereof.

2.4 Vested Elements. The permitted uses of the Property, the maximum density and intensity of use, the maximum heights, locations, numbers and gross square footage of the proposed buildings, the provisions for vehicular access and parking, reservation or dedication of land for public purposes or fees in-lieu thereof, provision for construction of public improvements and/or required fees associated with the Project as provided in, and limited by, the Approvals and this Agreement, shall be vested and are hereby vested and referred to as vested elements (“Vested Elements”). In addition to the foregoing Vested Elements, other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project are set forth in the following documents as they exist as of the Effective Date:
a. The General Plan of the City of Santa Clara, current as of the Effective Date, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated herein by this reference; b. SCCC, current as of the Effective Date, including the Rezoning; c. The Development Plan, including the TDMP and AHP, and VTM, including the COAs imposed thereon;
d. All other applicable City plans, policies, programs, regulations, ordinances and resolutions of the City in effect as of the Effective Date, which regulate development of the Property and implementation of the Project, and which are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement (“Other Regulations”); e. Any permits and/or Subsequent Approvals, including but not limited to additional subdivision maps or lot line adjustments, if any, final maps, site and architectural review, demolition permits, Building Permits, grading permits, and infrastructure improvement plans processed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement Upon approval, each such Subsequent Approval shall be incorporated into this Agreement and vested hereby; and,
f. Proof of availability of sufficient water supply demonstrating the Project’s compliance with Government Code § 66473.7.

2.5 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses for the Property and the Project include the following, all as more particularly described in the Development Plan and all of which must be implemented in accordance with the Approvals and the COAs, and MMRP. The number of residential units and amount of square footage for each use are subject to the Minor Change process as set forth in Section 11.2(b):

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 8 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
a. Up to 2,600 residential units and related amenity space; b. Up to 3 million gross square feet (“gsf”) of office/R&D and related amenity space, as may be reduced by the Office/R&D – Residential Flex option pursuant to the Development Plan;
c. Approximately 100,000 gsf of neighborhood retail uses; and d. Approximately 10,000 gsf of childcare facilities.

2.6 Present Right to Develop. Subject to Developer’s fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement, including the Development Plan and COAs, the City hereby grants to Developer the present vested right to develop and construct on the Property all the improvements authorized by, and in accordance with, this Agreement and the Vested Elements. To the extent permitted by law, no future modification (including by lateradopted initiative and/or referendum) of the City’s General Plan, SCCC, ordinances, policies or regulations that purport to (i) limit the rate or timing of development, size of buildings or other improvements (including developable square footage), or amount of development of the portions of the Project to be built; or (ii) impose fees, exactions or conditions upon development, occupancy or use of the Property other than as provided in the Project Approvals and the COAs and MMRP, or pursuant to this Agreement, shall apply to the Property; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or preclude City from adopting any fees or land use regulations or amendments thereto, expressly permitted herein.

2.7 Timing of Improvements; No Moratoria. Subject to the Project Approvals and this Agreement, Developer shall have the right to develop the Project at such time as Developer deems appropriate subject to Section 2.3 and this Section 2.7 within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. The Parties acknowledge and agree that presently the Developers cannot predict the timing of the Project. Therefore, the Developers have no obligation to develop or construct all or any component of the Project. The timing, sequencing, and phasing of the Project is solely the right and responsibility of Developers in the exercise of their business judgment so long as it is consistent with the Vested Rights and the MMRP. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465 that failure of the Parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the Parties' agreement, it is the Parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that the Developers shall have the right to develop the Property in such order, at such rate, and at such times as Developers deem appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment and the provisions of this Agreement. No annual (or other) limit, moratoria, or other limitation upon the number of, or pacing of, buildings which may be constructed, or Building Permits which may be obtained, or the like shall apply to the Project.

2.8 Agreement and Comprehensive Plan for Development. The Parties acknowledge that, except as specifically set forth herein, the Project Approvals, the MMRP, and COAs set forth a comprehensive schedule of all development terms and conditions,

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 9 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
development mitigation measures and fees, special assessments, special taxes, exactions, fees in-lieu, charges and dedications required in the public interest to be contributed, paid or constructed due to development of the Project on the Property. All fees referred to herein, may be subject to an annual increase until paid, but only if such increase is applied equally to similarly situated projects on a City-wide or area-wide basis, and any such annual increase shall be limited in the manner specified in Section 3.

2.9 Design of On-Site and Off-Site Improvements. Development of the Property shall be subject to Architectural Review Process by City pursuant to the policies, regulations and ordinances, including Article 6 of the City Zoning Code entitled “Permit Processing Procedures”, in effect as of the Effective Date, and subject to the Vested Elements, the MMRP, and this Agreement. No such Architectural Review shall, without Developer’s consent, require development of the Property inconsistent with the Vested Elements, or MMRP unless City determines it is necessary to protect against conditions which create a substantial adverse risk to the physical health or safety of residents or users of the Project or the affected surrounding region. The Vested Elements and the MMRP, and all improvement plans prepared in accordance thereof, shall govern the design and scope of all on-site and off-site improvements benefiting or to be constructed on the Property. In no event shall Architectural Review approval by City be conditioned on or require any change in the Vested Elements or the MMRP, without Developer’s consent.

2.10 Development of the Site. In consideration for the City entering into this Agreement, Developer agrees to perform all of its obligations contained in this Agreement in the time and manner set out in this Agreement, the MMRP, the COAs and the Project Approvals.

2.11 Integrated Development. City and Developer acknowledge that the Project is, and shall be considered, an integrated development. It is thus the intention of the Parties that, if construction on one component of the Project is commenced, any additional development of the Property will adhere to this Agreement and the Project Approvals.

However, nothing in this Agreement is intended: (i) to prevent Developer from individually commencing and completing development of any portion of the Project, even if development on other portions thereof has not been commenced and/or completed; (ii) to prevent Developer from independently marketing, selling, renting and/or occupying all, or any portion of, such developed space, pursuant to Section 12, provided that all current obligations under this Agreement and the Development Plan and all infrastructure requirements for the existing developed space have been met; and (iii) to require Developer to develop any portion of the Project (even if development on another portion of the Project has been commenced and/or completed).

2.12 Building Standards. Developer hereby agrees to employ all reasonable efforts such that the Project will be built to LEED Neighborhood Development Silver or equivalent standards, LEED CS Gold or equivalent standards for commercial buildings and LEED NC Silver for residential buildings, all as described in more detail in the Project Approvals.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 10 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

3. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT

3.1 Subsequent State or Federal Laws or Regulations. As provided in California Government Code section 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are required by changes in county, regional, State or federal laws or regulations (“Changes in the Law”). In the event Changes in the Law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more material provisions of this Agreement, Developer may request that such material provisions be modified or suspended, or performance delayed, as may be necessary to comply with Changes in the Law, and City may take such action as it deems necessary to be consistent with the intent of this Agreement.

3.2 Changes to Existing Regulations. Except as otherwise specifically provided, only the following changes to the Vested Elements, including such changes adopted by the electorate through the powers of initiative, or otherwise, shall apply to the development of the Property:
a. Subject to Section 3 herein, Citywide regulations, ordinances, policies, programs, resolutions or fees adopted after the Effective Date that are not in conflict with the Vested Elements and the terms and conditions for development of the Property established by this Agreement, or otherwise applicable regulations existing as of the Effective Date. Changes to the General Plan, SCCC or other regulations shall be deemed to conflict with the approvals and this Agreement (“Conflicting City Law”) if such changes prevent development of the Property in substantial accordance with the Approvals; require significant changes in the development of the Property from what is contemplated by the Approvals; significantly delay, ration or impose a moratorium on development of the Property; or require the issuance of discretionary or nondiscretionary permits or approvals by the City other than those required as of the Effective Date. A fee shall be deemed to conflict with this Agreement if it is an increase in an existing fee by more than the amount permitted pursuant to Section 4 below.
b. Any law, regulation or policy which would otherwise be Conflicting City Law, but through this Agreement or by later separate document, application to the Property has been consented to in writing by the Developer.

3.3 Further Reviews. Developer acknowledges that existing land use regulations, the Vested Elements and this Agreement contemplate the possibility of further reviews of elements or portions of the Project by the City including potential CEQA analysis, if required. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to limit the legal authority of City with respect to these reviews as provided by, and otherwise consistent with, this Agreement and the Vested Elements. In no event shall such further review by City revisit the COAs and Project Approvals or be conditioned on or require any change in the Project except as contemplated by the COAs, the Project Approvals and/or this Agreement.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 11 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

3.4 Local Rules. Future development on the Property shall be subject to all the official rules, regulations and policies (collectively “Local Rules”) of the City which govern uses, architectural design, landscaping, public improvements and construction standards, and which are contained in and not inconsistent with the Vested Elements or are in effect as of the Effective Date, with the exception that revisions or amendments to the Local Rules necessitated by reasonable public health or fire and life-safety considerations shall apply as though the rules were in effect as of the Effective Date. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and without limitation as to any other exceptions contained in this Agreement, City shall retain the authority to take the following actions, so long as such action is applied on a Citywide basis to similarly situated projects:
a. Adopt and apply property transfer taxes and/or excise taxes; b. Adopt and apply utility charges;
c. Adopt updates to building and/or fire codes;
d. Maintain the right of voters to act by initiative or referendum, but only to the extent that the initiative or referendum does not affect or interfere with any vested rights acquired by the Developer in this Agreement; except that this Agreement itself is subject to referendum; and,
e. Take other actions not expressly prohibited by the terms or provisions of this Agreement.

3.5 Future Exercise of Discretion by City. This Agreement shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of City to hold necessary public hearings, or, except as provided herein, to limit discretion of the City or any of its officers or officials with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances or laws which require the exercise of discretion by City or any of its officers or officials. Except as provided herein, this Agreement shall not prevent City from applying new rules, regulations and policies, or from conditioning future Project development approval applications on new rules, regulations and policies that do not conflict with the terms of the Vested Elements or this Agreement.

4. DEVELOPMENT FEES, EXACTIONS AND DEDICATIONS.

4.1 Development Fees, Exactions and Dedications. During the time period between the Effective Date and the time period that is seven (7) years after the Effective Date (such time period, as extended by any delay due to Force Majeure hereinafter the “Development Fee Vested Period”), the types and amounts of fees, special assessments, special taxes, exactions and dedications (collectively “Fees”) payable due to the development, build out, occupancy and use of the Property pursuant to this Agreement shall be exclusively those set forth in the Project Approvals, the COAs and as specified in this Agreement. Notwithstanding any amendments to the Fees or imposition of any new City fees, taxes, special assessments or other exactions during the Development Fee Vested Period, the Fees set forth in this Agreement, the COAs, and Project Approvals shall be the only fees, charges, special assessments, special taxes, dedications and exactions payable to City due to development of the Property during the Development

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 12 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
Fee Vested Period; provided however that any automatic and generally applicable increases to such Fees occurring during the Development Fee Vested Period pursuant to an ordinance adopted prior to the Development Vested Period shall apply to the Fees.

The defined term “Fees” for this purpose does not include Load Fees adopted by Silicon Valley Power. The Development Fee Vesting Period shall be extended (if still in effect at the time) or reset (if expired at the time) for a period(s) of four (4) years upon the date of City approval of an Architectural Review Permit for any portion of the Project based on whatever Fees are in effect as of the reset date (each a “Development Fee Vesting Locking Period”). Each Development Fee Vesting Locking Period shall be documented by Operating Memoranda pursuant to Section 22.1. After the Development Fee Vesting Period has expired (subject to the Development Fee Vesting Locking Periods noted above), all Fees payable due to the development, build out, occupancy and use of the Property pursuant to this Agreement shall be those Fees, and in the amounts, then in effect so long as such Fee is (i) generally applicable on a city-wide or area-wide basis for similar land uses, and (ii) are not redundant as to the Project of a fee, dedication, program, requirement, or facility that is imposed or required under this Agreement, the COAs, or the Project Approvals. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the Developer complies with the requirements of Section 4.8, Art in Public and Private Development Funding, the Project shall not be subject to any public art fee (or similarly titled development fee or special tax adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of public/publicly accessible art or generating funding for such purpose) adopted by the City as set forth in Section 4.8.

4.2 Processing Fees. Processing fees, including without limitation Building Permit application, processing and inspection fees (“Processing Fees”), may be increased if the increase is applicable Citywide and reflects the reasonable cost to City of performing the administrative processing or other service for which the particular Processing Fee is charged. New Processing Fees may be imposed if the new Processing Fees apply to all similarly situated projects or works within the City and if the application of these Processing Fees to the Property is prospective only. Processing Fees shall be due and payable on an individual project application basis, so that only those fees applying to the actual construction of each portion of the Project shall be paid upon the issuance of the appropriate permits for that portion of the Project. Developer shall pay the costs associated with the planning, processing and environmental review process for the Project, provided that such costs shall be limited to (i) reasonable costs directly associated with the preparation of the EIR; (ii) fees ordinarily charged by City for processing land use applications and permits, provided that such fees and costs are applied to Developer in the same manner as other similarly situated applicants seeking similar land use approvals and are not limited in applicability to the Project or to related uses; and (iii) fees associated with third-party contract permit plan checking, if applicable, above those normally charged by the City. Pursuant to Section 4.3, Developer shall reimburse City for reasonable staff overtime expenses incurred by City in processing review, approval, inspection and completion of the Project provided that such overtime expenses are (a) reasonably necessary for the completion of the Project in accordance with Developer’s schedule; and (b) applied to Developer in the same manner as similarly situated project applicants.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 13 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

4.3 Reimbursement to City. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitations on Processing Fees, Developer agrees to reimburse City for expenses over and above Processing Fees paid by Developer as an applicant for reasonable third-party contractual costs incurred by City relating to any expedited processing of entitlements and environmental review related to this Agreement requested by the Developer. Such reimbursement shall be due within sixty (60) days of receipt of an invoice from the City.

4.4 Dedications. Developer shall offer to dedicate to City, upon request by City, all portions of the Property designated in the Project Approvals or Conditions of Approval for public easements, streets or public areas.

4.5 Mitigations. Developer agrees to contribute to the costs of public facilities and services in the amounts set forth in the Project Approvals, MMRP, and COAs as required to mitigate impacts of the development of the Property (“Mitigations”). City and Developer recognize and agree that but for Developer’s contributions to mitigate the impacts arising as a result of the entitlements granted pursuant to this Agreement, City would not and could not approve the development of the Property as provided by this Agreement. City’s approval of development of the Property is in reliance upon, and in consideration of, Developer’s agreement to make contributions toward the cost of public improvements and public services as provided to mitigate the impacts of development of the Property.

4.6 Affordable Housing Provisions. Developer agrees to provide onsite residential units at affordable rents/costs, as set forth in the AHP (set forth in Section 2.11 of the Development Plan). The City’s baseline Inclusionary Housing Policy requires developers of for sale and rental residential developments (including mixed use projects) of ten (10) or more units to provide at least fifteen (15%) percent of their units at rents or prices affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households, or some combination thereof, as long as the distribution of affordable units average for all rental units does not exceed a maximum of one hundred percent (100%) of area median income or the average for all affordable for-sale rental units does not exceed one hundred percent (100%) AMI, and for the affordable units to be dispersed with the market rate units. Inclusionary units are subject to reduced required fees, and any calculations that result in fractional units pay in-lieu fees. The Project must meet all requirements of the City’s existing Affordable Housing Ordinance and all affordable housing units must be dispersed with the market rate units, unless, upon the request of Developer, an alternate plan is approved by the City Council pursuant to the AHP and existing Affordable Housing Ordinance. When and if the City Council approves an alternative plan pursuant to the AHP, such alternative plan shall be incorporated by reference in this Agreement so long as such alternate plan otherwise complies with this Agreement. In addition, the Developer has voluntarily agreed to meet and exceed this requirement as provided in the AHP by proposing to provide an average affordability of eighty (80%) AMI with no individual affordable rental unit exceeding a maximum of one hundred percent (100%) AMI and no individual affordable for-sale unit exceeding a maximum of one hundred and twenty percent (120%) AMI.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 14 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

4.7 Open Space and Parks. Developer acknowledges its obligation to provide parkland, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of such dedication and fee pursuant to Chapter

17.35 of the City Code. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of Section 4 or any other provisions in this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions of this Section 4.7 shall exclusively govern the dedication of parkland and payment of fees due in lieu of parkland dedication, and the credits against the amount of such parkland dedication and/or such in lieu fees, with respect to the Project. Said fees shall be assessed per development of the Project’s residential units and shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permits for vertical construction of residential buildings and the timing of dedication and delivery of parkland shall be as set forth in a park improvement agreement executed between the City and Developer. In addition, the Project will comply with the following with respect to open space and parks as the Project is implemented:
a. Minimum Park and Open Space Improvements. Subject to the City’s formal public park review process, concurrent with issuance of Building Permits resulting in a cumulative of five hundred (500) or more residential units within Area D, the Developer will have completed or entered into a public improvement agreement with the City to complete a minimum of one and a half (1.5) acres or more of public park or private open space improvements with a public access easement that include play areas for children ages 2 to 5 and ages 5 to 12. If any residential is developed on Area C pursuant to the Office/R&D Residential Flex option in the Development Plan, the Developer will also offer to dedicate a minimum of one and a half (1.5) acres of public park land, or private open space area with a public access easement, to the City, with the terms for completion and delivery of improvements to be determined in good faith between the Developer and City through conditions of approval of the Architectural Review Permit and a Park Improvement Agreement to be executed between the City and Developer prior to the issuance of any building permit on Area C. b. Maintenance of Public Parks. The Parties acknowledge that the size and design of the public park is conceptual and will be subject to the City’s process under the Park Ordinance. When a public park is proposed by the Developer, in addition to the park improvement agreement and as a condition of approval, the Developer will enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to maintain the proposed public parks on the Property consistent with City’s standard and typical maintenance standards for a minimum of forty years from dedication (“Public Park Maintenance Period”). The Parties agree that the target maximum annual maintenance cost for the public park, including an annualized reserve for anticipated capital replacement costs during the Public Park Maintenance Period, is one dollar and sixteen cents ($1.16) per square foot of public park, as adjusted by CPI from the Effective Date (the “Target Maximum Public Park Maintenance Cost”). The Target Maximum Public Park Maintenance Cost is intended to cover one hundred percent (100%) of reasonable annual park maintenance and capital replacement during the Public Park Maintenance Period based on current conceptual park designs and assumes private maintenance by Developer as an independent contractor. If at the time the public parks are designed, Developer proposes a design or programmatic elements that result in estimated annual

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 15 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
maintenance costs that exceed the Target Maximum Public Park Maintenance Cost, the Developer will nevertheless accept responsibility for maintenance of the parks and assume responsibility for one hundred percent (100%) of annual maintenance costs during the Public Park Maintenance Period. If, however, the City requests changes to the park design or programmatic elements proposed by Developer that increase estimated maintenance costs above the Target Maximum Public Park Maintenance Cost, the Parties will meet and confer in good faith on design changes to reduce maintenance costs to at or below the Target Maximum Public Park Maintenance Costs. If the City does not wish to accept design changes that would reduce maintenance costs, the City may instead elect to enter into an agreement with the Developer to reimburse maintenance costs in excess of the Target Maximum Public Park Maintenance Cost for the Public Park Maintenance Period. After the Public Park Maintenance Period, the City will be solely responsible for all public park maintenance and capital replacement costs for any dedicated public park.
c. Maintenance of Public Trails. When a public trail is proposed by the Developer on the Property, in addition to the trail improvement agreement and as a condition of approval, the Developer will enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to maintain the proposed public trail on the Property consistent with City’s standard and typical maintenance standards for a minimum of forty years from dedication (“Public Trail Maintenance Period”). The Parties agree that the target maximum annual maintenance cost for the public trail, including an annualized reserve for anticipated capital replacement costs during the Public Trail Maintenance Period, is one dollar and sixteen cents ($1.16) per square foot of public trail, as adjusted by CPI from the Effective Date (the “Target Maximum Public Trail Maintenance Cost”). The Target Maximum Public Trail Maintenance Cost is intended to cover one hundred percent (100%) of reasonable annual public trail maintenance and capital replacement during the Public Trail Maintenance Period based on current conceptual public trail designs and assumes private maintenance by Developer as an independent contractor.
d. Public Access to Private Open Space. Public access easements will apply to ground level private open space of a public facing nature over which pedestrian, bicycle traffic, or other public use is reasonably anticipated or would provide a convenience, amenity value, and/or help create pedestrian or bicycle connectivity.

Delineation of areas subject to such public access easements will be determined at the time of Architectural Design Review approval for each Project phase or subphase that includes ground level private open space improvements. Areas subject to access easements are anticipated to consist of privately-owned sidewalks, pedestrian plazas, parks, bike lanes, streets, and landscaped areas directly adjacent to public parks or rights of way. Upon completion of each phase of applicable private open space in the Project, Developer to provide a public access easement over the applicable areas with either 24/7 access, or other reasonable hours as appropriate depending on the location, to be recorded prior to the applicable certificate of occupancy. The City shall not be responsible for any maintenance costs for the public access easement areas.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 16 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

4.8 Art in Public and Private Development Funding. Parties agree that art in public and private development has come to be an essential element in placemaking, social practice, and the creation of vibrant and economically successful communities. As such, the Developer agrees to invest an aggregate (reasonable hard and soft third party costs for processing, design, construction and installation) minimum amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000), as adjusted by CPI, in original art features within the Project (“Public Art Funding”). These features must be publicly visible and/or accessible and may include, but are not limited to: sculptures, murals, exhibition or performance spaces and functional art such as decorative benches, bike racks or other architectural design features that are commissioned original pieces of art approved by the City. Placemaking activities such as temporary art installations or cultural arts programming that the general public can participate in are also considered acceptable uses of the Public Art Funding. All projects to be supported by the Public Art Funding shall be submitted to the City with a maintenance plan for approval. The Developer shall spend , or place in an escrow held by the City, at least Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), adjusted by CPI, of the Public Art Funding prior to the exercise of First Extension of the Term of this Agreement, and at least the full amount of the Public Art Funding prior to the exercise of the Second Extension of the Term. If the requirement in the preceding sentence is satisfied, the Project shall not be subject to any new public art fee or similar public arts requirements adopted by the City for the longer of the full Term of this Agreement or through completion of the Project. Any escrowed funds shall remain in an earmarked account for use on the Project until five (5) years after termination of this Agreement. After that time, any unspent funds remaining in escrow will be available to the City for any public art purpose within the City in the City’s sole discretion. The obligations of this Section 4.8 shall survive termination of this Agreement.

4.9 Local Transportation Improvements; Fair Share Traffic Fees. In addition to all applicable traffic impact fees pursuant to Santa Clara Code Section 17.15.330, Developer agrees to the total sum of up to Six Million One Hundred Thousand Sixty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six Dollars ($6,162,396) (“Fair Share Traffic Fees”) payable to the City to mitigate the Project’s contributions to certain local and regional intersection improvements identified in the EIR and further specified and allocated in Exhibit B (“Allocation of Fair Share Traffic Fees”). The Fair Share Traffic Fees shall be payable at the times and in the amounts shown on Allocation of Fair Share Traffic Fees. At the Developer’s option, Developer may pay Fair Share Traffic Fees in cash when due, or by use of a bond or letter of credit, to be credited proportionately to such intersection improvement or otherwise subject to the provisions of this Section 4.9. In the event the City permits the Developer to build any local transportation improvements over and above the Project’s fair share, Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement from traffic fees paid to City by properties not associated with the Project and which benefit from the improvements over and above the Project’s fair share when those properties develop.

4.10 Sewer Connection Fee. If the City should adopt an ordinance subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement that permits reduced Sewer Connection Fees as a result of onsite conservation measures, the Developer may apply for consideration of such reductions toward the Sewer Connection Fees paid on behalf of the Project. Applications may be filed for any portion of the Project, if that portion of the Project has a minimum

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 17 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
of one year of ninety percent (90%) occupancy prior to receipt of the application by the City.

4.11 Vacation of Democracy Way. The City agrees to approve the vacation of Democracy Way as shown in the VTM and may utilize any applicable procedure permissible under the City Charter and/or the SCCC to effectuate the vacation of the street right of way easement, including all required relocation of public utilities (the “Street Easement Vacation”). The Street Easement Vacation is subject to the reservation of a public utility easement therein until the relocation of all required public utilities existing within Democracy Way as of the Effective Date (“Existing Public Utilities”).

Developer shall, at its cost, relocate or cause to be relocated all Existing Public Utilities (“Relocation Work”). Promptly following the completion of such Relocation Work, the City shall vacate the reserved public utility easement within the Vacated Street Area pursuant to the summary vacation procedures set forth in Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 et seq. When the Developer commences the Relocation Work, the City will, promptly upon receipt of a written request to do so from Developer and at the Developer’s cost, prepare an appraisal of the fair market value of the street right of way easement by a qualified appraiser (“ROW Appraisal”). The Developer will have the right to review the qualifications and scope of work for the Appraisal prior to its preparation, and the City shall consider and address any reasonable objections of the Developer in good faith. The Developer shall pay to the City the fair market value established by the ROW Appraisal (“FMV”), minus the actual and reasonable soft and hard costs of the Relocation Work (“Relocation Costs”). Developer will pay to the City the amount (if any) that the FMV exceeds the Relocation Costs. If, however, the Relocation Costs exceed the FMV, no amount will be due to either Party. The Street Easement Vacation and any payment due to the City under this Section 4.11 shall be completed prior to the recordation of a Final Map for either Area A or Area B (whichever is earlier), as depicted on the VTM. The Parties acknowledge that this process may take several years to complete, and that the City will commence this process only upon the written request of the Developer and execution of a reimbursement agreement for the City’s actual, reasonable costs related to implementation of this Section 4.11.

4.12 Utility Improvements. Developer shall, at its cost, upgrade existing public utilities per the infrastructure delivery plan set forth in the Project Approvals. Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement for any upsizing of public utilities to serve connections from properties not associated with the Project.

4.13 SVP Facilities. Special facilities may be required for the provision of electric service to the Project. Developer agrees to fulfill its commitments to SVP pursuant to the COAs and, if required, a separate agreement to be entered with SVP.

4.14 Transportation Services. Developer agrees to implement the Transportation Demand Management Plan, as set forth in Section 2.10 of the Development Plan, in order to facilitate the usage of multi-modal transit in cooperation with the City, other public agencies, and other local business interests.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 18 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

4.15 Point of Sale for Project Construction. The Developer agrees to, prior to issuance of Building Permits, to the extent allowed by law, to require all persons and entities providing materials to be used in connection with the construction and development of, or incorporated into, the Project, including by way of illustration but not limitation bulk lumber, concrete, structural steel, roof trusses and other pre- fabricated building components, to (a) obtain a use tax direct payment permit; (b) elect to obtain a subcontractor permit for the job site of a contract valued at Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) or more; or (c) otherwise designate the Property as the place of use of material used in the construction of the Project and the place of sale of all fixtures installed in and/or furnished in order to have the local portion of the sales and use tax distributed directly to City instead of through the county-wide pool. Developer shall instruct its general contractor(s) to, and shall cause such general contractor(s) to instruct its/their subcontractors to, cooperate with City or City’s consultant to ensure the local sales/use tax derived from construction of the Project is allocated to City to the fullest extent possible and to the extent allowed by law. This Section 4.15 shall not apply to tenants who perform their own tenant improvement work. To assist City or City’s consultant in its efforts to ensure that such local sales/use tax is so allocated to City, Developer shall on an annual basis, or as frequently as quarterly upon City’s or City’s consultant request, provide City or City’s consultant with such information as shall be reasonably requested by City or City’s consultant regarding subcontractors working on the Project with contracts in excess of the amount set forth above, including a description of all applicable work and materials and the dollar value of such subcontracts, and, if applicable, evidence of their designation, such as approvals or applications for the direct payment permit, of City as the place of use of such work and materials. City or City’s consultant may use such information to contact each subcontractor who may qualify for local allocation of use taxes to City. The City’s sole and exclusive remedy for any failure of any general contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) to allocate sales and use tax revenues as provided herein or to comply with this Section 4.15 will be specific performance.

4.16 Grocery Store. If and when the northeastern portion of Area B, fronting Tasman Drive and Old Ironsides, is developed by the Developer during the Term (as the Term may be extended), such development must be designed, as part of the Architectural Design Review application and related Building Permit plans, to include a grocery store that meets the following minimum criteria: (a) a minimum of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of leasable area and (b) capable of providing traditional grocery store products including fresh produce, dairy, meat and fish, and dry goods (“Grocery Store”).

As part of such development, Developer shall construct or pay all costs associated with completion of the Grocery Store to an initial core and shell condition (meaning all basic structural and life safety improvements are completed not including any tenant improvements) prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the building that includes the Grocery Store. If the Developer proposes development on Area B that does not include the area proposed for the Grocery Store, the Developer shall submit information with the Architectural Review Permit to the City to confirm that such development will not limit, conflict with or otherwise adversely impact the future feasibility of the Grocery Store. If the Developer wishes to move the Grocery Store, the Director may, in their reasonable discretion, approve an alternative location as part of an Architectural Design Review application without amendment to this Agreement (in

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 19 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
which case requirements of this Section 4.16 would apply to such alternative location).

Such alternative location shall be documented by the Parties by Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 22.1. The Parties acknowledge the grocery store market is subject to fluctuation and there is no guarantee that a third party tenant will be available to lease the space on commercially reasonable terms. For a period of three (3) years from completion of initial core and shell improvements such that the Grocery Store is available and ready to execute a binding lease with a grocery tenant and commence tenant improvements, the Developer will make good faith efforts to market and lease the Grocery Store to a grocery store tenant providing traditional grocery store products including fresh produce, dairy, meat and fish, and dry goods, and will provide the Director regular updates (not less than quarterly) on these marketing and leasing efforts until a binding lease is entered into with a tenant (“Grocery Store Marketing Period”). The commencement and conclusion of the Grocery Store Marketing Period shall be documented by the Parties by Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 22.1. During the Grocery Store Marketing Period, the Developer shall offer the Grocery Store at commercially reasonable terms, as supported by qualified broker information, including a commercially reasonable tenant improvement allowance and a triple net rental rate that does not exceed a fair market rent for a grocery store, considering the condition of the space and the tenant improvement allowance. Developer will promptly notify City when a tenant providing a Grocery Store has executed a lease of the Grocery Store. If a lease is not entered into despite good faith marketing and leasing efforts within the Grocery Store Marketing Period, the Developer will have no further obligations related to the Grocery Store and can use the Grocery Store area for any permitted purpose. This Section 4.16 shall survive termination of this Agreement through the Grocery Store Marketing Period.

If, at the time the Developer submits for Architectural Review for building(s) within the applicable portion of Area B, the grocery market is either saturated or Developer demonstrates that a grocery tenant is otherwise unlikely, the Developer may submit a market study to the City, request the Director to engage a qualified consultant (retained by the City with expense reimbursed by Developer) to evaluate the market study. If the Director, in their reasonable discretion based on the information in the market study and findings of the City’s qualified consultant, confirms a grocery tenant is unlikely, then Developer and City will meet and confer in good faith to identify one or more alternative community benefits to replace the Grocery Store. Such alternative community benefit(s) are subject to mutual approval of Developer and City (by the Director and City Manager), each in their reasonable discretion. City approval is subject to a finding that the proposed alternative community benefit(s) would have a dollar value (net cost or financial impact to the Project) at least equal to the Grocery Store and acceptance is in the best interests of the City (“Approved Grocery Store Alternative). Such Approved Grocery Store Alternative will not require an amendment to this Agreement, but will be documented in writing by Operating Memoranda pursuant to Section 22.1. Until an Approved Grocery Store Alternative is formally approved by Operating Memoranda, the Developer must continue to comply with the requirements of this Section 4.16.

4.17 Childcare Facility. If and when the portion of Area D fronting the SFPUC right of way is developed by the Developer during the Term, as the Term may be extended, such development must be designed, as part of the Architectural Design Review application

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 20 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
and related Building Permit plans, to include a childcare facility that meets the following minimum criteria: (a) suitable to be open to the public, (b) a minimum of eight thousand (8,000) square feet of interior leasable area and an outdoor play area, and (c) capable of compliance with applicable state regulations on childcare facilities (“Childcare Facility”).

As part of such development, Developer shall construct or pay all costs associated with completion of the Childcare Facility to an initial core and shell condition (meaning all basic structural and life safety improvements are completed not including any tenant improvements) prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the building that includes the Childcare Facility. If the Developer wishes to move the Childcare Facility, the Director may, in their reasonable discretion, approve an alternative location as part of an Architectural Design Review application without amendment to this Agreement (in which case requirements of this Section 4.17 would apply to such alternative location). If requested and approved, such alternative location shall be documented by the Parties by Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 22.1. The Parties acknowledge the childcare market is subject to fluctuation and there is no guarantee that a third party tenant will be available to lease the space on commercially reasonable terms. For a period of three (3) years from completion of initial core and shell improvements, such that the Childcare Facility is available and ready to execute a binding lease with a childcare tenant and commence tenant improvements, the Developer will make good faith efforts to market and lease the Childcare Facility to a tenant providing a daycare use, and will provide the Director regular updates (not less than quarterly) on these marketing and leasing Efforts until a binding lease is entered into with a tenant (“Childcare Facility Marketing Period”). The commencement and conclusion of the Childcare Facility Marketing Period shall be documented by the Parties by Operating Memorandum pursuant to Section 22.1. During the Childcare Facility Marketing Period, the Developer shall offer the Childcare Facility at commercially reasonable terms, as supported by qualified broker information, including a commercially reasonable tenant improvement allowance and a triple net rental rate that does not exceed a fair market rent for a childcare facility considering the condition of the space and the tenant improvement allowance. Developer will promptly notify City when a tenant providing a Childcare Facility has executed a lease of the Childcare Facility. If a lease is not entered into despite good faith marketing and leasing efforts within the Childcare Facility Marketing Period, the Developer will have no further obligations related to the Childcare Facility and can use the Childcare Facility area for any permitted purpose. This Section 4.17 shall survive termination of this Agreement through the Childcare Marketing Period.

If, at the time the Developer submits for Architectural Review for building(s) within the applicable portion of Area D, the childcare market is either saturated or Developer otherwise demonstrates that a childcare tenant is unlikely, the Developer may submit such market study to the City and request to the Director to confirm (by a qualified consultant retained by the City with expense reimbursed by Developer). If the Director, in their reasonable discretion based on the information in the market study and findings of the City’s qualified consultant, confirms Developer’s study demonstrating a childcare tenant is unlikely, then Developer and City will meet and confer in good faith to identify one or more alternative community benefits to replace the Childcare Facility. Such alternative community benefit(s) are subject to approval of Developer and the Director and City Manager in their reasonable discretion. City approval is subject to a finding that

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 21 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
the proposed alternative community benefit(s) would have a dollar value (net cost or financial impact to the Project) at least equal to the Childcare Facility and acceptance is in the best interests of the City (“Approved Childcare Alternative). Such Approved Childcare Alternative will not require an amendment to this Agreement, but will be documented in writing by Operating Memoranda pursuant to Section 22.1. Until an Approved Childcare Alternative is formally approved by Operating Memoranda, the Developer must continue to comply with the requirements of this Section 4.17.

4.18 Regional Traffic Fee. As a voluntary contribution, Developer will pay One Dollar ($1.00) per square foot, adjusted by CPI, at the issuance of each Building Permit for office/R&D within the Project (“Regional Traffic Fee”), up to a maximum of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), as adjusted by CPI from the Effective Date (“Regional Traffic Fee Cap”), to the City for traffic intersection improvements. In the event that residential is developed on Area C pursuant to the Office/R&D-Residential Flex described and defined in the Development Plan, then the amount of the Regional Traffic Fee will increase to One Dollar and Thirty Seven Cents ($1.37) per square foot, adjusted by CPI, at the issuance of each Building Permit for office/R&D within the Project subject to Regional Traffic Fee Cap. Once paid, Regional Traffic Fees are non-refundable

4.19 Fire Equipment Contribution. As a voluntary contribution, Developer will pay up to a maximum of Three Million Five Hundred and One Thousand and Fifty Dollars ($3,501,050), as adjusted by CPI, to the City for purchase of a fire engine and a tractor drawn areal apparatus. One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000)), as adjusted by CPI, for the purchase of the fire engine is due prior to/at the issuance of certificate(s) of occupancy that totals, in the aggregate, one million five hundred thousand (1,500,000) gross square feet of building. area in the Project. The remaining Two Million Three Hundred and One Thousand and Fifty Dollars ($2,301,050)), adjusted by CPI, for the purchase of the tractor drawn aerial apparatus is due prior to/at issuance of certificate(s) of occupancy that totals, in the aggregate, three million square gross feet of building area in the Project.

4.20 Minimum Residential Parking. Developer shall provide a minimum of one (1) parking space per residential unit in the Project, and may provide up to twenty-five percent (25%) of these minimum parking spaces through shared parking pursuant to SCCC Section 18.38.040 (A) [Exceptions and Reductions to Parking Requirements].

5. STANDARD OF REVIEW OF PERMITS

5.1 Standard of Review of Permits. All Subsequent Approvals required by Developer to develop the Property, but including (i) road construction permits, (ii) grading permits, (iii) Building Permits, (iv) fire permits, and (v) Certificates of Occupancy, shall be issued by City after City’s review and approval of Developer’s applications, provided that City’s

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 22 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
review of the applications is limited to determining whether the following conditions are met:
a. The application is complete; and,
b. The application demonstrates that Developer has complied with the Vested Elements, the MMRP and the applicable Local Rules.

6. PRIORITY

6.1 Priority. In the event of conflict between the General Plan, this Agreement, SCCC, Other Regulations and Local Rules, all as they exist on the Effective Date, the Parties agree that the following sequence establishes the relative priority of each item: (1) the General Plan, as existing on the Effective Date; (2) this Agreement; (3) the Development Plan as modified by the COAs, (4) VTM as modified by the COAs, (4) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (5) the other Project Approvals, (6) SCCC, and (7) Other Regulations and Local Rules.

7. COOPERATION IN IMPLEMENTATION

7.1 Cooperation in Implementation. Upon Developer’s satisfactory completion of all required preliminary actions provided in the Project Approvals, and payment of required fees, if any, City shall proceed in a reasonable and expeditious manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable agreements, statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for implementation of this Agreement and development of the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals, including the following actions:
a. Scheduling all required public hearings by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council; and,
b. Processing and checking all maps, plans, land use and architectural review permits, permits, building plans and specifications and other plans relating to development of the Property filed by Developer as necessary for complete development of the Property. Developer, in a timely manner, shall provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to cause City’s planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. It is the Parties’ express intent to cooperate with one another and to diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan and the terms hereof.

At Developer’s request and sole expense, City shall retain outside building consultants to review plans or otherwise assist City’s efforts in order to expedite City processing and approval work. City shall cooperate with Developer, and assist Developer in obtaining any third-party governmental or private party permits, approvals, consents, rights of entry, or encroachment permits, needed for development of the Project or any other on or offsite improvements.

8. PERIODIC REVIEW

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 23 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

8.1 Annual Review; Special Review. City and Developer shall review all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement annually during each year of the Term, within thirty (30) days prior to each anniversary of the Effective Date unless the City and Developer agree in writing to conduct the review at another time pursuant to SCCC Section 17.10.220(a). Special Reviews may be conducted pursuant to the provisions of SCCC Section 17.10.220(b).

8.2 Developer’s Submittal. Within ninety (90) days before each anniversary of the Effective Date, Developer shall submit a letter (“Compliance Letter”) to the Community Development Director (“Director”), along with a copy directed to the City Attorney’s Office, describing Developer’s compliance with the terms of the Conditions of Approval and this Agreement during the preceding year. The Compliance Letter shall include a statement that the Compliance Letter is submitted to the City pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65865.1, this Agreement, and SCCC. The reasonable cost of each annual review or special review conducted during the term of this Agreement shall be reimbursed to the City by Developer. Such reimbursement shall include all direct and indirect expenses reasonably incurred in such annual reviews.

8.3 City’s Findings. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Compliance Letter, the Director shall determine whether, for the year under review, Developer has demonstrated good faith substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement. If the Director finds and determines that Developer has complied substantially with the terms of this Agreement, or does not determine otherwise within sixty (60) days after delivery of the Compliance Letter, the annual review shall be deemed concluded, Developer shall be deemed to have complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement during the year under review, and this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Upon a determination of compliance, the Director shall, if requested by Developer, issue a recordable certificate confirming Developer’s compliance through the year under review. Developer may record the certificate with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office. If the Director initially determines the Compliance Letter to be inadequate in any respect, he/she shall provide notice to that effect to Developer as provided in SCCC Section 17.10.220. If, after a duly noticed public hearing thereon, the City Council finds and determines based on substantial evidence that Developer has not complied substantially in good faith with the terms of this Agreement for the year under review, the City Council shall give written notice thereof to Developer specifying the noncompliance and such notice shall serve as a notice of default under Section 10.1. If Developer fails to cure the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time as established by the City Council, the City Council, in its discretion, may (i) grant additional time for compliance by Developer, or (ii) following the hearing described in SCCC Section 17.10.250, modify this Agreement to the extent necessary to remedy or mitigate the non-compliance, or (iii) terminate this Agreement. Except as affected by the terms hereof, the terms of SCCC Section 17.10.240(b)(2), and following, shall govern the City’s compliance review process. During any review, Developer shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. If the City Council does not hold a hearing and make its determination within one hundred and twenty (120) days after delivery of the Compliance Letter for a given year, then it shall be deemed

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 24 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
conclusive that Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement during the period under review.

9. REIMBURSEMENTS

9.1 Reimbursements. The Parties agree that Developer shall not be entitled to reimbursement for the construction of any private or public improvement explicitly provided by the Project Approvals, except as expressly provided in this Agreement or the COAs.

10. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES

10.1 Default. Failure by either Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default, provided that the Party alleging the default gave the other Party advance written notice of the default and thirty (30) days to cure the condition, or, if the nature of the default is such that it cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, the Party receiving notice shall not be in default if the Party commences performance of its obligations within the thirty (30) day period and diligently completes that performance. Written notice shall specify in detail the nature of the obligation to be performed by the Party receiving notice.

10.2 Remedies. It is acknowledged by the Parties that City and Developer would not have entered into this Agreement if City or Developer were to be liable in damages under, or with respect to, this Agreement or the application thereof. City and Developer shall not be liable in damages to each other, or to any assignee, transferee or any other person, and Developer and City covenant not to sue for or claim damages from the other.

Upon Developer’s or City’s material default, and failure to cure within a reasonable time depending on the nature of the default after demand by the non-defaulting Party, the nondefaulting Party shall institute mediation under Section 26 of this Agreement. If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, each Party shall have the right, in addition to all other rights and remedies available under this Agreement, to (i) bring any proceeding in the nature of specific performance, injunctive relief or mandamus, and/or (ii) bring any action at law or in equity as may be permitted by law or this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that monetary damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate upon the occurrence of a default. Therefore, specific performance or other extraordinary equitable relief (such as injunction) is an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement, other remedies at law being inadequate under all the circumstances pertaining as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and any such equitable remedy shall be available to the Parties.

10.3 Default by Developer/Withholding of Building Permit. City may, at its discretion, without submitting to mediation, refuse to issue a Building Permit for any structure within the Property, if Developer has materially failed and refused to complete any requirement that is a Condition of Approval, or that is applicable to the Building Permit requested. In addition, where City has determined that Developer is in default as described above, City may also refuse to issue the Developer any permit or entitlement

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 25 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
for any structure or property located within the Project. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedies provided for by this Agreement.

11. AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION

11.1 Agreement to Amend or Terminate. Subject to Section 22 regarding Operating Memoranda and Section 11.2 regarding future actions and minor changes, City and Developer, by mutual agreement, may terminate or amend the terms of this Agreement, pursuant to Section 24.

11.2 Modification to Approvals. City and Developer anticipate that the Project will be implemented in accordance with the Vested Elements and the MMRP. The foregoing actions and other necessary or convenient implementation actions shall not require an amendment to this Agreement.
a. City and Developer understand and acknowledge that changes to the Project which would not, in the discretion of the City, substantially comply with the Vested Elements or MMRP would necessitate subsequent review and approval, which will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Upon the written request of Developer, City may agree to make a substantive amendment or modification to the Project Approvals, including the Development Plan in compliance with procedural provisions set forth in the Development Plan or other land use ordinances and regulations in effect on the date of application for amendment or modification. The amendment or modification of the Development Plan shall be done pursuant to Section 24, unless treated as a minor change as described in Section 11.2(b) below.
b. If Developer seeks a modification to the Approval(s), the Director or his/her designee shall determine: (i) whether the requested modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested modification is consistent with this Agreement and applicable law. If the Director or his/her designee finds, in his or her sole discretion, that the proposed modification is minor, consistent with this Agreement and applicable law, and will result in no new significant impacts not addressed and mitigated in the EIR, the modification shall be determined to be a “Minor Change” and shall not be considered an amendment to the applicable Approval(s) and shall not require a formal amendment to this Agreement. Upon the Director’s approval, any Minor Change shall become part of the applicable Approvals and this Agreement, and shall be deemed a Vested Element. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, minor alterations to vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any final development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location of utilities and other infrastructure connections that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, and minor adjustments to the Project Site diagram constitute Minor Changes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Minor Changes shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the number proposed for modification.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 26 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

11.3 Enforceability of Agreement. The City and Developer agree that unless this Agreement is amended or terminated pursuant to its terms, this Agreement shall be enforceable by either Party notwithstanding any subsequent change to or adoption of any applicable General Plan, Specific Plan, SCCC, Other Regulation or Local Rule adopted by City, with the exceptions listed in this Agreement.

12. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION: CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE

12.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date on which this Agreement or a memorandum thereof is recorded, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage (“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of trust beneficiaries or mortgagees (“Mortgagees”) who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in-lieu-of foreclosure, voluntary transfer or otherwise.

12.2 Mortgagee Obligations. City, upon receipt of a written request from a foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Developer hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as reasonably possible, provided, however, that in no event shall such Mortgagee personally be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of Developer arising prior to acquisition of possession of such property by such Mortgagee. The foreclosing Mortgagee shall have the right to find a substitute developer to assume the obligations of Developer, which substitute shall be considered for approval by the City pursuant to Section 13 of this Agreement, but shall not, itself, be required to comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement.

12.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Developer and specifying the address for service thereof, City shall endeavor to deliver to the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof to Developer, all notices given to Developer describing all claims by the City that Developer has defaulted hereunder. If City determines that Developer is not in compliance with this Agreement, City also shall endeavor to serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee concurrently with service on Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the condition of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s notice.

13. ASSIGNABILITY

13.1 Assignment. Neither Party shall convey, assign or transfer (“Transfer”) any of its interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. In no event shall the obligations conferred upon Developer under this Agreement be transferred

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 27 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
except through a Transfer of all or a portion of the Property. Should Developer Transfer any of its interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement, it shall nonetheless remain liable for performance of the obligations for installation of public improvements and payment of fees, unless the transferee executes an Assumption Agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to the City whereby the transferee agrees to be bound by the relevant terms of the Agreement, including the obligations for installation of public improvements and payment of fees. During the Term, Developer shall provide City with written notice of a request to Transfer any interest in this Agreement forty-five (45) days prior to any such contemplated Transfer. Any such request for a Transfer shall be accompanied by quantitative and qualitative information that substantiates, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, that the proposed transferee has the capability to fulfill the rights and obligations of this Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of such a request and delivery of information, the City Manager shall make a determination, in his or her sole discretion, as to whether the Transfer shall be permitted or whether such Transfer necessitates an Amendment to this Agreement, subject to approval by the City Council. Each successor in interest to Developer shall be bound by all of the terms and provisions applicable to the portion of the Property acquired. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties’ successors, assigns and legal representatives. This Agreement shall be recorded by the City in the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office promptly upon execution by each of the Parties.

13.2 Covenants Run With The Land. This Agreement, the PD Zoning, and the General Plan Amendment are legislative in nature, and apply to the Property as regulatory ordinances. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any portion thereof and any interest therein, whether by sale, operation of law or other manner, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors.

13.3 Pre-Approved Transfers. The following Transfers shall not require approval by the City, and shall automatically, upon the satisfaction of the conditions in Section 13.1 above, result in the release of Developer of its obligations hereunder as they may relate specifically to the specific property or asset sold or transferred: (a) sale or lease of the property in its entirety to any other Party to this Agreement or to any affiliate of Developer; (b) sale or lease of one or more buildings to any other Party to this Agreement or to any affiliate of Developer; and (c) a loan or mortgage pertaining to the Property. As used herein, an “affiliate of Developer” means any entity that directly controls or is controlled by or under common control with Developer, whether through the ownership or control of voting interest, by contract, or otherwise.

13.4 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the Transfer of Developer’s rights and interests hereunder pursuant to the preceding subparagraph of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Property transferred, sold or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City approval of such Transfer; provided, however, that any transferee, purchaser or assignee approved by the

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 28 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
City expressly assumes the obligations of Developer under this Agreement. In any event, the transferee, purchaser or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City approval.

13.5 Non-Assuming Transferees. Except as otherwise required by a transferor, the burdens, obligations and duties of such transferor under this Agreement shall not apply to any purchaser of any individual commercial or residential condominium offered for sale.

The transferee in a transaction described above and the successors and assigns of such a transferee shall be deemed to have no obligations under this Agreement, but shall continue to benefit from the vested rights provided by this Agreement for the duration of the Term hereof. Nothing in this Section 13 shall exempt any property transferred to a non-assuming transferee from payment of applicable fees, taxes and assessments or compliance with applicable COAs.

13.6 Foreclosure. Nothing contained in this Section 13 shall prevent a Transfer of the Property, or any portion thereof, to a lender as a result of a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and any lender acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, as a result of foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall take such Property subject to the rights and obligations of Developer under this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such lender be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of Developer arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such lender, and provided further, in no event shall any such lender or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building permit or occupancy certificate until all fees due under this Agreement (relating to the portion of the Property acquired by such lender) have been paid to City.

14. CONTROLLING LAW

14.1 Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and the exclusive venue for any disputes or legal actions shall be the County of Santa Clara. Developer shall comply with all requirements of State and federal law, in addition to the requirements of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the payment of prevailing wages, if required by applicable law. In any event, Developer shall pay prevailing wages for all work on off-site public improvements related to the Project.

15. GENERAL

15.1 Construction of Agreement. The language in this Agreement in all cases shall be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning.

15.2 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either Party in exercising any right or power accruing upon the other Party’s noncompliance or failure to perform under the provisions of this Agreement shall impair or be construed to waive any right or power. A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by Developer or City shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants and conditions.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 29 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

15.3 Agreement is Entire Agreement. This Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein, together with the Vested Elements and the MMRP, are the sole and entire Agreement between the Parties concerning the Property. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they have not made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery, except representations set forth herein, and each Party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this Agreement. The Parties further acknowledge that all statements or representations that heretofore may have been made by either of them to the other are void and of no effect, and that neither of them has relied thereon in its dealings with the other.

15.4 Estoppel Certificate. Either Party from time to time may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting written certification that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and constitutes a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if it has been amended or modified, specifying the nature of the amendments or modifications, and, (iii) the requesting Party does not have knowledge of default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in known default, describing therein the nature and monetary amount, if any, of the default. A Party receiving a request shall execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. The City Manager shall have the right to execute the certificates requested by Developer. At the request of Developer, the certificates provided by City establishing the status of this Agreement with respect to any lot or parcel shall be in recordable form, and Developer shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected portion of the Property at its cost.

15.5 Severability. Each provision of this Agreement which is adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or illegal shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provisions hereof, and the other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

15.6 Further Documents. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other all other instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement.

15.7 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of each and every covenant and obligation to be performed by the Parties hereunder.

15.8 Defense and Indemnification Provisions. Developer, and with respect to the portion of the Property transferred to them, each Developer transferee, hereby releases and agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, its officers, employees, agents and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against all claims, injury, liability, loss, cost and expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in providing the defense to any claim arising from the performance or non-performance of this Agreement by Developer. This provision is intended to be broadly construed and extends to, among other things, any challenge to the validity of this Agreement, environmental review for the Project, entitlements, or anything related to the passage of the Agreement by the City.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 30 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

15.9 Construction. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both the City and Developer and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement.

16. TERMINATION

16.1 Termination. This Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of (i) expiration of the Term, or (ii) when the Property has been fully developed and all of Developer’s obligations have been fully satisfied as reasonably determined by City, or (iii) after all appeals have been exhausted before a final court of judgment, or issuance of a final court order directed to the City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the City’s approval of this Agreement or any material part thereof. Upon termination of this Agreement as to all of the Property, at the request of Developer the City shall record a Notice of Termination for each affected parcel in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the Office of the Santa Clara County Recorder.

16.2 Effect Upon Termination on Developer Obligations. Termination of this Agreement as to the Developer shall not affect any of the Developer’s obligations to comply with the City’s General Plan, SCCC, MMRP, COAs, Project Approvals, or any terms and conditions of any applicable zoning, or subdivision map or other land use entitlement approved with respect to the Project, nor shall it affect any other covenants or development requirements in this Agreement specified to continue after the termination of this Agreement, or obligations to pay assessments, liens, fees or taxes.

16.3 Effect Upon Termination on City. Upon any termination of this Agreement as to all or a portion of the Property, the Approvals, Development Plan, Conditions of Approval, limitations on fees and all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall no longer be vested with respect to the Property, or portion thereof, and the City shall no longer be limited by this Agreement, to make any changes or modifications to the Approvals, conditions or fees applicable to the Property or portion thereof.

17. NOTICES

17.1 Notices. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all notices and demands pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, by commercial courier or by first-class certified mail, postage prepaid. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, notices shall be considered delivered when personally served, upon delivery if delivered by commercial courier, or two (2) days after mailing if sent by mail.

Notices shall be sent to the addresses below for the respective parties; provided, however, that either Party may change its address for purposes of this Section by giving written notice to the other Party. These addresses may be used for service of process:

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 31 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24
To City:

City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
With copy to:

City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
To Developer:

Innovation Commons Owner, LLC
c/o Kylli Inc.
4995 Patrick Henry Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Attention: Ou Sun
With copy to:

Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attention: Tamsen Plume
The provisions of this Section shall be deemed directive only and shall not detract from the validity of any notice given in a manner that would be legally effective in the absence of this Section.

18. DEVELOPER INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

18.1 Developer is an Independent Contractor. Developer is not an agent or employee of City, but is an independent contractor with full rights to manage its employees subject to the requirements of the law. All persons employed or utilized by Developer in connection with this Agreement are employees or contractors of Developer and shall not be considered employees of City in any respect.

19. PROJECT AS A PRIVATE UNDERTAKING

19.1 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed that the Project is a private development. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind between City and Developer is formed by this Agreement.

20. NONDISCRIMINATION

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 32 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

20.1 Nondiscrimination. Developer shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, creed, religion or disability in connection with or related to the performance of this Agreement.

21. FORCE MAJEURE

21.1 Force Majeure. In addition to any specific provisions of this Agreement, performance of obligations hereunder shall be excused and the term of this Agreement shall be extended during any period of delay caused at any time by reason of: floods, earthquakes, fires or similar catastrophes; wars, riots or similar hostilities; strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the Party’s reasonable control; pandemics and epidemics that, due to specific provisions of a federal, state or local governmental declaration of emergency prohibit development or implementation of the Project; the enactment of new laws or restrictions imposed by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities preventing this Agreement from being implemented; or litigation involving this Agreement or the Approvals, which delays any activity contemplated hereunder, unless such action is brought by Developer. City and Developer shall promptly notify the other Party of any delay hereunder as soon as possible after the delay has been, or should have been, known.

22. OPERATING MEMORANDA

22.1 Operating Memoranda. The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Developer, and refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that clarifications with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer or minor revisions to the Project are appropriate. If and when, from time to time, during the term of this Agreement, City and Developer agree that such clarifications or minor modifications are necessary or appropriate, they may effectuate such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto (“Operating Memoranda”). No such Operating Memoranda shall constitute an Amendment to this Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Attorney shall be authorized in his/her sole discretion to determine whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 22 or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to require an amendment of the Agreement pursuant to Section 24 hereof. The City Manager or Director, depending on the context, may execute any Operating Memoranda without City Council action.

23. THIRD PARTIES

23.1 Third Parties. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Approvals, the Parties shall reasonably cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceedings.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 33 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

24. Amendments

24.1 Amendments. No alterations or changes to the terms of this Agreement shall be valid, unless made in writing and signed by both Parties, and completed in compliance with the procedures listed in SCCC and/or the Government Code for Development Agreement Amendments.

25. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY

25.1 No Third Party Beneficiary. This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed 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 hereunder for any cause whatsoever.

26. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

26.1 Mediation. Any controversies between Developer and City regarding the construction or application of this Agreement, and claims arising out of this Agreement or its breach, shall be submitted to mediation within thirty (30) days of the written request of one Party after the service of that request on the other Party.

The Parties may agree on one mediator. If they cannot agree on one mediator, the Party demanding mediation shall request the Superior Court of Santa Clara County to appoint a mediator. The mediation meeting shall not exceed one day (eight (8) hours). The Parties may agree to extend the time allowed for mediation under this Agreement.

The costs of the mediator shall be borne by the Parties equally; however, each Party shall bear its own attorney, consultant, staff and miscellaneous fees and costs.

Mediation under this Section is a condition precedent to filing an action in any court, but it is not a condition precedent to the City’s refusal to issue a Building Permit or any other entitlement under Section 5.

27. CONSENT

27.1 Consent. Where consent or approval of a Party is required or necessary under this Agreement, the consent or Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

28. COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

28.1 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Neither Party to this Agreement shall do anything which shall have the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other Party to receive benefits of this Agreement; each Party shall refrain from doing anything which would render its performance under this Agreement impossible; and, each Party shall do everything which this Agreement contemplates to accomplish the objectives and purpose of this Agreement.

29. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 34 of 34
Rev. 06/28/2024 9/4/24

29.1 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Developer, and further represent that they have the authority to bind Developer to the performance of its obligations in this Agreement.

30. COUNTERPARTS

30.1 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed an original, and may be signed in Counterparts. The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.

SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OPTION B
Development Agreement/Mission Point Page 1 of 1
Rev. 04/28/2023

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

DEVELOPER

INNOVATION COMMONS OWNER LLC,

A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
By:

Signature of Person executing the Agreement on behalf of Developer Name:

Title:

Local Address:

Email Address:

Telephone: ( )
Fax: ( )

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 1 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & PLAT
TRACT ONE:

TRACT TWO:

WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JANUARY 25, 1977 IN BOOK 387 OF MAPS, PAGE 44.

TRACT THREE:

PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED AUGUST 07, 1978 IN BOOK 424 OF MAPS, PAGE(S) 24, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION GRANTED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 09, 1987 IN BOOK K287, PAGE 1136, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS FOLLOWS:

TRACT FOUR:

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 2 of 3 ends

TRACT FIVE:

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RECORDED MAY 15, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14185766, AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF TASMAN DRIVE AND PATRICK

HENRY DRIVE AS SAID DRIVES ARE SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID TASMAN DRIVE SOUTH 82° 00' 43" EAST 159.80 FEET TO A CURVE; THENCE

TRACT SIX:

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED JANUARY 26, 1988 IN BOOK K428, PAGE 465, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 3 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
TRANSIT DISTRICT BY THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 08, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14176548, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

TRACT SEVEN:

ALL THAT PORTION OF DEMOCRACY WAY LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF OLD

IRONSIDES DRIVE AND EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PATRICK HENRY DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED MARCH 12, 1976 IN BOOK 368 OF MAPS, PAGES 36 AND 37, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.

TRACT EIGHT:

EASEMENT RESERVED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 3, 1950 IN BOOK 2089, PAGE 315, OFFICIAL RECORDS
[Insert Plat]

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 1 of 8 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023

EXHIBIT B

ALLOCATION OF FAIR SHARE TRAFFIC FEES

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 2 of 8 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
Project-Specific Fair Share1
0 60 McCarthy Blvd/O'Toole Av and Montague
Expwy (CMP)
Construct a partial grade separated interchange 0.0%3 $0 0% N/A 1 20 Great America Parkway and Great
America Way
Extend WBL lane striping 13.8% $14,017 5% 184
2 53 Lick Mill Boulevard and Montague
Expressway
Extend SBL pocket 1.6% $1,657 5% 184
3 25 Great America Parkway and Patrick Henry
Drive
Class IV separated bikeway on Great America
Pkwy/ Bowers Ave (between Bay Trail & Old
Glory Lane and between US 101 & Chromite
Dr.)

15.1% $394,7824 7% 245
4 25 Great America Parkway and Patrick Henry
Drive
Hetch Hetchy trail (between Guadalupe River
Pkwy & Great America Pkwy & between Patrick
Henry Dr & Calabazas Creek Trail)

5.8% $30,523 14% 489
8 51 Lafayette Street and Agnew Road Class IV separated bikeway on Lafayette (between SR 237 & Agnew)

7.3% $128,886 20% 699
9 40 Mission College Blvd and Montague
Expwy (CMP)
Add 3rd EBL lane and reconfigure the north leg
to include 3 receiving lanes

4.3% $18,878 24% 839

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 3 of 8 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
10 41 San Tomas Expressway and Scott
Boulevard (CMP)
Reconfigure EB approach to include 3 LT lanes,
1 TH lane, and 1 shared TH/RT lane, remove
triangular islands, reduce RT radii, signal
modifications.

4.6% $120,436 50% 1,747
16 48 De la Cruz Boulevard and Central
Expressway (CMP)
Class IV separated bikeway on De La Cruz
Boulevard (between Central & Reed)

1.6% $18,287 58% 2,027
18 52 Agnew Rd/De La Cruz Blvd and Montague
Expwy (CMP)
Install crosswalk motion sensors, accessible
pedestrian signals, upgraded safety lighting,
travel time data collection systems, traffic

2.5% $81,629 58% 2,027

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 4 of 8 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
monitoring cameras, and periodic retiming of
signal coordination at intersections along
Agnew Road/De La Cruz Boulevard (Multimodal
Improvement Plan).
19 44 San Tomas Expressway and El Camino
Real (CMP)
Class IV separated bikeway on El Camino Real
(from city limit to city limit)

20.4% $533,471

3.1% $
40,730
85% 2,970
23 47 Lafayette Street and Central Expressway Class IV separated bikeway on Lafayette St (between Laurelwood & Reed)

2.7% $39,839 94% 3,285
24 47 Lafayette Street and Central Expressway Remove triangular islands, reduce corner radii, realign crosswalks, and install ADA curb ramps.

2.7% $62,930 94% 3,285
Cumulative Fair Share Contributions2
6 Lawrence Expressway and E. Arques Ave. Construct grade separated interchange 1.8% $291,694 Cumulative2

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 5 of 8 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
Kylli Traffic Infrastructure and Fair Share Fee
# Intersection Name Improvement Description
Fair
Share
%
Fair Share
Costs
Development
Trigger
Row %
nonresid
ksf1
7 Lawrence Expressway and Kifer Road Construct grade separated interchange 1.0% $164,006 Cumulative2 8 Lawrence Expressway and Reed
Ave/Monroe St
Construct grade separated interchange 1.4% $170,924 Cumulative2 14 Old Ironsides Drive and Tasman Drive Extend WBL pocket 28.7% $62,888 Cumulative4 14 Old Ironsides Drive and Tasman Drive Spot improvements (tighten turning radii on northeast corner)

13.8% $358,959 Cumulative2
26 Great America Pkwy and Mission College
Blvd
Class IV separated bikeway on Great America
Pkwy/ Bowers Ave (between Bay Trail & Old
Glory and between US 101 & Chromite)

10.0% $311,418 Cumulative2
37 Agnew/Freedom Circle E & Mission
College Blvd
Class IV bikeway on Mission College Boulevard
(between Great America & Montague)

3.3% $29,485 Cumulative2

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 6 of 8 ends

2.4% $21,543 Cumulative2
42 San Tomas Expressway and Walsh
Avenue
Class IV Separated Bikeway on Walsh Ave
(between city limit & Lafayette)

3.2% $104,623 Cumulative2
42 San Tomas Expressway and Walsh
Avenue
Spot improvements (protected intersection
consistent with VTA Bike Plan)

3.2% $63,280 Cumulative2
45 Scott Boulevard and Central Expressway Class II buffered bicycle lane on Scott Blvd (between city limit & Monroe)

3.1% $80,296 Cumulative2
46 Scott Boulevard and Walsh Avenue Class IV Separated Bikeway on Walsh Ave (between city limit & Lafayette)

4.2% $137,854 Cumulative2
50 Lick Mill Boulevard and Tasman Drive Class IV separated bikeway on Lick Mill Blvd (between Tasman & Montague)

5.7% $83,387 Cumulative2
53 Lick Mill Boulevard and Montague
Expressway
Class IV separated bikeway on Lick Mill Blvd
(between Tasman & Montague)

1.1% $15,477 Cumulative2
55 Zanker Road and Montague Expressway
(CMP)
HOV-type signal improvements that could
support future Bus Rapid Transit facilities (North
San José Deficiency Plan)

0.7% $146,419 Cumulative2

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 7 of 8 ends

For illustrative example only, if 500 residential units were submitted for building permit, first the units would be converted (0.212 ksf per dwelling unit) or 500 units x 0.212 ksf = 106 ksf. At 106,000 sf, no project specific Fair Share Costs would be due. However, under footnote 2, below, $79,500 would be due. For another example, if a 500,000 sf office/R&D project were submitted for building permit (500 ksf), the following project-specific Fair Share Costs would be due: Rows 1- 7, plus the cumulative contribution of $375,000 under Footnote 2, below. 2 Cumulative Fair Share Contributions. The need for this improvement would only arise under cumulative plus project conditions. Thus, a sensitivity analysis was not conducted because the Project alone would not trigger the need for this improvement. Fair share payments towards this improvement will be collected at a rate of $0.75 per sf of non-residential Grand Total:
$6,162,396

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 8 of 8 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
development with each phase of development in proportion to the development size using the same non-residential equivalency ratio (0.212 ksf per dwelling unit).

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 1 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023

EXHIBIT C

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 2 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
“Effective Date” as defined in Recital N of this Agreement. “EIR” as defined in Recital L of this Agreement.
“Existing Public Utilities” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “Fair Share Traffic Fees” as defined in Section 4.9 of this Agreement. “Fees” as defined in Section 4.1 of this Agreement.
“FMV” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement.
“General Plan Amendment” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement. “Grocery Performance Milestone” as defined in Section 1.2a(i)(A) of this Agreement. “Grocery Store” as defined in Section 4.16 of this Agreement. “Grocery Store Marketing Period" as defined in Section 4.16 of this Agreement. “gsf” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Indemnified Parties” as defined in Section 15.8 of this Agreement. “Local Rules” as defined in Section 3.4 of this Agreement. “Maintenance Period” as defined in Section 4.7b of this Agreement. “Minor Change” as defined in Section 11.2b of this Agreement. “Mitigations” as defined in Section 4.5 of this Agreement. “MMRP” as defined in Recital L of this Agreement.
“Mortgage” as defined in Section 12.1 of this Agreement. “Mortgagees” as defined in Section 12.1 of this Agreement. “Operating Memoranda” as defined in Section 22.1 of this Agreement. “Other Regulations” as defined in Section 2.4d of this Agreement. “Parties” as defined on page 1 (first paragraph) of this Agreement. “PD” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“POSP” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“Processing Fees” as defined in Section 4.2 of this Agreement.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Page 3 of 3 ends

Rev. 04/28/2023
“Project” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Project Approvals” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement. “Property” as defined in Recital C of this Agreement.
“Public Art Funding” as defined in Section 4.8 of this Agreement. “Public Arts/Cultural Features” as defined in Section 4.8 of this Agreement. “Rezoning” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“R&D” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Relocation Cost” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “Relocation Work” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “ROW Appraisal” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “SCCC” as defined in Recital B of this Agreement.
“SOC” as defined in Recital L of this Agreement.
“Street Easement Vacation” as defined in Section 4.11 of this Agreement. “Subsequent Project Approval” as defined in Section 2.3 of this Agreement. “SVP” as defined in Recital E of this Agreement.
“Target Maximum Maintenance Cost” as defined in Section 4.7a of this Agreement. “TDMP” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.
“Term” as defined in Section 1.1 of this Agreement.
“Transfer” as defined in Section 13.1 of this Agreement. “Vested Elements” as defined in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. “VTM” as defined in Recital D of this Agreement.

November 6, 2024
City of Santa Clara Planning Commission
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
ELECTRONIC TRANSMITTAL via [email protected]
Honorable Chair Saleme, Vice Chair Bouza, Secretary Crutchlow, Commissioner Biagini, Commissioner Cherukuru, Commissioner Huang, and Commissioner Bhatnagar, Tonight, Kylli is proud to present for your consideration the Mission Point development proposal.

This proposal represents seven years of collaboration, where we continuously integrated community and stakeholder input into the Mission Point vision. This feedback has been invaluable in helping to shape the direction of the project, which has evolved positively since its initial conception. Through the years, the overall vision has remained consistent: to transform a singleuse property into a vibrant, transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood that will stand the test of time.

The robust community benefits package addresses many of the critical issues we have heard about over the years, including:
• Deeper level of housing affordability valued at up to $46.3M (Option A) to up to $66.8M (Option B)
• Publicly accessible park maintenance valued at approximately $10.6M • Arts and cultural programming valued at $5M
• Contributions towards fire apparatus at $3.5M and supplemental roadway improvements valued at $3M
• Childcare valued at approximately $1M
• A grocer valued at approximately $6M
• and construction materials and use taxes estimated at approximately $10M Kylli’s offices are right here in Santa Clara. We are enthusiastic about the opportunity to further complement the vision for Santa Clara North with Mission Point.

Thank you, Santa Clara, for all of the dialogue over the years. Mission Point is a better project because of it. We know Mission Point will be a new neighborhood that Santa Clarans will be proud to call home. We truly appreciate the time and consideration on this exciting opportunity.

Warmly,
Ou Sun
Ms. Ou Sun
CEO
Kylii, Inc
From: Savita Nataraj
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 6:53 PM
To: Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Family-Friendly homes being built
Planning Staff Lesley Xavier,
I hear of more and more young people who are choosing to go child free or wait even longer to have children. But this type of family-friendly community & housing space project would definitely help build an environment more encouraging for children and all families.

And so, I support Kylli's Mission Point project in Santa Clara.

It is a visionary redevelopment plan that aims to transform an underutilized site, currently occupied by outdated office buildings and excessive parking areas, into a vibrant mixed-use community.

Specifically, the project includes:

Sustainable Urban design: The project transforms underutilized parking lots into 1,800 new homes near public transit options, promoting increased walkability and reducing car dependency by 25%
Environmental Sustainability: With underground parking and enhanced connectivity to the Patrick Henry Specific Plan area and existing bike trails, Mission Point prioritizes pedestrian and cycling infrastructure over vehicle use. The project also aims for LEED certifications, reflecting high environmental standards. Moreover, the project will be landscaped with drought resistant plants and greenery to promote environmental and mental wellness.

Enhanced Community benefits: Kylli's Mission Point proposes over seven acres of publicly accessible park space, turning a largely impervious site into a green, vibrant hub with opportunities for community to gather. Moreover, Mission Point will connect existing trails, promoting physical wellness and outdoor activities. The proposal also includes a child care facility with designated outdoor green space for the children to safely play outside.

Please move this project forward without delay!
Sincerely,
Savita N.

Savita Nataraj
5055 Dent Avenue, 18
San Jose, California 95118
RE: 24-122 Mission Point
To the Santa Clara City Planning Commission:

South Bay YIMBY is a group of neighbors committed to plentiful, inclusive, and affordable housing in Santa Clara County. We advocate for a South Bay that leads the country in building new homes and lives up to California values, one where residents are able to walk, bike, and take transit to work and enjoy the dignity of stable housing.

We are proud to support the Mission Point development proposed at 3005 Democracy Way. The development would bring 1,800 much-needed sustainable new homes to Santa Clara that are well connected to existing transit, bike, and pedestrian networks, redeveloping the underutilized lot to better serve our community.

Mission Point seeks to replace aging parking lots with a vibrant community that places homes near jobs and jobs near homes. Its walkable, sustainable urban design, which incorporates 100,000 sf of community retail and 10,000 sf of childcare facilities, will also provide valuable amenities. Connections to the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and existing bike and trail networks will allow for safe access to outdoor activities and promote physical wellness.

The project is near the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, which connects to many of the city’s major employers. In addition to placing more homes near existing transit connections and its walkable design, the development will promote biking and walkability, reducing car dependency and increasing access to local services.

This proposal also includes 7 acres of neighborhood parks and open space, turning the existing paved lot into a vibrant green space for not just the new homes, but the whole of Santa Clara.

With drought resistant plants and landscaping, the project will further promote environmental sustainability. Connections with Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan open spaces will mean these new homes will be well served by a healthy and green community.

South Bay YIMBY supports the Mission Point proposal to add new homes to combat our housing crisis and to renew underutilized areas of our community with sustainable, affordable, and well connected new development.

Sincerely,
Jason Morrow
On behalf of South Bay YIMBY
City of Santa Clara
Planning Commission
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
October 22nd, 2024
Dear Chair Saleme, Vice Chair Bouza, Secretary Crutchlow, and Commissioners Biagini, Cherukuru, Huang, and Bhatnagar,
On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am pleased to recommend the Planning Commission’s approval of Mission Point by Kylli.

As you may know, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group was founded in 1977 by one of Silicon Valley’s pioneers, David Packard. Today, SVLG serves as the nation’s most effective and dynamic business association representing the innovation economy and its ecosystem. SVLG represents hundreds of companies across the broader Silicon Valley region, many of which call Santa Clara home.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group has endorsed Mission Point by Kylli through our rigorous project review process. It is a vast improvement compared to both current site conditions as well as the previously approved entitlement under a former owner. The site is currently 100% impervious surfaces with a sea of surface parking and four outdated commercial buildings. The previously approved plan included 3 million square feet of office space, but nothing for the citizens of Santa Clara. We endorsed Mission Point because it focuses on community first by adding housing, community-facing retail and publicly accessible open space.

Because Kylli took on the added expense of building underground parking, Mission Point will be able to deliver more than seven acres of contiguous, public open green space. The public multi-use trail that runs through Mission point will complete the planned trail system in the neighborhood, linking the Tasman Drive corridor to the future trail network. The park space also connects to the park space planned in the Patrick Henry Drive specific plan. This park space will be a celebrated amenity for Santa Clara residents in this part of the city.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group respectfully requests your support of Mission Point.

Sincerely,
Kristen Brown
Vice President, Government Relations
Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:56 AM
To: Alisha C. Pember <[email protected]>; Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Rebecca Bustos <[email protected]>; Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>; Alexander Abbe <[email protected]>; Eric Crutchlow <[email protected]>; Lance Saleme <[email protected]>; Mario Bouza <[email protected]>; Nancy Biagini <[email protected]>; Priya Cherukuru <[email protected]>; Qian Huang <[email protected]>; Yashraj Bhatnagar <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068)
Thank you, your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Regards,
Elizabeth Elliott
Planning Division
From: Alisha C. Pember <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 10:33 AM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]>; Andrew Crabtree <[email protected]>; Rebecca Bustos <[email protected]> Cc: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068)
Good morning,
Please find attached Comments re Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068).

We are also providing a Dropbox link containing supporting references:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/sx6kwcm4jc02enpxk4am3/AC8KJjOMuxHJxLtRicknMIc? rlkey=l6pmlkdh85b5sah535ua0h0s9&st=lzqpufub&dl=0
A hard copy of our Comments will go out today via overnight delivery.

If you have any questions, please contact Richard Franco.

Thank you.

Alisha Pember
Alisha C. Pember
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 589-1660 voice, Ext. 24
[email protected]
___________________
This e-mail may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
October 23, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
City of Santa Clara Planning
Commission
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Email:

PlanningPublicComment@santaclaraca
.gov
Andrew Crabtree
Director of Community Development
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Rebecca Bustos, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Santa Clara Planning Commission October 23, 2024 Agenda Item No. 2 --Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018- 13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018- 01054; SCH No. 2018072068)
Dear Planning Commission, Mr. Crabtree and Ms. Bustos:

We are writing on behalf of Silicon Valley Residents for Responsible Development (“Silicon Valley Residents”) to provide comments on the City of Santa Clara (“City”) Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2 regarding the Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22- 00635, CEQ2018-01054, SCH No. 2018072068) (“Project”) proposed by Kylli Inc (“Applicant”). The Planning Commission (“Commission”) will consider the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and entitlements including a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement. We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings and proceedings on the Project.1
1 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

October 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The Project proposes construction of up to 4.9 million gross square feet (“gsf”) of new development consisting of up to 1,800 residential units, three million gsf of office/R&D space and 100,000 gsf of neighborhood retail.2 The Project also calls for 10,000 gsf of childcare facilities and 3,000 gsf of community space.3 An electrical substation of approximately 18,000 gsf would be constructed to support the Project.4 The Project site is located at 3005 Democracy Way in Santa Clara.

The City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act5 (“CEQA”), prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and FEIR for the Project. Silicon Valley Residents’ comments on the DEIR6 explained how the DEIR failed to comply with CEQA’s requirement to act as an informational document that adequately analyzes and discloses the Project’s significant impacts, and fails to include feasible and enforceable mitigation measures in several impact areas, as required by CEQA. Those comments further explained how the DEIR lacks substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusions regarding those impacts.

The City’s FEIR includes responses to Silicon Valley Residents’ comments and purports to address the issues raised. As discussed below, however, the FEIR fails to adequately resolve these issues or to mitigate all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The City may not approve the Project until it revises the DEIR to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Silicon Valley Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential environmental impacts associated with Project development. Silicon Valley Residents includes Santa Clara residents Adrian Frometa and Todd Mellott, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 332, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 393, 2 DEIR, pg. 2-1.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs (“CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).
6 January 2, 2024 letter from Richard M. Franco and Ariana Abedifard to City of Santa Clara re Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mission Point Project (PLN2017-12924, PLN2018-13400, PLN21-15386, PLN21-15387, PLN22-00635, and CEQ2018-01054; SCH No. 2018072068) (“Silicon Valley Residents DEIR Comments”).

October 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, along with their members and their families, and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County.

Individual members of Silicon Valley Residents and its member organizations live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, Silicon Valley Residents has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

II. THE CITY MAY NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE
FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE PROJECT’S

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
CEQA requires that a lead agency evaluate and provide a written response to DEIR comments raising significant environmental issues.7 Such comments must be addressed in detail and include good faith reasoned analysis; conclusory statements unsupported by facts do not suffice.8 A lead agency’s failure to adequately respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA’s informational purposes and renders the EIR legally inadequate.9 Here, as discussed below, many of the FEIR’s responses to Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments lack any reasoned analysis and include wholly conclusory statements unsupported by any facts. The FEIR is therefore legally inadequate under CEQA and the Commission may not recommend certification of the FEIR or approval of the Project entitlements at this time.
7 14 CCR § 15088(a).
8 14 CCR § 15088(c).
9 Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615-17; Rural Landowners Ass’n v. City Council (1883) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.

October 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
While courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”10 As the courts have explained, a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”11 “The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”12 III. THE EIR LACKS AN ACCURATE, COMPLETE AND STABLE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As explained in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the DEIR does not comply with CEQA because it fails to include an accurate, complete and stable description of the Project, rendering the DEIR’s impact analysis inadequate.13 The FEIR’s response to comments fails to resolve these issues.

It is axiomatic that an EIR must “identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment.”14 An accurate, stable and finite project description is essential to an informative and legally sufficient EIR.15 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be 10 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409, fn. 12).
11 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision-makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). 12 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 405). 13 See Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, pgs. 7-9. 14 14 CCR § 15126.2(a). 15 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. City of Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85–89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.

October 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
assessed.16 The project description is therefore the foundation for the evaluation of a project’s environmental impacts.

Here, though, the City fails to comply with these basic CEQA principles by failing to base its analysis on the Project’s characteristics set forth in the DEIR’s project description. As discussed at length in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, certain of the City’s CEQA analyses use an artificially low estimate of the number of jobs the Project is expected to generate.17 While the DEIR’s project description estimates that at full buildout the Project will employ 12,564 people, for purposes of assessing the Project’s impacts on the City’s jobs/housing balance and impacts arising from Project-induced population, housing and employment changes, the DEIR assumes that the Project will only employ 6,667 people. The latter figure is derived from the employee generation rate used in the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in 2010. In other words, the City states in the DEIR for this Project that it expects the proposed Project will generate nearly double the number of employees than previously estimated for the Project site using the employee generation rate set forth in the General Plan. Rather than using the actual number of employees the Project is expected to add, the City uses the much lower number to analyze Project impacts, which leads to an unrealistic assessment of the Project’s reasonably foreseeable significant impacts.

Rather than correct the errors pointed out in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the FEIR’s responses to comments attempt to justify the City’s approach.

As discussed below, these responses lack merit and the EIR continues to violate CEQA.

In the FEIR, the City disagrees that the Draft EIR did not clearly or consistently describe the number of employees on the Project site at full build-out or that the approach the City selected and described in the Draft EIR rendered the Project description unstable.18 The City claims that using a different employment generation rate than is set forth in the DEIR is permitted by CEQA because (1) CEQA does not direct any specific methodology for employment assumptions, and (2) the DEIR clearly identifies and explains the use and employment generation 16 CEQA Guidelines § 15124; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 192–193; see also El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597 (“An accurate and complete project description is necessary to fully evaluate the project's potential environmental effects.”) 17 Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, pgs. 7-14.
18 FEIR, pg. 3-195.

October 23, 2024

Page 6 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
assumptions in the EIR as well as the purpose of such assumptions.19 According to the FEIR, “the basic components of the Project remained accurate, stable, and finite, and the methodology used to assess the impacts of the Project in the Draft EIR was clearly explained throughout for the public.”20 The City’s response is not only factually incorrect, but its reasoning completely subverts the EIR’s purpose, which is to serve as a vehicle for intelligent public participation in the decision-making process.21 The City’s responses simply ignore the underlying defect: the EIR fails to evaluate the Project’s impacts using the number of employees the Project is actually expect to generate. If the City’s view was correct then a project description would be virtually meaningless as long as it explains why it disregarded the project description. Explaining why the City used a clearly misleading methodology does not cure the defect and appears to be an attempt to categorize the issue as a dispute about methodology in order to seek favorable case law with the courts. And while it is true that CEQA does not provide any specific methodology for employment assumptions, it does require the EIR to “examine the changes to existing environmental conditions that would occur in the affected area if the proposed project were implemented.”22 Using an employee generation rate that does not reflect the actual change in employment expected to result from the Project impermissibly skews the analysis in violation of CEQA.

In addition, the City attempts to justify its use of the significantly lower employee generation rate by stating that “the Project requires a General Plan amendment to the existing High-Intensity Office/R&D land use designation…to consolidate the already-allowed office/commercial on a smaller portion of the Project site.”23 Because of this, “an analysis of consistency with General Plan policies, an overstatement of impacts and/or confusion about consistency (or inconsistency) with the General Plan policies could occur if the City were to use a different employee generation rate than that used by the General Plan itself in the development and analysis of those policies.”24 This entirely misses the point. The City is required to assess whether actual expected Project impacts are consistent with General Plan policies, not whether the General Plan’s prior assumptions about the Project site are consistent with the General Plan policies. The City’s responses are nonsensical. 19 FEIR, pg. 3-195.
20 FEIR, pg. 3-197. 21 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.3d 185, 197. 22 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a); San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. V. County of Merced (2007) 149 CA4th 645.
23 FEIR, pg. p. 3-198. 24 FEIR, pg. p. 3-198.

October 23, 2024

Page 7 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Indeed, the City’s approach artificially manufactures Project consistency with the City’s General Plan; rather than comparing employment projections for the Project with the General Plan’s estimates, the EIR compares the General Plan’s employment estimates with itself, and of course finds consistency. This directly conflicts with the requirements of CEQA, which requires “[t]he defined project and not some different project [to] be the EIR’s bona fide subject.”25 The City cites to Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco, San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, and City of Santee v. County of San Diego to support its claim that an explanation of its methodology will cure an otherwise defective Project description.26 However, none of these cases stand for the proposition that explaining an inconsistency will cure an otherwise defective Project description. In Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island, the Court upheld the Project description because even though it lacked certain design elements, those elements existed in other documents that would guide future development of the Project.27 Here, the claim is not that the EIR lacks relevant information regarding employment generation, it is that the EIR provided such information and then the City ignored it in its CEQA analyses.

In San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, the Court held that the Project description was inconsistent when it portrayed the Project as having “no increase” in mine production while at the same time allowing for substantial increases above recent historical averages if the Project were approved.28 The Court held that this violated CEQA because it failed to adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope and magnitude of the Project.29 Similarly, in City of Santee, the Court held that the EIR did not contain an accurate, stable and finite Project description when it evaluated a prison Project using variable figures to determine the duration of the temporary facility (i.e., from three years to seven years to an indefinite length).30 The Court reasoned that this could not “adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the Project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences.”31
25 Western Placer Citizens for an Agriculture & Rural Environment v County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 898.
26 FEIR, pg. 3-197.
27 Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014), 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1053.
28 San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007), 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 657. 29 San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007), 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 657. 30 City of Santee (1989), 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1451.
31 City of Santee (1989), 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1455.

October 23, 2024

Page 8 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Like the holdings in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and City of Santee, the EIR here violates CEQA by using a higher employee generation rate in the Project description and in its analysis of some environmental impacts but uses a lower employee generation rate in its analysis of the Project’s consistency with Santa Clara’s General Plan and impacts on population and housing. This fails to properly apprise the public of the true scope of the Project by ignoring actual expected employment growth which minimizes the Project’s true effects.

The City also attempts to distinguish several cases relied upon in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments.32 However, those attempts fail because this EIR suffers from similar deficiencies as in the cited decisions. Specifically, this EIR’s use of an employee generation rate different from the one in the Project description fails to clearly articulate the future housing needs and employment growth at the site,33 fails to consistently describe the projected employment growth upon project build out,34 and fails to discuss the future cumulative effects of the Project’s actual projected employment generation rate.35
Accordingly, the City must revise and recirculate the DEIR with analysis properly based on the DEIR’s project description.

IV. THE EIR’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE PROJECT’S

IMPACTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The DEIR’s flaws relating to the project description have serious implications for the City’s ability to adequately assess the Project’s environmental impacts.

Under CEQA, the City’s analysis is required to include evaluations of whether the Project would cause significant environmental impacts due to conflicts with land use plans and policies adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.36 The City is similarly required to analyze and disclose the Project’s impact on population and housing.37 The DEIR expressly recognizes that the Project’s impacts on the City’s jobs/housing balance will affect a host of other environmental impacts, 32 FEIR at p. 3-196.
33 Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010), 184 Cal. 4th 70, 82 (finding that the EIR failed to clearly articulate the anticipated future potential at the site). 34 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977), CA 3rd 185, 190 (finding that the EIR failed to consistently describe various elements of the Project). 35 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988), 47 Cal. 3rd 376, 396 (finding that the EIR failed to discuss all potential cumulative effects of the whole Project). 36 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XI.b.
37 Id., XIV.

October 23, 2024

Page 9 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
including VMT, air pollution, GHG emissions, and traffic congestion.38 But because the DEIR relies on an artificially low employment generation rate in its analysis of the Project’s land use impacts associated with the City’s jobs/housing balance, the DEIR’s conclusions that the Project will not have a significant impact with respect to land use and planning and population and housing is unsupported by substantial evidence.

As discussed above, the DEIR used different employee generation rates depending on the environmental impact being analyzed. This inconsistency has profound effects on the DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts with respect to Land Use and Planning, and Population and Housing, and in particular the City’s jobs/housing balance. The Project’s impact on the City’s jobs housing balance is calculated from the number of the Project’s new housing units and the number of employees expected to be generated from the Project’s office/commercial/ R&D uses.

Obviously, using an unrealistically low number of expected new jobs from the Project will directly affect this ratio. As explained at length in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments, the Project will worsen the City’s jobs/housing balance when the actual number of expected new employees is considered.39 In the FEIR, “the City acknowledges that the Draft EIR uses the General Plan employment assumptions to compare the Project for land use and planning purposes, including the City’s policies related to the jobs/housing balance…” 40 In other words, the City concedes that in evaluating whether the Project would conflict with the General Plan’s policies regarding jobs/housing balance, it did not consider the actual expected impacts of the Project, but rather “uses the General Plan employment assumptions” to compare the Project to the City’s policies. The City essentially admits that it failed to provide an accurate analysis of the Project’s true impacts, and instead relies on misinformation that undermines the ability to meaningfully assess the Project’s impacts.

Similarly, in assessing the City’s housing needs associated with the Project’s generation of thousands of new employees, the DEIR’s population and housing analysis improperly assumes that the Project will only generate a total of 6,667 office/R&D employees (based on the General Plan employee generation rate), rather than the 12,564 employees set forth in the project description. In assessing housing needs for new Project-generated employees, the DEIR assumes only 544 net new 38 DEIR, pg. 3.1-5.
39 Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, pgs. 9-12.
40 FEIR, pg. 3-198.

October 23, 2024

Page 10 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
employees (consisting of neighborhood retail, childcare and multifamily residential employees not accounted for in the General Plan projections). Using this misleading assumption, the City projects that “the Project’s total demand for housing units to support employment would amount to approximately 349 units.”41 This is calculated based on 544 employees/1.56 workers per household.42 The City’s analysis ignores the fact that the Project is actually expected to generate 12,564 employees, which is 5,897 employees over what was assumed in the General Plan. The Project’s housing demand to support the additional 5,897 employees anticipated from the Project actually amounts to 3,780 units (5,897 employees/1.56 workers per household). This is more than double the 1,800 units the Project is expected to provide at build-out.

Despite detailed comments on the DEIR explaining these errors, the FEIR fails to directly address them or correct the errors. The City simply asserts that, notwithstanding the obvious flaws, its conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.43 It points to the definition of ‘substantial evidence’ in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(a), to argue that there is substantial evidence to support the use of the General Plan employee assumption in the comparison of the Project’s consistency with the General Plan land use policies.44 The City also relies on Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, which states that “a court may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.”45 The City misconstrues the ‘substantial evidence’ standard as a mechanism to excuse the use of incorrect facts in EIR impact analyses. The substantial evidence standard requires “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.”46 Providing incorrect information and expecting the public to draw inferences about the Project’s actual impacts, is directly contradictory to one of CEQA’s primary purposes of “identification of a project’s significant environmental effects.”47 41 DEIR, pg. 3.12-10. 42 Id., fn. 32.
43 FEIR, pg. 3-198 and 3-200. 44 FEIR, pg. 3-198.
45 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988), 47 Cal.3d 376, 393.
46 CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
47 CEQA § 13.2.11.

October 23, 2024

Page 11 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The City similarly misapplies Laurel Heights in an attempt to justify its use of misleading information about the Project’s impacts. The passage quoted by the City relates to weighing conflicting evidence regarding the significance of a project’s impacts. The issue here is not whether there is conflicting evidence regarding the Project’s impacts. Rather, it is whether the City may use assumptions that do not reflect the described characteristics of the Project when analyzing the Project’s impacts, and CEQA is clear that it may not.

For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the EIR for the Project is wholly inadequate and the City must prepare and circulate a revised DEIR that accurately analyzes and discloses the Project’s expected impacts relating to employment assumptions.

V. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE PROJECT’S

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE DISPLACEMENT OF
LEVI’S STADIUM PARKING
As explained in detail in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, the Project site currently provides 3,300 parking spaces for events at nearby Levi’s Stadium, which represents approximately 16% of the 21,000 parking spaces “located within a short walking distances of Levi’s Stadium.”48 The DEIR concedes that the Project may eliminate some indeterminate number of stadium parking spaces but includes no analysis of the potentially significant impacts associated with the displacement of stadium parking.49 California courts have recognized that a project’s impact on vehicle parking is a physical impact that may constitute a significant effect on the environment;50 at a minimum, the “secondary effects of scarce parking on traffic and air quality” is an environmental impact that requires analysis under CEQA.51 Indeed, in the FEIR’s response to Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR comments, the City concedes that “secondary impacts from the potential for cars to circle in a neighborhood looking for parking can be CEQA impacts and necessary to analyze.”52 Despite this concession, the FEIR includes no analysis of 48 DEIR, pg. 3.2-3; see also, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/santa-clara-stadiumauthority/experience-levi-s-stadium/levi-s-stadium-information, last accessed on December 26, 2023. 49 DEIR, pg. 3.2-3.
50 Taxpayers for Accountable Sch. Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 215 Cal. App. 4th 1013, 1051 (2013) [“Taxpayers”].
51 San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 102 Cal. App. 4th 656, 697 (2002) [“SFUDP”]; Covina Residents for Responsible Dev. v. City of Covina, 21 Cal. App. 5th 712, 728 (2018) [“Covina”]; Taxpayers, 215 Cal. App. 4th at 1052. 52 FEIR, pg. 3-204.

October 23, 2024

Page 12 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
these issues. The EIR remains defective because the City has failed to evaluate and disclose any of the impacts associated with the Project’s displacement of Levi Stadium parking, in violation of CEQA.

The DEIR's treatment of parking issues as inconsequential, and the FEIR’s failure to remedy this flaw, ignores the environmental harms that could arise from a reduction in parking availability for stadium patrons. As discussed in Silicon Valley Residents’ DEIR Comments, courts have consistently underscored the importance of considering parking deficits' environmental impacts under CEQA.53 A loss of stadium parking due to Project construction and operations is likely to exacerbate traffic congestion and public safety, increase vehicle emissions, affect air quality, and contribute to noise pollution. Indeed, stadium events already routinely cause major traffic jams and road closures affecting areas surrounding the stadium.54 Despite the FEIR’s express recognition that such secondary impacts from parking scarcity may require CEQA analysis, the City declines to even consider, analyze or disclose such impacts. The DEIR must be revised to include an analysis of the potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the expected reduction of Levi’s Stadium parking.

VI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CANNOT MAKE THE REQUISITE
FINDINGS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT’S

ENTITLEMENTS
The Project requires the City to issue several discretionary approvals, including a general plan amendment (“GPA”), a tentative subdivision map, and a development agreement.55 As an initial matter, each of these entitlements require that the Planning Commission (and ultimately the City Council) find that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.56 As discussed above, the City’s failure to properly analyze the Project’s employment-related impacts precludes a finding that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission may not make the required findings 53 See SFUDP, 102 Cal. App. 4th at 697; Covina, 21 Cal. App. 5th at 728; Taxpayers, 215 Cal. App. 4th at 1052.
54 See e.g., https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-cowboys-game-traffic-jam-17734652.php; https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/santa-clara-wednesday-rolling-stones-concert-trafficadvisory-levis-stadium/ . 55 DEIR, pgs. 2-37–2-38. 56 See City of Santa Clara Agenda Report for October 23, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, Proposed Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment (“Staff Report”), pg. 3 of 5; Santa Clara City Code §17.05.300(h) (Vesting Tentative Tract Map findings); Santa Clara City Code § 17.10.180 (Development Agreement findings).

October 23, 2024

Page 13 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and therefore may not recommend Project approval to the City Council.

A project, like this one, that includes a GPA requires that the City make the following findings in order to approve the Project:

A. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest; B. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected;
C. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA); and
D. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.57
The City cannot make these findings because, as discussed above, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and address the Project’s significant impacts, and the FEIR fails to remedy these defects. These failures create inconsistencies with General Plan policies, which also precludes the city from finding that there will be no detrimental effects to public health, safety, and welfare.

Finding B, above, requires that the City determine that the proposed amendment to the General Plan would be consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan. Here, the proposed GPA seeks to change the current Project site designation from High-Intensity Office/R&D to Urban Center Mixed Use.58 As discussed above, the FEIR fails to adequately analyze and address the Project’s significant impacts arising from significant employment increases, leading to inconsistencies with the General Land Use and Air Quality policies in the City’s General Plan.59
For example, General Land Use policy 5.3.1-P18 requires the City to “[m]eter net new industrial and commercial development excluding ‘Approved/Not Constructed and Pending Projects’ […] so as not to exceed 2.75 million square feet 57 Staff Report, Proposed Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment, pgs. 2-4. 58 DEIR, pg. 2-37.
59 City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, available at:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/56139/636619791319700000 October 23, 2024

Page 14 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
in Phase I, 5.5 million square feet in Phase II and 5.5 million square feet in Phase III in order to maintain the city’s jobs/housing balance and ensure adequate infrastructure and public services.”60 This policy underscores the City’s commitment to maintaining a balanced jobs/housing ratio.

The EIR undermines this goal by using the General Plan’s lower employee generation rate (one employee per 450 square feet of office/R&D uses) rather than the rate used in the Project Description (one employee per 250 square feet of office/R&D uses). This fails to properly disclose the actual effect the Project would have on the City’s jobs/housing ratio. As previously explained, the Project’s actual job creation estimates would nearly double the number of expected employees on the Project site and lead to an increase in the jobs/housing ratio. The EIR also significantly underestimates the number of housing units required to support Project-related employment growth. The EIR greatly underestimates the Project’s actual expected impacts on the City’s needs for housing and expected job growth as compared to what was forecast in the General Plan, and therefore undermines the General Plan policy of maintaining a balanced jobs/housing ratio.

Similarly, General Plan Air Quality Policy 5.10.2-P2 requires the City to “[e]ncourage development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled and air pollution.”61 This illustrates the City’s goal of lowering VMT and air pollution levels.

The DEIR’s inadequate disclosure and analysis of the Project’s actual impacts directly conflicts with this policy goal. The DEIR recognizes that the Project’s impacts on the City’s jobs/housing balance will affect a host of other environmental impacts, including VMT, air pollution, GHG emissions, and traffic.62 Despite this recognition, the DEIR fails to consistently use the expected employment figures projected for this Project, which minimizes the Project’s true impacts.

Finding C, above, requires that the City determine that the proposed amendment to the General Plan would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.

The City cannot make this finding because it has not adequately addressed the project’s significant impacts. As discussed above, the FEIR fails to adequately 60 City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, General Land Use Policy § 5.3.1-P18. 61 City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Air Quality Policy § 5.10.2-P2. 62 DEIR, pg. 3.1-12.

October 23, 2024

Page 15 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
resolve these issues or to mitigate all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts.

Specifically, the EIR still lacks an accurate, complete, and stable project description; and the DEIR’s conclusions regarding the Project’s environmental impacts (e.g., land use and planning, housing and population, and impacts from displacement of stadium parking) are unsupported by substantial evidence. These unaddressed impacts may be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. As such, the City may not approve the GPA until it revises the DEIR to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

Similarly, before approving the Project’s proposed development agreement, tentative subdivision map and rezoning, the City must also find that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.63 The City cannot make the findings required to approve the development agreement, tentative subdivision map or rezoning for the same reasons as stated above.

In short, the EIR’s failure to address the Project’s significant impacts preclude the Planning Commission from making the findings required to recommend approval of the Project. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot recommend certification of the FEIR or approval of the Project entitlements without a revised and recirculated DEIR that accurately analyzes and discloses the Project’s significant environmental effects.

VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the EIR for the Project is wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be revised to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. These revisions 63 Santa Clara City Code § 17.10.180 (“Before the City Council may approve a development agreement with or without modifications, it must find that its provisions are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans and relevant City policies and guidelines for development.”); Santa Clara City Code § 17.05.300(h)(5); Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance Chapter

18.02.050 (“the Council intends that this Zoning Code be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and that any development, land use, or subdivision approved in compliance with this Zoning Code shall also be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.”); Cal. Gov. Code § 65860 (“County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan…A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) the city or county has officially adopted a plan, (2) the various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan.”).

October 23, 2024

Page 16 ends

5936-008acp
printed on recycled paper
will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review and comment. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, the City may not lawfully approve the Project. The City also cannot make the required findings under the City Code.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
Richard Franco
RMF:acp
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Planning Public Comment
To: Ali Sapirman; Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier Cc: Lesley Xavier; Corey Smith; Alexander Abbe
Subject: RE: Mission Point Letter of Support
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 4:01:14 PM
Attachments: Misson Point letter of support -4.pdf
image001.png
image003.png
Hello,
Your email has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

Thank you,
ELIZABETH ELLIOTT | Staff Aide II
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
O : 408.615.2450 Direct : 408.615.2474
From: Ali Sapirman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 1:18 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Cc: Lesley Xavier <[email protected]>; Corey Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Mission Point Letter of Support
Dear Planning Commission & Staff,
Please see the attached letter of support on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. --
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager | Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".

October 23, 2024
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
The Housing Action Coalition is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for residents of all income levels to help alleviate the Bay Area and California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.

We write in support of the Mission Point project by Kylli, which we proudly endorsed. Today, the site is made up of four small, outdated office buildings and acres of underutilized surface parking. The site was also previously entitled for 3 million square feet of tech office space.

Neither of these are public facing, nor do they contain parks or significant open green space.

However, Kylli designed Mission Point to become a destination for residents of the City of Santa Clara and the region by proposing a mixed-use development with much-needed housing, desirable ground-floor retail, and more than seven acres of publicly accessible park space.

Mission Point will create parks and open space that is currently lacking in this part of Santa Clara. The Kylli team designed the project to make open space the focal point, and moved the parking underground. It has also been designed not to be contained, but connected to the Patrick Henry Specific Plan area, as well as the existing bike trail network. The open space will contain walk/bike trails throughout and provide a valuable link between the Tasman Drive corridor and the future trail network. This is a vast improvement from the site today, which contains almost 100% impervious surfaces.

We respectfully ask that you recommend the approval of Mission Point without any delays.

Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
Ali Sapirman, Advocacy & Policy Manager
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Planning Public Comment
To: Allie Hughes; Planning Public Comment; Lesley Xavier Cc: Jennifer Johnson; Seher Awan; Cade Story-Yetto; Marie Keith; Candice Brooks; Alexander Abbe Subject: RE: Letter of Support for Item 2 24-122 on the 10/23/24 Planning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 3:59:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Mission Point Letter of Support - Mission College.pdf
image002.png
Thank you for your email, it has been received in the Planning Division and will be part of the public record on this item.

ELIZABETH ELLIOTT | Staff Aide II
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
O : 408.615.2450 Direct : 408.615.2474
From: Allie Hughes <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 12:50 PM
To: Planning Public Comment <[email protected]> Cc: Jennifer Johnson <[email protected]>; Seher Awan <[email protected]>; Cade Story-Yetto <[email protected]>; Marie Keith <[email protected]>; Candice Brooks <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of Support for Item 2 24-122 on the 10/23/24 Planning Commission Agenda Good afternoon,
On behalf of Dr. Awan at Mission College, please see the letter of support for Kylli's Mission Point project (item 2 24-122) attached below.

All my best,
Allie
--
Allie Hughes, MPA
Government Affairs Manager
Canyon Snow Consulting, LLC
408-375-0142
[email protected]
www.canyonsnow.com

Page 1 of 1 ends

October 22, 2024
RE: MISSION POINT PROJECT – MISSION COLLEGE LETTER OF SUPPORT To the Santa Clara Planning Commission,
On behalf of Mission College, I would like to encourage your approval of the Mission Point project before you this evening. This project represents the kind of growth that makes sense for our city – it brings 1,800 much-needed new residences, as well as new community gathering spaces and services to Santa Clara.

Our mission at Mission College is to support the students and employees of Mission College, while creating opportunities for educational attainment, workforce development, career enhancement, and engaging events for our Santa Clara community. With the immediate proximity to amenities for Mission College students and employees, the new residential opportunities, as well as the parks and trails that this brings to the city; Mission Point directly aligns with and will contribute to our mission.

We are hopeful that you will support this project and look forward to the positive impacts of this project on not just our students and campus community, but the Santa Clara Community as a whole. We thank you for your dedication and service. Mission College supports this proposal without reservation, and I am available to provide any additional information via email at [email protected] or phone (323) 362-3477. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Seher Awan, Ed.D., MBA, MPA
President, Mission College

Mission Point does both by laying out a plan for a dense, mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

This project creates more homes and more jobs. Mission Point is exactly what Santa Clara and Silicon Valley need. Please approve this project!
Carlin Black
Aka J’Carlin
2130 Center Street, SUITE 301  BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704  PHONE: 415 398 3050  FAX: 415 397 5065 001-003; jf
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 19160.023
ADVISORS IN:

REAL ESTATE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

BERKELEY
DEBBIE M. KERN

DAVID DOEZEMA

LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY

TIM BRETZ

SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA

LINNIE GAVINO

EMERITUS
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY

MEMORANDUM
To: Elycia Knight
City of Santa Clara
From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Date: November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review and Testing of Alternatives
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has been retained by the City of Santa Clara (City) to provide a peer review of the Fiscal Impact Analysis of Mission Point (“Applicant FIA”) prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) on behalf of the developer, Kylli, Inc., dated February 1, 2024.

The Mission Point Project (“Project”) has been presented as two options:

Option A encompasses up to 1,800 residential units, 3 million square feet of office / R&D uses, 100,000 square feet of retail / amenity uses, 10,000 square feet of childcare space, associated parking, parks, and open space.

Option B includes up to 2,600 residential units, 2.2 million square feet of office / R&D uses, 100,000 square feet of retail / amenity uses, 10,000 square feet of childcare space, associated parking, parks, and open space.

The Applicant FIA provides findings regarding annual recurring fiscal impacts to the City of Santa Clara General Fund and the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD) for Option A of the Project. The following memorandum presents the findings of the KMA peer review, modified findings for Option A based on the results of the peer review, an analysis of Option B, and an analysis of the residential component of the Project on its own.
50 YEARS
Founded 1973

KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 2 001-003; jf
19160.023
I. Summary
The Applicant FIA is reasonable and generally aligns with standard practices in preparation of fiscal impact analyses but warrants modification to select elements to provide a more accurate assessment of fiscal impacts. Recommended modifications affect estimated revenues as well as police, fire, public works, parks, and SCUSD expenses, as described in Section II. Table 1 presents a summary of revenue and expense estimates for the City General Fund and SCUSD, including:
 Option A as presented in the Applicant FIA.
 Option A with KMA’s recommended adjustments to the analysis.  Option B with KMA’s recommended adjustments to the analysis.  Residential phase on its own based on the 1,800 units in Option A.

Except for the first column of Table 1 identifying the Applicant FIA results for Option A, all findings reflect KMA’s recommended adjustments to the analysis discussed herein.

Results are as follows:
 Option A is projected to generate a $4 million annual net surplus to the City General Fund upon full buildout and a net surplus of $12.4 million per year to SCUSD.
 Option B is projected to generate a $3.1 million annual net surplus to the City General Fund upon full buildout and a net surplus of $9.2 million per year to SCUSD.
 The residential phase of Option A is projected to generate a $0.3 million annual net surplus to the City General Fund and be approximately fiscally neutral to SCUSD1
.
1 Findings for the residential phase of Option B are similar at a projected net positive General Fund surplus of $0.35 million.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 3 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table 1. Annual Recurring Fiscal Impacts ($Millions)
Applicant FIA,
Option A
(1,800 units) (1)
FIA Findings with KMA Adjustments
Option A
(1,800 units)
Option B
(2,600 units)
Residential
Phase Only
(1,800 units)(2)
City of Santa Clara General Fund
General Fund Revenues $7.7 $8.0 $7.4 $2.1
General Fund Expense ($4.8) ($4.0) ($4.3) ($1.8)
City Net Fiscal Impact $2.9 $4.0 $3.1 $0.3
Santa Clara Unified School District
Revenue $17.7 $17.3 $16.2 $5.0
Expense ($4.3) ($4.9) ($7.0) ($4.9)
SCUSD Net Fiscal Impact $13.3 $12.4 $9.2 $0.1
(1) Applicant FIA results for rental units are presented. The Applicant FIA includes a separate analysis if residential units are condos, with very similar results. (2) Findings for the residential phase of Option B are very similar, with a projected net General Fund surplus of $0.35 million and the Santa Clara Unified School District approximately fiscally neutral.

Table 2 summarizes the development alternatives that are evaluated.

Table 2. Development Alternatives Evaluated
Option A
(1,800 units)
Option B
(2,600 units)
Residential
Phase Only
(1,800 units)
Residential
BMR Units 270 390 270 units
Market Rate 1,530 2,210 1,530 units
Subtotal 1,800 2,600 1,800 units
Commercial
Office/R&D 3,000,000 2,210,000 0 sq.ft.

Retail/Amenities 100,000 100,000 8,000 sq.ft.

Childcare 10,000 10,000 10,000 sq.ft.

Subtotal 3,110,000 2,320,000 18,000 sq.ft.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 4 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table 3 presents City General Fund fiscal impacts by revenue source and department.

Table 3. City of Santa Clara General Fund Annual Revenue and Expenses Applicant FIA,
Option A
(1,800 units)
FIA Findings with KMA Adjustments
Option A
(1,800 units)
Option B
(2,600 units)
Residential
Phase Only
(1,800 units)
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $4,364,800 $4,240,200 $3,832,000 $1,015,000 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $1,464,800 $1,423,000 $1,286,000 $341,000 Sales and Use Tax $944,400 $944,400 $971,000 $291,000
SVP Transfers not included $541,000 $498,000 $200,000
Franchise Fees $246,800 $246,800 $250,000 $95,000
Permits and Licenses $194,800 $194,800 $198,000 $75,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $142,500 $142,500 $105,000 $0
Document Transfer Tax $127,400 $124,000 $113,000 $30,000 Business License Tax $88,200 $88,200 $66,000 $1,000
Fines and Forfeitures $79,200 $79,200 $80,000 $31,000
Total Revenues $7,652,900 $8,024,100 $7,399,000 $2,079,000 General Fund Service Costs
Fire/EMS $1,665,700 $1,261,000 $1,196,000 $358,000
Police $1,676,900 $1,318,000 $1,496,000 $672,000
Public Works $356,000 $534,000 $542,000 $207,000
General Government $444,400 $444,400 $451,000 $172,000
Parks & Recreation $415,300 $214,000 $310,000 $214,000
Library $163,000 $163,000 $235,000 $163,000
Planning & Inspection $68,000 $68,000 $69,000 $26,000
Total Expenditures $4,789,300 $4,002,400 $4,299,000 $1,812,000 Net Annual Fiscal Impact $2,863,600 $4,021,700 $3,100,000 $267,000 Items that reflect KMA modification of the Applicant FIA methodology or assumptions are highlighted. See discussion in Section II.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 5 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table 4 presents estimates for SCUSD.

Table 4. Santa Clara Unified School District Annual Revenues and Expenses Applicant FIA,
Option A
(1,800 units)
FIA Findings with KMA Adjustments
Option A
(1,800 units)
Option B
(2,600 units)
Residential
Phase Only
(1,800 units)
Revenues
Property Tax $16,690,000 $16,214,000 $14,654,000 $3,882,000 Other Revenues $970,000 $1,091,000 $1,573,000 $1,091,000 Total Revenues $17,660,000 $17,305,000 $16,227,000 $4,973,000 Expenses $4,347,000 $4,886,000 $7,049,000 $4,886,000
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $13,313,000 $12,419,000 $9,178,000 $87,000 Items that reflect KMA modification of the Applicant FIA methodology are highlighted. See discussion in Section II.

Section II. describes the recommended adjustments to the Applicant FIA, which is focused on Option A.

Appendix A. provides supporting analysis for the residential phase estimates.

Appendix B. provides supporting analysis for the Option B estimates.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 6 001-003; jf
19160.023
II. Recommended Modifications to Applicant FIA
A discussion of recommended modifications to the Applicant FIA is provided below. The Applicant FIA evaluated Option A only, thus the discussion and tables presented in this section pertain only to Option A.

A. Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) Expenses
The methodology used by the Applicant FIA is drawn from the recommendations of a fire needs assessment prepared on behalf of the developer (“Needs Assessment)2 . The
Applicant FIA selects one of the two metrics provided in the Needs Assessment on which an estimate of Fire / EMS service costs could be based:

A. Existing Staffing Ratio to Population – Staffing needed to maintain the existing ratio of fire / EMS staff to population, which results in an estimated need for approximately four additional firefighters (used in Applicant FIA).

B. Fire / EMS Service Calls – the Project will generate 840 new Fire / EMS calls for service annually according to the Needs Assessment (not used in Applicant FIA).

The selected population-based staffing metric is problematic in that it does not directly consider service needs of non-residential uses that represent approximately two thirds of the Project by building area. Of the two metrices provided in the Needs Assessment, service call generation by the Project is the most direct measure of service needs; however, the estimated calls for service identified by the Needs Assessment is likely inaccurate, as discussed below.

Two additional approaches for estimating Fire/EMS service costs were examined based on feedback from the Santa Clara Fire Department, including:

C. Staffing Ratio for Higher Density Communities – Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) indicates a staffing ratio of 1.5 per 1,000 population is more appropriate to a high-density community, such as the Proposed Project.

D. Daytime Service Population – Estimating service costs proportionate to daytime service population is used in the Applicant FIA for a number of other revenue and expense items and could be applied to Fire / EMS service costs as well.

Estimates using each of the four approaches follow.
2 Mission Point Development Fire Service Needs Assessment by PryoAnalysis, June 12, 2023.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 7 001-003; jf
19160.023
Approach A. Ratio of Fire / EMS Staff to Population (Applicant FIA Method) Approach A using the current ratio of Fire / EMS staff to population is presented in Table 5-1 and yields an estimated expense of approximately $1.7 million. As noted above, the approach is problematic because it does not consider costs associated with nonresidential uses comprising three of the four major phases in the Project. Further, SCFD does not use a population-based ratio for staffing decisions3 .

Table 5-1 Approach A Based on Existing FTEs Per 1,000 Population (Applicant FIA Method) FY 23-24 Field Ops and EMS Division costs $57,020,592 Excludes Admin, Community Risk Reduction, Training, and Office of Emergency Services
Field Operations FTEs 138
Cost per FTE $413,193
Existing Residents 132,476
Existing Field Operations FTEs per 1,000 residents 1.0417 Number of residents, Proposed Project 3,870
Number of New FTEs needed at current staffing ratio 4.031 Estimated Fire/EMS Services Cost (Approach A) $1,666,000 = 4.031 FTEs x $413,193 cost per FTE Approach B. Based on Fire/EMS Calls for Service
Fire/EMS service costs can be estimated based on the number of Fire/EMS service calls projected to be generated. This approach considers both residential and non-residential components and relates directly to the service demands created by the Project. As stated in the Needs Assessment “as the call volume in District 10 continues to rise, there is an increased likelihood of simultaneous service requests and the potential for the primary responding unit to be engaged at another emergency. This situation, known as concurrent calls for service, will necessitate a response from a secondary or tertiary unit stationed south of Hwy 101, further worsening the already delayed response times in District 10.”
The Needs Assessment indicates the Project will generate 840 additional Fire / EMS calls for service annually. However, the 840 service calls is not based on analysis of service call data, rather it assumes existing citywide calls increase proportionate to the sum of population and employment, and so may not be accurate. 3 As stated in the DEIR, “SCFD does not use a population-based staffing standard but, rather, bases its staffing model on the ability to send trained and equipped personnel within response times.” To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 8 001-003; jf
19160.023
KMA prepared a modified estimate of the number of Fire/EMS calls for service based on SCFD data on actual Fire/EMS calls for service to the following existing properties:
 Santa Clara Square, a mixed use development with multi-family, retail and office;  Santa Clara Gateway, an office development; and
 St Anton Apartments, a multi-family 100% affordable development.

Fire / EMS call generation rates from these existing properties are shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Fire/EMS Calls for Service Generation Rate Estimate Annual
Fire/EMS Calls
for Service
Data
Year (1)
No. of Units or
Square Feet
Service Call
Generation Rate Per
Unit or 1,000 Square
Feet
Santa Clara Square: Office 18 2019 1,700,000 sq.ft. 0.0106 / 1,000 SF Santa Clara Gateway: Office 46 2019 900,000 sq.ft. 0.0511 / 1,000 SF Santa Clara Square: Retail 26 2023 166,313 sq.ft. 0.1563 / 1,000 SF Santa Clara Square: Multifamily 51 2023 1,482 units 0.0344 / unit St. Anton Apartments: Affordable 8 2023 196 units 0.0408 / unit Sources: City of Santa Clara Fire Department, CoStar, Realquest. (1) Calls for service to office uses dropped during the pandemic and are currently affected by high vacancies.

For office, 2019 data is used to establish call rates.

Call generation rates from Table 5-2 are applied to estimate annual fire/EMS calls for service to the Project. Fire/EMS service costs are estimated using the existing cost per call. These calculations are shown in Table 5-3 and yield an estimate of Fire/EMS service expenses of approximately $1.3 million per year.

Table 5-3. Fire / EMS Approach B, Based on Projected Calls For Service FY 23-24 Field Ops and EMS Division costs $57,020,592
Fire/EMS Calls For Service, 2023 10,586
Cost Per Service Call $5,386
Calls for Service, Proposed Project
Call Generation Development
Estimated Calls
for Service
Market Rate Residential 0.0344 / unit 1,530 units 53
Affordable Residential 0.0408 / unit 270 units 11
Office (1) 0.0511 / 1,000 SF 3,000,000 SF 153
Retail / Amenities 0.1563 / 1,000 SF 110,000 SF 17
Total Calls 234
Estimated Fire/EMS Service Expense = no. of calls x cost per call $1,261,000 (1) Uses Santa Clara Gateway call generation rate.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 9 001-003; jf
19160.023
Approach C. Higher Density / Urban Staffing Ratio
SCFD indicated that a higher staffing ratio of 1.5 FTEs per 1,000 population is more applicable to a higher density community such as the Project. The existing staffing ratio of 1.04 FTEs per 1,000 population aligns more closely with National Fire Protection Association guidance for lower density suburban environments. Use of a higher population-based staffing ratio shares the disadvantage of Approach A in attributing all service needs to residential uses, with no direct consideration of service needs associated with the non-residential component. With Approach C, Fire / EMS service costs are estimated at $2.4 million per year, as shown in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4. Approach C Based on Higher Density / Urban Staffing Ratio of 1.5 Per 1,000 Population FY 23-24 Field Ops and EMS Division costs $57,020,592 Excludes Admin, Community Risk Reduction, Training, and Office of Emergency Services
Field Operations FTEs 138 FTEs
Cost per FTE $413,193 /FTE
Number of residents, Proposed Project 3,870 Residents
Staffing Ratio per 1,000, Higher Density Communities 1.5 per SCFD Number of New FTEs needed 5.81 FTEs
Estimated Fire/EMS Services Cost (Approach C) $2,399,000 =5.81 FTEs x $413,193 cost per FTE.

Approach D. Daytime Service Population
With Approach D, existing Fire / EMS costs are estimated proportionate to daytime service population. This methodology is consistent with analyses of six other revenue and expense items in the Applicant FIA. Approach D considers service needs of both residential and non-residential components of the Project. As shown in Table 5-5, this method results in an estimated service cost of $2.9 million per year.

Table 5-5. Approach D Based on Daytime Service Population FY 23-24 Field Ops and EMS Division Budget $57,020,592 Excludes Admin, Community Risk Reduction, Training, and Office of Emergency Services
Existing Daytime Service Population 196,597
Cost per Daytime Service Population $290.04
New Daytime Service Population 10,152
Estimated Fire/EMS Services Cost
(Approach D)
$2,944,000 = $290.04 cost per daytime population x 10,152 new daytime population
As evident from the discussion above, estimates are sensitive to methodology. KMA’s recommendation is to use Approach B (Table 5-3), which yields a Fire/EMS service cost To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 10 001-003; jf
19160.023
of approximately $1.3 million per year. Approach B considers service demands of both residential and non-residential Project components and is the most data-driven estimate based on actual service demands of comparable existing uses.

B. Police Service Costs
The Applicant FIA estimates the cost to provide police services at $1.7 million per year based on the existing ratio of officers per 1,000 population. This approach has the same drawbacks as Approach A of the Fire/EMS analysis in that estimated police service expenses are based solely on the residential component of the Project, with no expenses attributed to non-residential uses. As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Project, Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) does not maintain a population-based standard for staffing, rather SCPD bases staffing decisions on actual workload and the interpretation and analysis of data.

KMA prepared a separate analysis of police service expenses based on the estimated number of calls for service, an approach to capturing service needs of all Project components based on the actual service demands of comparable existing uses. The estimate uses the same properties as the Fire/EMS calls for service analysis. Table 6-1 summarizes the Police call generation rates from these existing properties.

Table 6-1. Police Calls for Service Generation Rate Estimate A. B. C. D.

Annual Police
Calls for Service (1)
No. of Units or
Square Feet
Adjustment
Factor(2)
Service Call
Generation Rate
=A. / B x C.

Santa Clara Square: Office 36 1,700,000 sq.ft. 2 0.0424 / 1,000 SF Santa Clara Gateway: Office 27 900,000 sq.ft. 2 0.0600 / 1,000 SF Santa Clara Square: Retail 248 166,313 sq.ft. 1 1.4912 / 1,000 SF Santa Clara Square: Multi-Family 209 1,482 units 1 0.1410 / Unit St. Anton Apartments: Affordable 63 196 units 1 0.3214 / Unit Sources: KMA analysis of data provided by City of Santa Clara Police Department, CoStar, Realquest. (1) Represents calls for service excluding traffic-related incidents that include police beat and location coordinates. (2) A comparison to pre-pandemic call generation rates indicates a drop of nearly 60% for office uses from 2019 to 2023. The 2x adjustment factor assumes calls for service will return to near pre-pandemic rates.

Call generation rates from Table 6-1 are applied to estimate annual police calls for service to the Project. Police service expenses are estimated using the existing cost per call. These calculations are shown in Table 6-2 and yield an estimate of police service expenses of approximately $1.3 million per year. This estimate is reflected in the adjusted findings presented in Tables 1 and 3.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 11 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table 6-2. Police Service Cost Estimate Based on Projected Calls For Service Police 23-24 Budget Variable Costs Police Variable Cost Administrative Services $20,300,570 75% $15,225,428
Field Operations $45,311,222 100% $45,311,222
Investigations $16,060,444 100% $16,060,444
Special Operations $3,926,326 0% $0
Total $85,598,562 $76,597,094
Police Calls For Service, 2023(1) 37,558 calls
Variable Cost Per Service Call = variable cost / 2023 calls $2,039 / call Calls for Service, Proposed Project Call Generation Rate Development Estimated Calls for Service Market Rate Residential 0.1410 / unit 1,530 units 216 calls Affordable Residential 0.3214 / unit 270 units 87 calls Office (2) 0.0600 / 1,000 SF 3,000,000 SF 180 calls
Retail / Amenities 1.4912 / 1,000 SF 110,000 SF 164 calls Total Calls 647 calls
Estimated Police Service Expense = no. of calls x cost per call $1,318,000 (1) Represents 2023 calls for service that include police beat and location data but excluding traffic-related incidents that cannot be allocated to a specific land use. (2) Uses Santa Clara Gateway call generation rate.

C. Public Works
The Applicant FIA makes a 50% downward adjustment to Public Works expenses based on private maintenance of streets interior to the Project. Multi-building office and retail developments in Santa Clara commonly incorporate privately maintained interior access improvements. Since the Project is not unique in this regard, expense factors derived from the City’s budget will already incorporate this. A reduced adjustment factor of 25% is applied to the estimate presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Modified Estimate of Public Works Expense
Budget Direct Revenue Percent Variable Variable Cost
Existing Budget $25,203,805 $6,818,366 75% $13,789,079
Existing Daytime Service Population 196,597
Cost Per Daytime Service Population $70.14
Less: Adjustment for Private Street Maintenance 25% ($17.54) Adjusted Variable Cost Per Daytime Service Population $52.61 Daytime Service Population, Proposed Project 10,152
Estimated Public Works Expense = $52.61 cost per daytime population x 10,152 new daytime population
$534,000
To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 12 001-003; jf
19160.023
D. Park and Recreation Expenses
The Applicant FIA estimate of Park and Recreation departmental expenses is approximately $415,000 per year. The estimate is based on the City’s existing per capita costs. Subsequent to preparation of the Applicant FIA, the property owner agreed to assume responsibility for maintenance of on-site parks as part of the proposed DA. A modified estimate of park and recreation expenses is provided in Table 8 to reflect this.

This modified estimate is based on the City’s existing per capita costs for departmental administration, recreation programs, facility maintenance, and operations, but assumes incremental park maintenance expenses will be minimal. As shown in Table 8, expenses are estimated to total $214,000 annually.

Table 8. Parks and Recreation Expenses
Budget Direct Revenue Percent Variable Variable Cost
Administration Division $2,344,976 $525,557 75% $1,364,564 Parks (1) $9,033,152 $0 0% $0
Pools $1,405,285 $0 75% $1,053,964
Buildings $1,320,398 $0 75% $990,299
Operations $534,380 $0 75% $400,785
Recreation Division $8,419,639 $3,717,000 75% $3,526,979 Total Variable Cost: $7,336,591
Existing Residents 132,476
Variable Cost Per Resident $55.38
New Residents 3,870
Estimated Parks and Recreation Expense $214,000
Source: City of Santa Clara FY 2024-25 budget.
(1) Incremental City park maintenance expenses are assumed to be minor since parks within the Project are to be privately maintained.

E. SVP Transfers
The Applicant FIA does not include transfers from Silicon Valley Power (SVP) to the City General Fund. Transfers from SVP are made in accordance with the City’s charter based on a 5% share of gross SVP revenue. Since SVP will supply electricity to the Project, SVP transfer revenues will increase. SVP transfer revenue generated by the Project is estimated proportionate to electricity usage, as shown in Table 9.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 13 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table 9. Silicon Valley Power Transfers
Electricity Use: SVP Service Area (1) 4,382.10 Gigawatt Hours 14,952,000 Million BTUs per year 3,412.14 Million BTUs per Gigawatt
Project Electric use (2) 254,284 Million BTUs per year
Less: Existing Site Electric Use (3) (1,636) Million BTUs per year Net Increase in Electricity Use from Project 252,648 Million BTUs per year Percent Increase in Usage: SVP System 1.69%
Existing 23-24 Budgeted SVP Transfers $32,000,000
Estimated SVP Transfer Revenue = 1.69% increase x $32,000,000 existing budgeted revenue
$541,000
(1) Per DEIR Table 3.5-2.
(2) Per DEIR Table 3.5-5.
(3) Per DEIR Table 3.5-3.

F. Assessed Values
The Applicant FIA assumes that affordable units will be on the tax rolls at a $124 million assessed value. The developer is proposing units at an average AMI of 80% or below.

Units at 80% of AMI and below may qualify for an exemption from property taxes depending on ownership structure. Given a property tax exemption is a possibility, one is assumed for purposes of the modified assessed value and property tax revenue estimates in Table 10. Although other assessed value estimates presented in the Applicant FIA appear somewhat optimistic based on a review of actual assessed values of other recent developments in Santa Clara, the Project is likely to require these higher values to achieve feasibility and so additional adjustments to assessed value assumptions were not made.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 14 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table 10. Property Tax and Transfer Tax Estimates
Property Taxes
Applicant FIA Assessed Value Estimate $4,633,104,444
Less: Assessed Value of Affordable Units, likely exempt. ($123,927,804) Total Assessed Value $4,509,176,640
Less: Existing Assessed Value ($290,034,923)
Net Value Increase $4,219,141,717
1% Property Tax $42,191,417
City Share of Property Taxes 10.1% of 1% tax $4,240,200 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $19,200,000 Citywide Assessed Value $56,925,917,348
Net Assessed Value Increase with Project 7.412%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $1,423,000
Real Property Document Transfer Tax Value %Turnover Turnover Value Residential $1,072,256,640 5.0% per Year $53,612,832
Commercial $3,436,920,000 5.0% per Year $171,846,000
Total $4,509,176,640 $225,458,832
Transfer Tax $0.55 per $1,000 value $124,000
G. Budget Year
The Applicant uses FY 22-23 expenditure information for most estimates, although there is some mixing and matching of budget years, with FY 23-24 used for Fire/EMS. Since expenses have increased since FY 2022-23, use of FY 23-24 or FY 24-25 budget year information consistently throughout would have resulted in higher expense estimates.

KMA has not updated the analysis to reflect this comment.

H. SCUSD Student Generation Rates
While the Applicant FIA references student generation rates from the DEIR, and the DEIR cites information from SCUSD staff, the figures are not consistent with the source data. The analysis of SCUSD revenues and expenses was modified to reflect the student generation rates identified in SCUSD enrollment projections. Property tax revenue estimates have been adjusted consistent with the assumption that affordable units will be exempt. The modified analysis is presented in Table 11.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 15 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table 11. Santa Clara Unified School District Impacts
Market Rate Affordable Total
Number of Residential Units 1,530 270 1,800 Units
K-12 Student Generation Rate (1) 0.03 0.56
Number of Added K-12 Students 45.9 151.2 197.1 Students Estimated Increase in Average
Daily Attendance (ADA)

92.8% ADA as share
of enrollment
183 ADA
Revenues
Property Tax $4,219,141,717 AV added (2) 38.43% of 1% tax $16,214,000 Other Local Revenue $3,212 per ADA(3) $588,000
Federal Revenues $376 per ADA(3) $69,000
Other State Revenue $2,370 per ADA(3) $434,000
Total Revenue $17,305,000
Expenses $26,701 per ADA(3) $4,886,000
SCUSD Net Annual Fiscal Impact $12,419,000
(1) Student Generation Rates derived by Enrollment Projection Consultants for Santa Clara Unified, January 2020. (2) See Table 10.
(3) From Applicant FIA.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 16 001-003; jf
19160.023
APPENDIX A: SENSITIVITY TEST WITH RESIDENTIAL PHASE ONLY The following tables provide the supporting analysis for findings in Tables 1 through 4 evaluating the fiscal impacts of the residential phase of Option A on its own. The analysis is based on the uses proposed for Area D, including 1,800 residential units, childcare and amenity uses. The residential phase analysis reflects the Applicant FIA methodology and assumptions, without updating to reflect current budget information or tax rates, and incorporates the recommended modifications described in Section II. As shown in Table A-1, the residential phase alone is estimated to generate a net positive fiscal impact of approximately $0.3 million to the City’s General Fund. Supporting analysis is provided in Appendix Tables A-2 to A-12.

Table A-1. General Fund Revenue and Expenses, Residential (Area D) Only General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $1,015,000
SVP Transfers $341,000
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $291,000
Sales and Use Tax $200,000
Franchise Fees $95,000
Permits and Licenses $75,000
Transient Occupancy Tax $0
Document Transfer Tax $30,000
Business License Tax $1,000
Fines and Forfeitures $31,000
Total Revenues $2,079,000
General Fund Service Costs
Fire/EMS $358,000
Police $672,000
Public Works $207,000
General Government $172,000
Parks & Recreation $214,000
Library $163,000
Planning & Inspection $26,000
Total Expenditures $1,812,000
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $267,000
To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 17 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table. A-2 Population and Employment, Residential (Area D) Only Development Population / Employment Factor Population Employees Daytime Pop Residential
BMR 270 units 2.15 population per unit 47 units/employee 581 6 583 Market Rate 1,530 units 2.15 population per unit 47 units/employee 3,290 33 3,306 Subtotal 1,800 units 3,870 38 3,889
Commercial
Retail/Amenities 8,000 sq.ft. 204 sq.ft./employee employee/sq.ft. 39 20 Childcare 10,000 sq.ft. 286 sq.ft./employee employee/sq.ft. 35 17 Subtotal 18,000 sq.ft. 74 37
Total 3,870 112 3,926
Source: Applicant FIA with Areas A to C Removed.

Table A-3. Assessed Value, Residential Only
Residential
BMR 270 units assume exempt
Market Rate 1,530 units $700,821 /unit $1,072,256,640
Subtotal 1,800 units $1,072,256,640
Commercial
Retail/Amenities 8,000 sq.ft. $822 /sq.ft. $6,576,000
Childcare 10,000 sq.ft. $372 /sq.ft. $3,720,000
Subtotal 18,000 sq.ft. $10,296,000
Total Assessed Value $1,082,552,640
Less Existing Assessed Value (1/4 of existing) ($72,508,731) Net Increase in Assessed Value $1,010,043,909
Source: Applicant FIA with Areas A to C removed and BMR units exempt.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 18 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table A-4. Property Tax and Transfer Tax Estimates, Residential Only Property Taxes
Net Value Increase $1,010,043,909
1% Property Tax $10,100,439
City Share of Property Taxes 10.1% of 1% tax $1,015,000 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $19,200,000 Citywide Assessed Value $56,925,917,348
Net Assessed Value Increase with Project 1.774%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $341,000
Real Property Document Transfer Tax Value %Turnover Turnover Value Residential $1,072,256,640 5.0% per Year $53,612,832
Commercial $10,296,000 5.0% per Year $514,800
Total $1,082,552,640 $54,127,632
Transfer Tax $0.55 per $1,000 in AV $30,000
Source: Applicant FIA with Areas A to C removed and BMR units exempt.

Table A-5. Silicon Valley Power Transfers, Residential Only Total Electricity Use: SVP Service Area (1) 4,382.10 Gigawatt Hours 14,952,000 Million BTUs per year 3,412.14 Million BTUs per Gigawatt
Project Electric use (2) 254,284 M Btu per year
Less: Existing Site Electric use (3) (1,636) M Btu per year Net Increase in Electric use with Project 252,648
Block D as % of Total Project GSF 37%
Percent Increase in Usage: SVP System 0.63%
Existing 23-24 Budgeted SVP Transfers $32,000,000
Estimated SVP Transfer Revenue = 0.63% increase x $32,000,000 existing budgeted revenue
$200,000
(1) Per DEIR Table 3.5-2.
(2) Per DEIR Table 3.5-5.
(3) Per DEIR Table 3.5-3.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 19 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table A-6. Sales Tax Estimate, Residential Only
Spending per unit or worker Units/Workers % in Santa Clara Market Rate Units $33,173 Taxable Sales Per Unit 1,530 Units 50% Below Market Rate Units $25,958 Taxable Sales Per Unit 270 Units 50% Employee Spending $4,958 Taxable Sales Per Worker 112 Workers 33.3% Total Taxable Sales
Sales Tax Estimate, Residential Only =1% taxable sales
Source: Applicant FIA, adjusted to residential only
Table A-7. Other Revenues Estimated on Per Capita Basis, Residential Only Item
Employment or
Daytime Population Revenue Factor Revenue Estimate
Franchise Fees 3,926 $24.31 per daytime population $95,000 Fines and Forfeitures 3,926 $7.80 per daytime population $31,000 Permits and Licenses 3,926 $19.19 per daytime population $75,000 Business License Tax 74 $7.02 per employee $1,000
Total Revenues $202,000
Source: Applicant FIA with Areas A to C Removed.

Table A-8. Fire/EMS Service Cost Estimate, Residential Only FY 23-24 Field Ops and EMS Division costs $57,020,592
Fire/EMS Calls For Service, 2023 10,586
Cost Per Service Call $5,386
Calls for Service, Proposed Project Call
Generation
Development Estimated Calls for
Service
Market Rate Residential 0.0344 1,530 53
Affordable Residential 0.0408 270 11
Retail / Amenities 0.1563 18,000 3
Total Calls 66
Estimated Fire/EMS Service Expense = no. of calls x cost per call $358,000 To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 20 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table A-9. Police Service Cost Estimate, Residential Only 23-24 Budget Percent Variable Variable Cost
Administrative Services $20,300,570 75% $15,225,428
Field Operations $45,311,222 100% $45,311,222
Investigations $16,060,444 100% $16,060,444
Special Operations $3,926,326 0% $0
Total $85,598,562 $76,597,094
Police Calls For Service, 2023(1) 37,558
Variable Cost Per Service Call $2,039
Calls for Service, Proposed Project Call Generation Development Estimated Calls for Service Market Rate Residential 0.1410 / unit 1,530 units 216 calls Affordable Residential 0.3214 / unit 270 units 87 calls Retail / Amenities 1.4912 / 1,000 SF 18,000 SF 27 calls Total Calls 329 calls
Estimated Police Service Expense = no. of calls x cost per call $672,000 (1) Represents 2023 calls for service that include police beat and location data but excluding traffic-related incidents that cannot be allocated to a specific land use.

Table A-10. Public Works Expense Estimate, Residential Only Budget Direct Revenue Percent Variable Variable Cost
Administrative Services $25,203,805 $6,818,366 75% $13,789,079 Existing Daytime Service Population 196,597
Variable Cost Per Daytime Service Population $70.14
Less: Adjustment for Private Street Maintenance 25% ($17.54) Adjusted Variable Cost Per Daytime Service Population $52.61 Daytime Service Population 3,926
Estimated Public Works Expense $207,000
To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 21 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table A-11. Parks and Recreation Expenses, Residential Only Budget Direct
Revenue
Percent Variable Variable Cost
Administration Division $2,344,976 $525,557 75% $1,364,564 Parks (1) $9,033,152 $0 0% $0
Pools $1,405,285 $0 75% $1,053,964
Buildings $1,320,398 $0 75% $990,299
Operations $534,380 $0 75% $400,785
Recreation Division $8,419,639 $3,717,000 75% $3,526,979 Total Variable Cost: $7,336,591
Existing Residents 132,476
Variable Cost Per Resident $55.38
New Residents 3,870
Estimated Parks and Recreation Expense $214,000
Source: City of Santa Clara FY 2024-25 budget.
(1) Park maintenance variable expense assumed to be $0 since parks within the Project are to be privately maintained.

Table A-12. Other Expenses Estimated on Per Capita Basis, Residential Only Item
Residents or
Daytime Population Cost Factor Expense Estimate
General Government 3,926 $43.77 per daytime population $172,000 Library 3,870 $42.12 per resident $163,000
Community Development 3,926 $6.70 per daytime population $26,000 Total $361,000
Source: Applicant FIA with Areas A to C Removed.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 22 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table A-13. Santa Clara Unified School District Impacts, Residential Only Market Rate Affordable Total
Number of Residential Units 1,530 270 1,800 Units
K-12 Student Generation Rate (1) 0.03 0.56
Number of Added K-12 Students 45.9 151.2 197.1 Students Estimated Increase in ADA 92.8% ADA as share of enrollment 183 ADA Revenues
Property Tax $1,010,043,909 AV added 38.43% of 1% tax $3,882,000 Other Local Revenue $3,212 per ADA $588,000
Federal Revenues $376 per ADA $69,000
Other State Revenue $2,370 per ADA $434,000
Total Revenue $4,973,000
Expenses $26,701 per ADA $4,886,000
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $87,000
(1) Student Generation Rates derived by Enrollment Projection Consultants for Santa Clara Unified, January 2020.

Source: Applicant FIA with Areas A to C Removed.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 23 001-003; jf
19160.023
APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF OPTION B
The following tables provide the supporting analysis for findings in Tables 1 through 4 evaluating the fiscal impacts of Option B, which includes up to 2,600 residential units (800 more than the Option A) and a 790,000 square foot reduction in the Office/R&D component to 2.2 million square feet. Analysis of Option B reflects the Applicant FIA methodology and assumptions, without updating to reflect current budget information or tax rates, and incorporates the recommended modifications described in Section II. As shown in Table B-1, Option B is estimated to generate a net positive fiscal impact of approximately $3.1 million to the City’s General Fund. Supporting analysis is provided in Appendix Tables B-2 to B-13.

Table B-1. General Fund Revenue and Expenses, Option B
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $3,832,000
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $1,286,000
Sales and Use Tax $971,000
SVP Transfers $498,000
Franchise Fees $250,000
Permits and Licenses $198,000
Transient Occupancy Tax $105,000
Document Transfer Tax $113,000
Business License Tax $66,000
Fines and Forfeitures $80,000
Total Revenues $7,399,000
General Fund Service Costs
Fire/EMS $1,196,000
Police $1,496,000
Public Works $542,000
General Government $451,000
Parks & Recreation $310,000
Library $235,000
Planning & Inspection $69,000
Total Expenditures $4,299,000
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $3,100,000
To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 24 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table B-2. Population and Employment, Option B
Item Development Population / Employment Factor Population Employees Daytime Pop(1) Residential
BMR 390 units 2.15 population per unit 47 units/employee 839 8 843 Market Rate 2,210 units 2.15 population per unit 47 units/employee 4,752 47 4,775 Subtotal 2,600 units 5,590 55 5,618
Commercial
Office/R&D 2,210,000 sq.ft. 250 sq.ft./employee employee/sq.ft. 8,840 4,420 Retail/Amenities 100,000 sq.ft. 204 sq.ft./employee employee/sq.ft. 490 245 Childcare 10,000 sq.ft. 286 sq.ft./employee employee/sq.ft. 35 17 Subtotal 2,320,000 sq.ft. 9,365 4,683
Total 5,590 9,420 10,300
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B
(1) Calculated as one per resident and 0.5 per employee.

Table B-3. Assessed Value, Option B
Residential
BMR 390 units assume exempt
Market Rate 2,210 units $700,821 /unit $1,548,815,147
Subtotal 2,600 units $1,548,815,147
Commercial
Office 2,210,000 sq.ft. $1,117 /sq.ft. $2,468,570,000
Retail/Amenities 100,000 sq.ft. $822 /sq.ft. $82,200,000 Childcare 10,000 sq.ft. $372 /sq.ft. $3,720,000
Subtotal 2,320,000 sq.ft. $2,554,490,000
Total Assessed Value $4,103,305,147
Less Existing Assessed Value ($290,034,923)
Net Increase in Assessed Value $3,813,270,224
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B
To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 25 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table B-4. Property Tax and Transfer Tax Estimates, Option B Property Taxes
Net Value Increase $3,813,270,224
1% Property Tax $38,132,702
City Share of Property Taxes 10.1% of 1% tax $3,832,000 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $19,200,000 Citywide Assessed Value $56,925,917,348
Net Assessed Value Increase with Project 6.699%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF $1,286,000
Real Property Document Transfer Tax Value %Turnover Turnover Value Residential $1,548,815,147 5.0% per Year $77,440,757
Commercial $2,554,490,000 5.0% per Year $127,724,500
Total $4,103,305,147 $205,165,257
Transfer Tax $0.55 per $1,000 in AV $113,000
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B
Table B-5. Silicon Valley Power Transfers, Option B
Total Electricity Use: SVP Service Area (1) 4,382.10 Gigawatt Hours 14,952,000 Million BTUs per year 3,412.14 Million BTUs per Gigawatt
Project Electric use (2) 254,284 M Btu per year
Less: Adjustment for Option B (3) (20,494) M Btu per year Less: Existing Site Electric use (4) (1,636) M Btu per year Net Increase in Electric use 232,154
% of Total Project GSF 100%
Percent Increase in Usage: SVP System 1.56%
Existing 23-24 Budgeted SVP Transfers $32,000,000
Estimated SVP Transfer Revenue $498,000
(1) Per DEIR Table 3.5-2.
(2) Per DEIR Table 3.5-5.
(3) Adjustment for decrease in office/R&D and increase in residential use estimated based upon the U.S. Department of Energy, 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Pacific Region and 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) data for apartments with five or more units, indicating residential units use approximately 7,612 kwh per year less energy than 1,000 square feet of office space.
(4) Per DEIR Table 3.5-3.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 26 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table B-6. Sales Tax Estimate, Option B
taxable sales per unit, worker or sq.ft. Units/Workers % Net New % in Santa Clara Total Market Rate Units $33,173 Taxable Sales Per Unit 2,210 Units 100% 50% $36,656,476 Below Market Rate Units $25,958 Taxable Sales Per Unit 390 Units 100% 50% $5,061,810 Employee Spend $4,958 Taxable Sales Per Worker 9,420 Workers 100% 33.3% $15,570,101 Business Spend/Catering $1,600 Taxable Sales Per Worker 9,420 Workers 100% 100% $15,070,901 Retail $494 Avg. Taxable Sales Per Sq.ft. 100,000 sq.ft. 50% 100% $24,694,800 $97,054,088
Sales Tax Estimate =1% taxable sales $971,000
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B
Table B-7. Silicon Valley Power Transfers, Option B
Hotel Room Nights 2,210,000 sq.ft. office 5 per 1,000 office sq. ft. 11,050 room nights Gross Daily Room Revenue $200 per night 50% Captured in Santa Clara $1,105,000 room sales Hotel Taxes 9.50% $105,000
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B. TOT rate was not adjusted to the current rate to remain consistent with the Applicant FIA assumptions and use of prior budget information.

Table B-8. Other Revenues Estimated on Per Capita Basis, Option B Item
Employment or
Daytime Population Allocation Factor Revenue Estimate
Franchise Fees 10,300 $24.31 per daytime population $250,000 Fines and Forfeitures 10,300 $7.80 per daytime population $80,000 Permits and Licenses 10,300 $19.19 per daytime population $198,000 Business License Tax 9,420 $7.02 per employee $66,000
Total Revenues $594,000
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B. Business license tax rate was not adjusted to the current rate to remain consistent with the Applicant FIA assumptions and use of prior budget information.

Table B-9. Fire/EMS Service Cost Estimate, Option B
FY 23-24 Field Ops and EMS Division costs $57,020,592
Fire/EMS Calls For Service, 2023 10,586
Cost Per Service Call $5,386
Calls for Service, Proposed Project Call Generation Development Estimated Calls for Service Market Rate Residential 0.0344 2,210 76
Affordable Residential 0.0408 390 16
Office (1) 0.0511 2,210,000 113
Retail / Amenities 0.1563 110,000 17
Total Calls 222
Estimated Fire/EMS Service Expense = no. of calls x cost per call $1,196,000 (1) Uses Santa Clara Gateway call generation rate.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 27 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table B-10. Police Service Cost Estimate, Option B
23-24 Budget Percent Variable Variable Cost
Administrative Services $20,300,570 75% $15,225,428
Field Operations $45,311,222 100% $45,311,222
Investigations $16,060,444 100% $16,060,444
Special Operations $3,926,326 0% $0
Total $85,598,562 $76,597,094
Police Calls For Service, 2023(1) 37,558
Variable Cost Per Service Call $2,039
Calls for Service, Proposed Project Call Generation Development Estimated Calls for Service Market Rate Residential 0.1410 2,210 312
Affordable Residential 0.3214 390 125
Office (2) 0.0600 2,210,000 133
Retail / Amenities 1.4912 110,000 164
Total Calls 734
Estimated Police Service Expense = no. of calls x cost per call $1,496,000 (1) Represents calls for service with Police Beat and location, excluding traffic-related incidents. (2) A comparison to pre-pandemic call generation rates indicates call volume to office uses dropped by half.

Estimate based on double the 2023 call generation rate for Santa Clara Gateway.

Table B-11. Public Works Expense Estimate, Option B
Budget Direct Revenue Percent Variable Variable Cost
Administrative Services $25,203,805 $6,818,366 75% $13,789,079 Existing Daytime Service Population 196,597
Variable Cost Per Daytime Service Population $70.14
Less: Adjustment for Private Street Maintenance 25% ($17.54) Adjusted Variable Cost Per Daytime Service Population $52.61 Daytime Service Population 10,300
Estimated Public Works Expense $542,000
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B and modified adjustment for private maintenance.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 28 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table B-12. Parks and Recreation Expenses, Option B
Budget Direct Revenue Percent Variable Variable Cost
Administration Division $2,344,976 $525,557 75% $1,364,564 Parks (1) $9,033,152 $0 0% $0
Pools $1,405,285 $0 75% $1,053,964
Buildings $1,320,398 $0 75% $990,299
Operations $534,380 $0 75% $400,785
Recreation Division $8,419,639 $3,717,000 75% $3,526,979 Total Variable Cost: 7,336,591
Existing Residents 132,476
Variable Cost Per Resident $55.38
New Residents 5,590
Estimated Parks and Recreation Expense $310,000
Source: City of Santa Clara FY 2024-25 budget.
(1) No variable cost assumed since new parks within project are to be privately maintained per the proposed DA.

Table B-13. Other Expenses Estimated on Per Capita Basis, Option B Item
Employment or
Daytime Population Cost Factor Expense Estimate
General Government 10,300 $43.77 per daytime population $451,000 Library 5,590 $42.12 per resident $235,000
Community Development 10,300 $6.70 per daytime population $69,000 Total Revenues $755,000
Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B.

To: Elycia Knight November 14, 2024
Subject: Mission Point Project, Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review Page 29 001-003; jf
19160.023
Table B-14. Santa Clara Unified School District Impacts, Option B Market Rate Affordable Total
Number of Residential Units 2,210 390 2,600 Units
K-12 Student Generation Rate (1) 0.03 0.56
Number of Added K-12 Students 66.3 218.4 284.7 Students Estimated Increase in ADA 92.8% ADA as share of enrollment 264 ADA Revenues
Property Tax $3,813,270,224 AV added 38.43% of 1% tax $14,654,000 Other Local Revenue $3,212 per ADA $848,000
Federal Revenues $376 per ADA $99,000
Other State Revenue $2,370 per ADA $626,000
Total Revenue $16,227,000
Expenses $26,701 per ADA $7,049,000
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $9,178,000
(1) Student Generation Rates derived by Enrollment Projection Consultants for Santa Clara Unified, January 2020.

Source: Applicant FIA as adjusted to Option B.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-51 Agenda Date: 11/19/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Action on a Resolution Amending Rate Schedules for Electric Services for All Classes of Customers to Increase Electric Rates and Charges in Each Rate Schedule by 5.0% and Make Other Modifications, Effective January 1, 2025

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clara’s Electric Utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), is proposing a 5% increase to its rate schedules for all classes of customers, effective January 1, 2025. This proposed increase is needed to fund the increasing cost of (1) renewable energy and (2) equipment, materials, and labor, for both new projects and required maintenance of electric utility infrastructures.

The rate increase is also needed so that SVP can maintain its financial health and bond ratings (AAStable assigned by Fitch and Standard and Poor’s) by having a balanced budget and adequate reserves to weather future market fluctuations and volatility and other contingencies.

DISCUSSION
The proposed 5% rate increase is needed to cover the cost of generating and delivering power to all SVP customers and to help ensure the long-term stability of the system. When the updated FY 2024/25 Budget was approved, staff estimated a 5% rate increase effective January 1, 2025. In summary, there are three key reasons for the proposed rate increase:

1. Increasing cost of renewable energy.

2. Increasing equipment, material, labor, and construction costs for new projects and required maintenance of current electric utility infrastructures.

3. Increasing reserves to maintain financial stability and bond ratings and keep reserves in line with growth projections and deal with market fluctuations and volatility and other contingencies.

Cost of Renewable Energy
Renewable energy costs continue to increase due to the higher construction and material costs and increased competition for limited projects in California among utilities, community choice aggregators, and private corporations.
· The City Council recently authorized renegotiation of a Renewable Power Purchase Agreement with over 50% increased costs over the original agreement.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-51 Agenda Date: 11/19/2024
· SVP is renegotiating several related powers purchased agreements, the Rooney Ranch, Sand Hill A and Sand Hill B. These projects have similar cost escalations as above. · City Council recently approved a 75 MW long-term fixed price power purchase agreement with Aquamarine Westside, LLC of $47.50/MWh. This power purchase agreement replaced a short -term contract of $13/MWh that recently expired, resulting in a 265% increase. · SVP will contract for prospective solar plus battery storage and stand-alone battery storage.

These projects may increase costs up to 40% higher than solar alone. Projects like these are critical to integrate renewables and ensure that SVP’s resources match its load profile. As newer technology, such as battery storage, is integrated into the electrical system, higher expenses are expected to assist SVP to meet its renewable portfolio standards (RPS) requirements.

Materials, Maintenance, and Construction Costs
Over the last 3 to 5 years, the electric industry has seen significant cost increases that affect both maintenance and new construction. These costs have affected almost every facet of maintenance and construction projects. SVP has experienced cost increases ranging from 20% to 200% between 2023 and 2024 for important materials and equipment, including:
· Increased pricing for transformers has averaged between 27% to 33%. · Costs for padmount transformers have increased between 42% to 200%. · Prices for overhead distribution transformers have increased between 52% to 74%. · Cost of wood poles have increased 20%.

Reserves
The proposed rate increase maintains existing reserves at or above the minimum target of approved ranges. Below is a summary of the anticipated reserve levels:
· The Rate Stabilization Reserve is anticipated to be at the minimum target of 10% of sales revenue by June 30, 2025.
· The Operation and Maintenance Reserve is anticipated to be within the middle target range of 90 - 180 days of operating expenses by June 30, 2025.
· The infrastructure reserve is anticipated to be within its approved range for SVP by June 30, 2025. The range is based on analysis of critical infrastructure, the likelihood of replacement, and the estimated replacement costs.

In summary, the rate increase is projected to generate an additional $17 million in the current year's operating budget ($37 million annually when including forecasted load growth). These funds will help cover fluctuations within current-year expenses, bring reserves at or above minimum targets within the approved ranges, and provide funding for contingencies or unanticipated project needs as SVP continues to increase preventative maintenance on aging infrastructures, especially power plants, substations, and transmission and distribution infrastructures.

Rate Increase Amounts
In compliance with Article XIIIC of the California Constitution (Proposition 26), the proposed rate increase will not result in the City’s electric rates exceeding the City’s reasonable cost to provide electric service to its customers.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-51 Agenda Date: 11/19/2024
Staff proposes that rates and charges for all classes of customers be increased on a uniform percentage basis because the underlying cost increases triggering this rate increase proposal have been incurred on behalf of all classes of existing customers. This approach is proposed for both policy and legal reasons. Under Proposition 26, a service rate is not a tax if it is imposed for a specific government service provided directly to a ratepayer and is not imposed on those not receiving the service.

The average monthly impact of the 5% rate increases by customer class and for the top 5 customers is provided as Attachment 2.

Residential Increase
For an average residential electric customer (averaging 410-kilowatt hours usage per month in FY 2023/24), with the proposed 5% increase, the customer’s electric bill will increase by approximately $3.37 per month (from $67.64 to $71.01) or approximately $40 a year. Residential bills for higher or lower usage levels will be proportionately larger or smaller.

For residential customers who have difficulty absorbing these increases, SVP provides a rate assistance program for income-qualified customers.

Rate Comparisons
With the proposed increase, SVP will continue to have the lowest average system rates in California for utilities with more than 10,000 customers, based on U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Annual Electric Power Industry Report (Form EIA-861 for 2023 data). SVP’s rates will remain significantly below PG&E’s current average bundled rates (effective 10/01/2024).

Rate Type % Below Current
PG&E Rates
Residential 59%
Small Commercial 39%
Large Commercial 50%
Small Industrial 44%
Large Industrial 37%
Very Large Industrial 44%

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15273 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in that the proposed action is a modification of rates which is needed in order to meet operating expenses and maintain adequate cash reserves, and other reasons set forth in this staff report.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed 5% rate increase is anticipated to generate approximately $17 million in additional revenue for the six-month period in Fiscal Year 2024/2025 and $37 million in additional revenue in Fiscal Year 2025/2026 when including forecasted load growth. These revenue amounts were City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-51 Agenda Date: 11/19/2024
included as assumptions in the FY 2024/25 Adopted Operating Budget. Budgetary adjustments to revenue will be brought forward to Council throughout the year if needed.

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

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

In addition, SVP staff have reached out to Key Accounts (large customers), commercial customers, school districts, and numerous individual customers as well as included information in the City’s newsletter, SVP news subscriptions using GovDelivery, and posting in the Santa Clara Weekly. Staff have also disseminated information via social media: Nextdoor, X (formally Twitter), and Facebook.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution amending the City of Santa Clara Rate Schedules for Electric Utility Services to increase electric rates and charges in each rate schedule by 5.0% and make other modifications, effective January 1, 2025.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with attached Rate Schedules for Electric Services for All Classes of Customers, Effective January 1, 2025

2. Monthly Bill Comparison Table - All Rate Schedules
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Electric Utility 5% Rate Increase, Effective January 1, 2025 Page 1 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING CITY RATE SCHEDULES FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY

SERVICE TO INCREASE ELECTRIC RATES AND CHARGES IN
EACH RATE SCHEDULE BY FIVE PERCENT (5.0%) EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 2025
WHEREAS, Chapter 13.05 of the Santa Clara City Code ("Code"), which is entitled Operation of an Electric Utility, provides that all electric energy and power furnished to customers of the Electric Department (“Electric Department”) of the City of Santa Clara, California, doing business as Silicon Valley Power, shall be supplied and charged to such customers, and paid for by such customers in accordance with certain electric rate schedules, tariffs, and rules and regulations adopted by the City Council;
WHEREAS, Section 13.05.040 of the Code further states that the City Council may, by resolution, review, revise, adopt and/or promulgate new or amended electric utility rate schedules from time to time as it deems necessary to meet the City’s contractual obligations and debt service requirements and to cover the cost of constructing, operating and maintaining the electric utility;
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2024, and November 1, 2024, a notice of the public hearing regarding a proposed five percent (5.0%) increase to rates and charges in the City of Santa Clara Electric Rate Schedules ("Rate Schedules") was published in the Santa Clara Weekly and the San Jose Mercury News respectively;
WHEREAS, the Electric Department presented a Report To Council to the City Council (“Report to Council”) at its regularly scheduled meeting on November 19, 2024, in support of the proposed five percent (5.0%) and amendment to the Rate Schedules, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, the proposed five percent (5.0%) increase to the rates and charges in the Rate Schedules are necessary to enable the Electric Department to (1) fund, among other things, the significant increased cost of (a) renewable energy and (b) equipment, materials, and labor, Resolution/Electric Utility 5% Rate Increase, Effective January 1, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
for both new projects and required maintenance of electric utility infrastructures; and (2) increase reserves to (a) maintain existing reserves at or above the minimum target of the approved ranges to maintain financial stability and the bond rating of the Electric Department; and (b) keep reserves in line with growth projections and deal with market fluctuations and volatility and other contingencies;
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendations contained in the Report to Council, namely that the City Council amend the Rate Schedules for utility service to increase electric rates and charges in such Rate Schedules by five percent (5.0%) beginning January 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the evidence which was presented to it and concurs with the findings as set forth herein to support the five percent (5.0%) increase to the rates and charges in the Rate Schedules.

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

1. That the findings as set forth herein are hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clara.

2. The Five Percent (5.0%) increase to the rates and charges in the Rate Schedules and other amendments to the Rate Schedules are hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, as reflected in the attachments hereto, effective January 1, 2025.

3. That a true and correct copy of the Resolution, including amended Rate Schedules, shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk and in the Billing Division of the City Finance Department at all times while the Rate Schedules are effective and, until further amended or replaced, shall be open to public investigation and inspection during the regular business hours of such offices.

Resolution/Electric Utility 5% Rate Increase, Effective January 1, 2025 Page 3 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023

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

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Rate Schedules for Electric Services to be Effective January 1, 2025

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER

RATE SCHEDULE A

MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
Sheet 1 of 1
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE:

The schedule is applicable to electricity used by the Municipal Water Department for water and sewer pumping service.

RATES:

All kWh, per kWh $ 0.14529
SURCHARGE:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note A, will be added to the above charge.

NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to kWh billed times 2.85%.

STATE SURCHARGE: The state surcharge is required by California state law, and supports funding for the California Energy Commission. The surcharge is equal to kWh billed times the State Surcharge Rate. The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE C-1

GENERAL SERVICE
Sheet 1 of 2
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE:

This schedule is applicable to alternating current service through one meter, for power and heating alone or combined with lighting. This schedule is applicable to customers who do not qualify for Schedule D-1, CB-1, CB3, CB-6, CB-7 or CB-8. The Time of Use (TOU) Option is available to all customers. Customers who utilize the TOU option will be responsible for the installed cost of a TOU meter, as set forth in Note (B) below.

RATES: Non-Time of Use Time of Use Option
SINGLE-PHASE SERVICE:

CUSTOMER CHARGE, per meter per month: $ 5.31 $ 5.31
ENERGY CHARGE: (In addition to the Customer Charge)
Peak Off-Peak
First 800 kWh, per kWh $ 0.25596 $0.27854 $0.23747
Excess Over 800 kWh, per kWh $ 0.23237 $0.25494 $0.21387 MINIMUM CHARGE: $5.31 per meter per month but not less than $3.30 per month per kVA of connected welder load, rectifier load, x-ray and x-ray type equipment load, fusing machine load, and other types of welding equipment load.

THREE-PHASE SERVICE: The single-phase rate plus $4.16 per meter per month.

MINIMUM CHARGE: $9.47per month, but not less than $3.30 per month per kVA of connected welder load and per horsepower of polyphaser connected load, rectifier load, x-ray and x-ray type equipment load, fusing machine load, and other types of welding load.

SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note A, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to the sum of the Customer Charge and the Energy Charge times 0.0285.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations .
(B) TIME OF USE (TOU) OPTION:

Customers who select the time of use option will pay a one-time TOU Meter Installation Charge, which is the cost of a TOU meter, plus its installation cost. This Charge is set forth in the City of Santa Clara Municipal Fee Schedule. The manufacturer and model of such meter shall be at the sole discretion of Silicon Valley Power. Time of use periods are as set forth below:

Peak Period: Monday through Saturday, except holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day), beginning at 6:00 AM and ending at 10:00 PM.

Off-Peak Period: All other hours.

The TOU meter is used to measure kWh usage in the peak and off-peak periods. The ratio of peak kWh to total kWh will be used to determine the portion of the First 800 kWh that falls in the peak period. This ratio will also be used to determine the portion of kWh usage above 800 kWh that falls in the peak period. (C) UNMETERED SERVICE:

A customer may request electric service under this rate schedule on an unmetered basis, and SVP may, in sole discretion, allow such service if SVP determines (1) customer qualifies to receive service under this rate schedule and an existing unmetered SVP rate schedule does not apply to customer; (2) customer’s connected load is less than 385 watts; (3) customer’s usage is expected to be constant; and (4) installation of a meter to serve customer’s connected load is not practical. If SVP determines customer may receive electric service under this rate schedule on an unmetered basis, customer shall pay the customer charge and the energy charge above. The energy charge shall be assessed on customer’s estimated monthly usage which shall be determined as follows: customer’s estimated connected load in watts times 8,760, divided by 1000, and then divided by 12. Customer shall be responsible for notifying the SVP not less than 30 days in advance of any change in customer’s connected load. Failure to provide such notification may result in the SVP terminating electric service to the customer.

RATE SCHEDULE C-1 Sheet 2 of 2

GENERAL SERVICE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-1

GENERAL SERVICE DEMAND

METERED
Sheet 1 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:

This schedule is applicable to commercial or industrial services whose monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kWh for three (3) consecutive months, or where the initial connected load indicates use above 8,000 kWh per billing period. When either of these qualifications has been met, this schedule as well as a Maximum Demand meter will be installed as promptly as is practicable. Both the Schedule CB-1 and the Maximum Demand meter will be continued in service until the monthly use of energy has fallen below 6,000 kWh for 12 consecutive months. At that time, and at the option of Silicon Valley Power, Schedule C-1 will be applicable and the Maximum Demand meter may be removed. The Time of Use Option is available to all customers. Customers who utilize the TOU option will be responsible for the installed cost of a TOU meter, if necessary, as set forth in Note (E) below.

RATES:

CUSTOMER CHARGE, per meter per month
DEMAND CHARGE:

Non-Time of Use
$96.59
Time of Use
$96.59
All kW of Billing Demand, per kW $11.67
Time of Use
Peak Off-Peak
$11.67 $0.00
ENERGY CHARGE: Non-Time of Use Time of Use
All kWh, per kWh $0.15518
Peak Off-Peak
$0.17779 $0.13670
SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note D, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) MAXIMUM DEMAND:

The Maximum Demand in any month will be the average kW delivery of the 15-minutes interval in which such delivery is greater than in any other 15-minute interval in the month, provided, however, that in case the load is intermittent or subject of violent fluctuations, Silicon Valley Power may use a 5-minute interval instead of a 15-minute interval.
(B) BILLING DEMAND:

The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the mean of the Maximum Demand for the current month and the highest such demand occurring in the year ending with current month.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-1

GENERAL SERVICE DEMAND

METERED
Sheet 2 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 (C) VOLTAGE:

Single-phase or three-phase service on this schedule will be supplied at the secondary voltage available, or at the option of the customer, at the primary voltage available, subject to the rules and regulations for electric service.
(D) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE: The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to the sum of the Customer Charge, Demand Charge and Energy Charge, including adjustment for Primary Voltage and Power Factor, times 0.0285.

The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (E) TIME OF USE OPTION:

Customers who select the time of use option will pay a one-time TOU Meter Installation Charge, which reflects the cost difference (including installation) between a non-time of use meter and a time of use meter. This Charge is set forth in the City of Santa Clara Municipal Fee Schedule. The manufacturer and model of such meter shall be at the sole discretion of Silicon Valley Power. Time of use periods are as set forth below:

Peak Period: Monday through Saturday, except holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day), beginning at 6:00 AM and ending at 10:00 PM.

Off-Peak Period: All other hours.

The TOU meter is used to measure kWh and kW in the peak and off-peak periods. (F) PRIMARY VOLTAGE DISCOUNT:

When delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the distribution line from which the service is supplied, a discount of $1.46 per kW of Billing Demand for 12kV line voltages will be allowed, provided, however, Silicon Valley Power is not required to supply service at a particular line voltage where it has (or will install) ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited to the customer's

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-1

GENERAL SERVICE DEMAND

METERED
Sheet 3 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 electrical requirements. Silicon Valley Power retains the right to change its line voltage at any time, after reasonable advance notice to any customer receiving a discount hereunder and affected by such change, and such customer then has the option to change their system so as to receive service at the new line voltage or to accept service (without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by Silicon Valley Power.
(G) POWER FACTOR:

When the Billing Demand has exceeded 300 kW for three consecutive months and thereafter until it has fallen below 200 kW for twelve consecutive months, bills will be adjusted for weighted monthly average Power Factor as follows:

The sum of Customer Charge, Demand Charge, Energy Charge, Primary Voltage Discount (as applicable) for any month as computed on the above rates will be decreased or increased, respectively, by 0.1 % for each 1 % that the average Power Factor is greater or less than 85%. Such average Power Factor to be computed (to the nearest whole percent) from the ratio of lagging kilovolt-ampere-hours to kilowatt- hours consumed in the month.
(H) OFF-PEAK DEMAND – NON TIME OF USE:

Any customer may, upon request, have their Maximum Demand measured by a recording type meter, and all demands occurring between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM of the following day and on Sundays and legal holidays will not be counted in determining the Billing Demand.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-3

LARGE GENERAL SERVICE DEMAND

METERED
Sheet 1 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
This schedule is applicable to industrial and commercial services whose monthly billing demands have exceeded 4,000 kilowatts for three consecutive months, or where the initial connected load indicates a demand above 4,000 kilowatts. Customers served under this Schedule CB-3 will be continued in service until the monthly billing demand has fallen below 4,000 kilowatts for 12 consecutive billing periods. The Time of Use Option is available to all customers. Customers who utilize the TOU option will be responsible for the installed cost of a TOU meter, if necessary, as set forth in Note (E) below.

RATES: Non-time of use Time of Use
CUSTOMER CHARGE – per meter per month $96.59 $96.59
DEMAND CHARGE: Non-time of use Time of Use
All kW of Billing Demand, per KW $15.57
Peak Off-Peak
$15.57 $0.00
ENERGY CHARGE: Non-time of use Time of Use
All kWh, per kWh $0.14292
Peak Off-Peak
$0.16548 $0.12440
SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note D, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) MAXIMUM DEMAND:

The Maximum Demand in any month will be the average kW delivery of the 15-minute interval in which such delivery greater than in any other 15-minute interval in the month, provided, however, that in case the load is intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, Silicon Valley Power may use a 5-minute instead of a 15-minute interval.
(B) BILLING DEMAND:

The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the mean of the actual Maximum Demand for the current month and the highest such demand occurring in the year ending with the current month.
(C) VOLTAGE:

Service on this schedule will be supplied at the primary voltage available or, at the option of Silicon Valley Power, at the secondary voltage available, subject to the rules and regulations for electric service.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-3

LARGE GENERAL SERVICE DEMAND

METERED
Sheet 2 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 (D) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to the sum of the Customer Charge, Demand Charge, and Energy Charge, including adjustment for Power Factor and Primary Voltage, times 0.0285.

The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (E) TIME OF USE OPTION:

Peak Period: Monday through Saturday, except holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day), beginning at 6:00 AM and ending at 10:00 PM.

Off-Peak Period: All other hours.

The TOU meter is used to measure kWh and kW in the peak and off-peak periods. (F) PRIMARY VOLTAGE DISCOUNT:

When delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the distribution line from which the service is supplied, a discount of $1.46 per kW of Billing Demand for 12kV or higher available line voltages will be allowed, provided, however, Silicon Valley Power is not required to supply service at a particular line voltage where it has (or will install) ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited to the customer's electrical requirements. Silicon Valley Power retains the right to change its line voltage at any time, after reasonable advance notice to any customer receiving a discount hereunder and affected by such change, and such customer then has the option to change their system so as to receive service at the new line voltage or to accept service (without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by Silicon Valley Power.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-3

LARGE GENERAL SERVICE DEMAND

METERED
Sheet 3 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 (G) POWER FACTOR:

Any customer served under this Rate Schedule may, upon request, have their Maximum Demand measured by a recording type meter, and all demands occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. of the following day and on Sundays and legal holidays will be discounted in determining the Billing Demand.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-6

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL

SERVICE
Sheet 1 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

RATE OPTIONS: Non Time of Use Time of Use

CUSTOMER CHARGE
For Each Service Address – per meter per month $450.47 $450.47 DEMAND CHARGE:

SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note E, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) MAXIMUM DEMAND
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the sum of the highest average kW delivery, at each service address, of any 15-minute interval occurring between 1:00 PM and 10:00 PM Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. However, in case the load is intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, Silicon Valley Power may use a 5-minute interval instead of a 15-minute interval. (B) BILLING DEMAND
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be sum of the mean of the actual Maximum Demand for the current month at each service address and the highest such demand occurring in the year ending with the current month at each service address, but not less than 5,000 kw.
(C) VOLTAGE ADJUSTMENT:

First 5,000,000 kWh, per kWh $0.10801 $0.11784 $0.10349 Next 10,000,000 kWh, per kWh $0.10511 $0.11493 $0.10058 Next 5,000,000 kWh, per kWh $0.09926 $0.10910 $0.09474
Over 20,000,000 kWh, per kWh $0.09051 $0.10035 $0.08600

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-6

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL

SERVICE
Sheet 2 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 substation or from a SVP-owned substation directly paid for by customer, the Demand Charge will be reduced by $1.83 per kW. However, Silicon Valley Power is not required to supply service at a particular line voltage where it has (or will install) ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited to the customer's electrical requirements. Silicon Valley Power retains the right to change its line voltage at any time, after reasonable advance notice to any customer receiving a discount hereunder and affected by such change, and such customer then has the option to change their system so as to receive service at the new line voltage or to accept service (without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by Silicon Valley Power.
(D) POWER FACTOR:

For each service address where Billing Demand has exceeded 300 kW for three consecutive months, bills will be adjusted for weighted monthly average Power Factor as follows: the sum of Customer Charge, Demand Charge, Energy Charge, Secondary Voltage Adjustment (as applicable) and 60kV Delivery Adjustment (as applicable) for any month as computed on the above rates will be decreased or increased, respectively, by 0.1 % for each 1 % that the average Power Factor is greater or less than 85%. Such average Power Factor to be computed (to the nearest whole percent) from the ratio of lagging kilovolt-ampere-hours to kilowatt- hours consumed in the month, provided, however, that no Power Factor correction will be made for any month when the Maximum Demand of such service address, is less than 10% of the highest demand in the preceding eleven months.

Power Factor Adjustment will be discontinued for any service address that falls below 200 kW for 12 consecutive months.
(E) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to the sum of the Customer Charge, Demand Charge, Energy Charge, Voltage and Power Factor Adjustment, times 0.0285.

STATE SURCHARGE:

The State Surcharge is required by California state law, and supports funding for the California Energy Commission. The surcharge is equal to kWh billed times the State Surcharge Rate. The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (F) CALCULATION OF ENERGY CHARGES AT EACH SERVICE ADDRESS:

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE CB-6

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL

SERVICE
Sheet 3 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 The energy charges calculated under this Schedule CB-6 will be apportioned to each service address as follows:

1. Energy Charges for each service address will be determined as the ratio of the kWh usage at each service address divided by the sum of kWh usage at all applicable service addresses.

2. After such apportionment, each service address will be subject to the applicable Voltage Adjustment, Power Factor Adjustment, Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge provisions set forth above.

3. Payment for bills rendered at each service address shall be made by wire transfer, automated clearing house (ACH) transfer, check or credit card. Payments made by credit card will be subject to the applicable credit card transaction fees.
(G) TIME OF USE OPTION:

Customers who select the time of use option will need to provide at least one month written notice and continue with this option for at least one year. Customers who select the time of use option will pay a one-time TOU Meter Installation Charge, which reflects the cost difference (including installation) between a non-time of use meter and a time of use meter. This Charge is set forth in the City of Santa Clara Municipal Fee Schedule. The manufacturer and model of such meter shall be at the sole discretion of Silicon Valley Power. Time of use periods are as set forth below:

Peak Period: Monday through Saturday, except holidays (New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day), beginning at 1:00 PM and ending at 10:00 PM.

Off-Peak Period: All other hours. The TOU meter is used to measure kWh and kW in the peak and off-peak period.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
RATE SCHEDULE CB-7

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL
SERVICE – MARKET BASED OPTION
Sheet 1 of 6
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
This Schedule is optional to Customers who occupy one or more demand-metered service addresses served by Silicon Valley Power (SVP), where electric service from SVP is in Customer’s name, and where Customer’s combined monthly electric billing demand is 5,000 kW or more. Customers with self-generation may also be subject to Schedule SB-1. Under this Schedule, Customers may designate a portion of their monthly energy purchased from SVP to be priced based on Note H. Customer who select this rate option will continue with this option for the full kWh volume subscribed for at least one year. Customer must also provide at least three months’ written notice to terminate this option and to be billed under other applicable rate schedule. The total combined energy for all SVP customers that may be served under this rate schedule is 30,000,000 kWh per month.

RATE OPTIONS: Non Time of Use Time of Use

CUSTOMER CHARGE
For Each Service Address – per meter per month $450.47 $450.47 DEMAND CHARGE:

MARKET-BASED PRICING ADJUSTMENT: See NOTE H
SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note E, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) MAXIMUM DEMAND
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the sum of the highest average kW delivery, at each service address, of any 15-minute interval occurring between 1:00 PM and 10:00 PM Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. However, in case the load is intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, Silicon Valley Power may use a 5-minute interval instead of a 15-minute interval. (B) BILLING DEMAND
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be sum of the mean of the actual Maximum Demand for the current month at each service address and the highest such All kW of Billing Demand, per kW: $28.38
Peak
$28.38
Off-Peak
$0.00
ENERGY CHARGE:

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
RATE SCHEDULE CB-7

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL
SERVICE – MARKET BASED OPTION
Sheet 2 of 6
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 demand occurring in the year ending with the current month at each service address, but not less than 5,000 KW.
(C) VOLTAGE ADJUSTMENT:

For each Service Address served at less than 12,000 volts, the Demand Charge will be increased by $1.46 per kW. For each Service Address served at 60,000 volts directly from a customer owned substation or from a SVP-owned substation directly paid for by customer, the Demand Charge will be reduced by $1.83 per kW. However, Silicon Valley Power is not required to supply service at a particular line voltage where it has (or will install) ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited to the customer's electrical requirements. Silicon Valley Power retains the right to change its line voltage at any time, after reasonable advance notice to any customer receiving a discount hereunder and affected by such change, and such customer then has the option to change their system so as to receive service at the new line voltage or to accept service (without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by Silicon Valley Power.
(D) POWER FACTOR ADJUSTMENT:

For each service address where Billing Demand has exceeded 300 kW for three consecutive months bills will be adjusted for weighted monthly average Power Factor as follows: the sum of Customer Charge, Demand Charge, Energy Charge, Secondary Voltage Adjustment (as applicable) and 60kV Delivery Adjustment (as applicable) for any month as computed on the above rates will be decreased or increased, respectively, by 0.1 % for each 1 % that the average Power Factor is greater or less than 85%. Such average Power Factor to be computed (to the nearest whole percent) from the ratio of lagging kilovolt-ampere-hours to kilowatt- hours consumed in the month, provided, however, that no Power Factor correction will be made for any month when the Maximum Demand of such service address, is less than 10% of the highest demand in the preceding eleven months.

Power Factor Adjustment will be discontinued for any service address that falls below 200 kW for 12 consecutive months.
(E) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to the sum of the Meter Charge and Capacity Reservation Charge, times 0.0285.

STATE SURCHARGE:

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
RATE SCHEDULE CB-7

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL
SERVICE – MARKET BASED OPTION
Sheet 3 of 6
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (F) CALCULATION OF ENERGY CHARGES AT EACH SERVICE ADDRESS:

The energy charges calculated under this Schedule CB-7 will be apportioned to each service address as follows:

1. Energy Charges for each service address will be determined as the ratio of the kWh usage at each service address divided by the sum of kWh usage at all applicable service addresses.

2. After such apportionment, each service address will be subject to the applicable Voltage Adjustment, Power Factor Adjustment, Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge provisions set forth above.

Peak Period: Monday through Saturday, except holidays (New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day), beginning at 1:00 PM and ending at 10:00 PM.

Off-Peak Period: All other hours. The TOU meter is used to measure kWh and kW in the peak and off-peak period.
(H) MARKET BASED PRICING ADJUSTMENT (MBPA):

Upon at least 30 days’ notice, customers may designate up to 100%, but not less than 2,000,000 kWh of their monthly usage to be priced based on market indices as set forth below. The total combined amount of energy that may be available (Total Available) to all Customers under this MBPA shall be determined solely by SVP and it’s on a first come first serve basis. SVP shall give 90 days’ notice of any change in such total amount, and endeavor to make such changes effective January 1 of each calendar year. If the Total Available is changed to an amount lower than actually being allowed, SVP will reduce existing customers’ allowable amounts on a prorated basis, and this schedule will be closed to new customers.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
RATE SCHEDULE CB-7

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL
SERVICE – MARKET BASED OPTION
Sheet 4 of 6
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 Market Based Pricing Adjustment is calculated as the Market Cost Adjustment Rate times the full kWh subscribed under this rate option. The Market Cost Adjustment Rate is the Current Market Cost of Energy minus the Base Energy Rate. Such difference may be positive or negative.

The Current Market Cost of Energy is determined as set forth in the CB-7 Market Based Option Bill Determinants attached here and as posted. The Current Market Cost of Energy for each calendar month will be sent to Customer served under this option with the monthly bill.

The Base Energy Rate is reflected in the above Energy Charge rates, and is SVP’s determination of the annualized unit cost that a creditworthy customer would incur for receiving bundled energy with renewable and GHG characteristics from publicly owned energy service providers like SVP. The Base Energy Rate will be updated annually in conjunction with changes in the Energy Charge rates.

The Market Based Pricing Adjustment, which can be positive or negative, will be applied to the Energy Charge prior to Voltage Adjustment, Power Factor Adjustment and Surcharges. .

CB-7 MARKET BASED OPTION BILL DETERMINANTS

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
RATE SCHEDULE CB-7

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL
SERVICE – MARKET BASED OPTION
Sheet 5 of 6
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 The total combined amount of energy that is available (Total Available) to all Customers under MBPA for Calendar Year 2025 is 30,000,000 kWh per month.

Base Energy Rate for Calendar Year 2025 is $0.08416 per kWh.

Current Market Cost of Energy includes:

1. PG&E Hourly DLAP Price which is the CAISO DLAP_PGAE - APND for the Day Ahead Market (DAM). If any hourly DLAP Price is less than zero, the effective DLAP price for such hour shall be zero.

2. Transmission loss which is 2% of PG&E Hourly DLAP price calculated above.

3. CAISO High Voltage Transmission Access Charge (“HV TAC”) for month ($/MWh) The CAISO HV TAC price is the daily average PG&E effective HV TAC rate for Santa Clara for the applicable month, and is obtained using the following site(s) information:
http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/Settlements/Default.aspx

4. CAISO Low Voltage Transmission Access Charge (“LV TAC”) price is the daily average PG&E effective LV TAC rate for Santa Clara for the applicable month, and is obtained using the following site(s) information:
http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/Settlements/Default.aspx.

5. Market Price of Renewable Energy Credit =
Market price of RECs for Month * 46% (SVP applicable RPS percentage for current compliance year) The average monthly market price of RECs is obtained using the following site(s) information:

The data for California Bucket 1, 2, and 3 RECs are obtained from Megawatt Daily. The average monthly market price is then calculated based on SVP weighted average for Bucket 1, 2 and 3 RECs.

For current compliance year, the Bucket 1 is 75%, Bucket 2 is 15% and Bucket 3 is 10%.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

6. CAISO Grid Management Charge (“GMC”) ($/MWh) = Charge Code 4560 (Market Services Charge) + Charge Code 4561 (System Operations Charge)
The CAISO GMC is obtained using the following site(s) information (and will be updated as it is updated at the CAISO:
http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/Settlements/Default.aspx If any of the sources for the above described rate components are no longer available, SVP will diligently seek an alternative but equivalent source for that rate component.

If new or additional components affect the Current Market Cost of Energy due to new legislation or other circumstances, bill determinants will be added or adjusted to reflecting any impacting mandates or regulations. Customers will be provided notification of such additions or adjustments no less than 30 days prior to implementation. .

RATE SCHEDULE CB-7 Sheet 6 of 6

LARGE COMBINED GENERAL
SERVICE – MARKET BASED OPTION

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
This rate schedule is available to customers eligible for service under Schedules CB-6 or CB-7 who, but for the provisions of this rate schedule, would cease operations in the City of Santa Clara, and would not engage in any substantially similar operation in the State of California for a period of at least five years. Customer must submit a signed affidavit attesting to this effect. The cumulative maximum billing demand for all SVP customers that may be served under this rate schedule at any one time is 20,000 kW.

RATES:

Customers’ bills under Schedule CB-6 or CB-7, prior to Public Benefit Charge and State Surcharge, will be reduced by up to 12% for a period of not more than five years. The effective percentage reduction and the term of such percentage reduction, will be as approved by the Chief Electric Utility Officer.

NOTES:

1. Marginal Cost to Serve:

In no event shall service under this rate schedule result in customer being served at less than SVP’s marginal cost of providing service to said customer.

2. Forfeiture of Discounts:

If a customer fails to comply with the terms of this rate schedule, SVP will seek repayment of the dollar amount of all discounts provided under this rate schedule.

3. First Come, First Served:

This rate schedule is available on a first come, first served basis on a monthly basis. However, preference will be given to customers with a long history of doing business in Santa Clara, to customers that help SVP maintain a diversified sales base, and to the number and type of jobs that may be preserved.

Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 RATE SCHEDULE CB-8 Sheet 1 of 1

CUSTOMER LOAD RETENTION

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE D-1

DOMESTIC SERVICE
Sheet 1 of 2
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
This schedule is applicable to single phase residential service for single-family dwellings, condominium house meters, townhouse house meters, cooperative apartment house meters, flats and apartments separately metered by Silicon Valley Power. The Time of Use (TOU) Option is available to all customers. Customers who utilize the TOU option will be responsible for the installed cost of a TOU meter, as set forth in Note (B) below.

This schedule is not applicable for services to common areas of apartment houses.

RATES: Non-Time of Use Time of Use Option
METER CHARGE, per meter per month $4.91 $4.91
ENERGY CHARGE (to be added to the Customer Charge)
Non-Time of Use Time of Use Option
Peak Off-Peak
First 300 kWh, per kWh $0.15012 $0.17269 $0.13163
Excess Over 300 kWh, per kWh

SURCHARGES
$0.17256 $0.19514 $0.15407
Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note A, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE: The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to the sum of the Meter Charge and the Energy Charge times 0.0285.

The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE D-1

DOMESTIC SERVICE
Sheet 2 of 2
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 (B) TIME OF USE (TOU) OPTION:

Peak Period: Monday through Saturday, except holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day), beginning at 6:00 AM and ending at 10:00 PM.

Off-Peak Period: All other hours.

The TOU meter is used to measure kWh usage in the peak and off-peak periods. The ratio of peak kWh to total kWh will be used to determine the portion of the First 300 kWh that falls in the peak period. This ratio will also be used to determine the portion of kWh usage above 300 kWh that falls in the peak period.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER

RATE SCHEDULE IC

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SERVICE
Sheet 1 of 2
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 APPLICATION:

This schedule is applicable to non-metered service to irrigation controller or sprinkler controllers located either in public streets, highways, and places, or private areas.

RATES:

SERVICE CHARGE:

For each sprinkler or irrigation controller $9.96 per unit per month MINIMUM CHARGE: $9.96 per month
SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note A, are included in the above charge.

NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to 2.85% of the otherwise applicable rate.

STATE SURCHARGE: The state surcharge is required by California state law, and supports funding for the California Energy Commission. The surcharge is equal to estimated kWh per controller times the State Surcharge Rate. The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (B) TYPE OF SERVICE:

Energy will be supplied at 120 volts, single phase, two wire service. Where only other voltages are available, applicant shall pay, in advance, Silicon Valley Power's cost to convert from the available voltage to 120 volts.
(C) POINT OF DELIVERY:

Delivery will be made from Silicon Valley Power's existing electric lines at a point mutually agreed upon, without extension thereof to customer's system.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 (D) SERVICE CONNECTION:

Silicon Valley Power will provide overhead or underground service in accordance with the current Rules and Regulations for Electric Service. However, applicant shall pay to Silicon Valley Power, in advance, the amount, if any, by which Silicon Valley Power's costs to provide underground service exceeds its cost to provide an overhead service.
(E) MAINTENANCE:

Maintenance will be performed by the customer.

RATE SCHEDULE IC Sheet 2 of 2

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SERVICE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER

RATE SCHEDULE NM

NET ENERGY METERING SERVICE
Sheet 1 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 With 2025 Excess Energy Rate
APPLICABILITY:

This Net Energy Metering rate schedule is applicable to all customers served by Silicon Valley Power (SVP), who own and operate a solar or a wind turbine electrical generating facility, or a hybrid system of both. Such facility shall be located on the customer's premises, shall operate in parallel with SVP's transmission and distribution facilities, shall not exceed 1000 kilowatts, and shall only be used primarily to offset part or all of the customer's own electrical requirements. Availability of this schedule to such "customer-generators" will be on a first-come first-served basis, until the total rated generating capacity operated by eligible customer-generators equals 5.0 percent of SVP's annual peak distribution demand.

RATES:

All rates charged under this schedule shall be the same as the rates charged under the eligible customer generator's otherwise applicable rate schedule (OAS). An eligible customer-generator served under this schedule shall be responsible for all charges under the otherwise applicable rate schedule, except that energy usage will be metered and billed on a net basis. An annual bill will be rendered, as required by Section 2827 of the California Public Utilities Code. A monthly statement of accumulated charges and credits shall be provided.

Monthly statements shall be subject to SVP’s payment provisions pursuant to Municipal Service Rule and Regulation No. 6, except that customers whose OAS is a demand metered SVP Rate Schedule shall be subject to monthly payment of bills, and be subject to annual true-up as necessary. If the energy generated exceeds the energy consumed during the annual billing cycle, at the customer-generator’s option, payment shall be made for such excess energy delivered to SVP's distribution facilities as set forth below, or applied as a credit to the next annual billing cycle.

LOAD AGGREGATION OPTION:

An eligible customer-generator with multiple meters may elect to aggregate the electrical load of the meters located on the property where the renewable electrical generation facility is located and on all properties adjacent or contiguous to the property on which the renewable electrical generation facility is located, if those properties are solely owned, leased, or rented by the eligible customer-generator.

If an eligible customer-generator chooses to aggregate the electrical load of such meters, (i) the eligible customer-generator shall be permanently ineligible to receive net surplus electricity compensation, and SVP shall retain any kilowatt-hours in excess of the eligible customer-generator’s aggregated electrical load generated during the 12-month period; (ii) the electricity generated by the renewable electrical generation facility shall be allocated to each of the meters in proportion to the electrical load served by those meters for each billing period. This proportionate allocation shall be calculated based on customer-generator’s load data averaged over an indicative 12-month period (estimated if necessary) and should be effective for a minimum of 12 months.

METERING:

Net energy metering is the use of a single meter to measure the flow of electricity in two directions. If the existing electrical meter of an eligible customer-generator is not capable of measuring the flow of electricity in two directions the customer-generator shall be responsible for all expenses involved in purchasing and installing a meter that is able to measure electricity flow in two directions. Any additional meter or meters to monitor the flow of electricity in each direction may be installed with the consent of the customer-generator, at SVP expense.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER

RATE SCHEDULE NM

NET ENERGY METERING SERVICE
With 2025 Excess Energy Rate
Sheet 2 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 SVP meter(s) to monitor the output of customer-generator’s generating facilities are required if customergenerator elects the Load Aggregation Option. Such meters shall be provided by SVP and paid for by the customer-generator.

INTERCONNECTION:

Prior to interconnection, the customer-generator shall execute an interconnection agreement with SVP and shall comply with SVP's Rules and Regulations regarding parallel generation, except that service under a standby rate schedule shall not be required. The customer-generator must also meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the California Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.

PAYMENT RATE FOR EXCESS ENERGY:

The Payment Rate for Excess Energy shall be revised during each calendar year, and shall consist of the sum of an avoided energy cost charge and an avoided renewable energy value charge. The avoided energy cost is equal to 8000 Btu/kWh times SVP’s avoided cost of gas in $/MMBtu. The avoided cost of gas shall be the average of the 12 monthly values for PG&E Citygate taken from Natural Gas Intelligence, adjusted to include transportation to Santa Clara, ending in October of the year prior to the effective date of the Payment Rate for Excess Energy. The avoided renewable energy value charge shall be equal to the average cost of the unbundled renewable energy credits SVP purchased for SVP’s RPS compliance in the calendar year 2023.

Payment Rate for Excess Energy effective January 2025: $0.04101 per kWh

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 With 2025 Excess Energy Rate
Exhibit A
Rate Schedule NM
Derivation of Payment Rate for Excess Energy

1. Avoided energy cost charge:

Average of the monthly values for PG&E Citygate from Natural Gas Intelligence for the 12 months ending October 2024: $3.792 per MMBtu
Average cost of transportation from PG&E Citygate to Santa Clara Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant for the 12 months ending October 2024: $0.615 per MMBtu
Total average delivered cost of gas: $4.407 per MMBtu
Avoided energy cost = $4.407 per MMBtu x 8000 Btu/kWh = $0.03526/kWh

2. Avoided renewable energy value charge:

The average cost of the unbundled renewable energy credits SVP purchased for SVP’s RPS compliance in the calendar year 2024: $0.00575 per kWh

3. Payment Rate for Excess Energy beginning January 2025:
$/kWh
Avoided energy cost charge $0.03526
Avoided renewable energy value charge $0.00575
Total $0.04101
RATE SCHEDULE NM Sheet 3 of 3

NET ENERGY METERING SERVICE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER

RATE SCHEDULE PA-E

ELECTRIC SERVICE TO

COMMUNICATIONS ATTACHMENTS

TO SVP POLES
Sheet 1 of 2
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 APPLICABILITY:

This schedule is applicable to unmetered service to telecommunications equipment mounted on SVP-owned poles. Electric usage at each electric connection will be determined as set forth in Note (F) below.

RATES:

CUSTOMER CHARGE:

For each electric connection, per month $5.31
ENERGY CHARGE (in addition to the Customer Charge):

First 800 kWh, per kWh $0.25596
Excess over 800 kW, per kWh
SURCHARGES:
$0.23237
Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth in Note A, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to 2.85% of the otherwise applicable rate.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 (C) POINT OF DELIVERY:

Delivery will be made from Silicon Valley Power's existing electric lines at a point mutually agreed upon, without extension thereof to customer's system.
(D) SERVICE CONNECTION:

Maintenance will be performed by the customer.
(F) DETERMINATION OF ELECTIC USAGE:

The amount of electric usage subject to the Energy Charge shall be determined as the product of the rated capacity, expressed in kilowatts, of Customer’s communications equipment served at each connection point times 730. Customer shall be responsible for notifying SVP at least 60 days prior to making any equipment change that would increase or decrease the rated capacity of Customer’s equipment, in order that SVP may make commensurate, timely change to Customer’s billing determinants.

RATE SCHEDULE PA-E Sheet 2 of 2

ELECTRIC SERVICE TO

COMMUNICATIONS ATTACHMENTS

TO SVP POLES

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE SB-1

STANDBY GENERAL SERVICE

DEMAND METERED
Sheet 1 of 2
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
This schedule is applicable to standby service for customer’s on-site self-generation operated in parallel with service from SVP under any of SVP’s applicable demand-metered rate schedules, where such self-generation is not eligible for service under Schedule NEM. This Schedule does not apply to customer’s on-site renewable electrical generation facility where Schedule NEM is applicable. The Capacity Reservation Charges under this Schedule SB-1 are supplemental to the demand charges under the applicable demand-metered rate schedule, and are intended to result in SVP recovering its costs to provide standby services for the on-site generation capacity.

RATES:

CUSTOMER CHARGE:

The Customer Charge is equal to the applicable Customer Charge set forth in Customer’s otherwise applicable rate schedule.

CAPACITY RESERVATION CHARGE (CRC):

The Capacity Reservation Charge is equal to the applicable Demand Charge per kW set forth in customer’s otherwise applicable Rate Schedule multiplied by the lower of 45% of the nameplate rating of customer’s on-site generation or the Reservation Capacity determined pursuant to Note D.

SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge, as set forth in Note B, will be added to the above charges.

NOTES:
(A) FLUCTUATIONS IN CUSTOMER’S SELF-GENERATION OUTPUT:

Customer shall coordinate with SVP’s System Dispatcher for changes of 2000 kW or more in the output of customer’s self-generation. If operationally necessary and practical, the System Dispatcher may require customer to schedule the return to service of customer’s self-generation. Such coordination shall not relieve Customers from Capacity Reservation Charges determined above. (B) PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low-income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to the sum of the Meter Charge and Capacity Reservation Charge, times 0.0285.
(C) PARALLEL OPERATION:

Any customer may operate its generating plant in parallel with SVP’s system if the customer’s plant is constructed and operated in accordance with SVP Rule. However, a customer who operates its plant in parallel must assume responsibility for protecting SVP and other parties from damage resulting from

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 negligent operation of the customer’s facilities. Customers may be required to meet requirements imposed by other governing entities having jurisdiction over SVP’s transmission lines including the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). Customer generation under this rate schedule shall be metered by SVP. Customer shall provide a meter location that accommodates SVP’s meter and such meter shall be fully accessible by SVP. (D) RESERVATION CAPACITY:

The Reservation Capacity to be used for billing under the above rates shall be determined as set forth below:

The Reservation Capacity shall be as initially determined by SVP, except that during the first 12-month period following the date of initial determination, SVP may review the specified Reservation Capacity on a monthly basis and make adjustments as warranted (consistent with the criteria specified below).

Thereafter, SVP may perform an annual review of the most recent 12 months of actual customer operation and make prospective adjustments to the Reservation Capacity as warranted and consistent with customer’s historic operations. Any such adjusted Reservation Capacity shall be effective for a minimum of 12 months unless a documented material change of operation is provided to SVP by the customer. The customer may provide SVP with documentation of such material changes in operations as might call for an adjusted Reservation Capacity at any time. Upon receipt and review of such documentation, SVP shall revise the Reservation Capacity at its sole discretion and such a revision will be effective for the billing period immediately following receipt, acceptance and approval of the documentation and any additional information required by SVP to make such a determination. For purposes of subsequent annual reviews and any resulting adjustment to the Reservation Capacity, the following criteria shall apply:
a. For those customers who operate sufficient non-utility generating capacity so as to ordinarily satisfy all of the electric energy requirements at their site and so do not ordinarily require any service through facilities owned by SVP, the Reservation Capacity shall not exceed the customer’s highest peak demand established during the most recent 12 months of actual customer operation; b. For customers with electric loads that exceed the output capability of their non-utility generation, and thus require the regular provision of supplemental power service through facilities owned by SVP, the Reservation Capacity determination shall consider the number and size of the customer’s non-utility generating unit(s), the outage diversity of the non-utility generating units serving the customer’s load, and any reduction of customer load commensurate with non-utility generator capacity outages.

RATE SCHEDULE SB-1 Sheet 2 of 2

STANDBY GENERAL SERVICE

DEMAND METERED

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE SL-1

STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING
Sheet 1 of 4
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 APPLICATION:

This schedule is applicable for service to street and highway lighting systems which illuminate publiclydedicated streets and highways by means of incandescent filament, mercury vapor, or high pressure sodium vapor lamps. This schedule is applicable only to those instances where the customer owns the lighting fixtures, street light supporting structure and interconnecting circuits.

CLASSES OF SERVICES OFFERED:

Class A. Silicon Valley Power provides energy and switching* only.

Class B. Silicon Valley Power provides energy, switching* and maintenance service for lamps and glass.

Class C. Silicon Valley Power provides energy, switching* and maintenance service for complete lighting system.

BURNING SCHEDULE: All night (unless otherwise specified).

RATES (Per Lamp)
Half-hour
Incandescent Adjustment
Lamps kWh\lamp Class A Class B Class C (All Classes)
4,000 lumens 94 $28.28 $30.88 $32.42 $0.680
6,000 lumens 130 $39.92 $42.41 $44.27 $0.930
Mercury Vapor Lamps
Initial
Watts lumens
175 7,500 61 $21.45 $22.79 $24.90 $0.480
250 11,000 88 $29.63 $31.30 $33.47 $0.650
400 21,500 140 $45.12 $46.64 $48.74 $1.010
700 37,000 245 $74.96 $78.09 $80.28 $1.750
1,000 57,000 350 $106.04 $108.79 $110.88 $2.450
* Switching Service is closed to new installations.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE SL-1

STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING
Sheet 2 of 4
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 High Pressure Sodium Vapor Lamps Half-hour
Initial Adjustment
Watts lumens kWh\lamp Class A Class B Class C (All Classes) 100 8,500 35 $11.29 $14.01 $16.08 $0.300
150 16,000 53 $21.06 $24.27 $25.89 $0.470
250 30,000 88 $32.72 $39.69 $41.77 $0.720
400 50,000 140 $47.26 $52.04 $54.19 $1.080
SURCHARGES:

The above rates include an adjustment for a Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge as defined in Note A.

NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to 2.85% of the otherwise applicable rate.

This rate schedule is applicable to multiple street lighting systems. Multiple current will be supplied at nominal voltage level of 120/240 volts or 120/208 volts at the discretion of Silicon Valley Power, three-wire, single phase.
(D) ANNUAL OPERATING SCHEDULES:

The above rates for All-Night service assume 11 hours operation per night and apply to lamps which will be turned on and off once each night in accordance with a regular operating schedule agreeable to the customer but not exceeding 4,100 hours per year. (E) OPERATING SCHEDULES OTHER THAN ALL-NIGHT:

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE SL-1

STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING
Sheet 3 of 4
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 Rates for regular operating schedules other than full all-night will be the All-Night rate plus or minus, respectively, the half-hour adjustment for each half-hour more or less than an average of 11 hours per night. This adjustment will apply only to lamps on regular operating schedules of not less than 1,095 hours per year, or 3 hours per night, nor more than 4,500 hours per year. (F) OVERHEAD DELIVERY POINT:

Delivery will be made from Silicon Valley Power's existing overhead lines without extension to the customer's system or at a point mutually agreed upon, not to exceed 150 feet except in special situations at Silicon Valley Power's convenience. Silicon Valley Power will provide at its expense an overhead service drop to a customer-owned inter-connected group of lamps having a connected load of not less than 2 kW. For a customer-owned inter-connected group of lamps having a connected load of less than 2 kW or individual customer electroliers with a selfcontained photo cell switch, Silicon Valley Power will connect the customer's overhead service wire to Silicon Valley Power's overhead lines at the customer's expense. (G) UNDERGROUND SERVICE:

Silicon Valley Power will provide underground service connection to a mutually agreed upon point from its overhead or underground system to one electrolier of each group of interconnected electroliers provided that the lighting system has been arranged for the least number of practical service points, there is at least 3 kW of connected load, and there are at least ten electroliers in the group. This service connection shall not exceed 25 feet from the base of the Silicon Valley Power pole in an overhead line or 40 feet of an underground line. In the event distances exceed 25 feet from a pole in an overhead system or 40 feet in an underground system, customer shall pay to Silicon Valley Power the actual expense of extending the underground feeder circuitry to the point of connection to Silicon Valley Power's overhead or underground system. In the event the customer requests service to a system of less than 10 electroliers, or less than 3 kW of connected load, customer shall install and own the extension from his system to Silicon Valley Power's distribution system and shall pay Silicon Valley Power the actual costs of connection to the system.
(H) MAINTENANCE:

Class B and C rates include all labor and material necessary for the cleaning or replacement of lamps and glassware, but is limited to glassware such as is commonly used and manufactured in reasonably large quantities. Charges will be made for lamps or glassware requiring replacement more than two (2) times in one year. Under Class C rates Silicon Valley Power will also isolate any trouble in customer's system which has resulted in outages or diminished light output. Silicon Valley Power will make necessary repairs without replacement on accessible wiring between poles and on equipment and wiring in and on poles to keep the system in operating condition. Silicon Valley Power will provide labor for the replacement of material such

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 RATE SCHEDULE SL-1

STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING
Sheet 4 of 4
as ballast’s, photo-electric controls, relays, fixtures, individual poles, individual cable runs between poles where such runs are in conduit, and other individual parts of the system. The customer shall compensate Silicon Valley Power for any materials furnished. The Class C rate does not provide for any major excavation or any major replacement at Silicon Valley Power’s expense of circuits, conduits, poles or fixtures owned by the customer.

This schedule does not provide for maintenance to low pressure sodium vapor or metal halide lamps; however, at the request of the customer, Silicon Valley Power will perform any of the routine maintenance described above on a time and material cost basis provided Silicon Valley Power's regular standard maintenance equipment and procedures can be used. (I) LAMPS OTHER THAN STANDARDS:

Lamps other than the standard types and wattages referred to above may be used in Class A service only and will be billed at an average rate per watt per month of $ 0.14. LED street lighting falls in this category.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE SL-2

PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA

LIGHTING SERVICE
Sheet 1 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291

APPLICATION
This schedule is applicable to private all night outdoor area lighting service which illuminates privately-owned lands and property supplied from an overhead source. This schedule is applicable only to those instances where Silicon Valley Power installs, owns and maintains all facilities required to service in accordance with the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara and the Rules and Regulations for Electric Service. Service to lamps hereunder shall be continuous and temporary disconnection shall not be made.

BURNING SCHEDULE:

Each lamp shall be turned on and off once each night from dusk to dawn in accordance with a regular burning schedule, not to exceed forty-one hundred (4,100) hours per year.

RATES:
250 Watt mercury-vapor floodlight or
Rate per Lamp
Per Month
150 Watt high pressure sodium vapor floodlight $45.57
This rate schedule is applicable to alternating current service at a frequency of approximately 60 cycles, 120 or 240 volts, single phase. The 250 Watt mercury-vapor floodlamp type luminaire shall be mounted from a bracket attached or supported to Silicon Valley Power-owned wood poles and actuated by a photoelectric cell.

SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as defined below in Note A, is included in the above charge.

Public Benefits Charge $1.29
State Surcharge $0.02
NOTES:

Total $1.31 per Lamp
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a state required non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to 2.85% of the otherwise applicable rate.

STATE SURCHARGE:

The state surcharge is required by California state law, and supports funding for the California Energy Commission. The surcharge is equal to estimated kWh per lamp times the State Surcharge Rate. The

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
RATE SCHEDULE SL-2

PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA

LIGHTING SERVICE
Sheet 2 of 3
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (B) BILLING:

Presentation of billing shall coincide with that of the customer’s primary premise account, where such account exists at the same location and no bill will be rendered for the first partial month of service. If the customer does not have a primary premise account, a monthly bill shall be prepared and presented in accordance with the rate and terms of this schedule.

No credit will be given for non-burning lamp time resulting from a fixture failure of any cause which is repaired by Silicon Valley Power in a reasonable period of time. No billing shall be apportioned among two or more customers or tenants. At the customer’s option, charges may be paid in advance. (C) CONTRACTS:

When service is requested by a tenant under this schedule, Silicon Valley Power may require the property owner(s) to enter into a contract with Silicon Valley Power concerning placement of special lighting facilities before service is established.
(D) NOTIFICATION AND REMOVAL:

The latest effective Schedule SL-2 is applicable until canceled on thirty (30) days prior written notice by the customer, or by Silicon Valley Power, at which time the light will be removed. (E) INSTALLATION - MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE:

Silicon Valley Power will not install floodlight luminaries for private use at the rate established in this schedule on anything but Silicon Valley Power’s wood poles, supporting lines and guys existing on easement for Silicon Valley Power facilities.

Silicon Valley Power will not install any material for private use other than the floodlight, mastarm or bracket, and necessary wire, moulding and other materials necessary to connect energy to the floodlight from the secondary line. Said installation shall not exceed an extension of ten (10) feet, including the mastarm or bracket from the pole measured at right angles to the secondary line.

Upon receipt of notice from a customer of the failure of a lamp to operate as scheduled, Silicon Valley Power will, within a reasonable period of time, make the necessary repairs during normal working hours.

It shall be the responsibility of the customer to notify Silicon Valley Power of any malfunctions. (F) EXTENDING SECONDARY:

Silicon Valley Power shall extend its secondary lines one span to supply energy not to exceed 150 feet to the mercury-vapor floodlight at the basic rate in this schedule at no extra cost to the customer.

Additional extensions of secondary facilities shall be limited to three spans, but not to exceed six hundred

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 (600) feet total. The cost of the material, labor and equipment for such extension shall be computed and added to the billing for the first month.
(G) RELOCATION:

Silicon Valley Power shall, upon customer’s written request, relocate its lighting facilities, provided that the customer reimburses Silicon Valley Power for all costs incurred by Silicon Valley Power to complete such relocation.

RATE SCHEDULE SL-2 Sheet 3 of 3

PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA

LIGHTING SERVICE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER

RATE SCHEDULE TC

TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE
Sheet 1 of 2
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 APPLICATION:

This schedule is applicable to non-metered service for traffic directional sign or signal lighting systems owned by governmental agencies and located on outdoor publicly owned street, highways and places.

RATES:

SERVICE CHARGE:

For each Standard Service Connection: $29.91 per 2 or 3-signal head per month $29.91 per pedestrian signal unit per month
Minimum Charge: $29.91 per month
For each Red LED Service Connection: $21.84 per 2 or 3-signal head per month $21.84 per pedestrian signal unit per month
Minimum Charge: $21.84 per month
For each Red and Green LED Service Connection: $15.84 per 2 or 3-signal head per month $15.84 per pedestrian signal unit per month
Minimum Charge: $15.84 per month
SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as defined below in Note A, are included in the above charges.

Standard Red LED Red + Green LED
Public Benefits Charge $0.82 $0.53 $0.46
State Surcharge $0.01 $0.01 $0.00
Total $0.83 $0.54 $0.46
NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, and low income assistance programs. The surcharge is equal to 2.85% of the otherwise applicable rate.

STATE SURCHARGE: The state surcharge is required by California state law, and supports funding for the California Energy Commission. The amount included is equal to estimated kWh per signal head times the State Surcharge Rate. The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (B) TYPE OF SERVICE:

Energy will be supplied at 120/240 volt single phase service (120/208 volts star in certain localities) unless the customer pays the additional initial cost of a 277/480 volt supply. However, service at 277/480 volts from underground systems will be made available only for new services at the option of Silicon Valley Power when this type of service is practical from Silicon Valley Power’s engineering standpoint. (C) POINT OF DELIVERY:

Delivery will be made from Silicon Valley Power's existing electric lines at a point mutually agreed upon, without extension thereof to customer's system.
(D) SERVICE CONNECTION:

Silicon Valley Power will provide, at its expense, an overhead service drop to the customer-owned system; however, where the customer requests and underground service the customer will install and own the extension from his system to the Silicon Valley Power's nearest junction box or to the base of the pole where service is readily available and will pay the amount, if any, by which the cost of connecting to the Silicon Valley Power's distribution system exceeds the cost of an overhead service drop. (E) METERING:

Each point of delivery will be billed separately.
(F) SWITCHING AND MAINTENANCE:

Switching and maintenance will be performed by the customer.

RATE SCHEDULE TC Sheet 2 of 2

TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

SILICON VALLEY POWER
Date Effective: January 1, 2025 Resolution No. 24-
Supersedes Rate Effective: January 1, 2024 Resolution No. 23-9291 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE:

This rate schedule is applicable to non-metered service provided for transit shelter advertisement lighting on public streets, highways, other public places, and private areas. Under this schedule, each transit shelter with a lighted advertisement feature shall contain no more than a single six-foot, four-lamp high-output fluorescent lighting fixture, or equivalent fixture with a wattage rating of not more than 385 watts, and shall be photosensor controlled so as to provide illumination from dusk to dawn.

RATES:

For each Transit Shelter $47.03 per fixture per month
Advertisement Lighting Fixture
SURCHARGES:

Public Benefits Charge and State Surcharge, as set forth below in Note A, is included in the above charge.

Public Benefits Charge $1.31
State Surcharge $0.02
Total $1.33 per fixture
NOTES:
(A) SURCHARGES:

PUBLIC BENEFITS CHARGE:

The Public Benefits Charge is a non-bypassable surcharge imposed on all sales of electricity and electrical services. It is used to fund public goods research, development, and demonstration, as well as, energy efficiency activities, renewable energy, and low income assistance programs. The amount included is equal to 2.85% of the otherwise applicable rate.

STATE SURCHARGE: The state surcharge is required by California state law, and supports funding for the California Energy Commission. The surcharge is equal to estimated kWh per shelter times the State Surcharge Rate. The current State Surcharge Rate can be found on SVP’s website at:
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/rules-and-regulations (B) POINT OF DELIVERY:

Delivery will be made from Silicon Valley Power’s existing electric lines at a point mutually agreed upon, without extension thereof to customer’s system.
(C) MAINTENANCE:

Maintenance will be performed by the customer.

RATE SCHEDULE TS-1 Sheet 1 of 1

NON-METERED TRANSIT SHELTER

ADVERTISEMENT LIGHTING
RTC 24-51
ATTACHMENT 2
Monthly Bill Comparisons
with Proposed 5°/o Increase
2025 Residential Customer Change
~StLIC:ON
. VALLEY
POWER. CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Low User (300 kWh) Average (410 kWh) High User (1,000 kWh) Current Rate
Proposed Rate
Increase
Current Rate
Proposed Rate
Increase
$49.02
$51.46
$2.44
$67.64
$71.01
$3.37
2025 Commercial/Industrial Customer Change
Small Business
C1
(1,000 kWh)
$251.60
$264.16
$12.56
Large Commercial /
Small Industrial
CB-1
(500,000 kWh)
$88,742
$93,177
$4,435
Large Industrial
CB-3
(2,000,000 kWh)
$332,611
$349,213
$16,602
Very Large Industrial
CB-6
(19,500,000 kWh)
$2,811,974
$2,952,284
$140,310
$167.54
$175.91
$8.37
5 Largest Industrial
CB-6
(41,000,000 kWh)
$5,578,861
$5,857,146
$278,285
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-1022 Agenda Date: 11/19/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Action on a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive for the Creation of Two Lots

COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development

BACKGROUND
The applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (File No. PLN24-00130) to subdivide the 2.79-acre property at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive into two lots to accommodate the construction of a new eight-story 284-unit multi-family residential building on a 2.24-acre lot. The other lot will be a 0.55-acre public park that is dedicated to the City.

The site is zoned Urban Village (UV) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Urban Village, which allows for a residential density of 100-149 dwelling units per acre. It is also within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The 0.55-acre public park is identified as open space in the Specific Plan.

The proposed park design and programming is being reviewed under a separate process through the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council.

The Architectural Review of the eight-story 284-unit multi-family residential building project (File No.

PLN23-00290) was heard at the Development Review Hearing (DRH) on October 16, 2024 and continued to November 13, 2024 DRH in order for the applicant to provide perspective renderings to respond to comments from members of the public on architecture and massing as well as justify the requested density bonus waivers and concessions. At the November 13, 2024 DRH, the project was determined to be consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and approved.

Per Section 17.05.400 of the City Code, consideration and action on a Tentative Parcel Map is a function of the City Council. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is not required for minor subdivisions of four lots or fewer.

DISCUSSION
The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map proposes to subdivide one existing lot into two lots. The Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan has identified a portion of the existing 2.79-acre lot at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive to be open space. The proposed subdivision will create one lot for the multi-family residential project. The remainder of the lot will be dedicated to the City as a 0.55-acre park and will be a part of a larger 1.75-acre public park that straddles adjacent property lines as identified in the Specific Plan.

The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (Attachment 1) was reviewed by the City’s Subdivision City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1022 Agenda Date: 11/19/2024
Committee and determined complete for review by Council in accordance with Section 17.05.400(c) of the City Code on September 13, 2024. Staff has confirmed that the proposed subdivision will not result in any inconsistencies with the General Plan and zoning designations for the property, Building Code, or other applicable requirements. Conditions of Approval have been prepared and are provided as Attachment 3.

Approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map would allow the 0.55-acre portion of the existing lot to be dedicated to the City as a public park. It would also allow the property owner flexibility in financing and/or leasing of the property, thereby supporting their long-term use consistent with policies and goals contained in the City’s General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On March 22, 2022, the City of Santa Clara certified the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHDSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved the PHDSP. The intent and purpose of the PHDSP FEIR was to provide program-level environmental review for the PHDSP, while allowing for specific development projects that would implement the PHDSP to tier from the FEIR to avoid redundant environmental review by focusing only on those issues that would be specific to a given project and site location.

The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the approved FEIR and would not result in a new impact on the environment or significantly increase the severity of any previously identified impact.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense for the processing of this application typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
On November 6, 2024, a notice of public hearing was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, and on November 7, 2024, notice of this item was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site. At the time of this report, Planning staff has not received public comments regarding the proposed project.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the existing parcel for the creation of two lots at the property located at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1022 Agenda Date: 11/19/2024
Reviewed by: Reena Brilliot, Acting Director of Community Development Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map

2. Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Parcel Map

3. Conditions of Approval

4. DRH Staff Report - October 16, 2024

5. Correspondence
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™

BKF ENGINEERS
1730 N. FIRST STREET
SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
(408) 467-9100
www.bkf.com
N.T.S.

PAEUIIIIARYSll[ Pl.Ml PFIEUIIIIARYCRAOIHCPUN PAEUIIIIARYUffLITTPL'Jt PAEUIIIIARYSTORIIWl<TDIMAIIAGOIOtTPLVI PAEUIIIIARYSTORIIWl<TDIMAIIAGOIOtTOETAILS 8[STMAllo\GEKNI PRACTICES
,, .

ENGIEER'S STATEMENT
THISTENTATl\o£MAPHASBEENPREPAR£DBYMEORUNDER
MY DIRECTION, AT THE REWEST Of 4~0 PATRIO< 1£NRY LLC ON OJ/05/2024

PRELMIARY
NORMANI.KONTCROVSKY
P.E.N0.78090 IKONTOROYSKYCIBl<J.CCM DATE:WAR0-105.2024
([) BKF Engineers
ENGll'EER OF WORK SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
I HEREBY OECl..ARC THAT I AM THE CIVIL ENQNEER CF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT AND THAT I HA\'£ THIS TENTATl\o£ MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME OR EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE 0-IARGE O\o£R lHE DESIGN Of THIS PRO.ECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 670J UNDER MY DIRECTION, AT THE REQUEST Of 459D PATRIO< OFlHESTATEOFCAUFORNIA,BUSINESS PROFESSIONALCOOES,ANOTHATTHEDESIGN IS H~YLLCON03/05/2024 CONSISTENT'MTHCURRENTSTANOAROS.

PRELM'IARY
CASEYJOHNSCfl
P.E. NO. 9J822
CJ<HISO,IOBKF.COM
DATE: MARCH 05, 2024
,
\\
0 0
•
w
>
ii:

Q
>-
w
::c
(.)
<
Q.
•

PRELM'IARY
JOHN KOROYAN P.LS. NO. 888J J<OROYAN081(f',COM
DATE: MARCH 05, 2024
!LEGEND
l!RtiTIHTITIHTITITIHTimlfil
r:-.-.-:::::::::::::::::::::::: ·:::::::::::·:::::::::::::::::::::.'1 c :-:-'---:;-:;;-:-;-;-;;:-:'-'-'<:::.:x-:::::::-;-:-:;:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-·,z-::::::-·1 ~@&.:W@~
L r---------------, _______________ J
c::-:::-:::.::=
_
::::
_
~.:::-.:::.::-:::-:::-:=
_
.::=
_
::=
_
~
_
-:-:,
~...:::::-:::-~-::::~:::-:::-~~c...:...:J
~~=L"T5~~~MNGl6S/EGRESS
EXISTING UNOERGIIOIJNO EL[CTRIC EASEIIENT ANO Sll£WAUC EASOIENT TO REMAIN EXISTINGn.ECllllCEASEMENT /WIREa.EARANCEEASEMENT TOBCVACATED

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOTES
"""'--"""

1. VESTINOTENTATIVEPAACELIIAP: THISVESTIIOTENTATIVEPAllctl. llAPCOIF"ORMSlOlHEREQUIRD,IENTSCIFOIAPlDi17, ARllCI.E V, SECTION 400, "SuBOMSIOM a; fOUR OR FE'IIER PARCELS {MINOR SUID..,SIOMS)" a; TIE CIT!" a; SANTA a.ARA ="}~Jc,.~ 01£ (1) EXISTIIG PARCU.

2. UTIUTIES: UTIUT'fSIZING ANO LOCATIONS AIIE PRDJ..-.MYANO SUB..ECT lO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. SEE UTUT'f CI..EARANCEREQUIREIENTSNOlE50NSl£ETC4-0.
40 ~?f~~=J~~ii=rt~:~i!s_~r:=~~~m-:o

5. FtMA: lHE SUBJECT PROPERT'f IS Slto'llfl OM TI£ FEDERAL EMERGENCY IIANMDIENT AGENCY (RMA) FLOOO INSURANCE RAlEll""'(FRM)FORSAHIACI.ARJICOUNTY,CAUF"ORNIA,11,...NUll;IERoaoascoo83HFORCOIIMUNITYNUll;IEROIIOl50 (CITYOF SANTA a.ARA). 1"11H AN EFFECTIVE OAlEOF IIAY18. 2008, AS BEIIOLOCATDl IN FlOOO ZOIE -X-SliAOEI)- .

ACCOAONG10F'Ell.,,T1£0EFINlllONOFZOl£"X-SI-WlEO"IS:

AREAS OF" 0.2'CANNUAI. CHANCE FLOOO; AREAS OF" 1lllANNUAI. CHAMCC FlOOO 1"11H A'ttRAOE OEPTMS Ofl£SS lHAN 1 F'OOTOR lllH ORAIIACE AREASl£SS lHAN I SQUARE IIILE: ANO AREAS OF" PROlECTED LEVEES F'ROM 1$-UAI. CH '"""'· REAI.PROPERTYINlHECITYOF"SAHIACI.ARA.COUNTYOF"SAHTACI.ARA.ST"lEOF"CAUFORNIA,OESCRIBEOASFQJ.OWS::

AU.OfPARCEl. 1&.ASSHOW-ll.l'ONlHATCERTAINtu.PDtllll..£0,i>AIIC£l.llAPIIEltG"R£SUBOl\tSIONOfPARCELS1,J, 4, , • 9 AN) AREAS A, 9, &0. AS SliO'flN ON PAACEL w.P 3,399 RECORO[O IN 900K 3680f t.lAPS, Af PAGES 38 AN0 37 SANTACI.ARJICOUNTYRECOROS".'IIHICHNAPWASFILEOf"ORRECOROINlHEOFTICEOf lHERECOROEROflHECOUNT'fOF" So\ltTA Cl.ARA, STAlEOF"CAUF"ORNIA. ON DECEMBER 29, 1970 IN BOOK JMOF" MAPS. AT PAGES 4. 5. 4590PATRICl(HENRYORIVE
SANTACI.ARA.CA9~

11.&SSfSSl'.'BSP&Rf1JNO
PAACEL 111: 104-04-123

GRAPHIC SCALE
1-1
20 20
Drawing Number.
n,1-1
Resolution/ 4590 Patrick Henry Drive - Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Page 1 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TO APPROVE A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO

SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4590 PATRICK HENRY DRIVE,

SANTA CLARA
PLN24-00130 (Tentative Parcel Map)
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2023, Katia Kamangar (“Applicant”) on behalf of 4590 Patrick Henry Drive LLC (“Owner”) submitted a formal application (PLN24-00310) requesting a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 2.79-acre lot into two lots for the property at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive (“Project Site”);
WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently zoned as Urban Village (UV) and has a General Plan land use designation of Urban Village;
WHEREAS, the Project Site is within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan; WHEREAS, on November 13, 2024, the Architectural Review (PLN23-00290) to construct the eight-story multifamily residential building was approved at the Development Review Hearing (DRH);
WHEREAS, the application (PLN24-00310) is for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the existing lot into two lots for the development of an eight-story 284-unit multifamily residential building on one lot and the remainder of the lot will be a 0.55-acre park dedicated to the City as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the approved site plan and improvements on the Project Site for the development of an eight-story 284-unit residential project approved on October 16, 2024;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.05.220 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara (“SCCC”), a Tentative Parcel Map shall be required for the division of land into four or fewer lots; Resolution/ 4590 Patrick Henry Drive - Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Page 2 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2024, the Subdivision Clearance Committee determined that the application was complete and that the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map should proceed to the City Council in conformance with Section 17.05.400 of the SCCC; WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the City of Santa Clara certified the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHDSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved the PHDSP; WHEREAS, the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the approved FEIR and would not result in a new impact on the environment or significantly increase the severity of any previously identified impact;
WHEREAS, SCCC Section 17.05.400 requires that the City Council conduct a public hearing before the approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the division of land; WHEREAS, on November 7, 2024, notices of the public hearing on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map were mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the property, according to the most recent Assessor’s roll;
WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, on November 6, 2024 for the November 19, 2024, City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map application, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to give testimony and the City Council considered the information presented in the Staff Report and all verbal and written evidence.

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

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

2. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Findings. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66426 and 66428 and SCCC Section 17.05.400(f), the City Council finds and determines that:

A. The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City’s General Plan and applicable Specific Plans Resolution/ 5185 Lafayette Street - Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Page 3 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
in that the Vesting Tentative Map subdivides the existing 2.79-acre Project Site into two lots to develop a 284-unit multifamily residential building on a 2.24-acre lot with the remaining 0.55-acre lot to be a park dedicated to the City, consistent with the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, subject to conditions set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

B. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the City’s General Plan and applicable Specific Plan, in that the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map facilitates development of housing stock for the community; and furthermore complies with General Plan Land Use and Transitional Goals and Polices of the General Plan in that it transforms the industrial lot to a high density residential development that would transition in scale and intensity of use with existing and planned land uses; and is in proximity to transit with multimodal connections to local and regional transit service to support transit ridership and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, in that the Project is compatible with the existing adjacent industrial and residential uses.

D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, in that the Project Site is consistent with the density and uses as specified in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan.

E. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, in that the proposed residential subdivision will implement Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for operation and maintenance of the building and site improvements and does not propose the use of hazardous materials.

F. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and will not substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the Project Site is located in an urbanized setting, is a developed site, and the proposed subdivision includes mitigation measures, as identified in the Patrick Henry Resolution/ 5185 Lafayette Street - Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Page 4 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17
Drive Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, that will reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

G. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that it is designed to avoid encroachment and conflicts with public easements in the site design.

H. The Tentative Parcel Map provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities, in that it would allow flexibility in the development standards to maximize the benefits of green building standards for site and building design.

3. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence in the Staff Report and such other evidence as received at the public hearings on this matter, the City Council hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, substantially in the form on file as shown on the attached Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, subject to conditions of approval attached as “Conditions of Approval” and hereby incorporated by this reference. //
//
//
//
//
//
Resolution/ 5185 Lafayette Street - Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Page 5 of 5 Rev. Rev: 11/22/17

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

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

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

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments Incorporated by Reference:

1. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map

2. Conditions of Approval
Conditions of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Approval
PLN24-00310 / 4590 Patrick Henry Drive
Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide existing lot into two lots for the property located at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive.

GENERAL
G1. Subdivision Expiration. This subdivision shall automatically be revoked and terminated if not used within two years of original grant or within the period of any authorized extension thereof. The date of granting this subdivision is the date this subdivision is approved by the Decision-making body and the appeal period has exhausted. The expiration date is November 19, 2026.

G2. Conformance with Plans. The lot design on the subdivision map shall be designed in conformance with the subdivision map, as approved by the decision-making body.

G3. Conditions of Plans. All conditions of approval for this subdivision shall be reprinted and included within the first three sheets of the subdivision map sets submitted for review and approval. At all times these conditions of approval shall be on all grading and construction plans kept on the project site.

G4. Necessary Relocation of Public Facility. If relocation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the developer's new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the developer.

G5. Indemnify and Hold Harmless. The owner or designee agrees to defend and indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees, officials and representatives free and harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, attorney’s fees, injuries, costs, and liabilities from any suit for damages or for equitable or injunctive relief which is filed by a third party against the City by reason of its approval of owner or designee’s project.

G6. Building Codes as Amended. See Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code for any amendments to the California Building Codes.

G7. Reach Codes. This project is subject to the provisions of the City of Santa Clara 2022 Reach Code, effective January 2022. See Ordinance No. 2034 and/or Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code.
a. Chapter 15.36 – Energy Code for “all electric” provisions for new construction. b. Chapter 15.38 – Green Building Code for additional Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for new construction.

G8. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE– PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE P1. Tree Replacement (on-site). Trees permitted by the City for removal shall be replaced on-site at a ratio of 2:1 (24-inch box trees) or 4:1 (15-gallon trees). (SCC 12.35.090) P2. Tree Replacement (Alternative Means). Trees permitted by the City for removal shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 (36-inch box tree or 48-inch box) or the Applicant shall pay the in-lieu fee (prior to building permit issuance) for the trees cannot be replaced on-site based on the 2:1 tree replacement ratio as determined by the Director of Community Development. (SCC 12.35.090)

PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
P3. Project Approval. The tentative parcel map is to be consistent with the approved project per PLN23-00290 and the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
P4. Landscaping Installation & Maintenance. The owner or designee shall ensure that the landscaping installed and accepted with this project shall be maintained on the site as per the approved plans. Any alteration or modification to the landscaping shall not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development.

P5. Landscape Water Conservation. The owner or designee shall ensure that landscaping installation meets City water conservation criteria in a manner acceptable to the Director of Community Development.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING DIVISION
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE– PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BD1. Addressing. Prior to overall construction permit application, submit to the Santa Clara Building Division, 2 copies of an addressing diagram request, to be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. The addressing diagram(s) shall include all proposed streets and all building floor plans. The addressing diagram(s) shall conform to Santa Clara City Manager Directive #5; Street Name and Building Number Changes, and Santa Clara Building Division Address Policy For Residential and Commercial Developments. The addressing diagram(s) shall indicate all unit numbers to be based off established streets, not alleys nor access-ways to garages. Allow a minimum of 10 working days for initial staff review.

Please note city staff policy that existing site addresses typically are retired. Provide digital pdf printed from design software, not scanned from printed paper sheet. a. Any building or structure that is demolished shall have its address retired and a new address/s shall be issued for the project.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - HOUSING DIVISION
H1. N/A

FIRE DEPARTMENT
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
F1. Hazmat Clearance. Prior to any Building Permit issuance, Hazardous Materials Closure (HMCP) is required as applicable:  This is a permit is issued by the Santa Clara Fire Department, Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division. Hazardous materials closure plans are required for businesses that used, handled or stored hazardous materials. While required prior to closing a business this is not always done by the business owner, and therefore should be part of the developer’s due diligence.  The hazardous materials closure plans demonstrate that hazardous materials which were stored, dispensed, handled or used in the facility/business are safely transported, disposed of or reused in a manner that eliminates any threat to public health and environment.

F1. Hazmat Clearance. Prior to any Building Permit Issuance, a Phase II environmental assessment is required to be submitted to CRRD for review. If hazards are present that require site mitigation, cleanup, or management of chemical contaminants in soil, soil vapor, or groundwater a separate permit from one of the regulatory agencies below will be required. The type and extent of contamination on site(s) will govern which of the regulatory agencies noted below can supervise the cleanup: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); State Water Resources Control Board; or Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health.

If the project intends to contract with a State or County Agency for onsite/offsite environmental remediation activities the following documentation shall be provided to the Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit for demolition or grading: Oversight agency case number; and Oversight mangers contact name, phone number.

For smaller projects that are not moving soil at all, a Phase I environmental assessment may be adequate. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal Fred Chun at [email protected] for more information.

F2. Fire Flow Requirement. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, provide documentation from the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Department that the minimum required fire-flow can be met. Fire Department fire-flow will be based on the current California Fire Code.

The most restrictive departments requirement shall apply.

F3. Fire Hydrants. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, building plans shall show the required number, location and distribution of fire hydrants for the buildings will be based on the current California Fire Code, Appendix C as amended. The required number of fire hydrants will be based on the fire-flow before the reduction for fire sprinklers. Both public and private fire hydrants may be required.

F4. Fire Department Access. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a five-foot all-weather perimeter pathway around the entire perimeter of the buildings to facilitate firefighter access is required to be incorporated into the Building permit submittal.

F5. Fire Department Access. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, approval for fire department apparatus access roads is required. Roadways must be provided to comply with all the following requirements:
 Fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided so that the exterior walls of the first story of the buildings are located not more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of each building. In addition, aerial apparatus roadways must be located so aerial apparatus will have clear access to the “entire” face/sides of the building. The minimum number of sides is projectspecific and depends on the building configuration, building design, occupancy, and construction type, etc. As part of Building Permit Issuance, an alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment permit application will need to be submitted for review and approval incorporating applicable mitigation measures as determined by the fire department for the lack of compliance. Please note acceptable mitigation methods may have been discussed during the planning stage. Those mitigations are not guaranteed until a formal alternate means permit is submitted concurrently with the Building Plans. Conversely, an acceptable mitigation method may not have been discussed and will be evaluated under an alternate means permit at the building permit stage.
 For underpasses, garages, gates, or anything similar that a Fire apparatus is required to drive under as part of the emergency vehicle access, 16 feet vertical clearance will be required. For all other areas, the “minimum” unobstructed vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches.
or
 For all other areas, the “minimum” unobstructed vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches.
 The “minimum” width of aerial roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet.  The minimum inside turning radius shall be 30 feet.
 The “minimum” width of roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet. Aerial access roadways shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the protected building. This requirement is only applicable when Appendix D of the Fire Code is enforceable.
 Overhead utility and power lines easements shall not be located over fire apparatus access roads or between the aerial fire apparatus roads and the buildings to avoid the possibility of injury and equipment damage from electrical hazards.
 Fire apparatus access roadways shall be all-weather surface(s) designed to support a gross vehicle weight of 75,000-pounds.
 Trees at full development must not exceed 30 feet in height and not impair aerials apparatus operations to sweep opposing sides of a building. Other obstructions such as site lighting, bio-retention, and architectural features are reviewed caseby-case to ensure they do not obstruct aerial and ground ladder access.  Traffic control/calming devices are not permitted on any designated fire access roadway unless approved. A separate Fire Department permit is required for any barrier devices installed alone fire department apparatus access roads.

Prior to any Building Department Issuance, all fire department apparatus access roadways on private property are required to “be recorded” with the County of Santa Clara as Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE’s) and reviewed by the Fire Department.

No other instruments will be considered as substitutions such as P.U.E, Ingress/Egress easements and/or City Right-of-Ways.

F6. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, provisions shall be made for Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) equipment, including but not limited to pathway survivability in accordance with Santa Clara Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System Standard.

F7. Fire Department Access. Prior to the start of construction, roadways and water supplies for fire protection are required to be installed and made serviceable and maintained throughout the course of construction.

F8. Fire Department Access. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, if a gate is located across a fire department access road, a fire department permit is required. Openings for access gates located across fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet of clear width. Gates shall also be provided with a minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 16-feet. All gates installed on designated fire department access roads must be electrically automatic powered gates. Gates shall be provided with an emergency power or be of a fail-safe design, allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment. A Tomar Strobe Switch or 3M Opticom detector shall be installed to control the automatic gate(s) to allow emergency vehicles (e.g., fire, police, ems). Said device shall be mounted at a minimum height of eight to ten feet (8’ - 10’) above grade.

F9. Alternative Means and Methods. Prior to any Building Permit issuance, an alternate means or methods permits to mitigate any code deficiency must be submitted and approved. Please submit this permit concurrently with the building plans. Please note specific mitigations may have been discussed during the planning process. None of these discussions are binding and can only be formally approved through submitting an AMMR permit. The AMMR permit is formally documenting that and still needs to be submitted.

F10. Hazmat Information. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement including refrigerants is required to be submitted and reviewed with the Building Permit if applicable.

F11. Fire Safety During Construction. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a permit for Construction Safety & Demolition shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval in compliance with our Construction Safety & Demolition standard.

DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
F12. Shared Fire Protection Features that Cross Property Lines. Prior to Building Permit Final, any EVAEs or fire protection equipment (including but not limited to fire service undergrounds, sprinkler piping, fire alarm equipment, fire pumps, ERRCS) that cross property lines or is not located on the parcel of the building it serves shall have a CC&R legally recorded detailing who is responsible for maintenance and repair of the EVAE or fire protection equipment.

F13. Fire Protection Systems Before Occupancy. Prior to any Certificate of Occupancy Issuance (temporary or permanent), fire-life safety systems installations must be fully installed, functional, and approved.

Special Conditions for Patrick Henry Specific Plan
F14. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer shall deposit with the City $2,301,050 for the City’s purchase of a tractor-drawn aerial apparatus in accordance with the Patrick Henry Specific Plan Area Infrastructure Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fire Department requirements (Ordinance No.2046). The City shall then use these funds to procure and purchase the tractor-drawn aerial referenced above so that there is no delay in issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the Developer’s Project. The Developer is not obligated to directly purchase, procure or acquire the apparatus or associated equipment.

This condition will be satisfied once the Developer has paid the $2,301,050 to the City.

The Developer shall be eligible to receive a Certificate of Occupancy or any other permit or approval conditioned upon payment. The amount of $2,301,050 is subject to the same annual escalator used for the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Infrastructure Fee.

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
PR1. N/A
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
PR2. N/A

POLICE DEPARTMENT
PD1. N/A

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING

ENGINEERING
DESIGN—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
E1. Site Clearance. Obtain site clearance through Public Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit. Site clearance will require payment of applicable development fees.

Other requirements may be identified for compliance during the site clearance process.

Contact Public Works Department at (408) 615-3000 for further information.

E2. Easement. Obtain City Council approval of a resolution ordering vacation of existing public easement(s) proposed to be abandoned, if any, through Public Works Department, and pay all appropriate fees, prior to start of construction.

E3. Subdivision Map. After City Council approval of the Tentative Map, submit the Subdivision Map, prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or a Registered Civil Engineer with Land Surveyor privileges to the Engineering Department. The submittal shall include a title report, closure calculations, and all appropriate fees. Subdivision map shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance.

DURING CONSTRUCTION
E4. Encroachment Permit. All work within the public right-of-way and/or public easement, which is to be performed by the Developer/Owner, the general contractor, and all subcontractors shall be submitted within a Single Encroachment Permit to be reviewed and issued by the City Public Works Department. Issuance of the Encroachment Permit and payment of all appropriate fees shall be completed prior to commencement of work, and all work under the permit shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.

E5. Encroachment Permit. Submit public improvement/encroachment permit plans prepared in accordance with City Public Works Department procedures which provide for the installation of public improvements directly to the Public Works Department. Plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval and recordation of final map and/or issuance of building permits.

E6. Encroachment Permit. Existing non-standard or non-ADA compliant frontage improvements shall be replaced with current City standard frontage improvements as directed by the City Engineer or his designee.

E7. Encroachment Permit. Damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk within the public right-of-way along property’s frontage shall be repaired or replaced (to the nearest score mark) in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer or his designee. The extents of said repair or replacement within the property frontage shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer or his designee.

E8. Easement. Dedicate required on-site easements for any new public utilities, and/or emergency vehicle access by means of subdivision map or approved instrument at time of development.

E9. Easement. Dedicate sidewalk easements along the project frontage where public sidewalks extend into private property. Sidewalk easements are to be 1’ behind proposed back of walk where there is landscaping behind sidewalk. Sidewalk easement where hardscape is behind sidewalk is to be at back-of-walk. Cold joint is required between public sidewalk and private hardscape.

E10. Agreement. If requested, Developer/property owner shall prepare and submit for City approval a maintenance plan for all sidewalk, curb and gutter, landscaping and irrigation system improvements installed within the public right-of-way prior to encroachment permit issuance. Such plan shall include at a minimum, maintenance requirements for trees and shrubs, in acknowledgement of developer’s/property owner’s obligation under Chapter

12.30 and 17.15.

E11. Agreement. If requested, Developer/property owner shall prepare and submit for City approval a maintenance plan for all public storm water treatment facilities installed within the public right-of-way or public easements prior to encroachment permit issuance.

TRAFFIC

DURING CONSTRUCTION
TR1. Encroachment Permit. Traffic improvements must comply with the City of Santa Clara Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

TR2. Encroachment Permit. Project shall comply with all requirements set forth in the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan including sidewalk width and bicycle requirements. Frontage along Patrick Henry Drive must include a 20’ continuous pedestrian zone with minimum 7’ walkway and 5’ amenity zone.

TR3. Encroachment Permit. Improvements within 10 feet of a driveway must be less than 3 feet or greater than 10 feet per City Standard Detail TR-9.

TR4. Encroachment Permit. All proposed driveways shall be constructed per City Standard ST- 8.

TR5. Encroachment Permit. Unused driveways in the public right-of-way shall be replaced with City standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Standard Detail ST-12.

STREETS DIVISION
Right of Way Landscape

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE -- PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT L1. Tree Preservations Specifications. Include City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation/City Arborist specifications on all improvement plans.

L2. Mature Trees. Identify existing mature trees to be maintained. Prepare a tree protection plans for review and approval by the City prior to any demolition, grading or other earthwork in the vicinity of existing trees on the site.

L3. Tree Replacement. 2:1 tree replacement ratio required for all trees removed from the right-of-way.

DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
L4. No Public Root Cutting. No cutting of any part of public, including roots, shall be done without securing prior approval of the City Arborist. Tree trimming/removal shall be done in accordance to the City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation/City Arborist specifications and with direct supervision of a certified arborist (Certification of International Society of Arboriculture).

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
L5. In Lieu Fee. If 2:1 replacement ratio cannot be met for removal of right of way landscape trees, tree planting fee must be paid prior to building permit final.

Solid Waste

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE -- PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT SW1. Post-Construction Solid Waste Generation Estimation and Collection Form. The applicant shall complete and provide the Post-Construction Solid Waste Generation Estimation and Collection Form, which includes the estimation of trash and recycling materials generated from the project. Use the City’s Solid Waste Guidelines for New and Redevelopment Projects as specified by the development type. Contact the Public Works Department at [email protected] or (408) 615-3080 for more information.

SW2. Site Plan. The applicant shall provide a site plan showing all proposed locations of solid waste containers, chutes, compactors, trash enclosures and trash staging areas. The site plan shall show the route or access for trash and recycling collectors (trucks) including vertical clearance, turning radius and street/alley widths. All plans shall comply with the City’s Solid Waste Guidelines. Solid metal roof, gates and a trench drain shall be installed within the trash enclosure and connected to the on-site sewer system.

SW3. Construction Waste Diversion. For projects that involve construction, demolition or renovation of 5,000 square feet or more, the applicant shall comply with City Code Section

8.25.285 and recycle or divert at least sixty five percent (65%) of materials generated for discard by the project during demolition and construction activities. No building, demolition, or site development permit shall be issued unless and until applicant has submitted a construction and demolition debris materials check-off list. Applicant shall create a Waste Management Plan and submit, for approval, a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Report through the City’s online tracking tool at http://santaclara.wastetracking.com/.

SW4. Authorized Service Haulers. This project is subject to the City’s Accumulation, Transportation and Disposal of Solid Waste Ordinance (Chapter 8.25 of the Municipal Codes), which requires the handling and disposal of waste by authorized service haulers.

Insert the General Notes for the Construction & Demolition (C&D) Waste Management into construction plans in accordance with the City’s municipal codes prior to the issuance of a Building or Grading permit. Provide the Green Halo waste online tracking number to Building staff prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit.

SW5. Exclusive Franchise Hauling Area. Project applicant shall contact the Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division at (408) 615-3080 to verify if the property falls within the City’s exclusive franchise hauling area. If so, the applicant is required to use the City’s exclusive franchise hauler and rate structure for any hired debris boxes. Prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance, the project applicant shall complete and sign the Construction and Demolition (C&D) / Waste Management Rules and Regulations Form.

DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
SW6. Waste Generation Tracking. Applicant to track all waste generated and upload debris tags to GreenHalo for City staff review.

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
SW7. Weight Tickets. Prior to obtaining a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy, individual weight tickets for all materials generated for discard or reuse by the project during demolition and construction activities shall be uploaded to Green Halo and submitted for review and approval by Environmental Services. At a minimum two (2) weeks review time is required.

Stormwater

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE -- PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT ST1. Final Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall develop a Final Stormwater Management Plan, update the C.3 Data Form, the Special Project Narratives and Worksheet (as appropriate), and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

ST2. 3
rd Party Review of Final Stormwater Management Plan. The Final Stormwater Management Plan and all associated calculations shall be reviewed and certified by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants, and a 3rd party review letter (on design) shall be submitted with the Plan.

ST3. Notice of Intent. For project that disturbs a land area of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) with WDID number for coverage under the State Construction General Permit. Active projects with NOI will be inspected by the City once per month during the wet season (October – April).

ST4. Best Management Practices. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into construction plans and incorporate post-construction water runoff measures into project plans. Include the SCVURPPP Countywide Construction BMPs Plan Sheet with the plans. Applicant to add Source control measures with designations from C.3 stormwater handbook, Appendix H.

ST5. C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes. Include the C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes on the Improvement Plans and/or Stormwater Control Plans.

ST6. Decorative & Recreational Water Features. Decorative and recreational water features such as fountains, pools, and ponds shall be designed and constructed to drain to the sanitary sewer system only.

ST7. Small Projects. For single-family homes and other small projects that create and/or replace 2,500 – 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area, the applicant shall implement at least one of the following site design measures:
a. Direction of roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels b. Direction of roof, sidewalk, walkway, patio, driveway, or parking lot runoff onto vegetated areas
c. Construction of sidewalks, walkways, patios, bike lanes, driveways, and parking lots with permeable surfaces
Plans shall specify which site design measures are selected for the project and show the direction of flow from impervious surfaces to the selected site design measures. All measures shall meet the design criteria in the 2016 C.3. Stormwater Handbook, Appendix K: Standard Specifications for Lot-Scale Measures for Small Projects.

ST8. Interior Floor Drains. Interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.

ST9. Trash Enclosure Floor Drains. Floor drains within trash enclosures shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.

ST10. Architectural Copper. The use of architectural copper is prohibited.

DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
ST11. Biotreatment Soil Media. Applicant shall install biotreatment soil media that meets the minimum specifications as set forth in the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. If percolation rate test of the biotreatment soil mix is not performed on-site, a certification letter from the supplier verifying that the soil meets the specified mix (the date of such document shall not be older than 3 months).

ST12. Stormwater Control Measure Inspection. At critical construction phases, all stormwater control measures shall be inspected for conformance to approved plans by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants.

ST13. Inspections. Permeable Pavement, Media Filter vaults, and Trash Full Capture Devices shall be inspected by a 3rd party reviewer and/or manufacturer representative for conformance with the details and specifications of the approved plans. All new pervious concrete and porous asphalt pavements should have a minimum surface infiltration rate of 100 in./hr. as described in the SCVURPPP C.3 Handbook. A map displaying the number, location and details of full trash capture devices shall be prepared as an attachment to the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City.

ST14. Stormwater Treatment Facilities. Stormwater treatment facilities must be designed, installed, and maintained to achieve the site design measures throughout their life in accordance to the SCVRUPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook (Chapter 6 and Appendix C).

ST15. Amendments to Operation & Maintenance Agreement. Any site design measures used to reduce the size of stormwater treatment measures shall not be installed for the project without the written approval from the City, installing the corresponding resizing of other stormwater treatment measures and an amendment of the property’s O&M Agreement.

ST16. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Messaging. Developer shall install an appropriate stormwater pollution prevention message such as “No Dumping – Flows to Bay” on any storm drains located on private property.

ST17. Outdoor Storage Areas. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or otherwise designed to limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants.

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
ST18. As-Built Drawings. As-Built drawing shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.

ST19. 3
rd Party Concurrence Letter. 3rd Party concurrence letter on the C.3 facilities construction shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. The letter shall be prepared by a 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants. The City reserves the right to review the 3rd party inspection report on the C.3 stormwater facility installation.

ST20. Final C.3 Inspection. Applicant shall schedule and City shall conduct a final C.3 inspection.

ST21. Operation & Maintenance Agreement. The property owner shall enter into an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for all installed stormwater treatment measures and full trash capture devices in perpetuity. Applicants should contact Public Works Dept. - Environmental Services at (408) 615-3080 or [email protected] for assistance completing the Agreement. For more information and to download the most recent version of the O&M Agreement, visit the City’s stormwater resources website at http://santaclaraca.gov/stormwater. Inspection of permeable pavement, media filter vaults and full trash capture devices is to be done annually by December 31 of each year.

SILICON VALLEY POWER
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT SVP1. N/A
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
SVP2. N/A

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
SVP3. N/A

WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT

DESIGN / PERFORMANCE -- PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT W1. Previous Approvals. Permittee shall abide by and continue to comply with all previous City approvals, permits, or requirements relating to the subject property, unless explicitly superseded or revised by the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.

W2. Related Approvals. Applicant shall comply with all related City approvals, entitlements, permits, or requirements associated with the subject property, unless explicitly superseded or revised by the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.

W3. Encroachment Permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit an encroachment permit application and design plans for construction of water utilities that comply with the latest edition of the Water & Sewer Utilities Water Service and Use Rules and Regulations, Water System Notes, and Water Standard Details and Specifications. In addition, prior to the City's issuance of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct all public water utilities per the approved plans. The Water & Sewer Utilities will inspect all public water utility installations and all other improvements encroaching public water utilities.

W4. Utility Design Plans. Utility Design Plans shall indicate the pipe material and the size of existing water, recycled water and sewer main(s). The plans shall show the nearest existing fire hydrant and the two nearest existing water main line gate valves near the project area. The plans shall show meter and backflow configurations to scale and per City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Standard Details. Note that all new water meters and backflow prevention devices shall be located behind the sidewalk in a landscape area. Fire hydrants should be located two feet behind monolithic sidewalk if sidewalk is present; two feet behind face of curb if no sidewalk is present, per City Std Detail 18. The plans shall provide the profile section details for utilities crossing water, sewer, or recycled water mains to ensure a 12” minimum vertical clearance is maintained.

W5. Utility Separations. Applicant shall adhere to and provide a note indicating that all horizontal and vertical clearances comply with State and local regulations. The applicant shall maintain a minimum 12” of vertical clearance at water service crossing with other utilities, and all required minimum horizontal clearances from water services: 10' from sanitary sewer utilities, 10’ from recycled water utilities, 8' from storm drain utilities, 5' from fire and other water utilities, 3' from abandoned water services, 5' from gas and electric utilities, and 5’ from the edge of the propose or existing driveway. For sanitary sewer, water, and recycled water utilities, the applicant shall maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 10' from existing and proposed trees. If applicant installs tree root barriers, clearance from tree reduces to 5' (clearance must be from the edge of tree root barrier to edge of water facilities). No structures (fencing, foundation, biofiltration swales, etc.) allowed over sanitary sewer, potable water and/or recycled water utilities and easements.

W6. Separate Services. Applicant shall submit plans showing proposed water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and fire services connected to a public main in the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Director of Water & Sewer Utilities. Different types of water and recycled water use (domestic, irrigation, fire) shall be served by separate water services, each separately tapped at the water main. Tapping on existing fire service line(s) is prohibited. Approved backflow prevention device(s) are required on all potable water services.

W7. City Standard Meters and Backflows. All proposed meters and backflows for all water services shall meet the current City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Standard Details. Plans shall show meter and backflow configurations to scale.

W8. Existing Services. The applicant must indicate the disposition of all existing water and sewer services and mains on the plans. If the existing services will not be used, then the applicant shall properly abandon these services to the main per Water & Sewer Utilities standards and install a new service to accommodate the water needs of the project. The applicant shall bear the cost of any relocation or abandonment of existing Water Department facilities required for project construction to the satisfaction of the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.

W9. On-Site Storm Drain Treatment. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit plans showing any onsite storm water treatment system. The plan shall include a section detail of the treatment system. No water, sewer, or recycled water facilities shall be located within 5-feet of any storm water treatment system.

W10. Water Usage. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide documentation of water usage so the Water Division can verify the appropriate size of all proposed water meters. Please note that if the existing water services are incapable of supplying the water needs to the site, the existing services shall be abandoned, and new separate dedicated water services shall be provided for each use (domestic and irrigation).

W11. Landscaping. All the landscaping for the project shall comply with the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Government Code Section 65591 et. seq. All plants shall be either California native or non-invasive, low water-using or moderate water-using plants. High water-using plants and nonfunctional turf are prohibited.

W12. Water Features. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit plan details for all water features (including but not limited to fountains and ponds) designed to include provisions for operating the system without City potable water supply and capable of being physically disconnected from source of potable water supply during City declared water conservation periods, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Water & Sewer Utilities. Decorative water features may be permanently connected to the City’s recycled water supply.

W13. Easements. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall provide a dedicated water utility easement around the backflow prevention device onsite.

The water utility easement for the water services and all other public water appurtenances shall be a minimum 15 feet wide and be adjacent to the public right-of-way without overlapping any public utility easement. Additionally, the applicant shall submit plans defining existing easements so Water Division can verify if there are any conflicts with proposed easements and water utilities.

W14. Underground Fire Permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall submit an underground fire permit unless otherwise waived by the Fire Department. If fire flow information is needed, applicant shall coordinate with Water and Sewer Utilities Department, for fire flow information at (408)615-2000. A dedicated fire service line, with an approved backflow prevention device, shall be used for on-site fire hydrants. Fire service lines required for commercial and industrial use shall be sized appropriately per fire flow demand and code requirements.

DURING CONSTRUCTION
W15. City Standard Meters and Backflow Installation. No meters or backflows shall be installed prior to establishment of water service account with the Municipal Services Division of the Finance Department. The applicant shall provide a copy of the account information to the Water and Sewer Utilities Department Inspector and Meter Shop prior to installation of any meter or backflow. All meters and backflows approved for installation shall be tested prior to use. Water service connections shall not be used prior to authorization by the Water and Sewer Utilities inspector.

W16. Construction Water. This project shall use recycled water for all construction water needs for onsite and offsite construction.

W17. Water Shortage Response Actions. Pursuant to the City of Santa Clara’s Urban Water Management Plan, during times of drought or water shortage, the City implements water shortage response actions in accordance with the level of water shortage declared. All construction activities and all new irrigation connections are subject to the Water Shortage Response Actions in effect at the time of construction and connection of the irrigation service.

Water Shortage Response Actions for Stage 2 and higher include water use restrictions that limit the use of potable water such as:
a. prohibiting the installation of new potable water irrigation services. new irrigation connections, construction, and dust control.
b. restrict the use of potable water used for construction and dust control if recycled water is available.

This project is subject to all the requirements and restrictions of the Water Shortage Response Actions in place or adopted during the duration of the project. For more information, visit the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities website at www.santaclaraca.gov/waterconservation.

PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
W18. Record Drawings. Upon completion of construction and prior to the City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide "as-built" drawings of the public water utility infrastructure prepared by a registered civil engineer to the satisfaction of the Director of Water & Sewer Utilities Department.

W19. Conditional Releases. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of any building permit conditional release requirements
_____________________________________
KEY:

G = General
P = Planning Division
BD = Building Division
H = Housing & Community Services Division
F = Fire Department
PR = Parks & Recreation Department
PD = Police Department
E = Engineering Division
Streets Division (Landscape, Solid Waste, and Stormwater) L = Landscape
SW = Solid Waste
SVP = Silicon Valley Power
W = Water & Sewer Department

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Permittee/Property Owner
The undersigned agrees to each condition of approval and acknowledges and hereby agrees to use the project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this permit.

Signature: _________________________________________________ Printed Name: _________________________________________________ Relationship to Property: _________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________ Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code 18.128.100, the applicant shall return this document to the Department, properly signed and dated, within 30-days following the date of the Acknowledgement.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-956 Agenda Date: 10/16/2024

REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HEARING

SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Action on an Architectural Review (PLN23-00290) for the Demolition of the Existing 42,821 Square-Foot Industrial Building and Construction of an Eight-Story, 284-unit Multifamily Residential Building within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area Located at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive
File No: PLN23-00290
Location: 4590 Patrick Henry Drive, a 2.79-acre parcel located on Patrick Henry Drive between Old Ironsides Drive and Calabazas Creek; APN: 104-04-123 Applicant: Katia Kamangar
Owner: 4590 Patrick Henry Drive LLC
Request: Architectural Review for the demolition of the existing 42,821 square-foot industrial building and construction of an eight-story, 284-unit multi-family residential building within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area. The project includes a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels for the development of a 0.55-acre park that will be dedicated to the City.

PROJECT DATA
The Project Data and Compliance Table is included as Attachment 4.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
Summary
· The project site is a 2.79-acre parcel located within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan Area (adopted in 2022), bounded by a mix of commercial and industrial uses to the north, Great America Parkway to the east, Mission Community College to the south, and the Calabazas Creek and the City of Sunnyvale to the west. See Vicinity Map in Attachment 3. · The project site has a Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation of Urban Village which accommodates transit-oriented, multi-family residential development at very-high densities between 5-12 stories within the Patrick Henry Specific Plan. The residential density range for this zone is 100-149 dwelling units per acre.
· The existing site is currently developed with a one-story 42,821 square foot light industrial building and associated surface parking lot.
· The proposed project would demolish the existing building on-site and redevelop the parcel to construct a new eight-story 284-unit multi-family residential building. · The residential development consists of 284 dwelling units, 15% which would be affordable, resulting in a total of 42 affordable units. The building will be 86 feet tall to the top of the parapet and would have a density of 127 units per acre. · Per the Santa Clara City Code Chapter 18.120(D)(3), the request requires Architectural City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 6 Printed on 10/9/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-956 Agenda Date: 10/16/2024
Review approval through a Development Review Hearing.
· A portion of the project site also has a Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation of Parks and Open Space as the project includes a tentative parcel map to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels for the development of a 0.55-acre park that will be dedicated to the City.
· Initially the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application (File No. PRE22-00071) pursuant to SB 330 and was deemed complete by the City.
· The project was submitted pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330). A State Density Bonus Law Application was submitted, and the proposed project received three waivers from the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan:
o Guideline 5.5.2.5 For buildings with ground-floor residential uses, locate kitchens and living rooms- rather than bedrooms and other more private areas-to face streets to maximize privacy and security.
o Standard 5.6.1.2 Limit the uninterrupted length of a building or complex to no more than 330 feet. For any building over 330 feet in length, break up the massing with a ground-floor inset or notch of at least 40 feet wide and 15 feet deep except for the edges fronting onto Mission College Boulevard.
o Standard 5.6.1.9 Buildings that border Calabazas Creek, starting at 70 feet, shall be articulated with a 5-foot average step back from the street wall, including building recesses and protrusions, for a minimum of 50% of each creek frontage, provided it meets the 1:1 daylight plane shown in the General Plan. Balconies and other architectural elements such as louvers are permitted in the recesses. · Projects submitted pursuant to SB 330 are subject to streamlined review (limited to five public hearings) and need to only be consistent with objective standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public.
o As noted in the Findings section of this report, the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Patrick Henry Specific Plan and Zoning Code. · A public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 1,320-foot radius of the project boundaries for the October 16, 2024, Development Review Hearing date.

Building Design
· The proposed building will consist of a mix of studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. · The building design is consistent with the Specific Plan in that it aims to connect the building, the proposed park, and outdoor spaces.
· The primary massing of the building includes six vertical tower elements that are focused along the public facing Patrick Henry Drive façade and the new park to the south. · The building design incorporates subtly canted walls to create a dynamic movement to the façade and to break down the apparent mass of the building. The materials will include tile and stucco with a warm natural tone and color.
· The remainder of the building features a proportionate arrangement of fenestration, with variation achieved through balcony placement and application of a light- and dark-color to contrast the natural tan color of the primary volumes.
· A courtyard is proposed on the fourth floor and a roof deck and lounge is proposed on the eighth floor. Other amenities proposed by the project include a social lounge, fitness space, City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 6 Printed on 10/9/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-956 Agenda Date: 10/16/2024
clubroom, yoga room, pool, and pool deck.

Open Space and Landscaping
· The Patrick Henry Drive street frontage has a generous 20-foot wide continuous pedestrian zone, including a 7-foot sidewalk and 6-foot landscape strip. · A final tree removal and replacement plan will be reviewed by Planning. For trees that cannot be replaced on-site, the applicant shall pay the in-lieu fees prior to building permit issuance. · The project includes a landscape plan for the site that incorporates a mixture of plant species and trees for planting within common areas and courtyards. · Site design of the project includes bioretention areas for post construction stormwater runoff and compliance with stormwater regulations.
· Pursuant to the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan, the proposed project includes the dedication of a new 0.55-acre park open to the public. This dedication represents slightly less than one-third of what will ultimately become a larger park that is identified in the Specific Plan area.
· The new park design and programming is conceptual in nature with the final design to be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and then approved by the City Council.

Site Circulation and Parking
· At the project site, there are currently two full-access driveways on Patrick Henry Drive that are to be removed.
· A new 26-foot driveway is proposed along the southern portion of the site along Patrick Henry Drive. The driveway would provide resident and visitor access, as well as emergency vehicle access with a full 124-foot diameter turn-around at the end of the entry road. · The project proposes up to 324 parking spaces with 310 spaces for residents and the remaining 14 parking spaces for guest parking. Vehicular parking is provided in a secure above grade garage on first three levels of the building. · The Patrick Henry Drive street frontage will be improved with an 8-foot protected bicycle lane. · Bicycle storage would be provided on the northwestern corner of the site. There is also an access-controlled dedicated bicycle storage room on the first level garage that can accommodate 284 Class I bicycles.

Findings Supporting Staff’s Recommendation
Granting the Architectural Review approval requires the following findings consistent with City Code Section 18.120.020(F):

Findings

1. That any off-street parking area, screening strips and other facilitates and improvements necessary to secure the purpose and intent of this title and the general plan of the City area a part of the proposed development, in that;
· The project proposes structured parking located on the first three levels of the building which is consistent with the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan and the Urban Village Zoning and General Plan Land Use designation.

2. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relation to neighboring developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood, will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 6 Printed on 10/9/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-956 Agenda Date: 10/16/2024
in the neighborhood, will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments, and will not create traffic congestion or hazard, in that; · The project provides on-site and off-site infrastructure mitigations and improvements that will benefit the project site and neighboring properties.
· The project includes pedestrian improvements with development of the site to improve pedestrian connections to neighboring land uses.

3. That the design and location of the proposed development is such that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and is such as not to be detrimental to the harmonious development contemplated by this title and the general plan of the City, in that; · The project is compatible in scale and intensity of the intended development within the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan .
· The project is the construction of a 284-unit multi-family residential building at 127 dwelling units per acre consistent with the Urban Village Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation for the site.
· The project incorporates a mixture of exterior materials and architectural features to create visual breaks and interest in the design for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

4. That the granting of such approval will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of said development, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuries to property or improvements in said neighborhood, in that; · The project includes private on- and off-site improvements, that include private utilities and landscaping to serve the development.
· The project is subject to the California Building Code and City Code requirements, which serve to regulate new construction to protect public health, safety and general welfare. · An approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) accompanies the project and shall be implemented throughout project development to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.

5. That the proposed development, as set forth in the plans and drawings, are consistent with the set of more detailed policies and criteria for architectural review as approved and updated from time to time by the City Council, which set shall be maintained in the planning division office, in that;
· The project is on balance consistent with the City’s General Plan policies and the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan goals and policies.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of approval are proposed for the project and are contained in Attachment 3.

City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 6 Printed on 10/9/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-956 Agenda Date: 10/16/2024
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project by the environmental consultant firm David J. Powers & Associates, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This addendum tiers from the PHDSP FEIR and provides site-specific analysis for the proposed project and assesses consistency of the project with the PHDSP. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Notice of Intent were posted on the City’s website at Environmental Review/CEQA | City of Santa Clara (santaclaraca.gov) < https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planningdivision/environmental-review-ceqa> and available for public review for 30-days between April 26, 2024 and May 26, 2024, in accordance with CEQA requirements. Five comment letters were received during the 30-day review period.

1. City of Sunnyvale

2. Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association

3. John C. Gordon

4. Holland & Knight

5. Sarah Jackett
The response to these comments were prepared and are contained in Attachment 2.

The Draft MND examined potential environmental impacts associated with project development and identified significant impacts for biological, hazardous materials, and noise and vibration topics.

Mitigation measures were identified for implementation that would reduce most of the significant project development impacts to less than significant levels.

PUBLIC CONTACT
A community meeting for the proposed project was held on April 10, 2024.There were nine community members in attendance.

Public contact was also made by posting the Development Review Hearing 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. 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.

A public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 1,320-foot radius of the project site on October 4, 2024.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) based on findings and Approve the Architectural Review for the demolition of the existing 42,821 square-foot industrial building and construction of an eight-story, 284-unit multifamily residential building located at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive, subject to the findings and conditions of approval.

Prepared by: Tiffany Vien, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Approved by: Sheldon S. Ah Sing, Development Review Officer, Community Development Department
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 6 Printed on 10/9/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-956 Agenda Date: 10/16/2024

ATTACHMENTS

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Response to Comments Received on Draft IS/MND

3. Vicinity Map

4. Project Data and Compliance Table

5. Conditions of Approval

6. Development Plans

7. Public Correspondence
City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 6 Printed on 10/9/2024
powered by Legistar™
Focused IniƟal Study
4590 Patrick Henry Drive ResidenƟal Project
File Nos. PLN23-00290/PLN24-00130
In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by
April 2024
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project i Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ...............................................................................................1 Purpose of the Focused Initial Study ......................................................................................1 Public Review Period ..............................................................................................................2 Consideration of the Focused Initial Study and Project .........................................................2 Notice of Determination.........................................................................................................2 Section 2.0 Project Information.........................................................................................................3 Project Title.............................................................................................................................3 Lead Agency Contact ..............................................................................................................3 Project Applicant ....................................................................................................................3 Project Location......................................................................................................................3 Assessor’s Parcel Number.......................................................................................................3 General Plan Designation and Zoning District........................................................................3 Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits...........................................................3 Section 3.0 Project Description..........................................................................................................4 Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ............................................12 Resource Areas That Do Not Require Further Evaluation ....................................................13 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................16 Biological Resources.............................................................................................................35 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources......................................................................50 Geology and Soils..................................................................................................................63 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................73 Hydrology and Water Quality ...............................................................................................86 Noise and Vibration ..............................................................................................................97 Utilities and Service Systems..............................................................................................118 Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................128 Section 5.0 References...................................................................................................................134 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants.....................................................................................137 Lead Agency........................................................................................................................137 Consultants.........................................................................................................................137 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project ii Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Table of Contents
Figures
Figure 3.0-1: Regional Map....................................................................................................................5 Figure 3.0-2: Vicinity Map......................................................................................................................6 Figure 3.0-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses................................................................7 Figure 3.0-4: Site Plan – Ground Floor...................................................................................................8 Figure 3.0-5: Building Sections...............................................................................................................9 Figure 4.2-1: Locations of Off-Site Receptors and Project MEI ...........................................................32 Figure 4.3-1: Tree Location Map..........................................................................................................38 Figure 4.3-2: Project Site and Setback Diagram...................................................................................46 Figure 4.8-1: Location of Temporary Noise Barriers..........................................................................114 Tables
Table 1.1-1: Patrick Henry Drive FEIR Development Scenarios.............................................................1 Table 4.2-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants........................................................................................16 Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards Violations and Highest Concentrations .........................20 Table 4.2-3: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .................................................................22 Table 4.2-4: Construction Period Emissions ........................................................................................27 Table 4.2-5: Proposed Project-Specific TDM Measures.......................................................................29 Table 4.2-6: Cumulative Impacts at MEI (Unmitigated) ......................................................................34 Table 4.3-1: Tree Survey ......................................................................................................................37 Table 4.7-1: Pervious and Impervious Surfaces On-Site......................................................................95 Table 4.8-1: Construction Noise Levels – Construction Equipment at Boundary of Site ..................110 Table 4.8-2: Construction Noise Levels – Construction Equipment at Center of Site .......................111 Table 4.8-3: Estimated Vibration Levels at Structures Surrounding the Project Site (in/sec PPV)....116 Appendices
Appendix A: Construction Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Appendix B: Arborist Report
Appendix C: Biological Resources Report
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G: Noise and Vibration Evaluation
All appendices are incorporated herein by reference.

No other documents are incorporated by reference.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 1 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose
Purpose of the Focused Initial Study
The City of Santa Clara, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Focused Initial Study for the 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Santa Clara, California.

The project proposes to demolish an approximately 42,821-square foot light industrial building and associated surface parking lot and construct an eight-story residential building with up to 284 dwelling units. This Initial Study provides a more limited, focused discussion of environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.

1.1.1 Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan
On March 22, 2022, the City of Santa Clara certified the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan (PHDSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved the PHDSP project. The PHDSP was envisioned by the City to redevelop an underutilized existing office park with a high-density mixeduse community. The FEIR analyzed the two development scenarios, Scenarios “A” and “B”, as shown in Table 1.1-1, and the City Council adopted the PHDSP, allowing for both development scenarios.

Table 1.1-1: Patrick Henry Drive FEIR Development Scenarios Scenario
Residential Use (Dwelling
Units) Office (Square Feet) Non-Residential Use (Square Feet) Scenario A 12,000 --- 310,000
Scenario B 10,300 785,000 310,000
The intent and purpose of the PHDSP FEIR was to provide program-level environmental review for the PHDSP, while allowing for specific development projects that would implement the PHDSP to tier from the FEIR to avoid redundant environmental review by focusing only on those issues that would be specific to a given project and site location. This addendum tiers from the PHDSP FEIR and provides site-specific analysis for the proposed project and assesses consistency of the project with the PHDSP.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 2 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Public Review Period
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 30-day public review and comment period.

During this period, the Focused Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 30-day public review period should be sent to:

Tiffany Vien
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
Consideration of the Focused Initial Study and Project
Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City will consider the adoption of the Focused Initial Study for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The City shall consider the Focused Initial Study together with any comments received during the public review process.

Notice of Determination
If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days.

The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 3 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Section 2.0 Project Information
Project Title
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project
Lead Agency Contact
Tiffany Vien
1500 Warburton Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
(408) 615-2450
Project Applicant
4590 Patrick Henry LLC
Project Location
The 2.79-acre project site is located on the eastern portion of the PHDSP area at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive in the City of Santa Clara.

Assessor’s Parcel Number
104-04-123
General Plan Designation and Zoning District
The proposed project has two General Plan designations: Urban Village (UV) and Parks and Open Space (P/OS). The project is located in the UV Zoning District.

Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits
• Demolition Permit
• Grading Permit
• Building Permit
• Site Development Permit
• Architectural Review
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 4 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Section 3.0 Project Description

3.1.1 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The approximately 2.79-acre site comprises one parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 104-04- 123) and is currently developed with a one-story light industrial building (approximately 42,821 square feet) and associated surface parking at 4590 Patrick Henry Drive in the City of Santa Clara.

The project site is bound by commercial development (e.g., light industrial and offices) to the east, north, and south, and Calabazas Creek to the west.

The proposed project would redevelop a parcel on the western portion of the PHDSP area. The PHDSP area is approximately 73.59-acres and is currently developed with light industrial/commercial/office uses. Build out of the PHDSP would replace 995,541 square feet of existing buildings, including 432,216 square feet of office space, 154,467 square feet of research and development space, 120,900 square feet of industrial space, a 29,400 square foot church, a 137,075 square foot data center, and 121,483 square feet of vacant space. The PHDSP area is generally bounded by the City of Sunnyvale and Calabazas Creek to the west, the San Francisco Public Utility Commission right of way to the north, Great America Parkway to the east, and Mission College Boulevard to the south. Refer to Figures 3.0-1 to 3.0-3 for the Regional, Vicinity, and Aerial maps, respectively.

3.1.2 Proposed Development
The project would demolish the existing building on-site and construct an eight-story residential building with up to 284 dwelling units. Of the 284 units, 15 percent would be affordable (a total of 42 affordable units). The building would be up to 86 feet tall to the top of the parapet and would have a density of approximately 127 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).1 A courtyard is proposed on the fourth floor and a roof deck and lounge is proposed on the eighth floor. Other amenities proposed by the project include a social lounge, fitness space, clubroom, yoga room, pool and pool deck. Refer to Figures 3.0-4 and 3.0-5 for the site plan and building sections, respectively.

Pursuant to the PHDSP, 22 percent of total residential developable land would be allocated for public parks or publicly accessible open spaces including not less than 11 percent of land dedicated to the City in fee title as public parkland. The project proposes approximately 24,370 square feet of public open space on the ground floor, south of the proposed building.

Access to the project site is currently provided via two full-access driveways on Patrick Henry Drive which would be removed as part of the project. A new 26-foot driveway is proposed along the southern portion of the site along Patrick Henry Drive. The driveway would provide resident and visitor access, as well as emergency vehicle access with a full 124-foot diameter turn-around at the end of the entry road.
1 284 dwelling units/2.24 acres (without the park) = 127 du/ac 9 101
280
680
82 85
87 17
237
880
880
San José
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Newark
CuperƟno
San José
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Newark
CuperƟno
Project Site
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz Morgan Hill
San Mateo
Redwood City
Livermore
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz Morgan Hill
Project Site
Saratoga
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
03 1 6 Miles
San José
Santa Clara
Mountain View
Sunnyvale
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 3.0-1
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project
City of Santa Clara
5 Focused Initial Study
April 2024
Patrick Henry Drive
Patrick Henry Drive
Manzano Way
Calabazas Creek
Oak Creek Way
Old Ironsides Drive
Great America Parkway
Old Glory
Lane
Mission College Boulevard
Sandia Avenue Fairwood Avenue
PrescoƩ Avenue
Palamos Avenue Torrance Avenue
Candlewood Avenue
Patrick Henry Drive
Patrick Henry Drive
Manzan
Calabazas Creek
o Way
Oak Creek Way
Old Ironsides Drive
Great America Parkway
Old
Gl
ory Lane
Mission College Boulevard
Sandia
Avenue
Fairwood Avenue
PrescoƩ Avenue
Palamos Avenue Torrance Avenue
Candlewood Avenue
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 100 400 600 1,000 Feet
Project Site
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 3.0-2
City of Santa Clara4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 6 Focused Initial Study April 2024
O
ffice
Office
Office
ResidenƟal
Light
Industrial
Calabazas Creek
Oak Creek Way
Manzano Way
John W. ChrisƟan Green Belt
Patrick Henry Drive
Patrick Henry Drive
Calabazas Creek
Oak Creek Way
Manzano Way
John
W.

ChrisƟan
Green
Belt
Patrick Henry Drive
Patrick Henry Drive
Photo Date: Aug. 2023
0 25 150 200 300 Feet
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jan. 24, 2024.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 3.0-3 City of Santa Clara4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 7 Focused Initial Study April 2024

PUBLIC PARK DEDICATION

FUTURE PARK DEVELOPMENT

FIRE LANE

ROUNDABOUT

PARKING GARAGE

PATRICK HENRY DRIVE

CALABAZAS CREEK TRAIL
WASTE
ELEC.

FITNESS LOBBY SOCIAL
LOUNGE
Source: BAR Architects, June 6, 2023.

SITE PLAN – GROUND FLOOR FIGURE 3.0-4
City of Santa Clara4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 8 Focused Initial Study April 2024
Source: BAR Architects, June 6, 2023.

0,16,'(<$5'
3(5&%&
1257+3523(57</,1(
6287+3523(57</,1(

81,7$ 81,7$
81,7$ 81,7$
81,7$ 81,7$
81,7$ 81,7$
322/
(48,3
0(3
*$5$*(
0(3
81,7$ 81,7$
*$5$*(
*$5$*(

:(673523(57</,1(($673523(57</,1(
0,16,'(<$5'
3(5&%&

81,7$
81,7$
81,7$
81,7(
81,7(
81,7(
81,7$
81,7%
81,7%
%,.(
6725$*(
*$5$*(
81,7)
(/(& 0(3
81,7$
81,7$
81,7$
81,7$ 81,7$
81,7$
81,7$
81,7$
*$5$*( 81,7&
81,7%
81,7%
81,7&
81,7&
81,7&
81,7&
81,7$ 81,7( 81,7$ 81,7$ 81,7&
*$5$*(
*$5$*(

NORTH-SOUTH SECTION

EAST-WEST SECTION
T.O. PARAPET
86’-0” T.O. ROOF SHTG
84’-0”
LEVEL 8
74’-0”
LEVEL 7
63’-10”
LEVEL 6
53’-8”
LEVEL 5
43’-6”
LEVEL 4
33’-4”
LEVEL 3
22’-4”
LEVEL 2
12’-2”
LEVEL 1 - RESIDENTIAL
2’-0” LEVEL 1 - LOBBY
0’-0”
T.O. PARAPET 86’-0” T.O. ROOF SHTG
84’-0”
LEVEL 8
74’-0”
LEVEL 7
63’-10”
LEVEL 6
53’-8”
LEVEL 5
43’-6”
LEVEL 4
33’-4”
LEVEL 3
22’-4”
LEVEL 2
12’-2” LEVEL 1 - RESIDENTIAL
2’-0”
LEVEL 1 - LOBBY
0’-0”
BUILDING SECTIONS FIGURE 3.0-5
City of Santa Clara4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 9 Focused Initial Study April 2024
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 10 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
The project proposes up to 324 parking spaces; of which 310 spaces would be for residents and the remaining 14 parking spaces would be guest parking. Bicycle storage would be provided on the northwestern corner of the site.

3.1.3 Green Building Measures
The proposed project would be required to be built in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which includes design provisions intended to minimize wasteful energy consumption, and the most recent California Building Code (CBC).

3.1.4 General Plan and Zoning Designations
Most of the project site is designated and zoned as Urban Village while approximately 0.5 acres is classified as Parks and Open Space (P/OS). The Urban Village Specific Plan designation and zoning district (100-149 du/ac) allows for transit-oriented, multi-family residential development at veryhigh densities (between five to 12 stories) within the PHDSP area. Urban Village developments include structured or below-grade parking and shared outdoor spaces proximate to transit. The project proposes a residential development and would have a density of 127 du/ac, consistent with the Urban Village designation. The project has been designed to be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, with the exception of items for which a waiver or incentive has been requested pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law.

3.1.5 Transportation Demand Management Plan
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are intended to reduce vehicle trips and parking demand by promoting the use of multimodal transportation options. As discussed in the PHDSP Final EIR, all future developments are required to implement a TDM program consistent with the requirements outlined in the City of Santa Clara’s adopted Climate Action Plan and General Plan. Per Mitigation Measure 5-2D from the PHDSP Final EIR, 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.). Consistent with Mitigation Measure 5-2D, the project proposes the following TDM Measures, as shown in Table 3.0-1. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 11 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Table 3.0-1: Proposed Project-Specific TDM Measures
Program Administration, Monitoring, and Reporting
Preparation of TDM Plan
Participation in Transportation Management Association (TMA) Information and marketing to current and perspective residents New resident welcome materials
Information posed in prominent on-site locations
Online Kiosk /TDM information board
Designate a Transportation Coordinator
Annual Surveys
Target Trip Reduction Monitoring
Transit Elements
Operate a local shuttle program (funded by TMA members) Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle parking
On-site bicycle facilities and pedestrian circulation
Protected bike lanes on Patrick Henry Drive
On-site Amenities
On-site amenities that reduce trips (i.e., retail, exercise rooms) Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 4590 Patrick Henry Drive Residential Development Transportation Demand Management Plan. May 22, 2023.

3.1.6 Construction
The project proposes construction hours from Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM for a period of approximately 27 months (or 572 construction workdays) starting in January 2025. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 12 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist,
and Impact Discussion
The proposed project includes the construction of an eight-story residential building with up to 284 dwelling units. This Focused Initial Study analyzes the impacts of the proposed project and consistency with the PHDSP FEIR regarding the following environmental issues where the FEIR identified the need for site-specific, project-specific analysis. The project would have the same impacts as analyzed in the PHDSP FEIR with regards to the following environmental resource areas:
• Aesthetics • Population and Housing
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Public Services • Energy • Recreation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation
• Land Use and Planning • Wildfire
• Mineral Resources
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural
Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise and Vibration
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:
• Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection 1) includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts and 2) discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). In addition, because the analysis in this Focused Initial Study tiers from the PHDSP FEIR, the level of impact in the project specific analysis is presented as it relates to the findings of the PHDSP FEIR.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 13 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Resource Areas That Do Not Require Further
Evaluation
As discussed on the previous page, the following resource areas are not analyzed further because they were determined to have the same impacts as analyzed in the PHDSP FEIR. A brief explanation is provided for each resource topic.

Aesthetics: The PHDSP FEIR concluded that build out of the PHDSP would not affect scenic vistas due to the lack of scenic views; the PHDSP would not impact existing visual character and quality due to design standards specific to planned developed in the PHDSP, and new developments associated with the PHDSP would not represent a substantial source of light or glare since all developments would be subject to the Santa Clara City Code Title 18 and Title 24 outdoor lighting zones. The proposed project would be consistent with the PHDSP guidelines and standards and the City of Santa Clara Community Design Guidelines. Impacts to aesthetics would not change with the implementation of the proposed project. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR applicable to the project.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources: The site does not contain agricultural or forestry resources, nor are they present in the vicinity of the site. No agricultural use, forest land, or timberland is located in the entire PHDSP area; therefore, this resource area was determined to not be applicable to the PHDSP and no future developments associated with the PHDSP would result in any impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources. There are no mitigation measures to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Energy: Construction and operation of the future developments under the PHDSP would require the use of nonrenewable and renewable energy (e.g., electricity, natural gas, diesel fuel, and gasoline fuel). Overall, the PHDSP build out would increase energy demand in Santa Clara. However, regulatory measures, such as the CBC and CALGreen, and the General Plan policies that encourage energy, water, waste, and green building measures would reduce the use of non-renewable resources to the greatest extent possible. The PHDSP FEIR determined that with the implementation of the above General Plan policies and the applicable state energy efficiency standards that significant energy conservation and savings would be realized by future developments, including the project. PHDSP Compliance with the current energy efficiency standards set forth in Title 24, CALGreen, and the City Code and policies would also ensure that all future developments comply with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

For these reasons, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to energy. There are no mitigation measures to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The PHDSP FEIR created an interpolated efficiency metric of 1.84 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population per year for the year 2040 to evaluate the significance of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated by build out of the PHDSP. The modeling assumed that electricity provided by Silicon Valley Power, the City’s electricity service provider, would comply with Senate Bill (SB) 100’s requirement of electricity sold in 2030 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 14 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
being procured from 60 percent renewable energy sources and specific water use estimates provided by a water supply assessment prepared for the project were used instead of default assumptions. The project is consistent with the planned PHDSP land use and is within the anticipated capacity projected in the GHG modeling. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions are accounted for in the PHDSP, and impacts would be same as the approved PHDSP. Also, all future developments facilitated by the PHDSP would comply and be designed consistent with the policies in the General Plan, which support the goals and measures in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area. For these reasons, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to GHG emissions. There are no mitigation measures to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Land Use and Planning: The proposed project is consistent with the allowed uses under the UV and P/OS General Plan and zoning designations. The project would not physically divide the existing community nor would the project conflict with the applicable land use requirements adopted to protect or mitigate impacts to the environment. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Mineral Resources: There are no mineral resources present on-site. This resource area was determined to not be applicable to the PHDSP FEIR because of the plan’s location and lack of mineral resources in the entire PHDSP area. No future developments associated with the PHDSP would impact mineral resources. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Population and Housing: The proposed project is consistent with the allowed uses under the General Plan land use designation and Zoning District. The future residents of the project have been accounted for in the PHDSP FEIR. The project would not induce substantial population growth beyond what was accounted for in the PHDSP FEIR, nor would the project displace any existing housing since the project site is developed as an office park with no residences. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Public Services: Build out of the PHDSP would intensify development in the plan area and generate additional residents. The increase in service population would increase the demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. The PHDSP FEIR determined that increase in demand for public services would be less than significant due to planned expansion of existing facilities, payment of in-lieu fees (e.g., infrastructure fee, school impact fees, parkland dedication and fees), and the future development of schools and libraries (which would be subject to their own evaluation under CEQA). Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in new or substantially adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public services. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR applicable to the project.

Recreation: The project would include residential uses, which create the predominant demand for recreational facilities. Build out of the PHDSP would require a total of 64 to 86 acres of parkland to serve the increased residential population generated by the plan. All future PHDSP developments 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 15 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
would be required to provide parkland and/or pay park in-lieu fees per the Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.35. The project would include approximately 24,370 square feet of public open space on the ground floor. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Transportation: The PHDSP would not result in VMT impacts because it qualifies as a transit supportive project due to its proximity to public transit (Old Ironsides light rail train station and frequent Valley Transportation Authority bus service), high density, inclusion of multimodal transportation networks, transit-oriented elements, lack of excess parking, and addition of affordable housing. The build out of the PHDSP would also enhance transit services, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities by adding more infrastructure that complies with City design standards. Existing emergency access points within the PHDSP area would remain and additional connectors would be constructed subject to City review; therefore, the build out of the PHDSP would not result in inadequate emergency access. Since the traffic generated by the proposed project was accounted for in the PHDSP FEIR, transportation impacts would be similar to what was already analyzed in the PHDSP FEIR. Impacts would remain less than significant. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.

Wildfire: The PHDSP area is located in a local responsibility area (LRA) and is not classified as a very high fire hazarded severity area. This resource area was determined to not be applicable to the PHDSP FEIR because of the plan’s location. No future developments associated with the PHDSP would result in any impacts related to wildfire. There are no mitigation measures related to this topic area from the PHDSP FEIR.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 16 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Air Quality
The following discussion is based upon a Construction Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (I&R) in November 2023. The report is attached as Appendix A to this document.

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality in the Bay Area is assessed related to six common air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants), including ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and lead.
2 Criteria pollutants are regulated because they
result in health effects. An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and their associated health are summarized in Table 4.2-1. The most commonly regulated criteria pollutants in the Bay Area are discussed further below.

Table 4.2-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
O3 Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function impairment
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Motor vehicle exhaust, high
temperature stationary combustion,
atmospheric reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory illness
• Reduced visibility
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) and
Coarse Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Stationary combustion of solid fuels,
construction activities, industrial
processes, atmospheric chemical
reactions
• Reduced lung function, especially in
children
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases
• Increased cough and chest discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
Cars and trucks, especially dieselfueled; industrial sources, such as chrome platers, dry cleaners and
service stations, building materials
and products
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation
• Neurological and reproductive disorders
2 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 17 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
High O3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX.

These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O3 levels.

Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce O3 levels. The highest O3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources.

PM is a problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. PM is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to have health effects. They include but are not limited to criteria pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway).

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about threequarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs (most susceptible to injury).3 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by CARB.

Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors.

Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools. 3 California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed January 9, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 18 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants (discussed previously), including PM, O3, CO, SOx, NOx, and lead.

CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.

The EPA and the CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant.

Attainment status for a pollutant means that a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce PM emissions by 90 percent, the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM (in addition to other pollutants). Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment (including off-road equipment), will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Regional air quality management districts, such as BAAQMD, must prepare air quality plans specifying how state and federal air quality standards will be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 19 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.4 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by BAAQMD within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

Local
City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan
General Plan policies related to air quality include, but are not limited to, the following listed below.

Policies Description

5.8.5-P1 Require new development and City employees to implement transportation demand management programs that can include site-design measures, including preferred carpool and vanpool parking, enhanced pedestrian access, bicycle storage and recreational facilities.

5.10.2-P6 Require “Best Management Practices” for construction dust abatement.

5.10.5-P34 Implement minimum setbacks of 500 feet from roadways with average daily trips of 100,000 or more and 100 feet from 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, and window design, to reduce exposure, demonstrating that the potential risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.

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

Existing Conditions
Air quality is determined by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutants released within an area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and regional meteorological conditions, and the surrounding topography of the air basin.

BAAQMD is responsible for assuring that the national and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. Air quality studies generally focus on four criteria pollutants that are most commonly measured and regulated: CO, O3, NO2, and PM10 and PM2.5. 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. Accessed January 19, 2024. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 20 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
These pollutants are considered criteria pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and CARB as they can result in health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms. Table 4.2-2 shows violations of state and federal standards at the monitoring station in San José at 158 East Jackson Street (the nearest monitoring station to the site) during the 2017-2019 period (the most recent years for which data is available).

Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards Violations and Highest Concentrations Pollutant Standard
Days Exceeding Standard
2017 2018 2019
San José Station
Ozone
State 1-hour 3 0 1
Federal 8-hour 4 0 2
Carbon Monoxide
Federal 8-hour 0 0 0
State 8-hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-hour 0 0 0
PM10
Federal 24-hour 0 0 0
State 24-hour 6 4 4
PM2.5 Federal 24-hour 6 15 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries.” Accessed January 11, 2024. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-measurement/air-quality-summaries.

The Bay Area is considered non-attainment for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the federal Clean Air Act and state Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 under the state act, but not the federal act. The Bay Area is considered in attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.

The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located approximately 185 feet west of the project site. In addition, Fairwood Explorer Elementary School is located approximately 915 feet west of the site.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 21 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024

4.2.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Note: 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 determinations.

Thresholds of Significance
Impacts from the Project
As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the Lead Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Santa Clara has considered the air quality thresholds updated by BAAQMD in May 2017 and regards these thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality thresholds used in this analysis are identified in Table 4.2-3 below. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 22 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Table 4.2-3: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operation Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG, NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (eight-hour) or 20.0 ppm (one-hour) Fugitive Dust
Dust Control
Measures/Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources (within a 1,000-foot Zone of Influence) Health Hazard Single Source Combined Cumulative Sources Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million Hazard Index 1.0 10.0
Incremental Annual PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 μg/m3(average)
Findings of the PHDSP FEIR
2017 CAP
The PHDSP includes standards and guidelines that are consistent with the 2017 CAP and would not result in an increase in trip generation that exceeds the projected service population increase.

Therefore, the PHDSP FEIR concluded that build out of the PHDSP would not conflict with implementation of the 2017 CAP.

Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Future development under the PHDSP would result in short-term construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions that would have the potential to have an adverse effect on air quality. In addition, fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) would also be generated during earth disturbing activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, excavation). Specific project details within the PHDSP were not known at the time the PHDSP FEIR was prepared; therefore, it is plausible and probable that one or more projects developed under implementation of the PHDSP could have the potential to exceed one or more of the BAAQMD’s construction criteria air pollutant threshold of significance.

The following mitigation measures were included in the PHDSP FEIR to reduce construction criteria pollutants and fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 23 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Mitigation Measure 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.

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.

Mitigation Measure 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 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 24 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
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., electricpowered 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-VOC5 paints to interior and/or exterior surfaces (e.g., paints that meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements).

Even with implementation of mitigation measures Mitigation Measures 5-2A and 5-2B, the FEIR concluded that impacts related to construction criteria pollutants and TAC emissions from the build out of the PHDSP would be significant and unavoidable since it cannot be guaranteed that construction emissions from individual projects would be below the BAAQMD thresholds.

Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
The PHDSP FEIR concluded that full build out of the PHDSP would result in long-term area and mobile source emissions from operation of subsequent development. Build out of the PHDSP (under both scenarios) would result in the exceedance of the BAAQMD significance threshold for operational ROGs and NOx emissions. The following mitigation measures were included in the PHDSP FEIR to reduce operational ROG and NOx emissions impacts.

Mitigation Measure 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 5 VOCs is volatile organic compounds.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 25 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
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 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.).

Even with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the PHDSP FEIR concluded that operational ROG and NOx emissions from implementation of the PHDSP would remain significant and unavoidable.

Construction Toxic Air Contaminants
The PHDSP FEIR concluded that construction TAC emissions associated with one or more projects developed under the PHDSP could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Future projects proposed in the PHDSP area would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 5-2B which requires preparation of project-specific air quality assessments to evaluate TAC construction emissions. Because site-specific construction schedules and equipment were not known at the time, the PHDSP FEIR concluded that it could not be definitively known that all development projects occurring under implementation of the PHDSP would be able to reduce potential TAC emissions to levels below BAAQMD thresholds; therefore, even with implementation of the mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Operational Toxic Air Contaminants
The land uses envisioned under implementation the PHDSP (i.e., residential, commercial, retail, and community serving land uses) would not include sources of TAC emissions such that significant exposures could occur. Under the PHDSP’s 2040 cumulative growth conditions, it was estimated that up to 12,361 vehicles would move through the Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard intersection during the PM peak hour.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 26 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Since it would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold of 44,000 vehicles per hour, the PHDSP FEIR concluded that implementation of the PHDSP would not result in a CO hotspot6that could exceed state or federal air quality standards. Therefore, implementation of the PHDSP would not exacerbate or contribute to significant health risks at or in proximity of the PHDSP area, nor would it increase the number of state, federal, or national ambient air quality standard exceedances.

Odors
According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Implementation of the PHDSP FEIR would not redevelop the area with land uses associated with odor complaints; therefore, no impact would occur.

Disclosure of Potential Existing Health Risks for New Residential Receptors in Plan Area Per the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) ruling, projects are not required to analyze how existing conditions might impact a project’s future users or residents. The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Santa Clara has policies that address existing air quality conditions affecting a proposed project.

General Plan Policy 5.10.10-P34 requires projects to implement minimum setbacks of 500 feet from roadways with average daily trips of 100,000 or more and 100 feet from 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, and window design, to reduce exposure, demonstrating that the potential risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.

No specific project was proposed at the time the PHDSP FEIR was prepared nor is the PHDSP area within 100 feet of any railroad lines. In addition, Great America Parkway is estimated to have approximately 96,860 average daily trips which is less than the City’s 100,000 average daily trip criterion. Therefore, a project-specific study assessing potential health risks associated with existing sources in the area was not required.
6 BAAQMD developed a screening-level analysis for CO hotspots in 2010 which finds that projects that are consistent with the applicable congestion management program, and that do not cause traffic volumes at affected intersections to increase to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour, would not result in a CO hotspot that could exceed state or federal air quality standards.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 27 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Project
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
2017 Clean Air Plan
As discussed in the PHSDP FEIR, projects within the PHDSP area would be required to comply with the requirements outlined in the City’s Climate Action Plan (i.e., TDM requirement) and General Plan. The project would be required to achieve a minimum VMT reduction of 20 percent, including 10 percent through TDM measures (refer to Table 3.0-1 or Table 4.2-5 for the list of proposed project-specific TDM measures). The proposed project would be required to incorporate the standards and guidelines included in the PHDSP which are consistent with the 2017 CAP and, as a result, the project would not result in any new impacts to the 2017 CAP or increase the severity of the previously identified impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact)] Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Consistent with Mitigation Measure 5-2B, a project-level construction assessment was prepared.

The California Emissions Estimator model (CalEEMod) Version 2022 was used to estimate annual emissions from on-site construction activities, construction vehicle trips, and evaporative emissions.

The proposed land uses of the project were input into CalEEMod, which included 284 dwelling units entered as “Apartments Mid-Rise” and 327 parking spaces entered as “Unenclosed Parking with Elevator”. The construction inputs (e.g., equipment quantities, average hours per day, total number of workdays, and schedule) were provided by the applicant. The construction schedule assumes that the project would be built over a period of approximately 27 months, or 572 construction workdays. Refer to Appendix A for more information regarding assumptions and CalEEMod inputs.

Table 4.2-4 provides a summary of the estimated annualized emissions from construction of the project (without mitigation incorporated).

Table 4.2-4: Construction Period Emissions
Year ROG NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Construction Emissions Per Year (tons)
2025 0.07 0.94 0.03 0.03
2026 0.66 0.98 0.03 0.03
2027 <1.60* 0.32 0.01 0.01
Annualized Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
2025 (243 construction workdays) 0.54 7.75 0.23 0.21
2026 (261 construction workdays) 5.04 7.48 0.23 0.21
2027 (68 construction workdays) <47.15* 9.48 0.24 0.22
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 28 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Year ROG NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
BAAQMD Threshold (pounds/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 4590 Patrick Henry Drive Construction Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment.

November 7, 2023.

Notes: ROG - reactive organic gases
NOx - nitrogen dioxide
PM10 - diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM2.5 - diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
* These are unmitigated values. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-2C would reduce ROG from construction coatings below these levels. Note that the majority of construction ROG emissions comes from the Building Interior/Architectural Coating phase, which is almost all in the year 2027. Because there are so few construction workdays in 2027, the higher number of emissions are divided over the lower number of construction days, which yields a higher daily annualized emissions for ROG.

As shown in the table above, project construction period emissions would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the project would have a less than significant criteria pollutant emissions impact associated with project construction and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP. Implementation of the project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified construction criteria pollutant air quality impacts. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Significant Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
As mentioned above, build out of the PHDSP would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for operational ROG and NOx emissions. Per the PHDSP FEIR, the proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 5-2C which requires the use of Low- and Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings in buildings to reduce ROG emissions. While the PHDSP area is located within

0.5 miles of the Old Ironsides Light Rail Station, mobile source emissions would remain as a substantial source of emissions. To reduce ROG, NOx, and PM emissions from mobile sources, future projects proposed under the PHDSP (including the proposed project) would be required to implement a TDM plan consistent with the requirements outlined in Section 7.3 of the PHDSP and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 5-2D of the PHDSP FEIR, the project proposes the following TDM measures.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 29 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Table 4.2-5: Proposed Project-Specific TDM Measures
Program Administration, Monitoring, and Reporting
Preparation of TDM Plan
Participation in Transportation Management Association (TMA) Information and marketing to current and perspective residents New resident welcome materials
Information posed in prominent on-site locations
Online Kiosk /TDM information board
Designate a Transportation Coordinator
Annual Surveys
Target Trip Reduction Monitoring
Transit Elements
Operate a local shuttle program (funded by TMA members) Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle parking
On-site bicycle facilities and pedestrian circulation
Protected bike lanes on Patrick Henry Drive
On-site Amenities
On-site amenities that reduce trips (i.e., retail, exercise rooms) Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 4590 Patrick Henry Drive Residential Development Transportation Demand Management Plan. May 22, 2023.

With implementation of the TDM plan and use of Low- and Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings, the project would have a less than significant impact on operational ROG and NOx emissions. While full build out of the PHDSP would have a significant and unavoidable operational criteria pollutant emissions impact, the proposed project is consistent with PHDSP FEIR and would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified operational criteria pollutant air quality impacts. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Significant Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Per the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 30 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

The PHDSP FEIR concluded that growth allowed under implementation of the PHDSP would be substantially more than what was accounted for in the City’s General Plan and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment. As discussed under checklist question a, construction period criteria pollutant emissions associated with the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds; therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment. The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 5-2C and 5-2D to reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions and, as a result, implementation of the project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified criteria pollutant air quality impacts. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Significant Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)] c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Dust Generation
Construction activities on-site would temporarily generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 5-2A which requires new development in the PHDSP (including the proposed project) to implement BAAQMD Basic Control Mitigation Measures to reduce dust emissions. With implementation of these measures, fugitive dust and other particulate matter generated during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would not result in any new dust impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)] Construction Toxic Air Contaminants
Consistent with Mitigation Measure 5-2B, a construction health risk assessment was prepared to analyze health risk impacts from TACs and PM2.5. The CalEEMod model was used which provides total annual PM10 exhaust emissions (DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles. The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict construction-related DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at existing residences in the vicinity of the project area (refer to Appendix A of this document for more information).
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 31 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
The maximum exposed individual (MEI) was identified at a single-family residence located 450 feet northwest of the project site (refer to Figure 4.2-1:).7 Off-site sensitive receptors are designated in green and the MEI from construction is designated in red. The MEI would have a cancer risk of 2.76 cases per one million for infants and 0.05 cases per one million for adults. The maximum-annual PM2.5 concentration would be 0.02 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and the maximum hazard index (HI) concentration would be less than 0.01. Implementation of the project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds of 10 cases per one million for cancer risk, 0.3 µg/m3for annual PM2.5, and HI of 1.0, respectively (without mitigation).

In addition, Fairwood Explorer Elementary School is located approximately 915 feet west of the site (refer to Figure 4.2-1: for the location of the school receptor). The students attending the school would be exposed to a cancer risk of 0.06 cases per one million, an annual PM2.5 of less than 0.01 µg/m3, and a HI of less than 0.01. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for cancer risk, annual PM2.5, and HI would not be exceeded at the school. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project to nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant, and implementation of the project would not result in any new TAC impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Significant Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
Operational Toxic Air Contaminants
Build out of the PHDSP was found to not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold of 44,000 vehicles per hour.

Since the proposed project is consistent with the uses allowed under the PHDSP, implementation of the project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified operational TAC impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact)]
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
In a 2018 decision (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno), the State Supreme Court determined that CEQA requires that when a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would exceed applicable thresholds and contribute a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative regional criteria pollutant impact, the potential for the project’s emissions to affect human health in the air basin must be disclosed. State and federal ambient air quality standards are health-based standards and exceedances of those standards result in continued unhealthy levels of air pollutants. As stated in the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, 7 There are sensitive receptors located approximately 185 feet west of the site, however, the MEI was identified at a residence located approximately 450 feet northwest of the site due to the prevailing wind direction. While the primary wind direction comes from the north/northwest, there are occasionally wind currents coming from the south/southeast. There is little to no wind coming from the east; therefore, the receptors to the west of the site would not be exposed to the same level of project emissions as the residences to the northwest. Divine, Casey.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Personal Communication. March 12, 2024.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., November 7, 2023.

LegendO
ff-Site Receptors
School Receptors
ConstrucƟon Site
MEI
Patrick Henry Drive
Manzano Way
Calabazas Creek
Oak Creek Way
PrescoƩ Avenue
Patrick Henry Drive
Manzano Way
Calabazas Creek
Oak Creek Way
PrescoƩ Avenue
LOCATIONS OF OFF-SITE RECEPTORS AND PROJECT MEI FIGURE 4.2-1 City of Santa Clara4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 32 Focused Initial Study April 2024
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 33 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project has a less than significant impact for criteria pollutants, it is assumed to have no adverse health effect.

As discussed under checklist questions a and b, the project would have a less than significant construction criteria pollutant impact and the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 5-2C and 5-2D from the PHDSP FEIR to reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions.

With implementation of the identified measures from the PHDSP FEIR, the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified criteria pollutant air quality impacts. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Significant Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction equipment operation and truck activity. While the odor emissions may be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors, the odors would be localized and temporary and are not likely to affect people off-site.

It is anticipated that the proposed project would use cleaning supplies and maintenance chemicals which would generate temporary odors in the areas of use. The odors from cleaning supplies and maintenance chemicals would be similar to the odors already generated by the surrounding land uses (e.g., residential and commercial development). Therefore, the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people off-site nor would the project result in long-term or short-term odor impacts. Implementation of the project would not result in any new odor impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

4.2.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts.

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Santa Clara has policies that address existing air quality conditions affecting a proposed project.

A health risk assessment was prepared to assess impacts from existing TAC sources on future onsite residences. BAAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated for community health risk when they are located within 1,000 feet of mobile sources of TACs (e.g., rail lines, highways, and busy surface streets) and permitted stationary sources of TACs.

There are no stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the site that would have the potential to affect the MEI; therefore, stationary sources are not discussed further. The project area is located near 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 34 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
arterial roadways. Screening-level cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and HI associated with traffic on the local roadways were estimated using BAAQMD’s geographic information systems (GIS) data files. In addition to existing mobile TAC sources, one project has been approved within the PHDSP area (i.e., 3000 Patrick Henry Drive). For the purposes of this analysis, it was conservatively assumed the entire construction period from the proposed project would overlap with the 3000 Patrick Henry Drive construction schedule. This would provide an overestimate of the health risk and hazard levels because it assumes that maximum impacts from the nearby development occurs concurrently with the proposed project at the off-site MEI. Table 4.2-6Table 4.2-2 summarizes the cumulative health risks at the MEI without mitigation.

Table 4.2-6: Cumulative Impacts at MEI (Unmitigated)
Source
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(μg/m3)
Hazard Index
Project Impacts
Project Construction 2.76 (infant) 0.02 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Roadways 7.29 0.22 0.03
3000 Patrick Henry Drive (mitigated) <10.00 <0.30 <1.00 Cumulative Total <20.05 <0.54 <1.04
BAAQMD Cumulative-Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 4590 Patrick Henry Drive Construction Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment.

November 7, 2023.

As shown in the table above, the cumulative-source thresholds for cancer risk, annual PM2.5, and HI would not be exceeded.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 35 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Biological Resources
The following discussion is based on a Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting in June 2023. The discussion is also based upon a Biological Resources Report prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates (HTH) in October 2023. Copies of these reports are provided in Appendices B and C, respectively.

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special-status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations.

Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project would result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm of a listed species.

In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as part of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW-listed Species of Special Concern.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. This includes direct and indirect acts, except for harassment and habitat modification, which are not included unless they result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800. The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 36 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

Local
City of Santa Clara Tree Protection Policies
Tree protection is provided under Chapter 12.35 of the City Code and under General Plan Policies

5.3.1-P10, 5.10.1-P3, and 5.10.1-P4 and Appendix 8.10. These policies detail protections for street trees and preservation of all City-designated heritage trees.

City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan
General Plan policies related to biological resources include, but are not limited to, the following listed below.

Policies Description

5.3.1-P10 Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the community, including requirements for new development to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on- or off-site replacement for trees removed as part of the proposal to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.

5.10.1-P1 Require environmental review prior to approval of any development with the potential to degrade the habitat of any threatened or endangered species.

5.10.1-P3 Require preservation of all City-designated heritage trees listed in the Heritage Tree Appendix

8.10 of the General Plan.

5.10.1-P4 Protect all healthy cedars, redwoods, oaks, olives, bay laurel, and pepper trees of any size, and all other trees over 36 inches in circumference measured from 48 inches above-grade on private and public property, as well as in the public right-of-way.

Existing Conditions
The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by light industrial and office development and associated pavement (e.g., roads, driveways, and surface parking lots). There is no vacant land within the PHDSP area and there is currently no native vegetation within the entire plan area. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 37 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Habitats in developed areas such as the project site and area include predominantly urban-adapted birds and animals. Vegetation on-site includes landscaping shrubs and trees. The nearest waterway is Calabazas Creek, approximately 125 feet west of the project site. The PHDSP FEIR identified the following special-status species with potential to occur within the PHDSP area: Congdon’s tarplant, arcuate bush mallow, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat; as well as nesting birds and roosting bats protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code.

Based on the Preliminary Arborist Report completed by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, a total of 71 trees were surveyed. Table 4.3-1 identifies the species and size of the trees surveyed. The location of trees is shown on Figure 4.3-1.

Table 4.3-1: Tree Survey
Species
Diameter
Total No. of
Trees 0-12.0 inches 12.1-18.0 inches Greater than 18
inches
Blackwood acacia 5 0 2 7
Cajeput paperbark 3 5 1 9
Carob 9 3 1 13
Chinese juniper 7 0 0 7
Chinese pistache 3 0 0 3
Coast redwood 11 0 0 11
Crape myrtle 5 0 0 5
Evergreen ash 2 2 1 5
Hackberry 2 0 0 2
Holly oak 7 0 0 7
Purpleleaf plum 2 0 0 2
Total: 71 trees
Tree Assessment M
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
315
312
313
318 317 316
320 319 326 325 323 322
327 328 329 330
332 333
337 336 335 334
338
345
340
341
342 343 344
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363 364 365 366 367 368 369
370
371
372
373 374 375 376
377
331
Source: HortScience | BartleƩ ConsulƟng, August 2022.

TREE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 4.3-1
City of Santa Clara4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 38 Focused Initial Study April 2024
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 39 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024

4.3.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations,
or by the CDFW or USFWS?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, impede
the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 40 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Findings of the PHDSP FEIR
Riparian Habitat, Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Corridors, and Fish and Wildlife Nursery Sites
The PHDSP area is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area nor does the area contain sensitive natural communities (i.e., northern coastal salt marsh and sycamore alluvial woodland). Therefore, the PHDSP FEIR concluded that implementation of the PHDSP would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, fish and wildlife corridors, and fish and wildlife nursery sites.

Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Habitat
The PHDSP FEIR concluded that without further project-level analysis, build out of the PHDSP could threaten or endanger habitat for special-status species and, as a result, future developments under the PHDSP would be in violation of Policy 5.10.1-P1 from the City of Santa Clara’s General Plan. The following mitigation measure was included in the PHDSP FEIR to reduce impacts to special-status species habitat.

Mitigation Measure 6-2: In order to keep current the biological resource evaluation prepared for the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan EIR, upon receiving applications for sitespecific 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.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-2, impacts related to special-status species habitat would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 41 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Impacts on Special-Status Plants
The PHDSP FEIR determined that project construction within the PHDSP area could impact the Congdon’s tarplant and arcuate bush mallow. The following mitigation measure was included in the PHDSP FEIR to reduce potential impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and arcuate bush mallow.

Mitigation Measure 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, sitewide 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 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.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-3, impacts to special-status plants would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 42 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds or Roosting Bats
Implementation of the PHDSP could result in impacts nesting birds and/or roosting bats due to the removal of trees and buildings that contain nests. Per the PHDSP FEIR, there is a low potential for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat to utilize the habitat within the area for roosting and/or nesting. In addition, many common bird species protected by the MBTA, California Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBPA), and California Fish and Game Code may utilize buildings, gravel substrates, and the landscaped vegetation within the PHDSP area for nesting, foraging, and roosting. Removal of existing trees containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, or roosting bats, would be considered unlawful take under the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code and would constitute a significant impact. The following mitigation was included in the PHDSP FEIR to reduce impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats.

Mitigation Measure 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 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 43 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
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.

The PHDSP FEIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-4, impacts to migratory and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Impacts on Protected Trees, Plants, and Shrubs
There are no City-designated heritage trees within the PHDSP area. Future projects proposed under the PHDSP would be required to comply with all local policies and ordinances for preserving trees; therefore, the PHDSP would have a less than significant impact on trees, plants, and shrubs.

Impacts Resulting from the Proposed Project
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Special-Status Plants
Consistent with Mitigation Measure 6-3 of the PHDSP FEIR, HTH completed a focused survey for the Condgon’s tarplant and arcuate bush mallow in September 2023. None of these species were identified on or immediately adjacent to the site; therefore, the report concluded that the project would not have an impact on these special-status plants. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified special-status plants impact. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 44 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Special-Status Animals
HTH completed a reconnaissance-level survey in August 2023 which found that there is no suitable habitat for burrowing owls present on-site or within 500 feet in the athletic fields and grasslands at Mission College (where burrowing owls were formerly known to occur).

While other special-status animals, such as the white-tailed kite and pallid bat, have the potential to fly over the project site, there is no suitable habitat for these species on-site or immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, the Biological Resources Report concluded that implementation of the project would not result in impacts to these special-status animal species. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 6-4 to ensure that impacts on these species would not occur.

At the time the PHDSP FEIR was prepared, the ecology and life history of the Crotch’s bumble bee and western bumble bee were not discussed in detail as their presence was difficult to determine.

In addition, the potential for the monarch butterfly to occur on-site was not addressed in the PHDSP FEIR. Based on recent surveys completed for the Crotch’s bumble bee, these species have been identified in scattered locations in Santa Clara County. The Crotch’s bumble bee has been recorded approximately 2.2 miles to the north, at Alviso Marina County Park. The project site does not provide high-quality floral resources (i.e., flowers that provide high-quality foraging habitat for the species), and no small mammal burrows or other features providing high-quality nest sites for this species were observed during project surveys. Therefore, the Biological Resources Report concluded that the Crotch’s bumble bee is not expected to occur on the site.

Monarchs are expected to fly through the site as occasional migrants and are not known to form large roosts in Santa Clara County. The Biological Resources Report concluded that monarchs would not be present on-site due to the absence of milkweed and that the site does not contain flowering plants that would attract monarchs; therefore, impacts to monarchs would be less than significant.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact on special-status species. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)] b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Riparian Habitat
The project site does not contain sensitive natural communities (i.e., northern coastal salt marsh and sycamore alluvial woodland) nor does the site contain riparian habitat. Calabazas Creek, located approximately 95 feet west of the project site boundary, does contain riparian habitat.

Calabazas Creek is a concrete channel, and the PHDSP FEIR identified only “marginally suitable” riparian habitat at the time of preparation. Therefore, the PHDSP FEIR did not address impacts (e.g., 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 45 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
shading or encroachment) from future projects on the riparian habitat at that time. However, site visits conducted by HTH in August and September 2023 detected the presence of more significant vegetation along the channel than what the PHDSP FEIR had identified in 2019.

The proposed project would result in the construction of a building that would be up to 86 feet tall to the top of the parapet and approximately 100 feet from the edge of the riparian habitat along Calabazas Creek. While no direct loss of habitat would occur, the building would be located closer to the creek than the existing building which has the potential to shade the mixed riparian woodland along Calabazas Creek during the early morning hours. Since the building would only shade the riparian corridor in the morning, the Biological Resources Report concluded that the shading would not result in the loss or substantial degradation of riparian habitat. (New Less Than Significant Impact)
Encroachment on Riparian Corridor
Buffers are often included between new development and riparian habitat to reduce indirect effects of adjacent developments. Given that the PHDSP FEIR identified only “marginally suitable” riparian habitat along the concrete channel at the time of the preparation of the PHDSP, the FEIR did not address potential encroachment impacts from future projects onto the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor. The City of Santa Clara does not have a riparian buffer policy nor does the PHDSP include buffer standards and guidelines. Based on other policies in the region, a 100-foot standard setback from the top of bank is appropriate for streams such as Calabazas Creek. In addition, the Biological Resources Report identified a 100-foot setback appropriate due to the moderate quality of the riparian habitat, the native bird community present at this location, and the ecological value of Calabazas Creek within the Santa Clara Valley.

The proposed building would be set back approximately 45 feet from the top of bank and would encroach within 0.14 acre of the 100-foot setback area (refer to Figure 4.3-2). Encroachment of the project within the 100-foot setback would result in the following impacts on the adjacent riparian communities along Calabazas Creek:
• Birds may be less likely to use areas that are in proximity to tall buildings since they cannot see over when using a habitat area, or that they will have to fly around/between when moving to and from the habitat area. As a result, the proposed building would reduce bird use of the adjacent habitat due to the proximity of the building to the riparian habitat. • The new building would be located on the east side of Calabazas Creek which would shade the adjacent riparian habitat during the early morning hours. Although shading would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the health of the riparian vegetation, it may affect how wildlife use riparian vegetation when it is shaded versus when it is sunlit. • Some birds using the habitat along Calabazas Creek are expected to collide with the proposed building which would reduce bird diversity and abundance in this area.

Source: H.T. Harvey & Associates, October 2023.
6006 30 0
Feet
Property Boundary
Building Footprint in Riparian Setback (0.14 ac)
H.T. Harvey-mapped Top of Bank
Riparian Setback (100-ft)
06 30 0 120 Feet
PROJECT SITE AND SETBACK DIAGRAM FIGURE 4.3-2
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project
City of Santa Clara
46 Focused Initial Study
April 2024
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 47 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Because the existing riparian habitat adjacent to the site is of moderate quality (as opposed to high quality) and is not expected to attract a large number of birds, these impacts would not affect regional populations of bird species that use the site, nor would it result in a substantial degradation of riparian bird communities in the segment of the Calabazas Creek adjacent to the site. (New Less Than Significant Impact)
Artificial Lighting
The proposed project would include artificial lighting within the building, as well as on the building’s exterior, pedestrian paths, and parking areas which could impact animal species. The PHDSP FEIR did not address potential impacts of lighting on biological communities such as the riparian habitat in Calabazas Creek; the FEIR identified only “marginally suitable” habitat in the concrete channel at the time of preparation. However, site visits conducted by HTH in August and September 2023 detected the presence of more significant vegetation along the channel than what the PHDSP FEIR identified in 2019. Due to the height of the building and the building lights, the proposed project could illuminate the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor and affect animals’ use of the corridor. Uplighting could also disorient nocturnal migrant birds and increase the risk of bird collisions with the proposed building.

Impact BIO-1: Artificial lighting associated with the project could affect animals’ use of the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor and result in an increase in bird collisions with the building.

Mitigation Measure
MM BIO-1.1: The project shall implement the following measures to minimize impacts of new lighting on animal communities:
• Up-lighting (i.e., lighting that project upward above the fixture) shall be avoided in the project design. All lighting shall be fully shielded to block illumination from shining upward above the fixture. If up-lighting cannot be avoided in the project design, up-lights shall be shielded and/or directed such that no luminance projects above/beyond objects at which they are directed (e.g., trees and buildings) and such that the light would not shine directly into the eyes of a bird flying above the object. • All lighting shall be directed downward and fully shielded as necessary to block illumination from shining towards Calabazas Creek to the west.

This measure only pertains to lighting along the western edge of the site or lighting elsewhere that has potential to illuminate the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1, the project would have a less than significant impact on animal communities from artificial lighting. (New Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 48 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no wetlands present on-site; therefore, the project would not affect any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact on wetlands. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact)] d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife Movement
All project activities would occur within the project footprint; therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any urban-adapted wildlife species that currently move through the plan area. The project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact on wildlife movement. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact)] Nesting Birds
The trees and shrubs within and adjacent to the project site could potentially provide nesting habitat for birds, including migratory birds or raptors. Nesting birds are species protected under the provisions of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800.

Therefore, project construction activities during the nesting season (February to August) could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment.

Disturbance that results in loss of reproductive effort and/or abandonment is considered a taking by the CDFW and would constitute a significant impact. Consistent with the PHDSP FEIR, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 6-4 to reduce impacts on migratory and nesting birds to a less than significant level. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
Bird Collisions
The PHDSP FEIR did not address the risk of bird collisions with project buildings, because Calabazas Creek is not a natural watercourse; it is a concrete channel, and in 2019 the PHDSP FEIR identified only “marginally suitable habitat” in that location, which would be unlikely to attract significant numbers of birds. However, site visits conducted by HTH in August and September 2023 detected the presence of more significant vegetation along the channel than what the PHDSP FEIR had identified in 2019. That being said, although bird collisions with the proposed building could occur, the project includes materials such as plaster, tile veneer, aluminum, or simulated limestone broken up by smaller windows which would reduce the potential for bird collisions. Therefore, the number 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 49 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
and frequency of bird collisions with the proposed project would be low. The project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact from bird collisions. (New Less Than Significant Impact) e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Per General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10, new development is required to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on- or off-site replacement for removal of existing trees. In addition, Chapter 12.35 of Santa Clara City Code serves to protect all trees (native and non-native) planted or growing in the streets or public places of the City (“City trees”), as well as certain privately-owned trees. A permit is required for removal of any City trees, City-designated heritage trees, trees from nine listed species with a diameter of 12 inches or more at 54 inches above grade, and any tree with a diameter of 38 inches or more at 54 inches above grade. These trees are considered “protected” trees, and the Code also prohibits the attachment of anything to a protected tree in the City, unless it is necessary and proper to the growth and care of the tree. Additionally, the City Code requires a replacement ratio of 2:1 for 24-inch box replacement trees, or replacement ratio of 4:1 for 15- gallon replacement trees.

As proposed, the project would remove a total of 55 trees; three street trees and 52 on-site trees.

Tree Nos. 334-337, 340-342, and 344 would remain on-site (refer to Figure 4.3-1 for the tree location map). None of the off-site trees (Tree Nos. 343, 345, 346, 357, 362, 363, 365, 369, 371, 373, and 375) are proposed for removal. Based on the City’s tree replacement policy, the proposed project would be required to plant a minimum of 110 trees with 24-inch boxes or 220 trees with 15- gallon containers. Consistent with the PHDSP FEIR, the project would be required to comply with all local policies and ordinances for preserving trees, including the City’s tree replacement policy; therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on trees. The project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact from tree removal. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact)]
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not located within an adopted HCP, Natural Community Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan; therefore, the project would not conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Implementation of the project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact with any approved habitat conservation plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact)]
4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 50 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
An Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment was prepared by Archaeological/Historical Consultants (A/HC) in July 2023. A copy of the assessment is on file with the City of Santa Clara, Community Development Department.

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.8 Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity 8 California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” Accessed January 11, 2024. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 51 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease and the county coroner be notified.

Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, and establish the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires Lead Agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the Lead Agency to be a TCR. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 52 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Local
City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan
General Plan policies applicable to cultural resources/TCRs include, but are not limited to, the following listed below.

Policies Description

5.6.3-P1 Require that new development avoid or reduce potential impacts to archaeological, paleontological and cultural resources.

5.6.3-P5 In the event that archeological/paleontological resources are discovered, require that work be suspended until the significance of the find and recommended actions are determined by a qualified archeologist/paleontologist.

5.6.3-P6 In the event that human remains are discovered, work with the appropriate Native American representative and follow the procedures set forth in State Law.

Existing Conditions
Subsurface Resources
Archaeological Resources
Native Americans occupied Santa Clara Valley and the greater Bay Area for more than 5,000 years.

The exact time period of the Ohlone (originally referred to as Costanoan) migration into the Bay Area is debated by scholars. Dates of the migration range between 3000 B.C. and 500 A.D.

Regardless of the actual time frame of their initial occupation of the Bay Area and, in particular, Santa Clara Valley, it is known that the Ohlone had a well-established population of approximately 7,000 to 11,000 people with a territory that ranged from the San Francisco Peninsula and the East Bay, south through the Santa Clara Valley and down to Monterey and San Juan Bautista.

The Ohlone people practiced hunting, fishing, and collecting seasonal plant and animal resources, including tidal and marine resources from San Francisco Bay. The customary way of living, or lifeway, of the Costanoan/Ohlone people disappeared by about 1810 due to disruption by introduced diseases, a declining birth rate and the impact of the California mission system established by the Spanish in the area in 1777.

Mission Period
Spanish explorers began coming to Santa Clara Valley in 1769. From 1769 to 1776, several expeditions were made during which time the explorers encountered the local Native American tribes. These expeditions lead to the establishment of the California Missions, including the first Mission Santa Clara founded in 1777 near what is today the Kifer Road/De La Cruz Boulevard intersection. After being destroyed by flooding, a second Mission Santa Clara was constructed near the present-day Martin Avenue/De La Cruz intersection. The third, fourth, and fifth Missions were constructed on what is today the Santa Clara University Campus, located approximately 4.0 miles 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 53 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
southeast of the project site. During the Mission period, the Mission controlled much of the land (approximately 80,000 acres) in Santa Clara Valley and the Native Americans were brought into the Mission, effectively ending the Ohlone’s traditional occupation of the valley.

Post-Mission and Early 20th Century
During and after the Gold Rush of 1849, people began to settle in the Santa Clara Valley to farm the land. In the 1850s, the City began to take shape as a recognizable small town and by 1852, Santa Clara was incorporated as a town and became a state chartered City. At the end of the 19th century, more and more people arrived seeking the mild climate and job opportunities of the Santa Clara area. By 1906, the population of the City grew to nearly 5,000. The population remained fairly stable and did not increase until after World War II, when the city outgrew its 19th century boundaries and expanded to open lands north and west of the original City limits.

The project site was vacant from at least 1889 until construction of the existing building in 1990.

Prior to the construction of the existing building, the site was used for agricultural operations (e.g., grassland farming) from at least the 1930s until the 1970s.

Record Search
Based on a record search prepared for the proposed project, no subsurface cultural resources have been documented on-site. Within a 0.25-mile radius, one resource was identified along the vicinity of Calabazas Creek.
9 A previous study was completed which included a portion of the project site, however, no resources were encountered. Seven previous studies have been completed within a

0.25-mile radius; none of which encountered any resources.

Based on an 1889 topographic map, Sanjon/Campbell Creek is approximately 0.8 miles east of the site. Due to the project’s proximity to Sanjon/Campbell Creek10 and the resource identified along Calabazas Creek, the Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment concluded that there is moderate potential for encountering buried Native American archaeological deposits. Because the site has been historically utilized for agricultural purposes, the project site has very low potential for encountering historic-era archaeological deposits.
9 This resource was never formally recorded; therefore, the Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment references it as an informal resource.
10 The Calabazas Creek was channelized in the 1880s to run by the project site. While Calabazas Creek is currently located approximately 125 feet west of the project site, prior to the 1880s, it did not reach the area (as shown on the 1876 topographic map in the Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment). As a result, Calabazas Creek does not appear next to the site on maps from 1866 to 1876. It does, however, appear on maps in 1889, 1890, and onward.

Fierer-Donaldson, Molly. Archaeological/Historical Consultants. Personal Communication. January 25, 2024. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 54 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
Historic Structures
The existing one-story commercial building was constructed in 1990 (34 years old) and is primarily stucco with brick veneer siding. The existing building on-site is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)11, California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)12, or City’s HRI. 13 At the
time the PHDSP FEIR was completed (2021), no building or structure in the PHDSP area was listed on a local or state historic resources inventory (HRI).

Tribal Cultural Resources
During preparation of the PHDSP FEIR, the City of Santa Clara notified the Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the PHDSP area which included the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Ohlone Indian Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, and Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan. No comments were received by the City, nor was there any request for consultation.

4.4.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource as pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
11 National Register of Historic Places. “National Register Database and Research.” Accessed January 24, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm. 12 California Register of Historic Places. “California Historical Resources.” Accessed January 24, 2024. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/.
13 City of Santa Clara. “8.9 Historic Preservation and Resource Inventory.” Accessed January 24, 2023. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12893/635713044859030000. 4590 Patrick Henry Residential Project 55 Focused Initial Study City of Santa Clara April 2024
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Less Impact
than
Approved
Project
Would the project:
d) 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
California Native American tribe, and
that is:
(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentNovember 19, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
November 19, 2024