Resolution/ Related Santa Clara Project – Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR Page 1 of 6 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 25-9465
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE SANTA
CLARA CITY PLACE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
ANALYZING A NEW “SCHEME C” LAND USE SCENARIO FOR
THE APPROVED MASTER COMMUNITY PLAN (MCP) FOR
RELATED SANTA CLARA PROJECT LOCATED AT 5155 STARS
AND STRIPES DRIVE, SANTA CLARA
Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2014072078)
PLN24-00060 (General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
Development Agreement Amendment)
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2024, Related Santa Clara, LLC (“Developer”), filed a development application to modify the approvals for a mixed-use development project for the approximately 240- acre City-owned site generally located north of Tasman Drive, east of Great America Parkway and San Tomas Aquino Creek, west of Guadalupe River, and south of State Route 237 (APNs: 104-03- 043, 104-03-042, 104-03-041, 104-03-036, 104-01-102, 097-01-039, and 097-01- 073), most of which was formerly occupied by a landfill, Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club, Fire Station 10, and is now occupied by a Bicycle-Motocross (BMX) track, the Ameresco Methane Plant, the Eastside retention Basin and vacant lots (“Project Site”);
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Resolution/ Related Santa Clara Project – Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR Page 2 of 6 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the City Council: certified the Santa Clara City Place Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) [SCH #2014072078] and adopted a set of CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); adopted a General Plan Amendment changing the Project Site’s land use designation to Urban Center/Entertainment District and making corresponding text and figure changes throughout the General Plan; approved a rezoning of the Project Site to the Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning designation governed by the accompanying Master Community Plan (“MCP”) for the Related Santa Clara project (the “Approved Project,” previously known as “City Place”); and approved a Development Agreement (“DA”) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) to define the Developer’s obligations to develop the Approved Project and define terms for ground leasing the Project Site to the Developer;
WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to modify the Approved Project to allow a range of light industrial uses on Parcels 1 and 2 (APN 097-01-073 and 097-01-039) of the Project Site while maintaining the already-approved office, retail, commercial, hotel, and residential uses on Parcels 4 and 5 of the Project Site, and maintaining the park and open space uses already approved on Parcel 3 and throughout the Project Site without modifying the 9.16 million gross square feet of development or overall development intensities already allowed on the Project Site (the “Proposed Project”);
WHEREAS, the Zoning amendment proposes a text amendment to revise the permitted uses under the PD-MC Zoning designation to include a range of light industrial uses as permitted or conditionally permitted uses within that Zoning district and would add a new “Scheme C” land use scenario to the MCP and is more particularly described in the attached MCP Scheme C Supplement (“Zoning Amendment”);
//
Resolution/ Related Santa Clara Project – Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR Page 3 of 6 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, the Developer has simultaneously applied to amend the General Plan land use designation applicable to the Project Site to allow for a range of light industrial uses within the Urban Center/Entertainment District (“General Plan Amendment”); WHEREAS, the Developer has also requested to amend its existing Development Agreement (“DA”) with the City to incorporate provisions related to the Proposed Project (“DA Amendment”), and City staff have negotiated and recommended the DA Amendment; WHEREAS, the Developer has also requested to amend its existing DDA with the City, as previously amended, to incorporate provisions related to the Proposed Project (“DDA Amendment”), and City staff have negotiated and recommended the DDA Amendment (the DDA Amendment, together with the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, and DA Amendment are the “Project Approvals”);
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council held a Study Session focused on the Proposed Project, public comments and the Project Approvals;
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes are necessary but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR, have occurred;
WHEREAS, in 2020 and 2021, the City adopted First, Second, and Third Addenda to the 2016 Santa Clara City Place EIR in connection with its approval of the Development Area Plan (“DAP”) for Phase 1, the DAP for Phase 2, and the City Place Revised Soil Import and Earthwork Plans Project, respectively (together, the First, Second, and Third Addenda to the 2016 EIR constitute the “Santa Clara City Place EIR”);
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that all potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project were thoroughly analyzed, the City caused a fourth Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR (“Addendum”) to be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; //
Resolution/ Related Santa Clara Project – Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR Page 4 of 6 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, following an analysis of the Proposed Project’s changes, no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts were discovered, and the Proposed Project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable and identified in the MMRP included as Appendix A to the Addendum;
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing , opened and closed for public comments, and at the conclusion of which , the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council adopt the Addendum; WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its independent judgement and reviewed and considered the Santa Clara City Place EIR and the Addendum and concluded that, for the reasons set forth in the Addendum, no further environmental review is required for the modifications to the Approved Project contemplated by the Proposed Project; WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025, a notice of public hearing the July 8, 2025, City Council Hearing for this item was published in the Santa Clara Weekly;
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025, the notice of public hearings for the July 8, 2025 , City Council Hearing for this item was mailed to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the Project Site boundaries;
WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 18.146.020, on June 26, 2025, notice of the City Council Hearing on July 8, 2025, was posted at City Hall, the Central Park Library, the Mission Branch Library, the Northside Branch Library, and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR, the MMRP included as Appendix A to the Addendum identifying applicable mitigation measures from the original MMRP, the Project Approvals, and all pertinent information in the record during which the City Council invited and considered any and all verbal and written testimony and evidence offered in favor of and in opposition to the Proposed Project.
Resolution/ Related Santa Clara Project – Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR Page 5 of 6 Rev: 7/27/2023
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. T he City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.
2. The City Council hereby finds that the Proposed Project would not cause substantial changes to the Approved Project that would require major revisions to the Santa Clara City Place EIR due to the involvement of new or more severe significant environmental effects .
3. The City Council further finds that no substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Proposed Project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the Santa Clara City Place EIR due to the involvement of new or more severe significant environmental effects.
4. The City Council also finds that there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with reasonable diligence at the time the Santa Clara City Place EIR was certified, that shows (1) that the Proposed Project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR, (2) significant effects previously examined in the EIR would be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR, (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed project, but the Developer declined to adopt the mitigation or alternative, or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Developer declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
5. The City Council further finds that this Addendum does not require any new mitigation measures, because the Proposed Project would not cause new significant impacts not previously identified and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible in the Santa Clara City Place EIR. //
//
//
6. The City Council finds that no new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts have been identified compared to the Santa Clara City Place EIR, and therefore none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review are present. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the changes and additions to the Santa Clara City Place EIR necessary to analyze the Proposed Project are appropriately detailed in the Addendum, which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference.
7. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Community Development as the Custodian of Records for the Project, and the Planning Division at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, is the location of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.
8. 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 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED : COUNCILORS:
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR
Cox, Gonzalez, and Hardy, and Mayor Gillmor
Chahal, Jain, and Park
None
None
ATTEST~
NORAPIMENTaMMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/ Related Santa Clara Project-Addendum to the Santa Clara City Place EIR Rev: 7/27/2023
RELATED SANTA CLARA REVISED LAND USE
CEQA Addendum 4
Prepared for June 2025
City of Santa Clara
RELATED SANTA CLARA REVISED LAND USE
CEQA Addendum 4
Prepared for June 2025
City of Santa Clara
D201901172.02
180 Grand Avenue
Suite 1050
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.5066
esassoc.com
Bend
Irvine
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Beach County
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
Rancho Cucamonga
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Barbara
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
Thousand Oaks
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use i ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
CONTENTS
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use CEQA
Addendum 4
Page
1. General Project Information ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Title.......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................................ 1
1.3 Planning/CEQA File Number .............................................................................................. 1
1.4 C ontact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 1
1.5 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 1
1.6 Project Applicant’s Name and Address ............................................................................... 2
1.7 Existing G eneral Plan Designation ...................................................................................... 2
1.8 Existing Zoning .................................................................................................................... 2
1.9 Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................................ 2
2. Background ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Planning Context ................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 CEQA Context ..................................................................................................................... 5
3. Purpose and Determination ...................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Determination ...................................................................................................................... 8
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C ..................................................................... 9
4.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Project Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 14
5. Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................... 23
6. CEQA Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 24
6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 24
6.2 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 27
6.3 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 34
6.4 Transportation and Circulation .......................................................................................... 39
6.5 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 53
6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 65
6.7 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 68
6.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 75
6.9 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 78
6.10 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 83
6.11 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 86
6.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 91
6.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 96
6.14 Public Services and Recreation ...................................................................................... 100
6.15 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 106
Contents
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use ii ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Figures
Figure 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2 City Place Parcels ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3 Existing Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4 Scheme C Conceptual Land Use Plan Ground Floor ................................................... 16 Figure 5 Scheme C Street Network ............................................................................................ 19 Figure 6 Truck Access to / from Northeast Parcels .................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 1 Land Use Development Comparison by Scheme......................................................... 17 Table 6.2-1 Scheme C FAR ............................................................................................................. 30 Table 6.4-1 Trip Generation Total AM Peak Hour ............................................................................ 48 Table 6.4-2 Trip Generation Total PM Peak Hour ............................................................................ 48 Table 6.4-3 Trip Generation Total Daily Peak Hour ......................................................................... 48 Table 6.5-1 Comparison of Approved Project and Scheme C Operational Criteria Air Pollutants ................................................................................................................... 56 Table 6.5-2 Scaled Project-Level Construction Health Risk ............................................................ 58 Table 6.5-3 Scheme C Maximum Project Operation Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk ........................ 60 Table 6.5-4 Scheme C Maximum Project Operation Chronic Hazard Index ................................... 61 Table 6.5-5 Scheme C Maximum Project Operation PM2.5 Concentrations .................................... 62 Table 6.13-1 Scheme C Population Growth....................................................................................... 98 Table 6.13-2 Comparison of Population Growth by Scheme ............................................................. 98 Table 6.15-1 Comparison of Water Demand (AFY) ......................................................................... 108 Table 6.15-2 Comparison of Wastewater Generation by Scheme (GPD) ....................................... 109
Appendices
A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Related Santa Clara Scheme C Traffic Report
C. Related Santa Clara Scheme C Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Report D. Related Santa Clara Scheme C Noise Report
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 1 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
RELATED SANTA CLARA REVISED LAND USE
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Addendum 4
1. General Project Information
1.1 Project Title
Related Santa Clara Scheme C
1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Santa Clara
Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
1.3 Planning/CEQA File Number
PLN2019-14249 (PLN2014‐10554/CEQ2014‐01180/SCH2014072078)
1.4 C ontact Person and Phone Number
Nimisha Agrawal, Senior Planner
Planning Division
[email protected]
408-615-2450
1.5 Projec t Location
The Scheme C Project site is the same as the site for the City Place Santa Clara Project or Approved Project. The Project site is located on seven City-owned parcels totaling approximately 240 acres. The 2016 EIR designated the seven existing APNs as five development parcels as follows: APN 097-01-073 (became Parcel 1, previously APN 097-01-69), APN 097-01-039 (became Parcel 2), APN 104-01-102 (became Parcel 3), APN 104-03-036 (became Parcel 4), and APNs 104-03-41, 104-03-42 and 104-03-043 (became Parcel 5, previously APNs 104-03-38 and 104-03-39). For the purposes of this analysis, and to be consistent with the nomenclature used in the 2016 EIR, the Project site includes a total of five development parcels. The Project site is generally located north of Tasman Drive, east of Great America Parkway and San Tomas Aquino Creek, west of the Guadalupe River, and south of Great America Way and State Route (SR) 237.
1. General Project Information
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 2 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
1.6 Projec t Applicant’s Name and Address
Related Santa Clara
5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532
Santa Clara, CA 95054
1.7 Existing G eneral Plan Designation
Urban Center/Entertainment District
1.8 Existing Zoning
Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC)
1.9 Permits and Approvals
The Approved Project has received a number of approvals and permits, including but not limited to the following: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Master Community Plan (MCP) and Infrastructure Master Plan, Tentative Map, Development Agreement, Development Area Plan (DAP) 1 and 2, Tentative Map for DAP 1, Architectural Approval DAP 1 and 2.
1.9.1 Actions by the City of Santa Clara
The following discretionary approvals by the City would be required to implement Scheme C prior to development of Scheme C at the Project site and would be informed by the CEQA Addendum:
• City Council approval of an amendment to the Master Community Plan consistent with the uses described in this CEQA Addendum.
• City Council approval of an amendment to the Development Agreement to implement aspects of Scheme C.
• City Council approval of an amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement to implement aspects of Scheme C.
• City Council approval of DAPs implementing Scheme C, consistent with the uses described in this CEQA Addendum.
• Community Development Director approval of Architectural Review. • City approval of tentative subdivision maps.
1.9.2 Actions by Other Agencies
No actions by other agencies are anticipated beyond the approvals listed in the 2016 EIR.
2. Background
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 3 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
2. Background
2.1 Planning Context
On June 28, 2016, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clara (City) certified an Environmental Impact Report for the City Place Santa Clara Project. The City also approved General Plan amendments, zoning amendments (including a Master Community Plan) and other entitlements for the City Place Santa Clara Project. For the purposes of this CEQA Addendum analysis, the City Place Santa Clara Project EIR (2016 EIR) for the City Place Santa Clara Project (City Place Project) comprises the City Place Santa Clara Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2015 (DEIR); the City Place Santa Clara Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2016, and subsequent addenda to the EIR.
The 2016 EIR analyzed the City Place Santa Clara Project, which includes conversion of 240 acres of City-owned property into a multi-phase, mixed-use development. 1 In connection with City Council
Resolution No. 16-8337 certifying the 2016 EIR, the City Council adopted CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 2 to Resolution No. 16-8337) (the “CEQA Findings”). As set forth in the CEQA Findings, the City adopted the Enhanced Open Space Variant (EOS Variant), incorporating the Increased Housing Alternative (IHA), which could be developed as EOS Scheme A or EOS Scheme B (as described in the CEQA Findings, the “Approved Project”). On March 24, 2020, the City adopted a First Addendum to the 2016 EIR in connection with its approval of the Development Area Plan for Phase 1 (DAP 1) for the Project. A Second Addendum to the 2016 EIR was prepared for the DAP for Phase 2 DAP 2. Architectural review of DAP 1 was approved in March 2020 and Architectural review of DAP 2 was approved in May 2021. A Third Addendum to the 2016 EIR was also prepared for the City Place Revised Soil Import and Earthwork Plans Project in 2021.
The Approved Project entails demolition of the existing buildings and on-site features and establishment of a new mixed-use City neighborhood with a defined center to serve as a focal point for a pedestrian- oriented “live, work, and play” environment. The 2016 EIR evaluated the proposed land uses for the Project site by breaking down the approximately 240 acres into five development parcels: Parcel 1 (36.8 acres), Parcel 2 (60.9 acres), Parcel 3 (34.9 acres), Parcel 4 (86.6 acres), and Parcel 5 (8 acres), which were to be further subdivided and developed in approximately seven phases pursuant to the approved MCP (described below) and subsequent Development Area Plans (DAP). The Project site also includes the Eastside Retention Basin (12.8 acres). The 2016 EIR analyzed four variants to vehicular access, four alternatives, and an additional EOS Variant. As noted above, the Increased Housing Alternative and EOS Variant were adopted as the Approved Project and are reflected in the approved MCP.
The Approved Project includes up to 9.16 million gross square feet (gsf) of office buildings, retail and entertainment facilities, residential units, hotel rooms, and surface and structured parking facilities. The Approved Project includes large, shared open spaces throughout the Project site; new pedestrian and vehicular entrances and roadway networks; new roads; new, upgraded, and expanded infrastructure; and new utilities, with improvements to offsite connections. In addition, the Approved Project includes construction of a fire station to replace the existing Santa Clara Fire Station 10 (Fire Station 10), which
1 Although the City Place Santa Clara Project is now referred to as “Related Santa Clara,” this addendum uses “City Place Santa Clara” as that is consistent with the naming in the CEQA documents and the Master Community Plan.
2. Background
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 4 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
will be demolished to accommodate the Approved Project. The Approved Project includes a height limit allowing construction of buildings up to a height of 17 stories above the internal street level.2 The majority of the Approved Project is located over the former Santa Clara All-Purpose Landfill (Landfill), and therefore includes the following additional activities: constructing foundation systems that minimize disturbance to, and preserve the integrity of, landfill components; relocating, upgrading, and/or replacing, as necessary, the existing groundwater monitoring network, leachate collection system, and landfill gas collection and removal systems; and installing new landfill gas mitigation systems beneath, and in, the newly constructed structures. The City intends to retain ownership of the Project site and operational responsibility for the Landfill.
The 2016 EIR analyzed two conceptual land use schemes (Scheme A and Scheme B) for the Approved Project site to capture the range of possible land uses that could be developed. Both schemes include a building area of up to 9.16 million gsf. Under Scheme A, the uses for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 are primarily office uses, and Parcels 4 and 5 are devoted to mixed-use development consisting of commercial uses, including retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses along with offices, a hotel, and multi-family residential uses (up to 1,680 units). Scheme B includes the same development scheme and building area at Parcels 1 and 3 as Scheme A and includes retail along with office uses at Parcel 2. Scheme B does not include residential uses at Parcel 4; instead, office development equal in area to the residential development in Scheme A is included, along with the same amount of space for the hotel, retail, entertainment venues, and open space areas. Development at Parcel 5 includes the same amount of residential, hotel, retail, and office uses under both schemes. Ultimately, neither Scheme A nor Scheme B were adopted precisely as presented in the DEIR.
The 2016 EIR analyzed an Increased Housing Alternative that replaces the 320,000 gsf of office space planned for Parcel 4 under Scheme A with 320,000 gsf of residential space, resulting in 320 additional residential units, for a total of approximately 1,680 residential units at the Project site. The Increased Housing Alternative was framed to include the same amount of retail, hotel, and entertainment uses as Scheme A.
The 2016 EIR also analyzed the EOS Variant. This variant was applied to both Scheme A and Scheme B and was analyzed in Exhibit A to the 2016 EIR. Under the EOS Variant, Parcel 3 is retained by the City and reserved for park use. The overall development square footage is not reduced under this variant.
Rather, the 720,000 gsf of office use and associated parking in Parcel 3 analyzed in the DEIR is reallocated to other parcels.
Scheme A and Scheme B result in the same off-site vehicular site access configuration, interior roads and circulation (including through the existing Retention Basin area, Tasman East Specific Plan Area, and Convention Center parking area), open space areas, utility infrastructure improvements, and potential fire station locations.
2 The maximum allowable height of the Approved Project at 17 stories, or 190 feet, is measured against the finished grade of the on-site streets. This is within Federal Aviation Administration height limits; the Approved Project proposed buildings would not exceed 219 feet above mean sea level (msl).
2. Background
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 5 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
On June 28, 2016, the City certified the 2016 EIR, approved General Plan Amendments, and approved the Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning and accompanying MCP to allow for the phased development of the Approved Project. As noted above, the City adopted the Increased Housing Alternative and EOS Variant as the Approved Project. The Approved Project is reflected in the MCP to which future development on the site is required to conform. Specifically, the MCP sets forth the development standards, design guidelines, phasing constructs, project implementation procedures, development transfer provisions among parcels, permitted and conditional uses allowed within the proposed land use areas, and City approval standards for DAP applications. It anticipates up to seven potential phases of development, each of which would be governed by a DAP.
2.2 CEQA Context
The City Place Santa Clara Project EIR was certified June 28, 2016. This 2016 EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available to the public upon request during regular working hours at the City of Santa Clara Planning Division at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, 95050, and for all-hours access on the City of Santa Clara Planning Division website at http://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/135/3650.
As described above, the 2016 EIR analyzed project alternatives and variants along with two conceptual land use schemes for the Project site to capture the range of possible land uses that could be developed, and the City Council adopted the Approved Project pursuant to the CEQA Findings. Individual DAPs must be consistent with the MCP, which permits some flexibility in location, amount, and type of future development in terms of the precise mix of newly developed land uses and their location within the Project site.
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in no impacts on the following resource considerations: aesthetics (adversely affect scenic vistas), biological resources (plant species, habitat conservation plan), cultural resources (changes to historic resources), geology and soils (alternative waste water system), hazards and hazardous materials (private airstrip, wildland fires), hydrology and water quality (seiche, tsunami, or mudflow), land use (physical division of an established community), noise (private airstrip), population and housing (housing displacement), utilities and service systems (solid waste regulation), agricultural or forestry resources, and mineral resources.
Less-than-significant impacts were identified for the following resource considerations in the 2016 EIR:
air quality (carbon monoxide CO concentrations, asbestos), biological resources (consistency with Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources including the Heritage Tree Ordinance), geology and soils (ground shaking or a seismic event), hazards and hazardous materials (routine hazardous materials use, proximity to schools, aviation hazards, emergency access routes), hydrology and water quality (groundwater supplies, flooding due to levee or dam failure), population and housing (employment displacement), public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems (water supplies, landfill capacity).
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in impacts on the following resource considerations that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures: aesthetics (degradation of existing visual character, new light or glare), air quality (emissions of criteria air pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants during construction, odors), biological resources (special status fish or wildlife species, wetlands), cultural resources (archaeological, human
2. Background
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 6 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
remains, paleontological resources), geology and soils (soil erosion, unstable soils), hazards and hazardous materials (accidental release during construction; the presence of hazardous materials in areas not underlain by the Landfill; landfill-related hazards including landfill gas, contaminated soils or groundwater, and subsurface fires), hydrology and water quality (water quality standards, drainage, and stormwater runoff), noise (construction noise, vibration), and utilities and service systems (construction of water delivery and stormwater generation and drainage systems, energy).
Significant unavoidable impacts were identified for the following environmental resource considerations in the 2016 EIR: air quality (emissions of criteria air pollutants during operation, conflicts with implementation of the applicable air quality plan), biological resources (interference with movement of native migratory wildlife species), greenhouse gas emissions (generation of greenhouse gas emissions, conflict with an applicable plan); land use (land use policy/new [unplanned] housing demand); noise (operational noise in excess of applicable standards); utilities and service systems (cumulative landfill capacity, cumulative energy). Due to the potential for significant unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of approval of the project in 2016.
2.2.1 2016 EIR – Secondary Environmental Effects
The 2016 EIR analysis found secondary significant impacts could result from construction of new offsite transportation improvements and a new soundwall that were required pursuant to identified mitigation measures. The analysis also identified mitigation measures, labeled with “IM” for improvement measure and “SW” for soundwall in Appendix A, to reduce, eliminate, or avoid these significant secondary impacts that could result from implementation of the required off-site transportation improvements and the soundwall. Scheme C does not include and would not require revisions to the off-site transportation improvements or the soundwall mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the 2016 EIR. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Section 6 below, Scheme C does not trigger new mitigation measures for which secondary impacts would occur. Therefore, all mitigation measures are included in Appendix A, 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, including mitigation measures addressing secondary impacts, which are the same mitigation measures as was required for the Approved Project pursuant to the 2016 EIR and Scheme C does not require or trigger any new analysis of secondary environmental impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 EIR.
2.2.2 Cumulative Scenario
The 2016 EIR included a cumulative effects analysis for the Approved Project based on specific local projects in the City and adjacent cities, full implementation of City and County general plans, and where applicable, full implementation of the general plans of the nine Bay Area counties and associated cities.
Since the 2016 EIR, the cumulative scenario has evolved. For example, the 2016 EIR cumulative scenario assumed approximately 4,100 units would be developed near Tasman Drive and Calle del Sol under the Tasman East Specific Plan (see 2016 EIR Figure 3.0-1, Cumulative Projects within a Three-Mile Radius).
On November 13, 2018, the Santa Clara City Council adopted the Tasman East Specific Plan which targeted the development of 4,500 units including units along Calle del Mundo. Since 2018, the City has proposed an amendment to the Tasman East Specific Plan that would allow an additional 1,500 units, for a total of 6,000 units within the existing Specific Plan boundaries. 3 However, even though the cumulative
3 City of Santa Clara. Tasman East Specific Plan, updated February 28, 2023. Available: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our- city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans/tasman-east. Accessed May 15, 2024.
2. Background
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 7 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
scenario has evolved, it is substantially consistent with what was analyzed in 2016 for the purposes of CEQA. The analysis set forth in this Addendum has taken into account changes in the cumulative scenario relevant to each specific topic area, as discussed below.
The 2016 EIR evaluated cumulative impacts where the Approved Project would result in a project-related impact, whether it be less than significant, significant, or significant and unavoidable. If the Approved Project were to result in no impact with respect to a particular threshold, the 2016 EIR determined it could not cause or contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would have no cumulative impact. As described in the checklist below, similar to the Approved Project, Scheme C would have no impact (either direct or indirect) related to land use and planning (physical division of an established community, conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan), aesthetics (scenic resources along a State Scenic Highway or scenic vista), cultural resources (historic resources), biological resources (special-status plant species, conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan), geology and soils (soils capable of supporting septic tanks and alternative wastewater systems), hydrology and water quality (flooding by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows), hazards and hazardous materials (aviation hazards for private airstrip operations, wildland fire hazards), population and housing (displacement of existing housing), utilities and service systems (exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements, complying with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste). Similar to the Approved Project, Scheme C would also result in no impact with respect to these thresholds, and therefore could not cause or contribute to any cumulative effect on these considerations.
The 2016 EIR determined the incremental impacts of the Approved Project, in combination with the incremental impacts of other projects, would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to land use and planning (policies aimed at improving the City’s job/housing balance), air quality (criteria air pollutants) greenhouse gas emissions, noise (expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards), population and housing (induce substantial population growth and housing demand), utilities and service systems (landfill capacity, energy demands). Additionally, as described in the specific resource sections below, the 2016 EIR identified less-than-significant and significant and mitigated cumulative impacts. As described in the checklist below, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified resource impacts, including those that would result in a less than significant, significant and mitigated, or significant and unavoidable impact.
Therefore, even though the cumulative scenario has evolved, it is substantially consistent with what was analyzed in 2016 for the purposes of CEQA, and Scheme C’s incremental contribution would not result in new or more severe significant cumulative impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
3. Purpose and Determination
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 8 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
3. Purpose and Determination
3.1 Purpose
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) provides that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions of Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (see Section 6.1 below for a description of those conditions). The Guidelines provide that a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum, the lead agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the record, and require that decision to be supported by substantial evidence. The purpose of this Addendum is to: describe Scheme C in comparison to the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR; provide the required brief explanation of the decision that Scheme C does not give rise to the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report; and summarize the substantial evidence supporting that conclusion.
A subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is not required for Scheme C because none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 (Supplement to an EIR) calling for the preparation of a supplemental EIR have occurred.
3.2 Determination
The information presented in this Fourth Addendum to the 2016 EIR explains the substantial evidence supporting a finding that Scheme C does not call for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report and therefore the only additional CEQA documentation necessary is an addendum under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 9 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
4.1 Project Location
The Scheme C Project site is the same 240-acre site as the Approved Project, consisting of the same five development parcels and the Eastside Retention Basin identified in the 2016 EIR. The Project site is generally located north of Tasman Drive, east of Great America Parkway and San Tomas Aquino Creek, west of the Guadalupe River, and south of Great America Way and State Route (SR) 237 (see Figures 1 and 2). The General Plan land use designation is Urban Center/Entertainment District and the Zoning district is Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC). As noted above, development on the Project site is governed by the approved MCP dated April 2017. The MCP established a maximum building height limit across the Project site of 219 feet above mean sea level (msl) which it determined to be consistent with Airport Land Use Commission regulations.
4.1.1 2024 Existing Site Conditions and Surrounding Context According to the 2016 EIR, most of the site was historically utilized as the Santa Clara All-Purpose Landfill, which ceased accepting waste in 1993 and received final closure certification in September 1994. As of 2024, the following existing uses are in and surrounding the Project site:
Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club
A portion of the Landfill was closed by the late 1970s and early 1980s and was subsequently converted to a municipal golf course in 1986 by the City’s Sports & Open Space Authority. The City-owned golf course was operated by the City’s Sports & Open Space Authority under a management agreement with the American Golf Corporation and ceased operation in 2019. The former golf course was located on 155 acres of the Project site (the majority of the area west of Lafayette Street and the southern portion to the east of Lafayette Street). In addition to the golf course itself, the Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club facilities included a clubhouse with a restaurant, a banquet facility, seven lighted tennis courts, locker rooms, extensive practice facilities, and a maintenance facility. Also included at the golf course was a lighted and covered driving range, a putting green, a chipping green, a practice bunker, and surface parking lots. The former Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club was located on Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
As of 2024, the former golf course is no longer being maintained and primarily consists of unmaintained, dry vegetation, scattered trees, and a network of former golf cart pathways. The Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club facilities and seven tennis courts are still present immediately north of Stars and Stripes Drive.
The portion of Parcel 5 to the south of Stars and Stripes Drive is currently undeveloped, paved, and is being utilized as surface parking. A bridge for pedestrians and golf carts spans Lafayette Street, connecting the eastern and western areas of the former golf course.
Caribbean Dr
Crossman Ave
Great America Pkwy
Lawrence Expy
N. Fair Oaks
Ave
Montague Expy
Duane Ave
Tasman Dr
Tasman Dr
1st St
California’s
Great
America
Levi
Stadium
Levi
Stadium
Lakehaven Dr
Mission College Blvd
237
101
Parcel 1
Parcel 2Parcel 3
Parcel 4
Parcel 5Parcel 5
0 2000
FeetN
SOURCE: ESA, 2020
Figure 1
Project Location
Pacific Ocean
NOVATO
SAN
RAFAEL
SUNNYVALLESUNNYVALLE
SAN
JOSE
FREMONT
HAYWARD
SAN
RAMON
WALNUT
CREEK
CONCORD
SANTA ROSA
NAPA
FAIRFIELD
ALAMEDA
SAN
FRANCISCO
DALY
CITY
BERKELEY
VALLEJO
VACAVILLE
REDWOOD
CITY
SAN
MATEO
REDWOOD
CITY
SAN
MATEO
OAKLAND
Project Site
RICHMOND
101
80 680
580
880
280
280
101
Related Santa Clara Scheme C
2019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator 237
Great Am
erica Way
SANTA CLARASANTA CLARA
SAN JOSÉ
SUNNYVALE
SAN JOSÉ
SUNNYVALE
237
Tasman Dr
Old Mountain View–Alviso Rd
Lafayette St
Calle de Luna
Calle del Mundo
Southbay Fwy
Great America Pkwy
Stars & Stripes Dr.
Tasman Dr
Old Mountain View–Alviso Rd
Lafayette St
Calle de Luna
Calle del Mundo
Southbay Fwy
Great America Pkwy
Great Am
erica Way
Stars & St
ripes Dr.
Santa Clara
Convention
Center
Six Flags
Great America
Levi's
Stadium
Santa Clara
Convention
Center
Six Flags
Great America
Levi's
Stadium
Gu
adalupe River
San Tomas
Aquino
Creek
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 3
Figure 2
City Place Parcels
Related Santa Clara Scheme CSOURCE: Related Santa Clara; Google Earth, 20242019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator 0 1000
FeetN
Project Site
City Limits
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 12 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Santa Clara Fire Station 10
Santa Clara Fire Station 10, previously located at 5111 Stars and Stripes Drive, opened in 1986 and closed in March 2020.4 The 7,364 gsf fire station building has been demolished .
Santa Clara P.A.L. Track
A BMX track, currently operated by the Santa Clara Police Activities League (PAL) BMX, is also located on the former Landfill in the northeast portion (Parcel 1) of the Project site at 5401 Lafayette Street.
Races occur on Tuesday and Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons during the racing season (which runs continuously from January 1st through December 15th).
5 Riders are permitted to practice during signup
times and after races finish. Two-wheel bikes are used for BMX racing, and bikes are available to rent.
The facility includes a dirt track and racecourse, gates, a paved parking area, a snack bar, and lighting for nighttime use.
Ameresco Methane Plant
On Parcel 1, adjacent to the BMX track on Lafayette Street, is a methane power plant, which was commissioned in 2009 and is currently owned and operated by Ameresco. The current landfill gas collection system includes a series of vertical wells, horizontal conveyance piping, and manifolds connecting to processing or generation equipment at the Ameresco facility.
Surface Parking Lots
Parcel 5 is located between Stars and Stripes Drive to the north and Tasman Drive to the south and is split by the 90-foot-wide Centennial Boulevard. Parcel 5 is currently undeveloped and is used as temporary parking and staging areas for Levi’s Stadium, across Tasman Drive to the south. The parking lots are accessed from Stars and Stripes Drive, which also provides access to the existing City parking garage to the west. The existing surface cover at the parking lot consists of pavement and unmaintained vegetation.
Retention Basin
The northern portion of the Project site, south of SR 237, also includes the existing 12.8-acre Eastside Storm Retention Basin (Retention Basin) located at 5611 Lafayette Street and built in 1973. The basin includes a large retention pond with a surface area of approximately 5.3 acres. According to the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 Adopted Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget, the Storm Water Retention Basin Remediation Project was proposed in 2010 to remove silt, debris, and other deposits from the Westside and Eastside Retention Basins and the Tasman Swale. The two basins and the Tasman Swale have collected significant sediment since their construction and need to be dredged to restore their original line, grade and capacity to provide flood protection to the community. In 2018, the Westside Retention Basin was successfully desilted. As of 2024, the desilting work for the Eastside Retention Basin and the Tasman Swale have yet to be completed. 6 According to the Santa Clara County
Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, funding for the design of the project was transferred to the
4 City of Santa Clara, 2020. Fire Station 10 to Close by March 1, 2020. Available: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/ departments-a-f/fire-department/fire-station-10-to-close-by-march-1-2020. Accessed April 8, 2024. 5 Santa Clara Police Activities League, 2023. BMX. Available: https://santaclarapal.org/bmx/. Accessed April 8, 2024. 6 City of Santa Clara. FY 2022/23 and FY 2023/24 Adopted Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget. Available:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/finance. Accessed April 8, 2024.
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 13 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Laurelwood Storm drain pump station rehabilitation project, which was considered a higher priority. The Eastside Retention Basins and the Tasman Swale is unfunded.7 Although the 12.8-acre Retention Basin is a part of Parcel 1, no development has been proposed for this portion of the Project site other than a roadway connection to Great America Parkway that is approved to run adjacent to the retention pond.
Surrounding Context
Regional access to the Project site includes SR 237 to the north and US 101 approximately 1.5 miles to the south. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates several light rail stops along Tasman Drive to the south of the Project site, including the Champion Station, Lick Mill Station, and Great America Station. Amtrak, Capital Corridor, and Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) operate in the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way and provide service to the project area at the Great America Station located at Lafayette Street and Tasman Drive. Bicycle and pedestrian access are also provided from the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail via a bridge over the creek to the west of the Project site. This bridge is currently closed, and access is provided via Tasman Drive. In addition, the Guadalupe River Trail is located to the east of the Project site, although no linkages directly connect the Project site with this trail.
As of 2024, existing uses adjacent to the Project site include Levi’s Stadium and Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park located across Tasman Drive, to the south of Parcel 5. The Tasman East Specific Plan Area is located to the south of Parcel 2. The Tasman East Specific Plan was a 46-acre industrial neighborhood bounded by Tasman Drive to the south, the Guadalupe River to the east, the Project site to the north, and Lafayette Street to the west. On November 13, 2018, the Santa Clara City Council adopted the Tasman East Specific Plan which created a framework for the development of a high-density transit-oriented neighborhood along with supportive retail services. The Specific Plan would allow construction of up to 4,500 dwelling units and up to 106,000 square feet of retail space including a 25,000 square foot grocery store.
8 The Specific Plan also incorporates connections to the existing Guadalupe River trail, potential locations for parkland, and strategies for better access to transit. On November 17, 2020, the City adopted Specific Plan Amendment #1 which allows for the replacement of a street extension of Calle Del Sol with a pedestrian and bicycle paseo; it also allows for additional methods of site-wide transportation demand management measures. An Amendment to the City’s Transit Neighborhood Zoning District was also approved, which would allow for nonresidential uses to be permitted within the first three floors of new mixed-use buildings. The City has proposed an amendment to the Tasman East Specific Plan that would allow an additional 1,500 units within the existing Specific Plan boundaries. 9 As of 2024, the Tasman
East Specific Plan Area consists of newly constructed residential uses, some of which are in the final stage of construction and are currently unoccupied, located along Calle del Mundo.
7 IEM, 2023. Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023 Update, June 20, 2023.Available:
https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb261/files/2023-07/City%20of%20Santa%20Clara_Annex%20 Draft_6.20.2023.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2023.
8 City of Santa Clara. Tasman East Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2018. Available:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/58796/636683060964930000. Accessed May 15, 2024. 9 City of Santa Clara. Tasman East Specific Plan, updated February 28, 2023. Available: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our- city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans/tasman-east. Accessed May 15, 2024.
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 14 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Additional residential uses are located to the south of the Project site, across Tasman Drive. The Santa Clara Convention Center (Convention Center) is located across the San Tomas Aquino Creek, to the southwest of Parcel 4. The San José Mineta International Airport is located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Project site. Office buildings and their surrounding surface parking lots are located to the north and northwest of Parcel 3. Office buildings and single-family residential homes are located across SR 237, to the north of Parcel 1. Residential uses are located across the Guadalupe River, to the east of the Project site. The surrounding uses located to the north of SR 237 and the east of the Guadalupe River are within the San José city limits. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 0.5 mile north of the Project site. California’s Great America Amusement Park is located approximately 0.4 mile south of the Project site. Figure 3 depicts the uses on and adjacent to the Project site.
4.2 Project Characteristics
The Project Applicant proposes changes to the Approved Project that was analyzed in the 2016 EIR and described in the MCP. The proposed changes, defined as “Scheme C,” are described in the proposed “MCP Scheme C Supplement.” Scheme C would retain the total approved gross square footage of the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, Scheme C would involve the demolition of the existing buildings and on-site features at the Project site and the construction of a new multi-phased, mixed-use development. Scheme C would still include up to 9.16 million gsf of development including office buildings, retail and entertainment facilities, residential units, hotel rooms, new open spaces, new roads, and new upgraded and expanded infrastructure.
However, Scheme C would introduce a new land use classification with approximately 1.6 million square feet of light industrial use in the northeastern area of the Project site (Parcels 1 and 2 or northeast parcels).
The proposed light industrial land use would reduce density on the northeast parcels and increase density of the approved uses allowed within the City Center area of the site (on the blocks located in Parcel 4).
Scheme C would revise the site circulation and access configuration for Parcels 1 and 2 by removing the previously planned connection of Parcels 1 and 2 to the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension in the Tasman East Specific Plan Area adjacent to the Project site.
Under the current MCP, the building height limit across the Project site is 219 feet above mean sea level (msl), which it finds to be consistent with ALUC regulations. The proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10- 12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively.
The Scheme C site plan is shown in Figure 4. Table 1 provides a development comparison by scheme. 237
Great Am
erica Way
SANTA CLARASANTA CLARA
SAN JOSÉ
SUNNYVALE
SAN JOSÉ
SUNNYVALE
237
Tasman Dr
Old Mountain View–Alviso Rd
Lafayette St
Calle de Luna
Calle del Mundo
Southbay Fwy
Great America Pkwy
Stars & Stripes Dr.
Tasman Dr
Old Mountain View–Alviso Rd
Lafayette St
Calle de Luna
Calle del Mundo
Southbay Fwy
Great America Pkwy
Great Am
erica Way
Stars & St
ripes Dr.
BMX
TRACK
RETENTION
POND
FORMER SANTA CLARA
FIRE STATION #10
FORMER GOLF COURSE
MAINTENANCE YARD
GREAT AMERICA STATION (VTA)
GREAT AMERICA STATION (AMTRAK/ACE)
LICK MILL STATION (VTA)
CITY VEHICLE
WASHING STATION
BMX
TRACK
FORMER
SANTA CLARA
GOLF AND
TENNIS CLUB
FORMER
SANTA CLARA
GOLF AND
TENNIS CLUB
FORMER
SANTA CLARA
GOLF AND
TENNIS CLUB
FORMER
SANTA CLARA
GOLF AND
TENNIS CLUB
RETENTION
POND
RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE/
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
SANTA CLARA
CONVENTION
CENTER
SIX FLAGS
GREAT AMERICA
LEVI'S
STADIUM
RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE/
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL/RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL/RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
SANTA CLARA
CONVENTION
CENTER
FORMER SANTA CLARA
FIRE STATION #10
FORMER GOLF COURSE
MAINTENANCE YARD
GREAT AMERICA STATION (VTA)
GREAT AMERICA STATION (AMTRAK/ACE)
LICK MILL STATION (VTA)
SIX FLAGS
GREAT AMERICA
LEVI'S
STADIUM
Gu
adalupe River
San Tomas
Aquino
Creek
CITY VEHICLE
WASHING STATION
Figure 3
Existing Land Uses
Related Santa Clara Scheme CSOURCE: ESA, 2024; Google Earth, 20242019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator 0 1000
FeetN
Project Site
City Limits
23 RELATED SANTA CLARA | MASTER COMMUNITY PLAN SCHEME C SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT 3C–3 (SCHEME C): CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN GROUND FLOOR Figure 4
Scheme C Conceptual Land Use Plan Ground Floor
Related Santa Clara Scheme CSOURCE: Related Santa Clara2019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 17 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
TABLE 1
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON BY SCHEME
Scheme A
(under IHA) Scheme B Scheme C
Difference
Scheme A to
Scheme C
Difference
Scheme B to
Scheme C
City Center Mixed Use (Parcels 4 and 5) (gsf)
Office 1,372,400 2,852,400 4,517,400 +3,145,000 +1,665,000 Retail/Food and Beverage/Entertainment 1,502,000 1,502,000 800,000 -702,000 -702,000 Residential 1,680,000
(1,680 units)
200,000
(200 units)
1,680,000
(1,680 units)
(same number
of units)
+1,480,000
(+1,480 units)
Hotel 578,000
(700 rooms)
578,000
(700 rooms)
567,000
(700 rooms)
-11,000
(same number
of rooms)
-11,000
(same number
of rooms)
Subtotal 5,132,400 5,132,400 7,564,400 +2,432,000 +2,432,000 Northeast Parcels (Parcels 1 and 2) (gsf)
Office 4,032,000 3,832,000 0 -4,032,000 -3,832,000
Retail - 200,000 0 0 -200,000
Industrial/Warehouse - - 1,600,000 +1,600,000 +1,600,000 Subtotal 4,032,000 4,032,000 1,600,000 -2,432,000 -2,432,000 Total Project (gsf) 9,164,400 9,164,400 9,164,400 0 0
NOTE:
Scheme C permits incidental retail and personal service uses primarily serving employees and customers of the principal light industrial use, not to exceed 10 percent of the floor area of the applicable building or campus. Scheme C also permits incidental office use primarily serving the administrative needs of the principal light industrial use, not to exceed 25 percent of the applicable floor area.
SOURCES:
ICF International, 2015. City Place Santa Clara Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. October 2015. Prepared for the City of Santa Clara.
Available at: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/135/3649.
Related Santa Clara, 2025. Related Santa Clara Master Community Plan Scheme C Supplement, Chapter 8C, Infrastructure Overview – Scheme C Variant. June 2025.
4.2.1 Light Industrial Land Use
As noted above, Scheme C differs from the Approved Project in that it proposes new land use on the northeast parcels. The proposed buildings under Scheme C would include up to 1,600,000 gsf of light industrial use on Parcels 1 and 2 and, as shown above in Table 1, and would increase the density of the approved uses in the southwestern area of the site (Parcel 4/City Center). Scheme C would not exceed the maximum build-out of 9.16 million square feet across the Project site specified in each development scheme.
The 1,600,000 gsf of industrial use could be built out for either a warehouse/distribution or for manufacturing. As mentioned above, the building heights on Parcels 1 and 2 would be one to two high- bay levels, or approximately 60 feet tall with up to half of the buildings reaching a height of up to 90 feet to accommodate upper-level commercial or light industrial uses. Potential warehouse uses could result in truck maneuvering and the operation of transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) as well as loading and unloading activities within the Project site.
10 Additionally, industrial uses would likely require large,
10 As described in the MCP Scheme C Supplement, refrigerated warehouse space would be permitted up to a maximum of 50 percent of the building square footage on Parcels 1 and 2.
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 18 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
packaged heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems as well as back-up diesel generators.
Furthermore, the industrial/warehouse uses on Parcels 1 and 2 could operate 24 hours per day.
Scheme C would include a General Plan Amendment to revise the generally permitted uses under the Urban Center/Entertainment District land use classification to include the proposed light industrial uses.
As described in the MCP Scheme C Supplement, permitted uses on Parcels 1 and 2 would include Small Power Plant Exempt (SPPE) data centers; incidental retail, restaurant, office and personal services; other incidental and accessory buildings and uses supporting permitted use, public and/or private parks and open spaces, and light industrial uses.
11 Permitted light industrial uses would include, but not be limited to, plants, facilities, or research laboratories with operations within an enclosed building that are not objectionable or detrimental to adjacent properties because of signing, noise, smoke, odor, dust, noxious gases, vibrations, glare, heat, fire hazards, or industrial wastes emanating from the property. Other light industrial uses include warehouses and distribution centers for storing, transferring and distributing products and materials, including logistics uses, distribution centers and “last mile” facilities for processing and redistribution of parcels within a localized region. Wholesalers would not be designed to solicit walk-in traffic. Refrigerated warehouse space would be permitted up to a maximum of 50 percent of the building square footage on Parcels 1 and 2.
4.2.2 Landscaping and Open Space
Scheme C would not alter the Approved Project’s open space concept to develop an integrated network of shared outdoor spaces and sustainable landscapes including active plazas, creational areas, and green spaces linked through planned coherent streetscapes. The residential induced requirement for dedicated park and recreation land would not change under Scheme C.
The 2016 EIR assumed that all of the approximately 1,405 trees on the Project site would be removed.
Additionally, the 2016 EIR assumed up to 234 trees would be removed in the Tasman East Specific Plan Area for the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension and up to 104 trees could be removed at the Convention Center for construction of the roadway from Great America Parkway over San Tomas Aquino Creek and the potential relocation of Fire Station 10.
4.2.3 Lick Mill Boulevard Extension/Lick Mill Connection /Site Circulation Scheme C site vehicular access would revise the Approved Project site circulation in two ways. First, Scheme C would not include the (Lick Mill Connection) of the northeast parcels to the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension in the Tasman East Specific Plan Area (see Figures 5 and 6). As outlined in the
11 The proposed General Plan Amendment and proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement include several categories of data center uses, including Non-Small Power Plant Exempt (Non-SPPE) Data Centers, Small Power Plant Exempt (SPPE) Data Centers, and Ancillary Data Centers. Non-SPPE Data Centers and Ancillary Data Centers require a minor use permit in the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement. Therefore, while Non- SPPE Data Centers and Ancillary Data Centers are not analyzed in this CEQA Addendum, they would be subject to review for consistency with the 2016 EIR in conjunction with any minor use permit that is submitted in connection with establishment of such use. As defined in the MCP Scheme C Supplement, an SPPE Data Center must have obtained a Small Power Plant Exemption from the California Energy Commission, acting as the “lead agency” under Public Resources Code Section 25541, and the development, operation and use of the SPPE Data Center must comply with all applicable mitigation measures approved by the California Energy Commission. 28 EXHIBIT 3C–5 (SCHEME C): STREET NETWORK
Lick Mill Boulevard
Connection
No Longer Proposed
Lick Mill Boulevard
Extension
Figure 5
Scheme C Street Network
Related Santa Clara Scheme CSOURCE: Related Santa Clara; Arup, 20242019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator
Table 4.2 Trip Distribution (Trucks)
Gateway / Zone
AM
2016
EIR
PM
2016
EIR
AM CSC
Model for
Background
PM CSC
Model for
Background
AM CSC
Model for
Cumulative
PM CSC
Model for
Cumulative
SR 237 West 27% 14% 33% 22% 32% 21%
SR237 East 15% 11% 22% 24% 21% 24%
Lafayette Street North 2% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4%
Sunnyvale / Old Mountain View Ave 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1%
Tasman Drive West 7% 13% 1% 11% 1% 10%
Lafayette Street South 20% 20% 31% 24% 30% 23%
Lick Mill Boulevard 7% 6% 0% 3% 0% 3%
Tasman Drive East 12% 11% 0% 2% 0% 2%
Tasman East Specific Plan -- -- 0% 0% 0% 0%
Bunker Hill Lane West Approach -- -- 0% 1% 0% 1%
Kylli Mixed-Use Site -- -- 0% 0% 1% 1%
Patrick Henry Drive SP Site -- -- 0% 0% 1% 1%
Mission College Blvd E Approach -- -- 1% 1% 1% 1%
Mission College Blvd W Approach -- -- 0% 1% 1% 1%
US 101 North -- -- 0% 0% 0% 0%
US 101 South -- -- 1% 2% 1% 2%
Bowers Ave S (Great America
Parkway South in 2016 EIR) 9% 19% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Figure 4.2: Truck Access to / from Northeast Parcel
NE
Parcel
Figure 6
Truck Access to / from Northeast Parcels
Related Santa Clara Scheme CSOURCE: Related Santa Clara; Arup, 20242019/D201901172.02 - Santa Clara Related Revised Land Use/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 21 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Tasman East Specific Plan, Lick Mill Boulevard would extend through the Tasman East Specific Plan via a connection to the easterly portion of Calle Del Mundo.12 However, Scheme C would no longer include a vehicular connection between Lick Mill Boulevard and the Project site road network.
Second, Scheme C would include a dedicated truck route to control truck movements associated with 24-hour truck operations for warehouse/distribution facilities. As shown on Figure 6, Scheme C would include a dedicated truck route that would limit truck access to and from the northeast parcels to the northern access road connecting to Lafayette Street just south of Great America Way.
4.2.4 Streetscape and Infrastructure Improvements
The 2016 EIR acknowledged that, as each phase is built, the on-site infrastructure necessary to support the development of the phase (e.g., road network, and wet and dry utility installations) would be constructed in the portion of the site where that phase is being developed. In some cases, it would be necessary to construct infrastructure in portions of the site where future phases would be developed to connect to existing infrastructure and provide a path that would serve the phase that is under development.
4.2.5 Project Construction
Consistent with the Approved Project, Scheme C’s construction activities would consist of demolition of any existing structures, concrete retaining walls, paving, concrete, and other materials; excavation and grading; foundation and below-grade construction; construction of the buildings and finishing interiors; and construction of required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site. In addition, consistent with the Approved Project, construction activities would include a phased reconfiguration, replacement and modernization of portions of the existing Landfill operations monitoring, collection, and removal systems.
Scheme C would result in the same construction-related import and off-haul trips as described and analyzed in the 2021 City Place Revised Soil Import and Earthwork Plans Project Addendum to the 2016 EIR.
Scheme C could alter the construction phasing such that Parcels 1 and 2 are built and operational prior to the development of other project parcels. The increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the overall construction timeline for the City Center parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time. Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
4.2.6 Sustainability and Efficiency
Scheme C would not result in a change of sustainability features compared to the Approved Project.
Consistent with the Approved Project, Scheme C would pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification or incorporate equivalent measures. Additionally, Scheme C would install low-flow fixtures, implement a 10 percent indoor and 20 percent outdoor water use reduction strategy, and ensure a 50 percent solid waste reduction consistent with the design features outlined for the
12 City of Santa Clara. Tasman East Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2018. Available:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/58796/636683060964930000. Accessed May 15, 2024.
4. Related Santa Clara Revised Project Scheme C
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 22 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Approved Project. In accordance with 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-1.2, Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures, Scheme C would obtain renewable energy electricity corresponding to 29 percent of on-site electricity demand by 2030 through a combination of on-site solar photovoltaic systems, purchase of renewable energy, or other measures. Additionally, as stated in the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement, Scheme C would design office buildings against an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) target of 61.50 thousand British thermal units (kBtu) per square foot per year, which is expected to result in lower energy use for office space due to the use of less natural gas.
5. Summary of Findings
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 23 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
5. Su mmary of Findings
An evaluation of Scheme C is provided in the CEQA analysis in Section 6 that follows. This evaluation concludes that, on the basis of the substantial evidence, Scheme C qualifies for an addendum. Considering the proposed General Plan Amendment, Scheme C is consistent with the development density and land use characteristics established by the City of Santa Clara General Plan and zoning, and any potential environmental impacts associated with its development were adequately analyzed and covered by the analysis in the 2016 EIR.
Scheme C would be required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2016 EIR and approved in connection with the overall project approvals in 2016 (presented in Appendix A to this document). With implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, Scheme C would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the 2016 EIR or result in any new significant impacts that were not previously identified in the 2016 EIR.
The 2016 EIR analyzed the impacts of development within the City Place Project site. Scheme C would not result in substantial changes or involve new information not already analyzed in the 2016 EIR because the level of development now proposed for the site is within the broader development assumptions analyzed in the 2016 EIR. . No new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to surrounding circumstances that would cause significant environmental impacts to which Scheme C would contribute considerably, and there is no new information of substantial importance that shows that Scheme C would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. Therefore, Scheme C would not cause new significant impacts not previously identified in the 2016 EIR or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, and no supplemental environmental review is required in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164.
Overall, based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, which are summarized in the CEQA analysis in Section 6 of this document, the potential environmental impacts associated with Scheme C have been adequately analyzed and covered in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, no further review or analysis under CEQA is required.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 24 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6. CEQA Analysis
6.1 Overview
The analysis in this Section summarizes the impacts and findings of the certified 2016 EIR. The analysis in this Section also provides a comparison of the Scheme C Project to the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR as well as a summary of the potential environmental impacts that may result from the Scheme C Project compared with those of the Approved Project. All mitigation measures identified in the 2016 EIR that would apply to the Scheme C Project are listed in the 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is incorporated by reference into this CEQA Analysis as Appendix A to this document.
If this Fourth Addendum to the 2016 EIR or its appendix inadvertently misidentifies or omits a mitigation measure identified in the 2016 EIR, the applicability of that mitigation measure to the Scheme C Project is not affected.
As demonstrated in this Addendum, none of the conditions for preparation of a subsequent EIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 applies to Scheme C:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 25 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any.
In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.
This CEQA Analysis hereby incorporates by reference the discussion and analysis of all potential environmental impact topics as presented in the certified 2016 EIR. This CEQA Addendum uses a checklist approach to determine if the conditions of Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR are met. This checklist approach is based on significance criteria in the 2016 EIR to organize the analysis and provide a determination of whether the Scheme C Project would result in:
• Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in the 2016 EIR; • Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in the 2016 EIR; and/or • New Significant Impact.
Where the severity of the impacts of the Scheme C Project would be the same as or less than the severity of the impacts described in the 2016 EIR, the checkbox for “Equal or Less Severity of Impact Previously Identified in the 2016 EIR” is checked.
Where the checkbox for “Substantial Increase in Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impact in the 2016 EIR” or “New Significant Impact” is checked, there would be a significant impact that is:
• Due to substantial changes in the Project;
• Due to substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken; and/or • Due to substantial new information not known at the time the 2016 EIR was certified.
The 2016 EIR includes a robust cumulative analysis based on specific local projects in the City and adjacent cities, full implementation of City and County general plans, and where applicable, full implementation of the general plans of the nine Bay Area counties and associated cities. Therefore, any development that has occurred since certification of the 2016 EIR was included in the 2016 EIR’s analysis and there has been no change in circumstances that would result in a new significant impact or a more substantial significant environmental impact than previously disclosed (see the 2016 EIR Chapter 3 and the resource analyses in this Chapter 6).
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 26 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Further, no new information of substantial importance has been provided or otherwise identified that would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. Although there may have been changes and updates to the relevant regulatory setting or Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, these changes are not considered new information of substantial importance as described in the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, they would not result in new physical impacts not previously analyzed or in substantially increasing the severity of previously identified physical impacts. Therefore, none of the aforementioned conditions were found for the Scheme C Project, as demonstrated above and throughout the following CEQA Analysis.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 27 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.2 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community; ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.; or
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.2.1 2016 EIR Findings
Division of Existing Community, Conflict with Land Uses, Land Use Plans, or Habitat and Natural Community Conservation
The 2016 EIR found significant and unavoidable land use impacts related to conflicts with adopted City land use plans. Specifically, the Approved Project would conflict with the City’s General Plan policies related to jobs/housing balance with secondary significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic, air quality, and GHG emissions. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measure LU-1.1, Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan, which directed the City to explore permitting higher residential densities, as well as allowing residential land uses in existing non-residential areas in the City’s General Plan. This mitigation measure would be implemented by the City during the next General Plan update. However, because this mitigation measure relies on an iterative General Plan process ultimately requiring approval from City Council, it cannot be stated with certainty whether and when the mitigation measure will be implemented. In addition, adding new housing to the City’s General Plan would only potentially reduce some of the impacts within the more immediate Project vicinity, but would not fully mitigate the Approved Project’s effect on induced growth in the region and beyond. As a result, the measure would not reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.
The 2016 EIR found that the Approved Project would conflict with the San José Mineta International Airport’s 2011 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), although this impact is disclosed with the noise analysis (see Section 6.7, Noise). The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would not be consistent with the existing land use designation of Parks/Open Space (Parcels 1-4) and Regional Commercial (Parcel 5). However, the 2016 EIR determined that inconsistency with land use designations does not, by itself, constitute a significant environmental impact. In order to accommodate the Approved Project’s high intensity, urban-oriented development, a new General Plan land use classification (Urban Center/Entertainment District) was proposed within the Mixed-Use Designations category.
The 2016 EIR Table 3.1-7 lists City of Santa Clara 2010 – 2035 General Plan goals and policies applicable to the Approved Project along with a consistency finding for each goal and policy. The determination of whether the Approved Project would conflict with applicable goals and policies was based on the environmental analysis provided in the resource sections of the 2016 EIR. Inconsistencies were identified for policies related to noise, jobs/housing ratio, air quality, and greenhouse gases. The
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 28 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
2016 EIR noted that a project can be generally consistent with a general plan even though the project may not promote every applicable goal and policy. Therefore, although some inconsistencies were identified, the 2016 EIR determined the Approved Project would be generally consistent with the overall General Plan, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
No other land use plan conflicts were identified for the Approved Project. Furthermore, the Approved Project would result in no impacts related to the physical division of an established community or conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
6.2.2 Project Analysis
Physical Division of an Established Community
Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project.13 The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on the physical division of an established community since there are no existing residential communities on the Project site. The Project site contains the same existing uses as the 2016 EIR (the Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club facilities and golf course, Santa Clara Fire Station 10, Santa Clara Police Athletic League (PAL) Track, Ameresco Methane Plant, Eastside Retention Basin, and surface parking lots), however, the golf course and Fire Station 10 have since closed. The Project site still does not contain any existing residential communities and is not located in an area that separates an established community; thus, construction of Scheme C on the Project site would not physically divide an established community.
Therefore, potential impacts of Scheme C relative to the Approved Project regarding the physical division of an established community would be equal to or less severe than impacts disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans
Land Uses
Scheme C proposes changes that would introduce a new light industrial use on the northeastern area of the Project site and would increase the density of approved uses on the southwestern area of the Project site. However, the Scheme C Project total development would remain the same as the maximum build-out assumed under the Approved Project (9.16 million gross square feet [gsf]) and thus remain within the impact envelope of the 2016 EIR.
At the time of the 2016 EIR, the Project site had land use designations of Parks/Open Space (Parcels 1-4) and Regional Commercial (Parcel 5) land uses. The land use for the Project site has since been changed to Urban Center/Entertainment District, which is intended for local- and regional-scale destinations that feature a mixture of some or all of the following: pedestrian-oriented commercial retail and services, urban residential, hotel and employment-generating uses within a defined planning area. 14 Therefore,
Scheme C includes a General Plan Amendment to add a range of light industrial uses that may include
13 As noted in Section 4.1 of this Addendum, the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10-12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively. 14 City of Santa Clara, 2022. City of Santa Clara General Plan Map, November 2022. Available at:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/82063/638327244287330000. Accessed June 4, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 29 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
general service, warehousing, storage, distribution, manufacturing, and SPPE to the generally permitted uses on the Project site.15 With adoption of this General Plan Amendment, land uses proposed for Scheme C would be considered consistent with the General Plan land use designation.
General Plan Consistency
As noted above, the 2016 EIR identified inconsistencies with policies related to noise, air quality, greenhouse gases, and jobs/housing ratio and these determinations were based on the environmental analysis provided in the associated resource sections of the 2016 EIR. Scheme C was reviewed for consistency with all applicable General Plan goals and policies listed in 2016 EIR Table 3.1-7 with a focus on goals and policies found to be inconsistent with the Approved Project as well as goals and policies relevant to Scheme C’s proposed land use classification and density changes. As described below in Sections 6.5, Air Quality; 6.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 6.7, Noise; and 6.13, Population and Housing; and described below with regard to jobs/housing ratio, Scheme C would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the 2016 EIR for these environmental topics and would result in the same General Plan consistency finding disclosed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project.
Scheme C would be inconsistent with the same goals and policies related to noise, jobs/housing ratio, air quality, and greenhouse gases as the Approved Project. Specifically, like the Approved Project, Scheme C would result in increased traffic noise levels on surrounding roadway segments, new residents and hotel occupants exposed to elevated noise levels from stadium events and other noise, and would extend some City streets without noise reduction measures. Scheme C would develop residential uses in locations inconsistent with the 2011 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and would result in significant and unavoidable air quality and GHG emissions impacts similar to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project.
The Scheme C MCP Supplement includes a preliminary site plan that creates a buffer between industrial structures and surrounding residential uses and concentrates loading operations in the interior sections of the site; restricts truck movements to the least impactful routes; and includes a design guideline requiring that loading docks on Parcels 1 and 2 be located a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, Scheme C would be consistent with General Plan Goal 5.3.3-G4 requiring commercial uses to be sited to reduce land use conflicts. For the same reason, Scheme C’s site plan would be consistent with General Plan Policy B-4 by promoting compatibility between neighborhoods while respecting differences in neighborhood character.
General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P4 states the City should encourage “new development that meets the minimum intensities and densities specified in the land use classifications or as defined through applicable Focus Area, Neighborhood Compatibility or Historic Preservation policies of the General Plan.” Table 6.2-1, below, relies on the methodology for calculating average floor area ratio (FAR) across
15 The proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement include several categories of data center uses, including Non-SPPE Data Centers, SPPE Data Centers, and Ancillary Data Centers. Non-SPPE Data Centers and Ancillary Data Centers require a minor use permit in the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement. Therefore, while Non- SPPE Data Centers and Ancillary Data Centers are not analyzed in this CEQA Addendum, they would be subject to review for consistency with the 2016 EIR in conjunction with any minor use permit that is submitted in connection with establishment of such use. As defined in the MCP Scheme C Supplement, an SPPE Data Center must have obtained a Small Power Plant Exemption from the California Energy Commission, acting as the “lead agency” under Public Resources Code Section 25541, and the development, operation and use of the SPPE Data Center must comply with all applicable mitigation measures approved by the California Energy Commission.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 30 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
the Project site used in the 2016 EIR. Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses to the northeast parcels and increase the density of the approved uses on Parcel 4, the average FAR across the Project site would be 0.85, which is below the gross FAR limit of 1.0 identified in the 2016 EIR.
Therefore, Scheme C would be consistent with General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P4.
TABLE 6.2-1
SCHEME C FAR
Parcel
Approved Project
Acreagea
Proposed Development
(gsf) FARb
Parcel 1 / 2 97.7 1,600,000 0.38
Parcel 3 34.9 - -
Parcel 4 86.6 6,520,269 1.73
Parcel 5 8.0 1,044,131 3.0
Retention Basin 12.8 - -
Total 1920.8 9,164,400 0.85 a
NOTE: gsf = gross square feet
a. The Approved Project acreage is the same as the Scheme C acreage. b. Average FAR at Project site.
General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P24 states that a project should “protect City residents from the risks inherent in the transport, distribution, use and storage of hazardous materials.” As discussed in Section 6.12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Scheme C’s industrial operations may result in warehouse and distribution facilities that store and transport hazardous materials as products for distribution. However, products that contain hazardous materials would be contained within packaging designed to prevent leakage during storage and transportation pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements. Additionally, Scheme C would include a dedicated truck route to control truck movements associated with 24-hour truck operations for warehouse/ distribution facilities and to limit truck access to and from the northeast parcels. Furthermore, compliance with the requirements of existing laws and regulations, such as those listed in the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, would be mandatory (see 2016 EIR Section 3.11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Therefore, Scheme C would be consistent with General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P24.
In addition to goals and policies listed in Table 3.1-7 of the 2016 EIR, several additional General Plan goals and policies are applicable to Scheme C’s proposed industrial use. Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses to the northeast parcels and therefore would be consistent General Plan Goal 5.3.5-G2 and Policy 5.3.5-P12, which encourage the City to promote the development of industrial land to meet the demand for local employment. General Plan Policy 5.3.5-P19 restricts “the use and storage of hazardous materials for industrial uses within 500 feet of existing residential uses.” As noted above and in Appendix D, Related Santa Clara Scheme C Noise Report, the nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses along Calle del Mundo. While these residences would be within 500 feet of the proposed structures, they would be 500 feet from the loading docks within the interior of the building clusters (see Figure 4, above), as set forth in the MCP Scheme C Supplement. However, final site plans for Parcels 1 and 2 would be submitted to the City for review and approval as a part of the DAP application, and depending on the end user, Scheme C could potentially be inconsistent with Policy 5.3.5-P19.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 31 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
The 2016 EIR determined that the ultimate finding of General Plan consistency does not require that a project be entirely consistent with each individual General Plan policy and a proposed project can be generally consistent with a general plan even though the project may not promote every applicable goal and policy. Therefore, Scheme C would remain generally consistent with applicable goals and policies.
Jobs/Housing Balance
The 2016 EIR analysis of jobs/housing balance considered Scheme B, which does not include housing on Parcel 4, as a worst-case analysis because Scheme B has a higher amount of employment, and a lower amount of housing compared to Scheme A. At full-buildout, Scheme B would generate up to 28,720 jobs and 200 residential units resulting in approximately 143.6 jobs per housing unit. Comparatively, Scheme C would generate approximately 24,071 new jobs and 1,680 residential units resulting in approximately
14.33 jobs per housing unit (see Section 6.13, Population and Housing). Although Scheme C may not improve the City’s overall jobs/housing balance, it would result in an improved jobs/housing ratio compared with the Approved Project Scheme B analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, Scheme C would result in impacts equal to or less severe than impacts disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
To address jobs/housing balance policy conflicts and associated secondary significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic, air quality, and GHG emissions; Mitigation Measure LU-1.1 described in the 2016 EIR directed the City to explore permitting higher residential densities in the City during the next General Plan Update Cycle. The City of Santa Clara 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, adopted after the 2016 EIR in 2024, includes Policies B-2 and B-5 which encourage high density residential development in the City as well as Action 9, which is a comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the current goals and policies of the 2010- 2035 General Plan.
16 As of July 2024, the Zoning Code was updated and
includes changes that are consistent with and implement the 2010-2035 General Plan.17 In addition, the City has proposed an amendment to the Tasman East Specific Plan that would allow an additional 1,500 units within the existing Specific Plan boundaries and would reduce the impact of the jobs/housing ratio.
18 In addition, the City has taken up additional initiatives and is considering or has approved specific plans that will add additional residential units within the City. Nonetheless, and as mentioned above, this mitigation measure relies on an iterative General Plan process which may result in additional General Plan and zoning changes ultimately requiring approval from City Council and cannot be stated with certainty whether policies enacted since the 2016 EIR have mitigated this impact to a less-than-significant level. Overall, Scheme C and the cumulative scenario would not result in a new significant impact or a more severe significant impact than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR with respect jobs/housing balance and associated secondary land use impacts as identified in the 2016 EIR.
Airport 2011 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would be inconsistent with the 2011 San José Mineta International Airport CLUP and the City’s General Plan related to Airport Noise because the western part of Parcel 5 and the southwestern part of Parcel 4 were within the 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA)
16 City of Santa Clara. 2023-2031 Housing Element, updated May 7, 2024. Available: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/ departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/general-plan/housing-element-update. Accessed May 15, 2024. 17 City of Santa Clara. Zoning Code Update. Available: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community- development/planning-division/zoning/zoning-code-update. Accessed November 11, 2024. 18 City of Santa Clara. Tasman East Specific Plan, updated February 28, 2023. Available: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our- city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/specific-plans/tasman-east. Accessed May 15, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 32 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contour and, according to the 2011 CLUP noise policies, multi-family residential uses are “Generally Unacceptable” between the 65 and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours.19 Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3 was identified to reduce interior noise levels for residential uses to 45 dB CNEL or less. However, like the Approved Project, Scheme C would include outdoor residential areas located within the airport’s 65 dB CNEL contour identified in the 2011 CLUP. Therefore, Scheme C would result in the same land use that was deemed not compatible with the 2011 CLUP and at worse the same significant and unavoidable land use policy impact identified in the 2016 EIR for the reasons explained in Section 6.7, Noise.20 However, the Approved Project site is no longer within the area of influence for the airport and the ALUC has determined that no review of the Scheme C proposal concerning CLUP consistency is necessary. Thus, this inconsistency identified for the Approved Project may be deemed to have been superseded and no longer pertain.
As described in the 2016 EIR, the inconsistency with land use designations does not, by itself, constitute a significant environmental impact because the land use designations were not enacted to mitigate or lessen environmental effects as a primary objective. Scheme C would be generally consistent with applicable goals, policies, and actions adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effect, therefore resulting in a less-than-significant impact, which would be equal to or less severe than the impact disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plans
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on habitat and natural community conservation plans. Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the 2016 EIR, which is located outside of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) area. 21 Scheme C would not
conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan, as there are no such plans in the Project site vicinity. Therefore, the potential impacts of Scheme C on habitat and natural community conservation plans relative to the Approved Project would be the same as disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified land use and planning impacts including conflicts with land uses and land use plans . In addition, Scheme C would not increase (and would in fact decrease) the severity of previously-identified conflicts with land use plans concerning jobs/housing balance and airport noise. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental
19 In March 2024, the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted an update to its CLUP. The CLUP contains the same policies as outlined in Section 6.7, Noise, for the 2011 CLUP. However, the updated CLUP contains revised Noise Contours for airport operations. Based on the 2024 contours contained in Figure 5 of the 2024 CLUP, the City Center parcels and Parcels 1 and 2 are no longer within the 65 CNEL noise contour for airport operations. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Santa Clara County, San Jose Mineta International Airport, updated March 27, 2024. Available at: https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_SJC_CLUP.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2024.
20 In March 2024, the ALUC adopted an update to its CLUP. The updated CLUP that contains the same policies as outlined above for the 2011 CLUP. However, the updated CLUP contains revised Noise Contours for airport operations. Based on the 2024 contours contained in Figure 5 of the 2024 CLUP, the City Center parcels and Parcels 1 and 2 are no longer within the 65 CNEL noise contour for airport operations.
21 Santa Clara County, 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, August 2012. Available at: https://www.scv- habitatagency.org/178/Santa-Clara-Valley-Habitat-Plan. Accessed June 5, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 33 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
contribution would not result in new significant cumulative impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.2.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant impact and no substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact on land use or planning than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measures LU-1.1, Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan, and NOI-1.3 Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses (see Section 6.7, Noise, in Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented for Scheme C, and would ensure that impacts related to land use and planning would be equal to, or less severe than, those previously identified and disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 34 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.3 Aesthetics
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; ☒ ☐ ☐ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings along a scenic highway;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would substantially and adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.3.1 2016 EIR Findings
Scenic Vistas, Scenic Resources, and Visual Character
The 2016 EIR found that Approved Project construction would temporarily degrade visual character and quality, and identified mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Approved Project operation would substantially increase building height, mass, and bulk compared to existing conditions. However, all buildings would be consistent with the existing surrounding built environment and with the design guidelines and development standards outlined in the MCP, thus the 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less-than significant impact on the on-site visual character.
The 2016 EIR identified public corridors with views of the Project site which includes SR 237, Lafayette Street, Tasman Drive, Great America Parkway/Great America Way, residential neighborhoods in Santa Clara and San José, San Tomas Aquino Trail, and Ulistac Natural Area. The views from these corridors are not considered to be sensitive or a scenic vista, corridor, or resource. The Approved Project would alter existing views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range, particularly from the San Tomas Aquino Trail and Ulistac Natural Area, but the 2016 EIR determined that these impacts would be less- than-significant. Construction of the Approved Project could change the recreational views along the Guadalupe River Trail, but these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measures AES-1.1 and AES-
1.2, which would protect visual character by guiding where imported soils would be stored, when existing trees would be removed, and when landscaping would be implemented. Additionally, no impacts were identified for scenic resources along a State Scenic Highway or scenic vistas.
Light and Glare
The 2016 EIR found that the new buildings and increased on-site activity would result in an increase in lighting in the area. Additionally, light and glare from vehicle headlights on levels of the above-ground parking would potentially spill onto adjacent properties. Similarly, the 2016 EIR conservatively assumed that implementation of the Approved Project could result in glare to the surrounding area. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measures AES-2.1 through AES 2.4, requiring low-profile lighting, shielded light fixtures, treated reflective surfaces, and obstruction for glare from vehicle headlights addressing significant
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 35 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
impacts related to new sources of light and glare. These mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.
6.3.2 Project Analysis
Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
Scheme C would occur within the similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project.22 The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state or locally designated scenic highway. There has been no change to designated State Scenic Highways in the Project site vicinity since the 2016 EIR. The closest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route (SR) 9, which is located approximately 10.7 miles southwest of the Project site. I- 280, which is approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the Project site, and I-680, which is approximately
5.6 miles northeast of the Project site, are designated as eligible State Scenic Highways.23 Therefore, the potential impacts of Scheme C on scenic resources within a state scenic highway relative to the Approved Project would be the same as disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Similarly, the 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on a scenic vista since the City does not have any officially designated scenic vistas. The Project site would remain the same as the Approved Project and thus the potential impacts of Scheme C on scenic vistas also would be the same as disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Visual Character
Construction
Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project. The increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the construction timeline in the City Center parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time.
Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, would require infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes that are similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
At the time of the 2016 EIR, the closest residential neighborhood was 0.25 mile southeast of the Project site and was separated by the Tasman Drive overcrossing and the Tasman East office/industrial park.
Since then, the Tasman East Specific Plan Area has been developed to include residential mixed-use buildings and has approved plans to develop a high-density transit-oriented neighborhood with supportive
22 As noted in Section 4.1 of this Addendum, the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10-12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively. 23 California Department of Transportation, 2024. California State Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/ design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed June 12, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 36 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
retail services. This area is located directly to the south of Parcel 2 and across Lafayette Street from Parcels 4 and 5. Therefore, the closest residential neighborhood would now have direct views of construction activities and would represent a new, sensitive viewer group. However, the 2016 EIR identified the Guadalupe River Trail users as being a sensitive viewer group and the new Tasman East Specific Plan residents would experience similar visual impacts to what was assumed for this group. The visual effects of construction activities would not be permanent, and the Project site would appear similar to other construction sites, which is not unusual in urban areas. However, the 2016 EIR concluded that the extended period of time, these construction sites would be visible to sensitive viewers would result in a significant impact. The increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the construction timeline for the City Center parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time. Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, Scheme C would result in a similar significant impact. Mitigation Measures AES-1.1 and AES-1.2 would apply equally to the implementation of Scheme C as they do to the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
Additionally, the 2016 EIR assumed a total of approximately 75,620 cubic yards (CY) of soil would be moved to Parcel 2 from Parcels 1 and 5, which would potentially be visible to Guadalupe River Trail users. The Soils and Stockpiling Addendum (Third Addendum to the 2016 EIR) determined that the excavated soil from Parcel 5 would not be moved to Parcel 2, and therefore only the 46,750 CY of soil from Parcel 1 would be moved to Parcel 2. Scheme C would store the stockpiled soil in compliance with 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1.1, Imported Material Storage. Furthermore, implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1.2, Early Implementation of Master Community Plan Landscaping Plan for Parcels 1 and 2 would allow for the existing golf course trees along the eastern edge of Parcel 2 to be temporarily retained until construction activities necessitate their removal, which would preserve existing views from the Guadalupe River trail for as long as possible. Implementation of these mitigation measures would mitigate the impact on visual character to a less-than-significant level.
Operation
While the development of the Approved Project would substantially increase building height, mass, and bulk compared to existing conditions; considering the development as a whole including Complete Streets design, landscaping, and tree replacement plan, the 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on the on-site visual character. Approved Project building heights were analyzed for potential effects on view corridors along State Route 237, Tasman Drive, Great America Parkway/Great America Way, surrounding residential neighborhoods and parks, Guadalupe River Trail, San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, and the Ulistac Natural Area. The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project’s building height would interrupt some existing views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range but would not represent a substantial degradation of visual quality or result in a significant impact on visual character. To the extent that Approved Project building height and scale would be visible, the development would be consistent with the surrounding built environment including the Santa Clara Gateway office complex, the Convention Center, Hyatt Regency Hotel, and Levi’s Stadium and could introduce the beneficial effect of interconnectivity linking the Project site to the broader context.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 37 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Scheme C would be within similar building height limits assumed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. As noted in Section 4.1 of this Addendum, the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10-12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the height would remain consistent with neighboring built development, including the Tasman East Specific Plan, which is subject to a similar FAA height limitation. Further, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively. Therefore, like the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR, Scheme C would have a less-than-significant impact on the on-site visual character. Similarly, Scheme C would result in the same less-than-significant impacts on the public corridors that have views of the Project site. As mentioned above, the developing Tasman East Specific Plan Area represents a new area with views of the Project site. However, Scheme C development would not obscure any scenic vistas, damage scenic resources, or degrade the visual quality of the area. In addition, views from the Tasman East Specific Plan are not within a designated view corridor. Since private views of a project’s neighbors are not protected under CEQA, impacts from Scheme C would be less-than-significant.
In addition, like the Approved Project, Scheme C buildings would be consistent with the surrounding built environment and would be consistent with the guidelines and development standards outlined in the MCP. Therefore, Scheme C would have a less-than-significant impact on the overall degradation of existing visual character and quality, consistent with the findings of the 2016 EIR.
Light and Glare
Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site or the locations where development would occur. The 2016 EIR concluded that light and glare from vehicle headlights on the levels of the aboveground parking could be a nuisance to motorists and occupants of the surrounding uses and that implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2.4, Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Headlights in the Proposed Garages, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Proposed warehouse/distribution facilities would involve 24-hour trucking operations that could result in similar light and glare impacts. Therefore, 2016 Mitigation Measure AES-2.4 is amended below, shown in underline and strikethrough, to more directly address Scheme C.
AES-2.4: Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Headlights along designated truck routes and in the Proposed Garages. The Project Developer shall ensure that through the architectural design of the parking garages and through or in combination with landscaping or physical screening at the parking structures and along designated truck routes and areas surrounding truck loading docks, glare from vehicle headlights shall be screened from off-site viewers.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 38 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
The significant impacts related to light and glare would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measures AES-2.1, Installation of Low-Profile Lighting; AES-2.2, Installation of Shielded Fixtures; AES-2.3: Treat Reflective Surfaces; and the amended AES-2.4: Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Headlights along designated truck routes and in the Proposed Garages. In addition, Scheme C would be required to adhere to the MCP standards and guidelines including design principles related to light and glare.
Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant aesthetics impacts including degradation of visual character or quality and creating substantial new sources of light or glare. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.3.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant impact and no substantial in the severity of a significant impact with respect to aesthetics than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR. The 2016 EIR Mitigation Measures AES-
1.1, Imported Material Storage; AES-1.2, Early Implementation of Master Community Plan Landscaping Plan for Parcels 1 and 2; AES-2.1, Installation of Low-Profile Lighting; AES-2.2, Installation of Shielded Fixtures; AES-2.3: Treat Reflective Surfaces; and AES-2.4: Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Headlights along designated truck routes and in the Proposed Garages, as revised, (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C and would ensure that impacts related to aesthetics would remain at a less-than-significant level.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 39 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.4 Transportation and Circulation
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
e. Cause an impact to signalized intersection level of
service (LOS) per the criteria for each jurisdiction within the study area as described below.
City of Santa Clara
Significant impacts at signalized City of Santa Clara
intersections would occur when the addition of project
traffic would cause one of the following:
• Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable
level (LOD D or better) to an unacceptable level
(LOS E or F), or
• Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing critical delay by more than 4 seconds and
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or
• Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when the
change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases).
This can occur if the critical movements change.
The City of Santa Clara has established a minimum
acceptable operation level of service of LOS D for local streets and LOS E for CMP designated facilities (City of Santa Clara 2010).
City of Sunnyvale
Significant impacts at signalized City of Sunnyvale
intersections would occur when the addition of project
traffic would cause one of the following:
• Intersection operations (except those on designated
regionally significant roads) degrade from an
acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an
unacceptable level (LOS E or LOS F), or
• Operations for regionally significant designated
intersections deteriorate from an acceptable level
(LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F),
or
• Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing critical delay by more than 4 seconds and
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or
• Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when the
change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases).
This can occur if the critical movements change.
The City of Sunnyvale uses a, LOS D standard for local
street intersections and a, LOS E standard for regionally significant roadways (also CMP facilities), including
Caribbean Drive, Mathilda Avenue, Sunnyvale/Saratoga
Road, El Camino Real, Central Expressway, Lawrence
Expressway, and CMP facilities that are under the
Sunnyvale General Plan, consolidated in July 2011 (City of Sunnyvale 2011).
☒ ☐ ☐
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 40 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
City of San José
Significant impacts at signalized City of San José study intersections would occur when the addition of project
traffic would cause one of the following:
• Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable
level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level
(LOS E or F), or
• Unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) are
exacerbated by increasing critical delay by more
than 4 seconds and increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01
or more, or
• Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by
increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when the
change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases).
This can occur if the critical movements change.
The City of San José’s minimum threshold for
acceptable signalized intersection operations is LOS D, unless governed by an Area Development Policy or
protected intersection designation. Several San José
intersections are within the boundaries of the North San José Development Area (see Figure 3.3-1) [see the 2016
EIR Section 3.3]. For the purpose of this analysis, LOS D is used as the minimum threshold for all signalized study intersections in San José, including Santa Clara County and CMP intersections in the North San
José Development Area (City of San José 2009).
City of Milpitas
Significant impacts at signalized City of Milpitas
intersections would occur when the addition of project
traffic would cause one of the following:
• Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable
level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level
(LOS E or F), or
• Unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) are
exacerbated by increasing critical delay by more
than 4 seconds and increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01
or more, or
• Unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) are
exacerbated by increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or
more when the change in critical delay is negative
(i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical
movements change.
The City of Milpitas has established a minimum
acceptable operating level of LOS D for intersections
that are excluded from the CMP (City of Milpitas 2002).
Santa Clara County and Congestion Management
Program
The LOS standard for Santa Clara County (2013 VTA
Congestion Management Program) expressway and
CMP intersections is LOS E. Traffic impacts at these
intersections would occur when the addition of traffic
associated with a project would cause one of the
following:
• Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable
level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level
(LOS F), or
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 41 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
• Unacceptable operations (LOS F) are exacerbated
by increasing critical delay by more than 4 seconds
and increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or
• Unacceptable operations (LOS F) are exacerbated
by increasing the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when the
change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases).
This can occur if the critical movements change.
f. Cause a significant impact to occur at an unsignalized intersection due to the addition of project traffic causing the average intersection delay for all -way stop-
controlled intersections or the worst
movement/approach for side- street stop-controlled
intersections to degrade to LOS F when the
intersection satisfies the peak -hour signal warrant from CA MUTCD.
☒ ☐ ☐
g. Cause an impact to freeway segment LOS per the
criteria for each jurisdiction within the study area as described below.
Santa Clara County
Significant traffic impacts to freeway segments would
occur when the addition of project traffic would cause:
• Freeway segment operations to degrade from an
acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an
unacceptable level (LOS F), or
• Traffic to increase by more than 1 percent of the
capacity of a segment that operates at LOS F.
San Mateo County
Significant traffic impacts to freeway would occur when:
• The addition of project traffic causes the freeway
segment to operate at an LOS that violates the LOS
standard adopted in the current Congestion
Management Program (CMP), or
• When the cumulative analysis indicates that the
combination of the project and future cumulative
traffic demand will cause the freeway segment to
operate at an LOS that violates the standard
adopted in the current CMP and the project
increases traffic demand on that freeway segment
by an amount equal to 1 percent or more of the
segment capacity or causes the freeway segment
V/C ratio to increase by 1 percent.
o The LOS standards for freeway study segments
on US 101 are LOS F (between Embarcadero
Road and Whipple Avenue) and LOS E
(between SR 92 and Whipple Avenue).
☒ ☐ ☐
Alameda County
Significant traffic impacts on freeway segments in
Alameda County would occur when the addition of
project traffic would cause:
• A freeway segment with an LOS E standard to,
either individually or cumulatively, operate at LOS F,
or
• The V/C ratio to increase by 0.03 or more for a
freeway segment that would operate at LOS F
without the project.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 42 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase
in Severity of
Previously Identified
Significant Impact in
the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
h. Cause the following regarding transit service:
• Create demand for public transit services above the
capacity that is provided or planned for by:
o exceeding established peak-hour peak load
factor standards, or
o exceeding passenger rail platform waiting areas,
or
• Disrupt existing transit services or facilities,
24 or
• Conflict with an existing or planned transit facility, or • Conflict with transit policies adopted by the City of Santa Clara for facilities within the City of Santa
Clara portion of the study area.
☒ ☐ ☐
i. Conflict with City of Santa Clara General Plan (2010) policies that ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are safe and effective for City residents such that the Project or an element of the Project would:
• Create a hazardous condition that currently does not
exist for bicyclists and pedestrians or otherwise
interfere with bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to
the site and adjoining areas, or
• Conflict with an existing or planned bicycle or
pedestrian facility, or
• Conflict with policies related to bicycle and
pedestrian activity adopted by the City of Santa
Clara for facilities within the City of Santa Clara
portion of the study area.
☒ ☐ ☐
j. Cause a significant safety impact to site access and on- site circulation facilities including roadways, driveways, parking garages, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle lanes,
and bicycle parking areas by not adhering to City of
Santa Clara design standards and standard engineering
practices, thereby resulting in a hazardous condition for motorists, bicyclists, and/or pedestrians.
☒ ☐ ☐
k. Conflict with City of Santa Clara General Plan (2010) policies pertaining to maintaining standards for
emergency response times such that the Project or an
element of the Project would:
• Conflict with an existing or planned emergency
response facility or route, or
• Increase emergency response time beyond the
threshold of an average of 3 minutes.
☒ ☐ ☐
l. Cause a significant parking impact if the Project or any element of the Project would:
• Result in parking demand that would exceed the
parking supply included in the Project description
and either require the construction of additional
parking facilities or cause vehicles to travel off-site for parking, thereby causing excessive vehicular
circulation.
☒ ☐ ☐
24 This includes disruptions caused by proposed driveways on transit streets, impacts on transit stops/shelters, and impacts on transit operations from traffic improvements proposed or resulting from a project.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 43 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.4.1 2016 EIR Findings
The 2016 EIR Transportation/Traffic section describes the existing transportation services and facilities on or near the Project site, including the roadway system, bus and rail service, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. The 2016 EIR presents the results of the evaluation of the Approved Project’s effect on those facilities and services, including impacts related to signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, freeway segments, transit services, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, emergency access, and parking for multiple scenarios: Existing with Project Conditions, Background with Project Conditions, and Cumulative (2040) with Project Conditions. Where significant impacts were projected to occur in the 2016 EIR, an additional informational scenario was evaluated to identify intersection and freeway segment impacts associated with development of Phases 1, 2, and 3 only (Parcels 4 and 5). This scenario was intended to inform the public of near‐term project effects and was used to formulate and properly phase mitigation measures.
The transportation analysis that was prepared for the Approved Project followed the guidelines of the City of Santa Clara (City) and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which acts as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County (County). Potential impacts on intersections, freeway segments, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities were evaluated using the standards, methods, and significance criteria of these agencies. Mitigation measures for identified significant impacts were identified where such measures were available and feasible (see below).
Intersection Analysis
The 2016 EIR found significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to conflicts with adopted signalized and unsignalized intersection level of service (LOS) criteria. One hundred and twenty-five (125) intersections were studied in the City of Santa Clara and the surrounding jurisdictions of Sunnyvale, San José, Milpitas, and Santa Clara County.
Signalized Intersections
The 2016 EIR found that the Approved Project would result in significant impacts at 51 signalized intersections under Existing with Project and Background with Project Conditions. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to decrease office-generated and residential-generated daily and peak hour project traffic. This mitigation measure specifies details regarding vehicle trip reduction targets; vehicle trip thresholds; TDM measures and strategies for office, residential, and retail uses; monitoring and reporting; and remedial action. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRA-1.2, Intersection Improvements was identified to be implemented as part of the Approved Project development. Mitigation Measure TRA-1.2 specifies intersection improvements, where improvements to increase lane capacity were physically feasible, and off-setting mitigation measures, where there were no feasible physical improvements. These measures were determined to result in either full mitigation, partial mitigation, off-set mitigation (improvements to other modes of travel), or no feasible mitigation to affected intersections. Although improvement measures to intersections located outside of Santa Clara jurisdiction were identified, implementation cannot be guaranteed.
Mitigation Measure TRA-1.2 details whether the Project Developer would be wholly responsible for discrete improvement measures or partially responsible and thus required to pay a fair-share contribution
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 44 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
as a “percent of total traffic” (see 2016 EIR Table 3-3.20). The 2016 EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) includes Exhibit MMRP-1, Intersection Mitigation Sensitivity Analysis Results: Full Funding Responsibility, establishing the number of project trips at which each of the required intersection mitigation measures that are wholly the Project Developer’s responsibility to implement must be in place. The exhibit also indicates the likely phase of project development where each project trip threshold would be expected to be reached.
The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measure TRA-1.3, Prepare and Implement a Multimodal Improvement Plan (MIP) to address impacts to Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections that are only partially mitigated by TRA-1.1 and TRA-1.2 or where no feasible mitigation was identified. Even with Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1, TRA-1.2, and TRA-1.3, some intersections would still experience significant impacts. Therefore, the Approved Project impact on signalized intersections was determined to remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated.
The 2016 EIR identified 20 intersections with significant impacts under the Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3 Conditions and Mitigation Measure TRA-1a.1, Intersection Improvements for Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3. TRA-1a-1 serves to identify the specific improvement measures that would be required to mitigate or partially mitigate impacts from this interim scenario and for which the Project Developer would be required to pay fair-share contributions. These impacts would be reduced but not fully mitigated with implementation of TRA-1.1 and TRA-1a.1, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
The 2016 EIR identified impacts on 71 signalized study intersections under Cumulative (2040) Conditions and the Approved Project’s contribution would be considerable on all of them. Mitigation Measure TRA-14.1, Signalized Intersection Improvements, specifies additional intersection improvements although impacts at some affected intersections would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of this measure.
Unsignalized Intersections
The affected unsignalized study intersections were located only within the City of Santa Clara and the City of San José. To mitigate impacts to unsignalized intersections, Mitigation Measure TRA-2.1 Traffic Signal Installation (intersection 109, see 2016 Draft EIR Table 3.3-3) and TRA-2.2, Traffic Signal Installation (intersection 114, see 2016 Draft EIR Table 3.3-3) would be implemented so that traffic signals are installed once traffic volumes meet the warrant requirements (which was projected to occur in later development phases). However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1, TRA-2.1, and TRA-2.2, one unsignalized intersection may still operate at an unacceptable level under Background with Project conditions, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable (intersection 109).
Under the Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3, no unsignalized study intersections would have a significant impact. Under Cumulative (2040) Conditions, unsignalized study intersections would be fully mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1 and TRA-2.2.
On-Site Intersections
An on-site intersection analysis was conducted to assess operations of the on-site intersections and queuing into the parking facilities and local streets. The analysis was conducted for intersections on
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 45 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Parcels 4 and 5 and concluded that the design guidelines from the Master Community Plan (MCP) would ensure less-than-significant impacts. Mitigation Measure TRA-5.1, Transportation Design Review, was identified to reduce impacts to on-site intersections on Parcels 1, 2, and 3.
Freeway Segments
The 2016 EIR study area included freeway segments within Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Alameda County and found significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to conflicts with adopted freeway level of service criteria. Complete mitigation of freeway impacts is considered beyond the scope of an individual development project because, due to jurisdiction and funding constraints, individual projects and Cities are unable to approve and acquire right-of-way for freeway widening.
Nonetheless, 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure TRA-3.1: Freeway Segment Improvements specifies that the Project Developer will make a voluntary contribution toward the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 Express Lane Projects (VTP 2040 project numbers H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, and H15) and Countywide Freeway Traffic Operation System and Ramp Metering Improvements (VTP 2040 project number S83). These VTP 2040 projects (H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H15, and S83), once fully funded and constructed, will enhance travel choices for Project travelers and make more efficient use of the transportation network.
In addition to the complete project, the 2016 EIR analyzed project impacts to affected freeway segments under existing-plus-Project conditions with traffic generated by Phases 1, 2, and 3 only (Parcels 4 and 5).
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-3.1, the impacts to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable under this interim scenario and under full buildout of the Approved Project.
Other Modes of Transportation, Emergency Access, and Parking Pedestrian Facilities
The 2016 EIR found a significant and unavoidable impact related to the Approved Project generating a substantial number of pedestrians travelling to transit stops along routes where sidewalk gaps exist, thus creating a hazardous condition for pedestrians. Mitigation Measure TRA-7.1: Sidewalk Gap Closure on Tasman Drive on Lafayette Street overcrossing extend east to Calle Del Sol was identified as a Project Developer responsibility. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-7.1, this impact was found to be less-than-significant.
Bicycle Facilities
The 2016 EIR considered project-generated bicycle travel along with existing bicycle facilities and bicycle facilities proposed by the Approved Project and others (see 2016 Draft EIR Figure 3.3-28) and found a less-than-significant impact.
Transit Capacity and Operations
The 2016 EIR found less-than-significant impacts related to transit vehicle and platform capacity. The 2016 EIR found a significant and unavoidable impact on transit operations because the Approved Project would generate considerable amounts of traffic congestion at intersections on bus and light-rail routes in the study area. No feasible improvements were identified to address this impact.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 46 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Emergency Access
The 2016 EIR determined the relocation of Fire Station 10 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to emergency access.
Parking
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would provide sufficient parking to meet the anticipated peak parking demand and the Approved Project would result in a less-than-significant level related to parking supply.
Construction
The 2016 EIR evaluated the Project’s construction activities for impacts to intersections; parking; and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation. The 2016 EIR identified that construction traffic would result in short-term increases in traffic volumes that would cause significant impacts on intersection and freeway segment levels of service and temporary road closures requiring detours for vehicles accessing the Great America ACE/Capitol Corridor Station. The impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-18.1, Construction Management, requiring the preparation of a construction management plan.
Game Day
The 2016 EIR evaluated Approved Project traffic impacts on game-day (pre-game and post-game) conditions. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measure TRA-19.1: Modified City’s Traffic Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) and Prepare a Project-Specific Traffic and Parking Management Plan requiring the Project Developer to coordinate with City Planning and Public Works to direct stadium traffic to the new parking locations on the site and develop a separate traffic and parking management plan. The impact was determined to remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of this measure.
6.4.2 Project Analysis
Introduction and Approach to Analysis
A 2024 Related Santa Clara Traffic Analysis Memo (Traffic Report) was prepared by Arup for the Project Applicant and peer reviewed by Hexagon for the City of Santa Clara (see Appendix B). The Traffic Report compared traffic and transportation impacts for the modified land use program, defined as Scheme C, to the impacts identified in the 2016 EIR traffic and transportation analysis. This section includes an analysis based on the findings of the Traffic Report.
The Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR included two land use schemes (Scheme A and Scheme B) to capture the range of possible land uses that could be developed. The 2016 EIR traffic analysis only evaluated Scheme B as the land use scenario with the expected higher trip generation due to the focus on office development. Therefore, the Traffic Report compares Scheme C with Scheme B, herein referred to as the Approved Project.
The Traffic Report considered updated background and cumulative traffic assumptions and evaluated Background-plus-Project and Cumulative-plus-Project conditions. The report relied on existing and
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 47 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
available information, and cumulative traffic volumes based on the latest available County of Santa Clara Travel Demand Model outputs.
Proposed Network Changes and Truck Circulation
As shown in Figure 5, above, and in Figure 1.2 in the Traffic Report, Scheme C would include three new intersections with Lafayette Street as opposed to two under the Approved Project. Where the Approved Project would connect to the intersection at Great America Way and Lafayette Street, Scheme C would connect to Lafayette Street south of the retention basin parcel (intersection #86 in Appendix B). Where the Approved Project would include an intersection of City Place Parkway and Lafayette Street north of Parcel 4, Scheme C would include a bridge over Lafayette Street to a Jug Handle into the northeast parcel with an intersection at Lafayette Street north of the bridge (intersection #87 in Appendix B). Scheme C would include a third intersection with Lafayette Street south of the northeast parcel project buildings (intersection #88 in Appendix B). Scheme C would not include the Link Mill Boulevard Connection to the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension on the southeast corner of the northeast parcels.
The Traffic Report describes truck access limitations and truck movement restrictions planned as part of Scheme C’s internal site road network.
Truck ingress and egress for the northeast parcels would be limited to an internal road north of the proposed buildings that would connect to Lafayette Street just south of Great America Way (see Figure 6 in Section 4 above). Trucks would be prohibited from using the internal road south of the proposed buildings. With these restrictions in place, the Traffic Report estimated Project truck volumes for the AM and PM peak hours and found the greatest truck volumes of up to 20 trucks per hour would occur during the PM peak hour on Lafayette and Great America Way north of the Project site. Project truck volumes of up to 11 trucks per hour would occur during the PM peak hour along Great America Parkway north and west of the Project site. These restrictions inform the estimated truck distribution and thus inform the LOS analysis summarized below. Final intersection layout and design would occur as a part of road and civil engineering studies required for site-specific DAP approvals and DAP traffic analyses.
Trip Generation Comparison
For consistency, and to present a conservative analysis, the Traffic Report assessed Scheme C trip generation estimates using the trip rates adopted for the 2016 EIR supplemented with more recent rates for the proposed industrial use (passenger vehicles and trucks) (see Appendix B for additional detail on study approach). The Traffic Report concluded that the increase in density in City Center combined with a modification of the land use program under Scheme C would result in small increases in AM and PM peak hour trips for City Center (Parcels 4 and 5) and larger decreases in AM and PM peak hour trips for the northeast parcels. Overall, Scheme C would result in fewer AM and PM peak hour trips (inbound and outbound) and a reduction in daily trip generation compared with the Approved Project (see Tables 6.4-1,
6.4-2, and 6.4-3 below).
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 48 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
TABLE 6.4-1
TRIP GENERATION TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak
City Center Northeast Parcel City Center + Northeast Parcel AM
Inbound
AM
Outbound
Total
AM
AM
Inbound
AM
Outbound
Total
AM
AM
Inbound
AM
Outbound
Total
AM
2016 EIR 4740 1530 6270 3270 480 3750 8010 2010 10020
Scheme C 5316 1599 6915 815 255 1070 6131 1854 7985
Delta +12% +5% +10% -75% -47% -71% -23% -8% -20%
TABLE 6.4-2
TRIP GENERATION TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR
PM Peak
City Center Northeast Parcel City Center + Northeast Parcel PM
Inbound
PM
Outbound
Total
PM
PM
Inbound
PM
Outbound
Total
PM
PM
Inbound
PM
Outbound
Total
PM
2016 EIR 3040 4970 8010 1100 3200 4300 4140 8170 12310
Scheme C 2760 5465 8225 370 815 1185 3130 6280 9410
Delta -9% +10% +3% -66% -75% -72% -24% -23% -24%
TABLE 6.4-3
TRIP GENERATION TOTAL DAILY PEAK HOUR
PM Peak
City Center Northeast Parcel City Center + Northeast Parcel Daily
Inbound
Daily
Outbound
Total
Daily
Daily
Inbound
Daily
Outbound
Total
Daily
Daily
Inbound
Daily
Outbound
Total
Daily
2016 EIR 48595 48595 97190 21770 21770 43540 70365 70365 140730 Scheme C 45198 45198 90396 3920 3920 7840 49118 49118 98236 Delta -7% -7% -7% -82% -82% -82% -30% -30% -30%
Intersection Analysis
Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
As described above, Scheme C’s proposed land use, development density, and on-site road network changes would result in changes to anticipated passenger vehicle trip numbers and distribution as well as the introduction of new truck trips associated with the proposed light industrial land use.
Scheme C could result in more vehicle trips at certain intersections providing access to City Center as well as intersections in proximity to the Project site. However, although the 2016 EIR analyzed 125 intersections in five jurisdictions, the traffic changes associated with a modification of the land use program under Scheme C are anticipated to affect a significantly smaller area due to an overall reduction in vehicle trips compared with the Approved Project trips. Therefore, a reduced study area that includes 26 intersections within and surrounding the Project site was identified for analysis in the Traffic Report (see Appendix B Section 2.2 for a discussion of the reduced study area, see Appendix B Table 2.1 and
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 49 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Figure 2.2 for a list and depiction of selected intersections; see 2016 Draft EIR Table 3.3-3 for a full list of study intersections).
The Traffic Report shows that Scheme C would result in an increase in traffic along Great America Parkway south of the Project site and a decrease along Lafayette Street south of the Project site compared with trip distribution analyzed in the 2016 EIR. This change reflects the Scheme C shift of density and hence trips from the northeast parcels to the City Center as well as more recent developments southwest of the City Center that were completed after the 2016 EIR.
Under Background-plus-Project conditions, Scheme C would result in an LOS of “E” at 1 of the 26 intersections within the reduced study area. None of the intersections would result in LOS “F”. This represents a reduced impact compared with the Approved Project (Scheme B), which would result in 10 intersections operating at LOS “E” or LOS “F” (2 of which are unsignalized intersections) within the reduced study area (see Appendix B Table 6.1). Under Cumulative-plus-Project conditions, Scheme C would result in 9 intersections operating at LOS ”E” or LOS “F” within the reduced study area (1 of which is an unsignalized intersection). This also represents a reduced impact compared with the Approved Project, which would result in 11 intersections operating at LOS “E” or LOS ”F” (two of which are unsignalized intersections) within the reduced study area.
As described in detail in the Traffic Report, the increased land use density in City Center, change of land use, and modifications to the road network would result in more vehicle trips at certain intersections and fewer trips at other intersections compared with the Approved Project. However, by reducing the overall number of intersections operating at LOS of “E” or “F”, Scheme C would lessen the severity of the previously identified significant impact to intersection performance under Background-plus-Project and Cumulative-plus-Project conditions. Therefore, with a reduced trip generation and reduced contribution to cumulative conditions, Scheme C would not result in a new or more severe significant impact to signalized and unsignalized intersections compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with (TDM); TRA- 1a.1, Intersection Improvements for Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3; TRA-1.2, Intersection Improvements; TRA-1.3, Prepare and Implement a Multimodal Improvement Plan (MIP); TRA-
2.1, Traffic Signal Installation; TRA-2.2, Traffic Signal Installation; TRA-5.1, Transportation Design Review; TRA-14.1, Signalized Intersection Improvements; and TRA-16.1, Intersection Improvements; which would apply to Scheme C. Consistent with the conclusions in the 2016 EIR, the Scheme C impact to signalized and unsignalized intersections would be significant and unavoidable.
Freeway Segments
The 2016 EIR analyzed freeway segments to determine their LOS under Existing-plus-Project and Cumulative-plus-Project conditions. As noted above, Scheme C would generate fewer vehicle trips and thus reduce the project contribution to freeway segments compared with the Approved Project (see Appendix B Table 8.1). Therefore, the Existing-plus-Scheme C condition is not anticipated to result in new or more severe significant impacts on freeway segments than those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Although the 2016 EIR analyzed Cumulative-plus-Project conditions at 236 freeway segments, the traffic changes associated with Scheme C are anticipated to affect fewer freeway segments due to an overall
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 50 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
reduction in vehicle trips compared with the Approved Project trips. Therefore, like the approach described above for LOS analysis, a reduced study area was identified for analysis. Freeway segments selected for Scheme C analysis were limited to those on SR 237 and US 101 that were not identified as having a significant impact in the 2016 EIR (see Appendix B Section 8.2 for a discussion of the reduced study area, see Appendix B Table 8.1 for a list of selected freeway segments). Despite the reduction in trip generation, Scheme C would still contribute to a significant cumulative impact on freeway segments.
However, as shown in Table 8.1 of the Traffic Report, Scheme C would result in a reduced contribution to the freeway segments selected for analysis when compared with the estimated contribution from the Approved Project.
By updating background data, the Traffic Report identified several freeway segments that deteriorated compared with 2016 existing conditions and one freeway segment that now exceeds the established LOS standard without the Project that was not identified in the 2016 EIR (see Appendix B Table 8.1). 25 Although Scheme C’s contribution to this segment would be considerable, the Scheme C project trips along this segment would be reduced relative to the Approved Project trips. As described in the Traffic Report, with a reduced trip generation and reduced contribution to cumulative conditions, the
performance of freeway segments previously identified with a significant impact in the 2016 EIR would not substantially change under Scheme C. Considering all freeway segments analyzed, Scheme C would not result in a new or more severe significant impact to overall freeway conditions compared to the impact disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with (TDM); TRA-3.1, Freeway Segment Improvements; and TRA-14.1, Signalized Intersection Improvements; which would apply to Scheme C. Consistent with the conclusions in the 2016 EIR, the Scheme C impact to freeway segments would be significant and unavoidable.
Other Modes of Transportation
Pedestrian Facilities
As with the Approved Project, Scheme C would be subject to all General Plan policies adopted to protect pedestrian access and safety (see 2016 EIR Table 3.3-2) and to Mitigation Measure TRA-7.1, Sidewalk Gap Closure on Tasman Drive on the Lafayette Street overcrossing extending east to Calle Del Sol, listed above. Sidewalks are proposed along all internal streets in Parcels 1 and 2 to provide a safe pedestrian environment by segregating walking areas from streets and truck movements on these streets. As noted above, the 2016 EIR found a significant and unavoidable impact related to the Approved Project generating a substantial number of pedestrians travelling to transit stops along routes where sidewalk gaps exist, thus creating a hazardous condition for pedestrians. As noted below, the Traffic Report indicated that, compared with the Approved Project, Scheme C would result in reduced transit ridership and thus a reduced number of pedestrians travelling to transit stops along routes where sidewalk gaps exist (see Appendix B Table 8.2). Therefore, Scheme C would result in no new or more severe significant impact related to hazardous conditions for pedestrians and would result in the same significant and unavoidable impact.
25 The adjusted No Project Background conditions are based on traffic counts collected in 2018/19 which are lower than the Background No Project conditions forecast and adopted in the 2016 EIR. See Appendix B for an explanation.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 51 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Bicycle Facilities
Scheme C would not alter the Approved Project’s proposed bicycle infrastructure improvements for the southwest parcels or the surrounding area. Although the proposed modifications to the internal road network for the northeast parcels would require a revision to the planned bicycle infrastructure, Scheme C would not alter the MCP design guidelines related to the provision of bike facilities, which include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Final infrastructure layout and design for bicycle facilities would occur as a part of road and civil engineering studies required for site-specific DAP approvals, and will be reviewed for consistency with the MCP design guidelines at that time. Therefore, consistent with the conclusions in the 2016 EIR, the Scheme C impact with respect to bicycle facilities would be less-than- significant.
Transit Capacity and Operations
As demonstrated in the Traffic Report, Scheme C would result in reduced transit ridership compared with the Approved Project (see Appendix B Table 8.2). In addition, as noted above, Scheme C would result in an overall reduction in vehicle trips compared with the Approved Project trips, and a reduced severity of the previously identified significant impact to intersection performance under Background-plus-Project and Cumulative-plus-Project conditions. As such, Scheme C would not result in new or more severe significant impact with respect to transit capacity or operations than impacts disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Emergency Access
Scheme C would not revise any of the fire station relocation options analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, potential impacts of Scheme C relative to the Approved Project regarding emergency access would be equal to the impacts disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Parking
Scheme C’s proposed land use, development density, and on-site road network changes would result in changes to peak parking demand. However, final bicycle and vehicle parking quantity and location are determined by MCP requirements and would be confirmed during site-specific DAP approval. Therefore, consistent with the conclusions in the 2016 EIR, the Scheme C impact on parking would be less-than- significant.
Construction
Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. The changes to land use under Scheme C would not change the construction activities or substantially alter the construction timeline. Therefore, Scheme C would result in no new or more severe significant impact with respect to construction-related traffic. As with the Approved Project, Scheme C would be subject to Mitigation Measure TRA-18.1, Construction Management, and would result in the same significant and unavoidable impact.
Game Day
The 2016 EIR evaluated the Approved Project traffic during the events with the most frequency and highest attendance, which are the Sunday football games. According to the Traffic Report, Scheme C would result in reduced Sunday daily and total peak hour trips compared with the Approved Project.
Therefore, Scheme C would result in no new or more severe significant impact with respect to game-day traffic congestion. As with the Approved Project, Scheme C would be subject to Mitigation Measure
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 52 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
TRA-19.1, Modified Traffic Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) and Project Traffic and Parking Management Plan and would result in the same significant and unavoidable impact.
6.4.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of the Scheme C development would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to transportation/traffic that were not identified in the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measures TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with (TDM); TRA-1a.1, Intersection Improvements for Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3; TRA-1.2, Intersection Improvements; TRA-1.3, Prepare and Implement a Multimodal Improvement Plan (MIP); TRA-
2.1, Traffic Signal Installation; TRA-2.2, Traffic Signal Installation; TRA-3.1, Freeway Segment Improvements; TRA-5.1, Transportation Design Review; TRA-7.1, Sidewalk Gap Closure on Tasman Drive on the Lafayette Street overcrossing extending east to Calle Del Sol; TRA-14.1, Signalized Intersection Improvements; TRA-16.1, Intersection Improvements; TRA-18.1, Construction Management; and TRA-19.1, Modified Traffic Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) and Project Traffic and Parking Management Plan (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to transportation/traffic would be equal to, or less severe than, those previously identified and disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 53 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.5 Air Quality
Would the project:
Equal or Less
Severity of Impact
Previously Identified
in the 2016 EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. For the purposes of this analysis, “conflict with or obstruct implementation” is defined as
circumstances in which the project would worsen existing air quality violations or exceed the growth assumptions utilized by the City of Santa Clara and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG);
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Violate any air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. For the purposes of this analysis, “violate any air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation” is defined as circumstances in which construction or operational emissions exceed the pertinent BAAQMD thresholds, as described under Local Air District Thresholds [see the 2016 EIR Section 3.4];
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a
nonattainment area for an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard. For the purposes of this
analysis, a “cumulatively considerable net increase” is defined as circumstances in which total direct emissions exceed BAAQMD thresholds identified in Table 3.4-5 [see the 2016 EIR Section 3.4]. The emissions thresholds
presented in Table 3.4-5 represent the average daily
emissions that a project may generate before contributing to a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Therefore, exceedances of the project-level thresholds, as identified in Table 3.4-5, would be cumulatively considerable [see the 2016 EIR Section 3.4];
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. For the purpose of this analysis, schools, daycare facilities, places of assembly, medical facilities, parks, and residences are considered sensitive receptor locations. A “substantial pollutant concentration” is defined as levels in excess of applicable BAAQMD thresholds, as described below under Local Air District Thresholds [see the 2016 EIR Section 3.4; or
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. For the purpose of this analysis, an
odor-producing facility, as defined by BAAQMD,
26 creates
an “objectionable odor” if it receives five complaints per year averaged over 3 years.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.5.1 2016 EIR Findings
The 2016 EIR determined that construction of the Approved Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants. Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions were found to exceed BAAQMD’s annual average daily threshold for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) during the first year of Project construction and was, therefore, identified as a significant impact, as was emissions of fugitive dust. Mitigation Measures AQ-2.1 and AQ-2.2 were identified to reduce emissions through the use of
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.
San Francisco, CA.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 54 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
cleaner off-road equipment and cleaner on-road trucks, respectively. However, with these mitigation measures, emissions of NOx from construction were still found to be significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-2.4 was identified to require the Project Developer to pay an off-site mitigation fee for construction NOx emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds to reduce the construction-related impact of criteria air pollutant emissions to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-2.3 was identified to address fugitive dust emissions sufficiently to reduce the impact from fugitive dust to a less than significant level.
The 2016 EIR found that Approved Project operations would result in regional criteria pollutant emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds, a significant impact. Specifically, emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), NOx, particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under both Schemes A and B would exceed BAAQMD’s mass emissions thresholds. Mitigation Measure GHG-1.2 was identified to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent and, thus, reduce emissions by reducing natural gas demand. Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1 was identified to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce vehicle trips and their associated mobile-source emissions; however, implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce the operational criteria air pollutant impact to a less-than-significant level and this impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. Further, because the overall project would involve concurrent construction and operational activities, the 2016 EIR considered the impacts of the combined Approved Project construction and operation, and it too would result in regional criteria pollution emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. Even after implementation of the mitigation measures described above, these impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would contribute to unplanned regional growth.
Further, as noted above, the Approved Project’s long-term operational emissions would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance even with mitigation incorporated. Accordingly, the 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
The 2016 EIR determined that construction of the Approved Project would generate PM
2.5 and diesel
particulate matter (DPM), resulting in the exposure of nearby existing sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, parks) to increased PM2.5 concentrations and health risks associated with DPM. The results of a health risk assessment conducted for the 2016 EIR concluded that Project construction would result in a significant (greater than 10 in one million) increase in cancer risk in excess of BAAQMD thresholds at sensitive receptors, which were the occupants of residential uses constructed during Phase 1 within Parcel 5. The analysis found that with the afore mentioned Mitigation Measures AQ-2.1, AQ-2.2, AQ-2.3 and an additional Mitigation Measure AQ-6.1 to utilize clean diesel-powered equipment, the significant health risk impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The 2016 EIR determined that the TAC emissions from the Approved Project operational vehicle traffic, truck traffic, and emergency generator use would be below the BAAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-7.1. However, the 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project’s TAC emissions could contribute to a cumulative health risk to existing off-site receptors and the contribution was identified as cumulatively considerable and unavoidable with mitigation.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 55 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Potential Approved Project impacts related to objectionable odors were found to be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1, which includes on-site odor monitoring during excavation. Impacts related to carbon monoxide hot spots and asbestos were found to be less-than- significant.
6.5.2 Project Analysis
The discussion of Scheme C’s air quality analysis is informed by the CEQA Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Modification of the Related Santa Clara Project, prepared by Ramboll (Appendix C).
Air Quality Plan
The 2016 EIR evaluates the Approved Project relative to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Although BAAQMD has since adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, this analysis compares the potential impacts of Scheme C with the Approved Project and relies on the thresholds in place for the 2016 EIR to determine whether, if the Approved Project had included Scheme C, additional or more severe significant impacts would have been identified. Scheme C’s operational and construction-related activities including demolition, infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, general building locations, and building foundations would be substantially similar to what was anticipated for the Approved Project and analyzed in the 2016 EIR. The analysis of criteria pollutant emissions, discussed below, indicates that Scheme C operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be less than those estimated in the 2016 EIR. However, like the Approved Project, Scheme C would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the potential impacts for Scheme C would remain consistent with the findings in the 2016 EIR and would not result in a new significant impact or a more severe significant impact than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR with respect to consistency with the Clean Air Plan.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction
Scheme C proposes to construct the same total building square footage over the same physical footprint.
Therefore, the construction footprints between the Approved Project and Scheme C would not change substantially. While the land uses within each parcel may change, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR, and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time. Additionally, Scheme C construction emissions from equipment and trucks are predicted to be lower than estimated in the 2016 EIR due to more stringent emissions standards and fleet turnover with time. Scheme C would still be subject to the following mitigation measures to ensure a less than significant construction criteria air pollutant emissions impact: AQ-2.1, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Emissions; AQ-
2.2, Use Modern Fleet for On-Road Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction; AQ-
2.3, Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Exhaust Emissions; AQ-2.4, Offset NOx Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOx Average Daily Emission Threshold. Therefore, construction emissions would not result in a new or more severe impact with respect to construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 56 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Operations
The operational emissions from Scheme C were estimated to capture the effects of the proposed changes in land use. Due to differences in land use types, emissions from Parcels 1 and 2 were evaluated separately from the City Center Parcels. The modifications and emissions methodologies of Scheme C are detailed in the analysis in Appendix C. Table 6.5-1 presents the comparison between the findings of the 2016 EIR and Scheme C. Operational criteria air pollutant emissions of Scheme C would result in a decrease of emissions compared with the Approved Project, ranging from a 7 percent to 34 percent decrease, depending on the pollutant. However, resulting emissions would continue to be above BAAQMD thresholds and would therefore be subject to the mitigation measure identified in the 2016 EIR in this context: AQ-2.4, Offset NOx Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOx Average Daily Emission Threshold. In summary, although operational emissions would be reduced compared to the Approved Project, Scheme C would result in the same significant and unavoidable impact identified in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, Scheme C would not cause a new significant impact or a more severe significant impact than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR with respect to operational criteria air pollutant emissions.
TABLE 6.5-1
COMPARISON OF APPROVED PROJECT AND SCHEME C OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Categories
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Approved Project (Scheme B) (Table 3.4-9)
Mobile Sources 299 462 2,743 625 173
Area Sources 229 1 17 1 1
Energy Sources 5 48 40 4 4
Total 534 511 2,801 629 177
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 CAAQSa 82 82
Scheme C (with Manufacturing)
Mobile Sources – Delivery Trucks (Northeast) 1.4 57 7.8 4.8 2.1 Mobile Sources – Passenger Vehicles (Northeast) 14 9.1 140 2.8 0.9 Mobile Sources (City Center + Northwest) 251 191 1,978 520 134 Hearths 1 17 7.1 1.3 1.3
Consumer Products 179 0 0 0 0
Architectural Coatings 25 0 0 0 0
Energy Sources (NE Parcel) 1 19 16 1.4 1.4
Energy Sources (City Center + Northwest) 2.4 43 31 3.3 3.3 Total 476 335 2,179 534 143
BAAQMD Thresholds 65 54 CAAQSa 82 82
Percentage Changes -11% -34% -22% -15% -19%
Scheme C (with Warehouse)
Mobile Sources – Delivery Trucks (Northeast) 34 105 14 6.7 3.1 Mobile Sources – Passenger Vehicles (Northeast) 5.1 3.3 50 1.0 0.3 Mobile Sources (City Center + Northwest) 251 191 1,978 520 134
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 57 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Categories
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Hearths 1.0 17 7.1 1.3 1.3
Consumer Products 179 0 0 0 0
Architectural Coatings 25 0 0 0 0
Energy Sources (NE Parcel) 0.08 1.57 1.32 0.12 0.12
Energy Sources (City Center + Northwest) 2.4 43 31 3.3 3.3 Total 498 360 2,081 533 142
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 CAAQSa 82 82
Percentage Changes -7% -30% -26% -15% -20%
NOTES:
a. CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards; Refer to “Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots”, below, for significance determination.
SOURCE: Ramboll 2024.
Cumulative
Emissions during construction and operation of Scheme C would cause or contribute to a cumulatively significant impact air quality in the surrounding region. Construction criteria air pollutant emissions from Scheme C would not exceed those from the Approved Project for the reasons discussed above. Similarly, operational criteria air pollutant emissions for Scheme C and their comparison against the Approved Project are presented in Table 6.5-1, below, and have been determined to be consistent with the conclusions reached in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, the combination of construction and operation emissions for Scheme C would be similar to or less than the combination of construction and operation emissions for the Approved Project. Project emissions would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, which were developed to represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts throughout the air basin. As with the Approved Project, Scheme C would be subject to the mitigation measures listed above and would result in the same significant and unavoidable impact.
Localized Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
The 2016 EIR evaluated exposure of sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide hot spots using screening methods and comparison of traffic volumes through major intersections with screening thresholds.
Scheme C’s updated traffic volumes would not result in any intersections exceeding the screening thresholds used in the 2016 EIR.
27 Therefore, impacts of Scheme C would remain consistent with the finding of less-than-significant impacts in the 2016 EIR.
Construction Toxic Air Contaminants
The 2016 EIR evaluated exposure of on-site and off-site sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs), primarily diesel particulate matter (DPM), and localized concentrations of fine particulate matter
27 See the 2024 Related Santa Clara Traffic Analysis Memo prepared by Arup for the Project Applicant and peer reviewed by Hexagon for the City of Santa Clara. Per the 2024 Related Santa Clara Traffic Analysis Memo, cumulative traffic volumes are based on the latest available County of Santa Clara Travel Demand Model outputs considering current data for development projects and adjusted for 2018/19 traffic counts. See also Appendix B.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 58 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
(PM2.5) during construction. The 2016 EIR determined that the construction-related health risks were less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Scheme C would construct the same total building square footage over the same physical footprint.
However, Scheme C would increase the density, resulting in more concentrated vertical construction in the City Center parcels, thus increasing construction activity and potential health impacts. The air quality analysis provided in Appendix C conservatively assumes that the density decrease in Parcels 1 and 2 would have no effect on the construction activity and health impacts, even though the construction activity and health impacts would likely be expected to decrease at receptors near these construction areas.
To estimate the change in health risk associated with the increased density of the City Center parcels under Scheme C, the 2016 EIR’s mitigated Project construction health risk results were scaled based on the building square footage increase, from 5.13 million square feet to 7.56 million square feet (See Appendix C for more details). Table 6.5-2 shows the scaled mitigated PM
2.5 concentration, Chronic
Hazard Index (HI), and Cancer risk at the on-site and off-site maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) under Scheme C and compares the results to the risks identified in the 2016 EIR. The Scheme C construction health risk impacts remain below BAAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-6.1, Assess Construction Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Potential Prior to Construction, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment, Filtration Systems, and/or other Measures as Necessary to Reduce Cancer Risks Associated with DPM during Construction. This mitigation measure requires the Project Developer to, in lieu of an updated HRA, use updated construction equipment activity data; submit this data to the City for review; and ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction after occupancy of on-site residences or on-site daycare centers is equipped with EPA Tier 4 or cleaner engines or else to install heating, cooling, or ventilation systems that serve on-site residential or daycare centers that are rated with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 13. Therefore, the impact significance conclusion for construction health risk from Scheme C would remain consistent with the determination reached in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C would result in no new significant impact and no more severe a significant impact than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR with respect to construction-related health risk.
TABLE 6.5-2
SCALED PROJECT-LEVEL CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK
Phase
EIR Mitigateda Scheme C Scaled Mitigated
Non-Cancer HI
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
concentration
(µg/m3) Non-Cancer HI
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
concentration
(µg/m3)
On-Site MEIR 0.01 1.5 0.01 0.015 2.2 0.015
Off-Site MEIR 0.01 0.8 0.01 0.015 1.2 0.015
BAAQMD Thresholds 1 10 0.3 1 10 0.3
NOTES:
a. Where the PM2.5 concentrations and Chronic HI in the 2016 EIR was shown as “<0.01”, the risk was conservatively assumed to be 0.01 for the scaling calculations.
SOURCE: Ramboll 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 59 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Operational Toxic Air Contaminants
The 2016 EIR evaluated exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, primarily DPM, and speciated total organic gases (TOG), as well as localized concentrations of PM2.5, during operations to nearby existing or new sensitive receptors. The 2016 EIR determined operational TACs would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Table 6.5-3, Table 6.5-4, and Table 6.5-5 summarize Scheme C’s maximum project operational excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic hazard indices, and PM
2.5 concentrations respectively. While the health risks to some off-site and on-site receptors would increase compared to that Approved Project, the Scheme C operational health risk impacts remain below BAAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-7.1, Provide Filtration Systems for On-site Residences and Daycare Centers as Necessary to Reduce Operational Cancer Risks and Exposure to Particulate Matter
2.5 Microns in Diameter or Less. Therefore, the less-than- significant impact related to operational health risk would result from Scheme C. This determination is consistent with the findings reached in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, Scheme C would result in no new significant impact and no more severe a significant impact than identified in the 2016 EIR with respect to operational health risk.
Asbestos
The 2016 EIR evaluated asbestos exposure risks during construction. Scheme C would result in the same activities and therefore would be subject to the same BAAQMD regulations for asbestos control. The potential impacts of Scheme C would be consistent with the findings reached in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C would result in no new significant impact and no more severe a significant impact than disclosed in the 2016 EIR with respect to asbestos exposure.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 60 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
TABLE 6.5-3
SCHEME C MAXIMUM PROJECT OPERATION EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK Sources
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (in a million)
On-Site
Resident
Off-Site
Resident Daycare Off-Site Worker On-Site Worker School Recreational Off-Site Delivery Trucks 2.3 0.4 1.3 0.73 0.046 0.093 0.052 On-Site Delivery Trucks 0.066 1.057 0.04 0.200 0.21 0.0114 0.40 Truck Idling 0.065 0.720 0.04 0.064 0.48 0.013 0.10
Off-Site TRU Trailer 3.2 0.63 1.8 0.33 0.045 0.13 0.060 On-Site TRU Trailer 0.034 0.553 0.020 0.068 0.18 0.0064 0.187 Unloading TRU Trailer 0.074 0.822 0.04 0.073 0.55 0.015 0.12 Off-Site Passenger Vehicle 0.27 0.05 0.154 0.013 0.0033 0.015 0.0050 Emergency Generator 0.29 4.32 0.16 0.16 0.58 0.055 0.54 2015 AERSCREEN – Docks 1.1 1.1 0.48 0.063 0.027 0.061 0.14 2015 AERSCREEN – Generators 0.090 0.090 0.040 0.0051 0.0023 0.0050 0.012 Operations Total 7.5 9.6 4.1 1.7 2.1 0.41 1.6
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No
SOURCE: Ramboll 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 61 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
TABLE 6.5-4
SCHEME C MAXIMUM PROJECT OPERATION CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX Sources
Chronic Hazard Index
On-Site
Resident
Off-Site
Resident Daycare Off-Site Worker On-Site Worker School Recreational Off-Site Delivery Trucks 6.2E-04 4.6E-04 2.6E-04 0.0024 1.5E-04 2.2E-04 1.1E-04 On-Site Delivery Trucks 1.8E-05 2.1E-05 6.8E-06 6.5E-04 6.7E-04 2.7E-05 8.4E-04 Truck Idling 1.7E-05 2.3E-05 7.0E-06 2.1E-04 0.0016 3.1E-05 2.1E-04 Off-Site TRU Trailer 8.6E-04 0.0008 4.0E-04 1.1E-03 1.4E-04 3.1E-04 1.3E-04 On-Site TRU Trailer 9.2E-06 1.2E-05 3.8E-06 2.2E-04 5.8E-04 1.5E-05 3.9E-04 Unloading TRU Trailer 2.0E-05 2.7E-05 8.0E-06 2.3E-04 0.0018 3.5E-05 2.4E-04 Off-Site Passenger Vehicle 0.0012 0.0020 0.0021 6.9E-04 1.7E-04 5.6E-04 0.0002 Emergency Generator 7.8E-05 1.0E-04 4.2E-05 5.2E-04 0.0019 1.3E-04 1.1E-03 2015 AERSCREEN – Docks 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 2015 AERSCREEN – Generators 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 Operations Total 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.026 0.027 0.021 0.023 BAAQMD Thresholds 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No
SOURCE: Ramboll 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 62 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
TABLE 6.5-5
SCHEME C MAXIMUM PROJECT OPERATION PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS Sources
PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3)
On-Site
Resident
Off-Site
Resident Daycare Off-Site Worker On-Site Worker School Recreational Off-Site Delivery Trucks 0.0036 0.004 0.0044 0.0059 0.0070 0.0038 0.0028 On-Site Delivery Trucks 9.8E-05 6.2E-04 1.2E-04 2.8E-04 0.0104 4.6E-04 1.6E-04 Truck Idling 2.6E-05 2.2E-04 3.3E-05 8.8E-05 0.0007 1.5E-04 3.7E-05 Off-Site TRU Trailer 0.0015 0.0024 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0014 0.0023 On-Site TRU Trailer 1.4E-05 9.7E-05 1.8E-05 4.4E-05 9.9E-04 7.0E-05 2.1E-05 Unloading TRU Trailer 2.9E-05 2.4E-04 3.7E-05 9.7E-05 0.0008 1.6E-04 4.1E-05 Off-Site Passenger Vehicle 0.18 0.248 0.23 0.25 0.132 0.061 0.242 Emergency Generator 1.8E-04 8.1E-04 2.1E-04 4.0E-04 0.0025 6.5E-04 2.4E-04 2015 AERSCREEN – Docks 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 2015 AERSCREEN – Generators 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 Operations Total 0.20 0.276 0.258 0.281 0.18 0.09 0.268 BAAQMD Thresholds 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No
SOURCE: Ramboll 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 63 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Odors
Advanced manufacturing has the potential to generate odors that were not evaluated in the 2016 EIR.
Scheme C introduces light industrial land use in the form of warehouse or light manufacturing that was not considered in the 2016 EIR. Potential odor sources from warehouse operations would include diesel exhaust from deliveries and shipments. Odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, and parking areas. Although such brief exhaust-related odors may be considered adverse, they would not be atypical of developed urban areas. As described above in Section 4, the light industrial land use would not permit wastewater treatment, confined animal facilities, composting stations, refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, which are odor-generating facilities identified by BAAQMD. 28 Furthermore, as described above,
light industrial uses would be limited to operations within an enclosed building that are not objectionable or detrimental to adjacent properties because odor emanating from the property. However, if other odor- generating facilities identified by BAAQMD, such as food manufacturing plants, were proposed, project operations would be subject to the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 7, which would control potential impacts (see Appendix C). Therefore, the impact of Scheme C would remain consistent with the 2016 EIR’s determination that a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated would result.
Scheme C’s potential significant impacts relating to odor generation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction.
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
New residential land uses will become occupied along Calle del Mundo under the Tasman East Specific Plan. These residential uses developed along Calle del Mundo under the Tasman East Specific Plan would represent new sensitive receptors that were not anticipated or considered in the 2016 EIR. These uses were included in the health risk assessment conducted for both construction-related and operational toxic air contaminants as were additional daycare receptors within 1,000 meters of the Project boundary.
Therefore, the results of the analysis provided in Tables 6.5-2, 6.5-3, and 6.5-4 were inclusive of cumulative development of sensitive land uses and, as set forth above, Scheme C would result in no new significant impact and no more severe significant health risk impacts than identified in the 2016 EIR.
Accordingly, Scheme C would result in no new or more severe contribution to cumulative exposure health risks of sensitive receptors. The impact would be similar to that included in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project and would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable with mitigation.
Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant impact and no substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact on air quality than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to air quality that were not identified in the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measures AQ-2.1, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Emissions; AQ-2.2, Use Modern Fleet for On- Road Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction; AQ-2.3, Implement Bay Area Air
28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines: Chapter 5. “Project-Level Air Quality Impacts”. April. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-5-project-air-quality-impacts_final- pdf.pdf?rev=de582fe349e545989239cbbc0d62c37a&sc_lang=en. Accessed July 29, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 64 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Exhaust Emissions; AQ-2.4, Offset NOx Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOx Average Daily Emission Threshold; AQ-6.1, Assess Construction Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Potential Prior to Construction, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment, Filtration Systems, and/or other Measures as Necessary to Reduce Cancer Risks Associated with DPM during Construction; AQ-7.1, Provide Filtration Systems for On-site Residences and Daycare Centers as Necessary to Reduce Operational Cancer Risks and Exposure to Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns in Diameter or Less;; and HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C. These mitigation measures would ensure that while some emissions or risks may increase, the impacts related to air quality would be equal to, or less severe than, those previously identified and disclosed in the EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 65 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of this analysis,
a “significant impact” from GHG emissions would occur
if emissions exceed thresholds described below; or
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHGs. For the purposes of this analysis, applicable
plans include the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the City’s
[2013] CAP (consistency with the goals in EO B-30-15
and EO S-03-05 is also evaluated).
☒ ☐ ☐
6.6.1 2016 EIR Findings
The 2016 EIR determined that, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the Approved Project’s emissions would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, based on consistency with Assembly Bill 32’s greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020, but would exceed BAAQMD’s efficiency metric (developed for year 2020 reduction targets) that was adjusted to 2.7 metric tons (MT) per Service Population to account for “Substantial Progress” to meet the state’s increased GHG reduction goals for year 2030. Therefore, the 2016 EIR determined that the impact of the Approved Project relating to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
The Approved Project was found to be consistent with the 2006 Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan (less-than- significant). The Approved Project was not included in the socioeconomic forecasts underlying the Santa Clara Climate Action Plan (2013) (CAP) and so did not tier from the CAP for purposes of a significance determination. Nonetheless, the 2016 EIR determined that, with implementation of GHG and Traffic mitigation measures, the Approved Project would be consistent with the CAP. Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1, Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction; GHG-1.2, Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures; AQ-2.4, Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOX Average Daily Emission Threshold; HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; and TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) were identified to utilize alternative fuels during construction and implement operational emissions reduction strategies, but these will not achieve the long-term GHG reduction targets of Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15, and the impact with respect to plan consistency was found to be significant and unavoidable.
6.6.2 Project Analysis
The discussion of Scheme C’s GHG analysis is informed by the technical memorandum prepared for Scheme C by Ramboll (Appendix C).
GHG Emissions Impacts of Scheme C
The results of the analysis included in Appendix C indicate that GHG emissions under Scheme C would be reduced compared to those estimated for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Specifically, GHG emissions under Scheme C with a manufacturing land use are estimated to be 90,009 Metric Tons of CO 2 6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 66 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
equivalents (MTCO2e) per year. This is a reduction of 4.3 percent from the estimated 94,014 MTCO2e estimated in the 2016 EIR. GHG emissions under Scheme C with a warehouse land use are estimated to be 89,713 MTCO2e per year. This is a reduction of 4.6 percent from the estimated 102,837 MTCO2e estimated in the 2016 EIR.
However, the service population under Scheme C would be reduced compared to the service population estimated for the Approved Project. BAAQMD’s efficiency metric (developed for year 2020 reduction targets) was adjusted from 4.6 MT/Service Population to 2.7 MT/Service Population to account for “Substantial Progress” to meet the state’s increased GHG reduction goals for year 2030. GHG emissions under Scheme C would continue to exceed the 2030 “Substantial Progress” Efficiency Metric (MT/Service Population) of 2.7, applied in the 2016 EIR. Specifically, GHG emissions under Scheme C with a manufacturing land use are estimated to be 3.26 MTCO2e per service population and GHG emissions under Scheme C with a warehouse land use are estimated to be 3.25 MTCO2e per service population. This is an increase in per service population emissions of approximately 1 percent, which would not be a substantial increase, particularly given the fact that overall GHG emissions would decrease under Scheme C. Therefore, consistent with the conclusions in the 2016 EIR, the Scheme C GHG impact would be significant and unavoidable. Nevertheless, because GHG emissions would be reduced, Scheme C would not result in a new or more severe GHG emissions impact than the GHG impact evaluated in the 2016 EIR.
Consistency with Plans to Reduce GHG Emissions
Similar to the findings of the 2016 EIR, development under Scheme C would implement all applicable measures in the City’s 2013 CAP, which was the current applicable document at the time of the 2016 EIR and thus the appropriate benchmark for comparing impacts of Scheme C to the Approved Project.
Because the 2013 CAP includes more reductions than are necessary to meet the CAP target of 15 percent below 2008 levels, the addition of the Approved Project emissions were found not to result in the City exceeding the CAP goal and the Approved Project was considered consistent with the 2013 CAP with respect to GHG emissions reduction goals. As discussed above, GHG emissions under Scheme C would be reduced compared to those estimated for the Approved Project. Therefore, it follows that Scheme C would also be consistent with the 2013 CAP and would not result in a new or more severe impact with respect to consistency with the 2013 CAP adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
It is acknowledged that the City of Santa Clara updated its CAP in 2022 and this updated CAP contains more aggressive GHG reduction targets and measures. However, because this document was not adopted at the time of the 2016 EIR, it is not applicable to this assessment of the impacts of Scheme C as a project change pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166.
The 2016 EIR found that the identified mitigation measures for construction and operational emissions reduction strategies were not sufficient to achieve the long-term GHG reduction targets of Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15, and the impact with respect to consistency with state plans was found to be significant and unavoidable. This policy-related impact would also be true under Scheme C. However, as discussed above, GHG emissions under Scheme C would be reduced compared to those estimated for the Approved Project. Therefore, it follows that while Scheme C would also be inconsistent with GHG reduction targets of Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15, it would not result in a new or more severe
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 67 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
impact with respect to consistency with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
6.6.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant impact and no substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact on GHG emissions than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to GHG emissions that were not identified in the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measures GHG-1.1, Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction; GHG-1.2, Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures; AQ-2.4, Offset NOx Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOx Average Daily Emission Threshold; HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; and TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to GHG emissions would be equal to, or less severe than, those previously identified and disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 68 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.7 Noise
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or
noise ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-
borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project;
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport and
expose people residing or working in the Project area
to excessive noise levels; or
☒ ☐ ☐
f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the Project area
to excessive noise levels.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.7.1 2016 EIR Findings
While the Project site is located within an airport land use plan area and near the San José Mineta International Airport, there are no private airstrips in the Project site vicinity and no related noise impact would occur. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 to prepare and implement a construction noise control plan that would reduce Approved Project construction noise impacts for both on-site and off-site land uses. Project operations, however, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for off-site land uses, primarily associated with increased traffic noise. Although the 2016 EIR imposed Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2 to construct noise barriers and implement an off-site noise control plan, the 2016 EIR determined that the impact would remain significant unavoidable.
Regarding ground-borne vibration, Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1 addressing pile driving was found to mitigate noise impacts related to project construction to on-site receptors. No ground-borne vibration impacts were identified for off-site receptors.
Significant noise and vibration impacts for on-site land uses related to traffic noise, light rail service, passenger train service, and San José Mineta International Airport operations are considered to be impacts of the environment on a project and therefore not CEQA impacts. Nonetheless, the 2016 EIR included potential strategies to address the noise and vibration problems, including a design-level operational vibration control plan that the City Council adopted as Condition of Approval 8.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 69 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.7.2 Project Analysis
Construction Noise Impacts on Off‐Site Land Uses
The construction footprints between the Approved Project and Scheme C would not change substantially and, because the increase in density in Parcel 4 would likely be accommodated by increased building height within the maximums permitted by the MCP, as amended by the MCP Scheme C Supplement, construction noise and vibration impacts would be similar to those indicated in the 2016 EIR. 29 The increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the overall construction timeline for the City Center Parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time. Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are similar to the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR. New residential uses approved under the Tasman East Specific Plan since the 2016 EIR are addressed in the cumulative analysis below. While there could be a greater duration of construction activity, this would not affect the magnitude of the noise levels experienced at nearby receptors and would not result in a further temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels which is the CEQA threshold. Construction-related noise impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1, Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Adjacent Land Uses; NOI-1.2, Implement Off-Site Traffic Noise Reduction Measures, and NOI-2.1, Restrict Pile Driving. Therefore, construction-related noise impacts associated with Scheme C would also be less- than-significant with mitigation incorporated. As a result, Scheme C would cause no new significant impact and no substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact due to construction noise and off- site land uses than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Operational Noise Impacts on Off-Site Land Uses
Stationary Noise Sources
Operational noise impacts associated with Scheme C are analyzed in the Related Santa Clara Scheme C Noise Technical Report (Noise Report) (Appendix D). The analysis in the Noise Report examines stationary noise sources that may be associated with industrial and warehouse uses not envisioned in the 2016 EIR including noise from the following sources:
• Heating Ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; • Back-up diesel; generators;
• On-site Heavy-duty truck maneuvering
• Operation of back-up alarms
29 As noted in Section 4.1 of this Addendum, the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10-12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 70 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Stationary Equipment
Scheme C would replace the office land uses proposed under the Approved Project on Parcels 1 and 2 with approximately 1.6 million square feet (sf) of warehouse or manufacturing uses. While the 17-story towers analyzed for the Approved Project would require large, packaged HVAC equipment on the rooftops; industrial uses would also likely require large, packaged HVAC units on rooftops approximately 60 feet in height. In addition, the industrial/warehouse uses under Scheme C would potentially require back-up diesel generators. The 17-story height limit approved under the Approved Project would also have required back-up diesel generators for emergency egress. Because the intensity of noise reduces as the distance from the source increases, installing rooftop mechanical equipment at lower heights would reduce the distance between the source and potential sensitive receptors, thereby increasing noise intensity. However, as demonstrated in the Noise Report, operational noise from rooftop-mounted HVAC equipment and daytime testing of exterior back-up generators would be well below the applicable daytime and nighttime noise standards at the nearest receptors. Hence, operation of stationary equipment under Scheme C development would not result in any new or more severe noise impacts than disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
On-site Truck Maneuvering
Potential warehouse uses under Scheme C could result in truck maneuvering and operation of transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) within the Project site that would be the source of on-site stationary noise that was not a consideration in the 2016 EIR. The analysis in the Noise Report indicates that operational noise from on-site truck maneuvering and TRU operations at the nearest receptors would be well below the applicable daytime and nighttime noise standards. 30 Hence, truck maneuvering and
operation of TRUs under Scheme C development would cause no new significant impact and no substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact due to noise from on-site truck maneuvering than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Operation of backup alarms
Industrial and warehouse uses would be required to operate back-up alarms on both trucks and forklifts to ensure worker safety. Additionally, the industrial/warehouse uses on Parcels 1 and 2 could operate 24 hours per day and hence increase noise levels from backup alarms during the more sensitive nighttime hours.
31 The Noise Report assumed all forklifts would operate within building interiors. The Noise Report conservatively assumed an aggregate of ten trucks employing backup alarms simultaneously throughout Parcel 2 (the parcel closest to sensitive receptors) during the busiest nighttime hour (6 a.m. to 7 a.m.).
Under this assumption, the resultant noise level would be 55 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor, which would not exceed the applicable nighttime noise standard. Consequently, the Noise Report indicates that operations under Scheme C would be able to be conducted consistent with the restrictions of the City of Santa Clara Noise Ordinance and not result in a new significant operational noise impact.
As described in the 2016 EIR, subsequent site development would require application for and approval of one or more Development Area Plans and Architectural Review applications submitted in accordance with MCP Appendix C procedures. Development Area Plans or Architectural Review applications would include site-specific design details including building heights and configurations, number and location of
30 As described in the MCP Scheme C Supplement, refrigerated warehouse space would be permitted up to a maximum of 50 percent of the building square footage on Parcels 1 and 2. 31 The City of Santa Clara Noise Ordinance considers nighttime hours to be from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 71 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
truck loading dock doors, and trucking operation details. Each subsequent development proposal will be required to confirm its capability of compliance with the City of Santa Clara noise ordinance in the context of Development Area Plan review and approval. Scheme C does not change the 2016 EIR’s subsequent site development requirements.
Project-Generated Traffic Noise
Scheme C would replace the office land uses proposed under the Approved Project with approximately
1.6 million sf of warehouse or manufacturing uses. Overall, the square footage of development would remain the same as the Approved Project. However, the industrial/warehouse uses on Parcels 1 and 2 would generate a higher percentage of heavy trucks than what was considered in the 2016 EIR.
Additionally, the industrial/warehouse uses on Parcels 1 and 2 could operate 24 hours per day and hence increase noise levels during the more sensitive nighttime hours. Therefore, the Noise Report considered the Scheme C increase over background (2020) conditions relative to the significance criteria applied in the 2016 EIR and also compared the resultant traffic noise levels to those predicted for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. In addition, the Noise Report predicted the noise level increases during the 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. hour which is the nighttime hour during which the most truck trips would be generated.
First the noise generated by background (2020) vehicle trips were compared to the noise generated by background (2020) plus Scheme C vehicle trips, which were conservatively assumed to be heavy trucks.
As indicated in the report, no roadways would experience an increase of 3 dBA or more and the impact would not be significant using the criteria applied in the 2016 EIR. Additionally, modeled roadside noise levels for background (2020) plus Scheme C would be lower than what was predicted for the Existing plus Approved Project in the 2016 EIR.
Because industrial/warehouse uses on Parcels 1 and 2 could operate 24 hours per day, an additional analysis was conducted to predict the increase in roadway noise that would occur during the peak nighttime hour (6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.). For this analysis the noise generated by background (2020) vehicle trips are compared to the noise generated by background (2020) plus Scheme C vehicle trips. All truck trips of the Scheme C increment were conservatively assumed to be heavy trucks. The results of this analysis indicate that only one roadway (two segments of Great America Parkway) would experience an increase of 3 dBA or more. However, because there are no noise-sensitive receptors located along these two segments, the impact would not be significant. Consequently, implementation of Scheme C would not result in roadside noise levels perceived by sensitive receptors that are greater than those that were predicted in the 2016 EIR and would cause no new significant impact and no substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact due to traffic noise than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Vibration-related Impacts
As discussed above with respect to construction noise, it is assumed that the construction footprints between the Approved Project and Scheme C would not change substantially and that, because the increase in density in Parcel 4 would likely be accommodated by increased building height, construction noise and vibration impacts would be similar to those identified in the 2016 EIR with the changes primarily resulting in an increased duration of the overall construction timeline for the City Center parcels. An increased duration of less-than-significant vibration levels would not result in a new or more
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 72 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
severe significant impact. Therefore, construction-related vibration impacts associated with Scheme C would also be less-than-significant with mitigation (NOI-2.1: Restrict Pile Driving for on-site receptors).
With respect to operational vibration impacts of existing rail activity on portions of Parcel 5 that were identified in the 2016 EIR, Scheme C would not result in any changes in the development scheme for Parcel 5. Therefore, the operational vibration impact of Scheme C would (like the Approved Project) be less-than-significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.2. It is further noted that the potential effects of the environment on the project are no longer legally required to be analyzed or mitigated under CEQA, except where the project impacts exacerbate the existing conditions.
Notwithstanding this change in CEQA implementation, this mitigation measure would still be required for Scheme C.
Airport-related Impacts
Scheme C would increase the density of the approved uses in the City Center Mixed Use & Northwest Office (Parcel 4) relative to the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, while there may be more residences with outdoor living space within the 65 CNEL contour of the 2011 CLUP under Scheme C, it would have the same significant and unavoidable aircraft noise impact described in the 2016 EIR, as Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3 would not reduce airport noise in outdoor areas. This impact would not be exacerbated by the increased in building height to accommodate additional residential uses because the noise contours that are the basis for assessment in the CLUP are not affected by elevation of the receiving land use.
Further, the County Airport Land Use Commission adopted an update to its CLUP in March 2024 that contains updated Noise Contours for airport operations. Based on the 2024 contours contained in Figure 5 of the 2024 CLUP, the City Center and Parcels 1 and 2 are no longer within the 65 CNEL noise contour.
Cumulative Noise Impacts
As stated above, for construction noise, the same equipment would be used and the same distance to receptors analyzed in the 2016 EIR would occur. While there could be a greater duration of construction activity, this would not affect the magnitude of the noise levels experienced at nearby receptors and would not result in a further temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels which is the CEQA threshold. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of Scheme C from construction would be the same as identified in the 2016 EIR. While there is existing cumulative construction occurring along Calle del Mundo under the Tasman East Specific Plan that was not anticipated in the 2016 EIR, this construction will be complete by the time construction under Scheme C commences. Therefore, there would be no new cumulative construction noise impacts.
Cumulative noise impacts from operations would occur if new sources were to be developed within 800 feet of project elements. While there will be new residential land uses becoming occupied along Calle del Mundo due to the Tasman East Specific Plan that were not anticipated in the 2016 EIR, residential uses are generally not considered to be a noise generating use for CEQA purposes. Therefore, other than the Calle del Mundo project’s contribution to traffic noise (discussed below), the addition of these recently approved residential uses would not increase the cumulative noise environment, and no new or more severe impacts would result. However, residential uses developed along Calle del Mundo under the Tasman East Specific Plan would represent new noise-sensitive receptors that were not considered in the
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 73 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
2016 EIR. New residential receptors along Calle del Mundo would be located as close as 100 feet from the footprint of buildings to be constructed on Parcel 1. The 2016 EIR found that noise levels resulting from construction of the Approved Project would temporarily exceed the City Code noise limits at sensitive land uses as close as 200 feet away during non-exempt hours and that construction noise impacts on off- site land uses would be significant. This would also be the case under Scheme C and Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 would still be required. The construction noise control plan implemented by this measure would require the construction contractor to implement best management practices to reduce construction- generated noise at surrounding land uses in the Project vicinity and within the Project site where necessary to comply with the City Code noise limits. The construction noise control plan would require construction that could affect new and existing residential land uses and construction located within 300 feet of residential areas, such as those proposed along Calle del Mundo, to occur only during the hours specified in the City Code. Therefore, cumulative construction-related noise impacts associated with Scheme C would also be less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. As a result, Scheme C would cause no new significant impact and no substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact due to construction noise and off-site land uses than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Operational noise impacts of Scheme C would result primarily from increased traffic on the local roadway network. Cumulative (year 2035) plus project traffic data were used to estimate cumulative operational noise increases. The 2035 traffic data inherently include City growth projections. 32 The
significance of cumulative impacts related to traffic noise levels is determined using a two-step process.
If a cumulative impact is identified, the second step is to evaluate whether the contribution of the project to roadside noise levels would be cumulatively considerable. As demonstrated in the Noise Report, significant cumulative traffic noise impacts would occur along 11 of the 13 roadways analyzed. Among these 11 roadways, the traffic noise associated with Scheme C would cause an increase of 1.0 dBA or more over the cumulative without project scenario along six of the roadways. Consistent with the threshold of significance identified in the 2016 EIR, these incremental increases would be a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact. However, sensitive receptors are located along two of the six roadway segments for which a significant cumulative contribution is identified. Consistent with the analysis of the 2016 EIR, cumulative roadway impacts were further assessed to determine if specific noise receptors would be affected, given the actual distances to potential sensitive uses.
While Scheme C would cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative traffic noise impacts along two segments of Tasman Drive where noise-sensitive receptors could be affected, the 2016 EIR identified significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts along four roadway segments.
Therefore, Scheme C would result in a fewer number of impacted roadways than identified in the 2016 EIR and would not cause a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact that was disclosed in the 2016 EIR due to traffic noise.
6.7.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of the Scheme C development would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial
32 See the 2024 Related Santa Clara Traffic Analysis Memo prepared by Arup for the Project Applicant and peer reviewed by Hexagon for the City of Santa Clara. Per the 2024 Related Santa Clara Traffic Analysis Memo, cumulative traffic volumes are based on the latest available County of Santa Clara Travel Demand Model outputs considering current data for development projects and adjusted for 2018/19 traffic counts. See also Appendix B.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 74 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to noise that were not identified in the 2016 EIR.
Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1, Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Adjacent Land Uses; NOI-1.2, Implement Off-Site Traffic Noise Reduction Measures; NOI-2.1, Restrict Pile Driving; and NOI-5.1, Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to noise would be equal to, or less severe than, those previously identified and disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 75 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.8 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.8.1 2016 EIR Findings
Historical Resources
At the time the 2016 EIR was prepared, the structures that would be demolished as part of the Approved Project were not more than 50 years old, did not meet local, State, or federal criteria for significance, and were not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Likewise, the 2016 EIR determined that, although the Pacific Railroad/)Alviso alignment, which runs along Lafayette Street between State Route 237 and Tasman Drive appears to have been in use since 1877, the alignment has modern rails and ballast, suggesting the route has been subject to continuous maintenance activities and would not be considered eligible to the CRHR. Therefore, the 2016 EIR determined that no historical structures would be affected by the Approved Project, and it identified no impact on historical resources.
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
The 2016 EIR found that there was potential for previously undiscovered prehistoric archaeological resources along the east side of the Guadalupe River that could be affected by ground-disturbing activities, which would result in a significant impact. However, the 2016 EIR imposed Mitigation Measures
CR-1.1, Conduct Extended Phase I (XPI) Archaeological Investigations within the Project Site near Recorded Resources and within an Area of Archaeological Sensitivity; CR-1.2, Provide Archaeological Monitoring of the Project Site When in Native Soil; and CR-1.3, Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities; that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
The 2016 EIR determined that, based on the existing conditions, deep pilings constructed to support Approved Project foundations would have a less-than-significant impact on unique paleontological resources. The 2016 EIR also determined that, should final design of the Approved Project dictate that excavation extend beyond 30 feet below existing ground surface in non-refuse areas on or off the Project site, impacts on paleontological resources would be significant and the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2.1, Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan; CR-2.2, and Paleontological Resource Monitoring would reduce them to a less-than-significant level.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 76 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Human Remains
The 2016 EIR identified no human remains in the Project site during a background records search.
However, human burials since have been identified in one of the resources within 0.5-mile of the Project site. Therefore, it is possible that additional undiscovered human remains could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the Approved Project in areas that are not covered by landfill.
Therefore, the impact was determined to be significant. The 2016 EIR identified a stop work Mitigation Measure CR-3.1, Stop work if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, if human remains are encountered, the implementation of which would reduce the impacts on human remains to a less-than-significant level.
6.8.2 Project Analysis
Historical Resources
Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project and would involve demolition of same existing buildings on the Project site as the Approved Project. All the buildings on the Project site were constructed between 1984 and 1999. Because none of the structures is more than 50 years old, the existing structures are still not eligible for the CRHR.
Accordingly, the passage of time between the 2016 EIR and this Addendum does not constitute a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken and revisions to the 2016 EIR are not needed to address a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect on historical resources.
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources and Human Remains Construction activities for Scheme C (including demolition, infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, general building locations, and building foundations) would be similar to what was anticipated for the Approved Project and analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Furthermore, Scheme C would be developed on the same Project site with the same potential impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains as the Approved Project. Therefore, Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effect and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect than was identified in the 2016 EIR on archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains.
All related mitigation measures identified under the 2016 EIR would apply to Scheme C and would mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level, including: CR-1.1, Conduct Extended Phase I (XPI) Archaeological Investigations within the Project Site near Recorded Resources and within an Area of Archaeological Sensitivity; CR-1.2, Provide Archaeological Monitoring of the Project Site When in Native Soil; CR-1.3, Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities; CR-2.1, Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan; CR-2.2, Paleontological Resource Monitoring, CR-2.3, Paleontological Resource Reporting, and CR-3.1, Stop work if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities.
Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant-with-mitigation cultural resources impacts including archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental contribution would
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 77 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.8.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to cultural resources that were not identified in the 2016 EIR.
Mitigation Measures CR-1.1, Conduct Extended Phase I (XPI) Archaeological Investigations within the Project Site near Recorded Resources and within an Area of Archaeological Sensitivity; CR-1.2, Provide Archaeological Monitoring of the Project Site When in Native Soil; CR-1.3, Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground-Disturbing Activities; CR-2.1, Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan; CR-2.2, Paleontological Resource Monitoring (CR-2.1 and CR-2.2 would include the requirements of CR-2.3, Paleontological Resource Reporting); CR-3.1, Stop work if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C, and would ensure that impacts related to cultural resources would remain at a less-than-significant level, consistent with the impacts identified and disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 78 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.9 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
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 DFW or FWS;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by DFW or
FWS;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, 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 or 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.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.9.1 2016 EIR Findings
The 2016 EIR identified significant impacts related to the movement of native migratory wildlife species, burrowing owl habitats, the western pond turtle, Central California Coast steelhead, chinook salmon, and loss or damage to wetland and other waters. Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, Protect Nesting Birds; BIO-
1.2, Implement Bird-Safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and Lighting Design; BIO-2.1, Detection of Burrowing Owls; BIO-2.2, Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction; BIO-3.1, Protect Western Pond Turtles; BIO-4.1, Protect Central California Coast Steelhead, Critical Habitat, and Chinook Salmon; BIO-5.1, Protect Retention Pond and Eastside Retention Drainage Swale, and San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River Aquatic Habitat during Construction; BIO-5.2, Compensate for Loss of Waters of the U.S. and State (including Wetlands); BIO-C.1, Make a Fair-Share Nitrogen Deposition Fee Contribution to the Santa Clara Habitat Agency’s Voluntary Fee Payment Program were identified for each of these significant impacts to monitor and protect such species and replace habitat lost during construction. The 2016 EIR determined that implementation of these measures would reduce Approved Project impacts to less-than- significant levels. However, it is unknown whether the mitigation measure requiring implementation of bird-safe design standards into project building and lighting designs would be enough to mitigate impacts related to bird collisions to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the 2016 EIR identified bird harm or mortality as a significant and unavoidable impact.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 79 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
The 2016 EIR determined that Approved Project construction would result in the removal of protected trees in the project area and at the Tasman East Specific Plan Area for the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension.
The Approved Project would adhere to the City of Santa Clara General Plan, Policy 5.3.1-P10, which requires developments to replace trees at a ratio of 2:1 (replaced/lost), pursuant to which the developer would be required to plant as many as 2,810 new trees on the Project site, and up to 676 additional trees could be planted on off-site removal locations. A separate policy in the General Plan, 5.10.1-P3, protects heritage trees, but according to the City’s Heritage Tree List, there are no heritage trees located on the Project site. Through adherence to Policy 5.3.1-P10, the impact on trees was determined to be a less-than- significant level.
No special-status plant species were documented on the Project site and therefore no impact on special- status plant species was identified for the Approved Project. As also noted in Section 6.2, Land Use and Planning, the Approved Project would have no impact on a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan.
6.9.2 Project Analysis
Special-Status Species
Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project. Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time. Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are the similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, construction-related impacts related to biological resources would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR.
The 2016 EIR determined that the Project site does not contain special-status plant species. However, the Project site contains land cover types that provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls and western pond turtles. It is possible that these species could occur on the Project site prior to development.
Implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, Protect Nesting Birds; BIO-2.1, Detection of Burrowing Owls; BIO-2.2, Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction, and BIO-3.1 Protect Western Pond Turtles would reduce this potential significant impact of Scheme C to a less-than-significant level.
The 2016 EIR determined that the Guadalupe River, located approximately 0.03-mile from the Project site, serves as a migratory route to upstream spawning habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon. As mentioned above, Scheme C would not substantially change the construction activities on the Project site; thus, the construction-related impacts on fish would remain the same as identified and addressed by the 2016 EIR. Furthermore, implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-4.1, Protect Central California Coast Steelhead, Critical Habitat, and Chinook Salmon would reduce the impacts on steelhead and fall-run Chinook salmon resulting from construction activities adjacent to the Guadalupe River to a less-than-significant level.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 80 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, and Other Waters
The Project site still contains ponds, wetlands, and a drainage ditch, and is located adjacent to the San Tomas Aquino Creek to the west and the Guadalupe River to the east; both the creek and the river are riparian channels. Consistent with the Approved Project, Scheme C would require roadway work in San Tomas Aquino Creek and would result in the loss of some aquatic land cover types. Final impacts on ditches, creeks, ponds, and vegetated depressions would be calculated once the final design of Scheme C features is complete. If these features are determined to be jurisdictional and if impacts are unavoidable, then the Project Developer shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as required and appropriate, to develop a compensation plan for the loss of waters of the United States and State per existing regulations. If permitted by trustee and responsible agencies, construction activities (e.g., grading, excavation) associated with habitat creation or enhancement could temporarily disturb waters of the United States and the State. The significant impact caused by the temporary disturbance would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through compliance with SWPPP and San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit Provision C.3, Stormwater Technical Guidance, as well as implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-5.1, Protect Retention Pond and Drainage Swale Aquatic Habitat during Construction and BIO-5.2, Compensate for Wetland Loss, which requires the Project Developer to compensate for the loss of wetlands/water resources through either on-site restoration/creation and/or off-site protection and enhancement of riparian and wetland habitat.
Movement of Native Migratory Wildlife Species
The 2016 EIR assumed that all existing trees at the Project site would be removed and additional off-site trees could be removed for the construction of the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension, the roadway from Great America Parkway over San Tomas Aquino Creek, and the off-site location for the Fire Station 10 relocation. The Project site for Scheme C is the same as the Approved Project. Although Scheme C would not include the Lick Mill Boulevard Connection, Scheme C would still require construction off-site at other locations described above and in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, Scheme C impacts related to the removal of nesting habitats for migratory birds would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C would develop within similar building height limits analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, potential impacts related to the injury or death of birds resulting from collisions with buildings due to transparent or reflective glass and from improper lighting at the Project site would remain the same. These potential significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, Protect Nesting Birds and BIO-1.2, Implement Bird-Safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and Lighting Design.
Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources As mentioned above, the 2016 EIR assumed that all existing trees on the Project site would be removed.
Additionally, the 2016 EIR identified off-site trees that could be removed due to Approved Project development. Scheme C would not include the Lick Mill Boulevard Connection and, therefore, would result in removal of fewer off-site trees than the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
Scheme C would comply with the City of Santa Clara General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10, which requires developments to replace trees at a ratio of 2:1. Consistent with the 2016 EIR’s assumption that all trees would be removed, the Project Developer would be required to plant at least 2,810 new trees on the
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 81 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Project site. If additional off-site trees are removed for the construction of streetscape and infrastructure improvements, those trees would also be subject to a 2:1 replacement ratio. The replacement trees would be located throughout the Project site and would not be implemented on a parcel-to-parcel basis.
Therefore, Scheme C impacts related to tree removal would be within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project. The Project site is not located within the SCVHP permit area or any other Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. Burrowing owl is the only species covered by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) that has potential to occur on the Project site. However, the SCVHP area covers the Guadalupe River on the eastern boundary of the Project site and policies in the SCVHP only apply within the SCVHP permit area. Additionally, 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1, Protect Nesting Birds would establish no-activity buffers in accordance with the recommendations in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation if a burrowing owl nest is identified during pre-construction surveys.
Furthermore, 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1, Detection of Burrowing Owls would allow the HCP/NCCP to coordinate burrowing owl surveys each year and BIO-2.2, Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction would replace lost burrowing owl habitat at a ratio of 1:1 if burrowing owls begin nesting on developable portions of the Project site or off-site areas that remain undeveloped as phases are constructed. As stated above, implementation of 2016 EIR mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to special-status species to a less-than-significant level.
In addition, Scheme C would not conflict with the policies in the SCVHP, and no impact would occur.
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant-with-mitigation biological resource impacts including on migratory birds, special-status species and their habitats, wetlands and other waters as well as a less-than-significant impact related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances to protect biological resources. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.9.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in new significant impacts related to biological resources that were not identified in the 2016 EIR.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, Protect Nesting Birds; BIO-1.2, Implement Bird-Safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and Lighting Design; BIO-2.1, Detection of Burrowing Owls; BIO-2.2, Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction; BIO-3.1, Protect Western Pond Turtles; BIO-4.1, Protect Central California Coast Steelhead, Critical Habitat, and Chinook Salmon; BIO-5.1, Protect Retention Pond and Eastside Retention Drainage Swale, and San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River Aquatic Habitat during Construction; BIO-5.2, Compensate for Loss of Waters of the U.S. and State (including Wetlands); BIO-C.1, Make a Fair-Share Nitrogen
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 82 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Deposition Fee Contribution to the Santa Clara Habitat Agency’s Voluntary Fee Payment Program (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C, and would ensure that impacts related to biological resources would be equal to, or less severe than, those previously identified and disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 83 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.10 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Expose people or structures to substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault;
• Strong seismic ground shaking;
• Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction; or
• Landslides;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; ☒ ☐ ☐ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project
and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; ☒ ☐ ☐
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), or on corrosive
subsurface materials, creating substantial risks to life or property; or
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems in areas where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.10.1 2016 EIR Findings
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are proposed as a part of the Approved Project; therefore, the 2016 EIR identified no impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems.
Approved Project construction would require grading at the Project site that could expose large areas of soil (including topsoils, subsoils, and unconsolidated sediments) and refuse. The 2016 EIR found significant impacts related to soil erosion but concluded that the impact would be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.1, Detailed Grading and Erosion Control Plan.
Additionally, the 2016 EIR identified significant impacts with respect to unstable soils associated with the Approved Project including settlement, liquefaction, slope instability, expansive soils, and corrosive soils.
These impacts relating to geology and soils would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2.1, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation; GEO-2.2, Final Geotechnical Report Review; GEO-2.3, Construction Quality Assurance Plan; GEO-2.4, Final Project Design Review; GEO-2.5, Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan; and GEO-2.6, Review and Approval by Relevant Regulatory Agencies, which would require preparation and review of geotechnical reports, construction quality assurance plans, final project design review, and a site operation, monitoring, and maintenance plan.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 84 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
The Project site is not within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, therefore, the 2016 EIR determined that impacts related to ground shaking or a seismic event were less-than-significant.
6.10.2 Project Analysis
Seismic Ground Shaking
Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project. There have been no changes to the Project site conditions relevant to seismic stability since the preparation of the 2016 EIR. The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, thus fault rupture at the Project site continues to be considered as unlikely as it did in the 2016 EIR.33 Furthermore, Scheme C buildings and improvements would be constructed in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC), as required by the Santa Clara Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant.
Soil Erosion and Unstable Soils
Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses relative to the Approved Project, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. The changes to land use under Scheme C would not substantially change construction-related activities including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, or general building locations and amount of development. Furthermore, Scheme C would be developed on the same Project site with the same geology and soils, subject to the same or more stringent building codes. Therefore, Scheme C would have the same significant impacts identified under the 2016 EIR with respect to unstable soils including settlement, liquefaction, slope instability, expansive soils, and corrosive soils.
Additionally, all related 2016 EIR mitigation measures would apply including GEO-1.1, Detailed Grading and Erosion Control Plan; GEO-2.1, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation; GEO-2.2, Final Geotechnical Report Review; GEO-2.3, Construction Quality Assurance Plan; GEO-2.4, Final Project Design Review; and GEO-2.5, Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. Since Parcels 1 through 4 are all or partly over landfill, 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6, Review and Approval by Relevant Regulatory Agencies would also be required. These mitigation measures would reduce impacts on geology and soils to a less-than-significant level.
Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Systems
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on septic tanks and alternative wastewater systems. Scheme C also proposes no septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems; thus, consistent with the determination reached in the 2016 EIR, Scheme C would cause no impact related to septic tanks and alternative wastewater systems.
Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant geology and soils impacts including impacts on soil erosion potential, soil hazards, or the risk of exposure of people or structures to seismic hazards. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental
33 California Department of Conservation, 2024. CGS Alquist Priolo Fault Zones, updated February 21, 2024. Available at :
https://maps-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/29d2f0e222924896833b69ff1b6d2ca3_0/explore?location=37.357434%2C- 121.959150%2C11.55. Accessed June 5, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 85 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.10.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR related to geology and soils. 2016 EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1.1, Detailed Grading and Erosion Control Plan; GEO-2.1, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation; GEO-2.2, Final Geotechnical Report Review; GEO-2.3, Construction Quality Assurance Plan; GEO-2.4, Final Project Design Review; GEO-2.5, Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan; and GEO-2.6, Review and Approval by Relevant Regulatory Agencies (see Appendix A) would apply to and be implemented by Scheme C to ensure that impacts related to geology and soils would be less-than-significant, consistent with the impacts identified and disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 86 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or WDRs; ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted);
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off- site;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on-site or off-site;
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff;
☒ ☐ ☐
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; ☒ ☐ ☐ g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;
☒ ☐ ☐
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows; ☒ ☐ ☐
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or ☒ ☐ ☐
j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.11.1 2016 EIR Findings
Water Quality, Stormwater, Groundwater, and Drainage Patterns Approved Project construction would be required to comply with applicable requirements regarding surface water and groundwater. Therefore, the 2016 EIR determined that potential impacts regarding water quality objectives and standards from construction activities would be less-than-significant.
Approved Project operation would increase impervious area on the Project site, and so was determined to be likely to result in increased stormwater runoff. The Approved Project would result in a significant surface water quality impact due to the unfinalized and unique stormwater treatment measures, but these significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1.1, Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures identified in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 87 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
The Approved Project would not result in a significant decrease in infiltration and groundwater recharge through soils and therefore would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to groundwater supplies. The Approved Project would result in additional water demand for both surface and groundwater resources. This impact is addressed in Section 6.15, Utilities.
The 2016 EIR found significant hydrology and water quality impacts related to changes in existing drainage pattern of the site that would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-3.1, Design New Bridge and Outfall Structures to Avoid Increase in 100- year Flow and Channel Erosion and WQ-3.2, Vegetation Removal from the Retention Basin Drainage Swale. The 2016 EIR also found significant hydrology and water quality impacts related to the degradation of water quality that would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5.1, Protect Retention Pond and Drainage Swale Aquatic Habitat during Construction and BIO-5.2,
Compensate for Wetland Loss.
Flooding and Substantial Risks from Flooding
The 2016 EIR determined there would be no impact related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because there are no reservoirs adjacent to the project area and because the Project site is not within a tsunami inundation area or a designated landslide area.
The Project site is not located within a FEMA-designated 100-year flood zone, but surrounding areas and off-site areas where Approved Project development may occur are within 100-year flood zones.
Specifically, the area of Tasman East Specific Plan that would accommodate the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension, the northern part of Lafayette Street, and a portion of Tasman Drive are located within a 100- year flood zone. The 2016 EIR determined that potentially significant impact from structures being located within a 100-year flood zone would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-6.1, Incorporate Flood Warnings for the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension and Other Access Roads for Areas Vulnerable to Flooding.
Additionally, the Project site is located within the potential dam failure inundation area for both the Anderson Dam and Reservoir and the Lenihan Dam/Lexington Reservoir. However, a storage restriction of about of about 45 feet below the crest of Anderson Dam has been put in place to protect the public from inundation due to dam failure. The Lenihan Dam has low potential for significant crack formation and so the 2016 EIR determined the risk of failure to be remote and, therefore, the risk associated with flooding due to levee or dam failure to be less-than-significant.
6.11.2 Project Analysis
Water Quality and Groundwater
Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project and would result in the same overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. Construction of Scheme C (including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off- site, and general building locations) would be similar to those analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project Therefore, construction-related impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 88 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Drainage Patterns and Stormwater Runoff
Scheme C would have similar development of buildings, roadways, and open space areas as the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR, which would modify elevations on the Project site and thereby alter the on-site stormwater drainage patterns. Scheme C would include an underground storm drainage system, similar to the drainage system described under the Approved Project, that would be capable of conveying 10-year peak runoff as well as safely conveying 100-year peak flows from the Project site. Additionally, new public streets that would be developed as part of Scheme C would be designed such that the 100-year event flow would remain within the roadway limits and not extend into private property. Furthermore, final design for the stormwater management and storm drainage system would be required to meet the same criteria as the 2016 EIR (e.g. the Santa Clara County Drainage Manual watershed criteria, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Provision C.3 post-construction stormwater criteria, Santa Clara Valley Water District levee recertification, and 100-year flood criteria) which would ensure sufficient storm drain capacity for Scheme C.
The 2016 EIR determined that significant impacts related to changes to existing drainage patterns would occur due to vegetation growth reducing the capacity of the Retention Basin drainage swale and the new bridge above the San Tomas Aquino Creek potentially impacting 100-year flood flows. These significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by 2016 EIR Mitigation Measures WQ-3.1, Design New Bridge and Outfall Structures to Avoid Increase in 100-year Flow and Channel Erosion and WQ-3.2, Vegetation Removal from the Retention Basin Drainage Swale. Scheme C would have similar development as the Approved Project and would therefore result in the same less- than-significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-3.1 and WQ-3.2. Additionally, the Project Developer will prepare a Stormwater Management Report including detailed hydrologic and hydraulics calculations, analysis, and conclusions for Scheme C to document the preliminary and final design of the stormwater management and storm drain system for each DAP.
Therefore, Scheme C would neither create nor contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems. Any potential additional sources of runoff created by Scheme C would be treated with the stormwater management measures described in 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure WQ-1.1, Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures, which would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Flooding and Substantial Risks from Flooding
As mentioned above, Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project.
Therefore, the 2016 EIR’s finding of no impact related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would remain the same for Scheme C.
As analyzed in the 2016 EIR, the Project site is in an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding.
The Project site is surrounded by areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding, which represent 100-year flood zones. However, on-site development would not occur in these areas. Therefore, Scheme C buildings placed within the Project site would be outside of FEMA designated 100-year flood zones. The 100-year flood zones that surround the Project site have changed slightly since the 2016 EIR.
The Project site is still surrounded by areas within a 100-year flood zone including the northern portion of Lafayette Street and an area along the Guadalupe River (that would accommodate the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension), but the Tasman East Specific Plan has been partially developed and is no longer
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 89 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
within a 100-year flood zone. 34 The Lick Mill Boulevard connection is no longer proposed for vehicular access although this area within the 100-year flood zone could still be developed to provide emergency vehicle access. The other areas of concern (the northern part of Lafayette Street and a portion of Tasman Drive) are still present, but roadways are relatively resilient to infrequent flooding and readily repairable if damaged during large storms. Therefore, the potential significant impact would be reduced to a less- than-significant level by implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure WQ-6.1, Incorporate Flood Warnings for the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension and Other Access Roads for Areas Vulnerable to Flooding. This mitigation measure would still effectively reduce the impact of development, including Scheme C, on the other access roads and any new structures that would be built within a 100-year flood zone and be vulnerable to flooding.
The 2016 EIR determined that the Project site is located within the potential dam failure inundation area for both the Anderson Dam and Reservoir and the Lenihan Dam/Lexington Reservoir. In 2021, Valley Water began construction of the Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project which was voter approved as part of the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program and aims to rebuild the dam in compliance with today’s seismic safety standards and regulations. 35 Upon completion, the retrofit of
Anderson Dam would make it less susceptible to breaching. The Project site is still within the inundation area of the Lenihan Dam/Lexington Reservoir.36 However, the 2016 EIR determined that the risk of dam failure is remote and would not present a significant risk of loss, injury, or death to people or structures due to flooding on the Project site. The conclusion for Scheme C regarding the impact of flooding due to levee or dam failure, consistent with the 2016 EIR, would be less-than-significant.
Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant-with-mitigation hydrology and water quality impacts including on water quality, storm drain capacity, and flooding, as well as less-than-significant impacts on groundwater recharge and supplies. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.11.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were not identified in the 2016 EIR.
Mitigation Measures WQ-1.1, Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures; WQ-3.1, Design New Bridge and Outfall Structures to Avoid Increase in 100-year Flow and Channel Erosion; WQ-3.2, Vegetation Removal from the Retention Basin Drainage Swale; BIO-5.1, Protect Retention Pond and Drainage Swale Aquatic Habitat during Construction; BIO-5.2, Compensate for Wetland
34 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024. National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/ flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer. Accessed June 6, 2024. 35 Valley Water, 2022. Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project – Frequently Asked Questions, January 2022. Available at:
https://www.valleywater.org/project-updates/c1-anderson-dam-seismic-retrofit. Accessed June 6, 2024. 36 Valley Water, 2019. Lexington Reservoir and Lenihan Dam. Available at: https://www.valleywater.org/accordion/lexington- reservoir-and-lenihan-dam. Accessed June 6, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 90 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Loss; and WQ-6.1, Incorporate Flood Warnings for the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension and Other Access Roads for Areas Vulnerable to Flooding (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C, and would ensure that impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less-than-significant.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 91 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., the “Cortese
List”) and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
☒ ☐ ☐
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles
of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; ☒ ☐ ☐
f. For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area;
g. Impair or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan;
☒ ☐ ☐
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands; or
☒ ☐ ☐
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving subsurface fires caused by the heating of landfill waste materials.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.12.1 2016 EIR Findings
The Project site is surrounded by urban development and no public airports or public use airports are found within 2 miles of the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is not mapped in or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, the 2016 EIR identified no impact related to private airstrips or wildland fire hazards.
The 2016 EIR determined that Approved Project operations would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to routine hazardous materials use and (as further detailed in the 2016 EIR air quality analysis) the potential hazards to the closest school (0.2 mile from the Project site) would also be less than significant. Additionally, the Approved Project would be consistent with the San José Mineta International Airport’s Airport Influence Area restrictions and with the City’s Local Hazards Mitigation Plan. Therefore, the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to aviation hazards and emergency access.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 92 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Other hazards and hazardous materials impacts include the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction; the presence of hazardous materials in areas not underlain by the landfill; landfill-related hazards including the potential significant hazard to human health from landfill gas, contaminated soils, or groundwater; and subsurface fires related to the landfill. Furthermore, project construction would disturb existing leachate collection and removal systems, which could impact groundwater quality. The 2016 EIR concluded that each of these hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; HAZ-4.1, Landfill Closure, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plans; HAZ-4.2, Landfill Gas Collection and Removal System; HAZ-4.3, Landfill Gas Protection System; HAZ-4.4, Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control System Maintenance; HAZ-4.5, Building Restrictions; HAZ-4.6, Landfill Hazards Disclosure; HAZ-5.1, Phase II Site Investigation; HAZ-5.2, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan; HAZ-5.3, Implement Measures Included in CCR Title 27, Section 21190(g); HAZ-9.1, Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan; HAZ-9.2, Subsurface Fire Prevention and Detection Measures; and HAZ-9.3 Subsurface Fire Suppression.
6.12.2 Project Analysis
Hazardous Materials Use, Exposure, Storage, and Disposal Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. The increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the construction timeline within the City Center parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time.
Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Additionally, Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project. Therefore, construction-related hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR.
The land use changes under Scheme C could result in new hazardous materials on the Project site that were not analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C operation may result in warehouse and distribution facilities that may store and transport hazardous materials as products for distribution. However, products that contain hazardous materials would be contained within packaging designed to prevent leakage during storage and transportation pursuant to applicable regulations. Scheme C would include a dedicated truck route to control truck movements associated with 24-hour truck operations for warehouse/distribution facilities and to limit truck access to and from the northeast parcels to the northern access road connecting to Lafayette Street just south of Great America Way (see Figure 6, above). As mentioned in Section 6.5, Air Quality, Tables 6.5-3, 6.5-4, and 6.5-5 show that Scheme C’s maximum project operational excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic hazard indices, and PM
2.5 concentrations are within the BAAQMD thresholds
established for sensitive receptors. Furthermore, compliance with existing regulations, such as those listed in the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, would be mandatory (see 2016 EIR Section 3.11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). For these reasons, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during Project operation would have a less-than-significant impact on the public and the environment.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 93 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project. As discussed in the 2016 EIR, Parcels 1 through 4 are all or partly located over a landfill which could potentially expose construction workers to constituents of potential concern. Implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction would reduce the impact on construction workers during excavation activities to a less-than-significant level. As discussed in the 2016 EIR, construction and operation on the Project site would disturb the existing leachate collection and removal system. Implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-6.1, Finalize Draft Technical Memorandum: Leachate Collection and Removal System, which would apply to Scheme C, would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Hazardous Materials within a Quarter Mile of a School
As mentioned above, Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project. The only school within 0.25 mile of the Project site is the Kathryn Hughes Elementary School, which is located about 0.2 mile to the southeast of the Project site. The 2016 EIR determined that some hazardous emissions could result from construction and operation of the Approved Project, but these emissions would be limited to the inhalation of air contaminants and would have a less-than-significant impact on schools. Scheme C’s construction-related activities including demolition, infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, general building locations, and building foundations would be similar to what was anticipated for the Approved Project and analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, construction-related hazardous emissions of Scheme C would be within the impact envelope of the 2016 EIR. Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, operational toxic air contaminants would remain consistent with the findings in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C could result in additional truck trips traveling along Lafayette Street approximately 380 feet from the Kathryn Hughes Elementary School. However, as mentioned in Section
6.5, Air Quality, Tables 6.5-3, 6.5-4, and 6.5-5 show that Scheme C’s maximum project operational excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic hazard indices, and PM
2.5 concentrations are within the BAAQMD
thresholds established for schools. Furthermore, hazardous materials used during construction and operation would be managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, Scheme C would have a less-than-significant impact on schools – this determination is consistent with the findings of the 2016 EIR.
Hazardous Materials Site
Parcels 1 through 4 are all or partly located over a closed landfill. The 2016 EIR determined that impacts from landfill gas and groundwater would pose a significant impact on human health. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measures HAZ-4.1, Landfill Closure, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plans; HAZ-4.2, Landfill Gas Collection and Removal System; HAZ-4.3, Landfill Gas Protection Systems; HAZ-4.4, Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control System Maintenance; HAZ-4.5, Building Restrictions; and HAZ-4.6 Landfill Hazards Disclosure, which would apply to Scheme C, to reduce the impacts related to subsurface contaminants to a less-than-significant level.
Although portions of the Project site are located in areas not underlain by refuse, when the 2016 EIR was prepared, the soil and soil gases beneath these parcels had concentrations of contaminants that exceeded the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s residential and/or commercial/industrial Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Construction activities could disturb contaminated soil and/or groundwater beneath the Project site and pose a threat to human health and the environment. Additionally, future users on the Project site could potentially be exposed to hazardous materials by direct exposure to soils or soil
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 94 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
gases that migrate into buildings. These factors could have a significant impact on human health and the environment. The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measures HAZ-5.1, Phase II Site Investigation and HAZ-5.2, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, which would apply to Scheme C, to reduce potential hazards impacts from development on Parcel 5 and the southwest portion of Parcel 4 to a less- than-significant level.
Airport Hazards, Wildland Fires, and Emergency Access Routes As mentioned above, Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project.
Scheme C is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and is not mapped in or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
37 Therefore, Scheme C would cause no impact on these considerations.
The San José Mineta International Airport is located about 2.8 miles southeast of the Project site. Parcels 3, 4, and 5 on the Project site are located within an Airport Influence Area as defined by the San José Mineta International Airport’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on May 25, 2011.38 Considering height restrictions established by Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, the 2016 EIR determined that Approved Project structures would not be expected to obstruct navigable airspace associated with the San José Mineta International Airport. Scheme C would be subject to similar building height limits assumed in the 2016 EIR, similarly would not be expected to obstruct navigable airspace, and therefore also would have a less-than-significant impact on aviation hazards at public-use airports. 39 Emergency access and evacuation routes to and from the Project site would be available along the adjacent State Route 237, Great America Parkway, and Tasman Drive. While Scheme C would increase the amount of traffic in the Project vicinity, it would be within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not interfere with emergency response and evacuation procedures described in the adopted Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
40 Therefore, like the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR, Scheme C would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency response or evacuation plans.
Subsurface Fires
Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 are located on a closed landfill where aerobic decomposition or chemical oxidation of waste materials could result in a subsurface fire that could pose a potentially significant impact on human health and property. The 2016 EIR determined that current fire prevention measures at Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 would not completely protect future Project site workers, residents, and shoppers from potential landfill fires. This would result in a significant impact that would be reduced to a less-than-
37 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. Accessed June 10, 2024. 38 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2011. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County, May 2011.
Accessed July 18, 2024.
39 As noted in Section 4.1 of this Addendum, the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement would revise the formulation of the height limits to permit towers on Parcel 4 of up to approximately 10-12 stories, with a maximum building height consistent with ALUC regulations and Federal Aviation hazard limits pursuant to FAA Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 77 criteria. Although this revision would remove the 219 feet above msl height limit on Parcel 4, the revised height limits would remain consistent with applicable General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P30 and General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P33 that require compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Par 77 criteria hazard height limits at San José Mineta International Airport, respectively. 40 County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Management, 2017. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/multi-jurisdictional-hazard-mitigation-plan-mjhmp. Accessed June 10, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 95 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
significant level by implementation of 2016 EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-9.1, Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan; HAZ-9.2, Subsurface Fire Prevention and Detection Measures; and HAZ-9.3, Subsurface Fire Suppression. As noted above, Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project, and therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to Scheme C and, as such, implementation of Scheme C would have a less-than-significant impact related to subsurface fires.
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant-with-mitigation hazards and hazardous materials impacts including on soil and groundwater contamination and landfill siting hazards as well as less-than-significant impacts on routine hazardous materials use, hazardous materials in building components, aviation hazards, and impairment of emergency access or emergency plans. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.12.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that were not identified in the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2.1, Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; HAZ-4.1, Landfill Closure, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plans; HAZ-4.2, Landfill Gas Collection and Removal System; HAZ-4.3, Landfill Gas Protection System; HAZ-4.4, Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control System Maintenance; HAZ-4.5, Building Restrictions; HAZ-4.6, Landfill Hazards Disclosure; HAZ-5.1, Phase II Site Investigation; HAZ-5.2, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan; HAZ-5.3, Implement Measures Included in CCR Title 27, Section 21190(g); HAZ-9.1, Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan; HAZ-9.2, Subsurface Fire Prevention and Detection Measures; and HAZ-9.3 Subsurface Fire Suppression (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and implemented by Scheme C, and would ensure that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would remain at a less-than-significant level.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 96 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.13 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure);
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing
units, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere; or
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.13.1 2016 EIR Findings
No residential buildings would be demolished as a part of the Approved Project, which the 2016 EIR determined would cause no impact related to the displacement of housing. At the time the 2016 EIR was published, it was estimated that the Approved Project would displace approximately 510 on- and off-site workers from existing commercial operations to be demolished. However, these workers could be accommodated within the Approved Project or existing surrounding office, industrial, and warehouse sites, resulting in a determination that the impact would be less-than-significant.
The Approved Project would result in a new on-site population including construction workers, residents, employees, and guests. The construction workforce would be primarily met within the existing and future labor market in the City and County, so workers from outside this area would not be expected to relocate permanently. The 2016 EIR found that new housing demand from Approved Project employees during operation would result in a significant impact as the demand would represent just over 20 percent of the City’s projected household growth between 2015 and 2040. However, all development that would require discretionary review that could be induced by the Approved Project would be subject to subsequent CEQA review where lead agencies would be required to identify environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures prior to project approval. The 2016 EIR specified that significance conclusions associated with project and cumulative population growth were provided in Impact LU-1 and Impact C-LU-1 (see 2016 EIR Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning). The 2016 EIR identified Mitigation Measure LU-1.1, Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan, which directed the City to explore permitting higher residential densities and residential land uses in existing non-residential areas in the City’s General Plan (see Section 6.2, Land Use and Planning). The 2016 EIR determined this measure would not reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.13.2 Project Analysis
Population Growth
Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses on Parcels 1 and 2 resulting in an increased density of approved uses on Parcel 4 to offset the reduction in intensity on Parcels 1 and 2. The 2016 EIR states that total population growth generated by the Approved Project consists of: (1) growth from the Project’s proposed residential units generating an on-site residential population, and (2) growth from the Project’s
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 97 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
proposed office buildings, retail, entertainment facilities, and hotel rooms generating an employment population.
To more accurately compare Scheme C with the impact of the Approved Project analyzed under the 2016 EIR, this analysis relies on the population generation rates (persons per household, workers per household, percent of workers living in the City), and projected population and housing growth numbers established in the 2016 EIR.
Population Growth from Proposed Housing. Scheme C would result in the construction of up to 1,680 residential units on the Project site, which would generate approximately 4,030 new residents based on a multi-family residential household generation rate of 2.4 persons per household, as established by the City in the 2016 EIR.
41 The Increased Housing Alternative, which was ultimately adopted as the Approved Project in the MCP, assumed 1,680 residential units and 4,030 residents. Therefore, the residential growth associated with Scheme C would be comparable to the Approved Project and within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR for population growth.
Employment Growth. Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. The conversion of office use, which has an employee generation rate of 270 gsf per employee, to industrial use, which has an employee generation rate of 331 gsf per employee, under Scheme C would result in comparable estimated employment growth (see Table 6.13-1 below).
42,43 Scheme C would result in an estimated 23,561 net new employees across the Project site which is comparable to the estimated 24,760 net new employees assumed in the 2016 EIR for Project Scheme A as well as the 23,620 net new employees under the IHA of the Approved Project and slightly lower than the 28,720 net new employees under Approved Project Scheme B. Therefore, the increase in employees associated with Scheme C would be comparable to the Approved Project and within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR for employment growth.
Residential Population Growth from Employment. As mentioned above, Scheme C is estimated to generate approximately 23,561 employees, which is slightly less than what was analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, projections for citywide and regional housing demand and indirect population growth associated with employment growth under Scheme C would be within in the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR for residential population growth from employment.
The 2016 EIR determined that significance conclusions associated with population growth were provided in the analysis of land use and concluded that a significant and unavoidable impact would remain after implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1.1, Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan. As demonstrated above, Scheme C land uses and associated population and employment growth are within the maximum build-out assumed for the Approved Project and thus within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, Scheme C would result in the same significant impacts related to
41 1,680 proposed residential units * 2.4 persons per household = approximately 4,030 new residents 42 Ramboll, 2024. CEQA Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Modification of the Related Santa Clara Project.
August 1, 2024.
43 University of California Transportation Center, 2017. Industrial Land and Jobs Study for the San Francisco Bay Area.
Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/final- reports/ca17-2792-finalreport-a11y.pdf.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 98 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
population and housing but would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
TABLE 6.13-1
SCHEME C POPULATION GROWTH
Land Use
Generation Rate
(used in the 2016 EIR)
Gross Square Footage/
Units Scheme C
Projected Residents/
Employees Scheme C
Total Project Residents 2.4 persons/household 1,680 units 4,030 residents Employees
Retail 450 gsf/employee 800,000 gsf 1,778 employees
Office 270 gsf/employee 4,517,400 gsf 16,731 employees
Hotel 840 gsf/employee 567,000/700 rooms 675 employees
Residential 1 employee/32 units 1,680 units 53 employees Industrial 331 gsf/employee 1,600,000 gsf 4,834 employees Total Project Employees 24,071 employees
Existing On-site Employees -35 employees
Existing Off-site Employees 270 gsf/employee -475 employees Total Net New Employees 23,561 net new employees
Total Net New Population 27,591
NOTES: gsf = gross square feet
a. Rounded to the nearest tens.
b. Retail includes food/beverage and entertainment employees. c. Existing on-site employees include the Santa Clara Golf & Tennis Club, BMX track, and Fire Station 10. d. Existing off-site employees include the three office buildings to be demolished at 2101, 2111, and 2121 Tasman Drive.
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers 2015; Ramboll, 2024. CEQA Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Modification of the Related Santa Clara Project. August 1, 2024.
TABLE 6.13-2
COMPARISON OF POPULATION GROWTH BY SCHEME
Scheme Scheme A IHA Scheme B Scheme C
Residents
Total Project Residents 3,270 residents 4,030 residents 480 residents 4,030 residents Employees
Total Net New Employees 24,760 net new
employees
23,610 net new
employees
28,720 net new
employees
23,561 net new
employees
Total Net New Population 28,030 27,640 29,200 27,591
Displacement
Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project. The Project site does not contain any housing units and thus would not displace any residents. Furthermore, the Project site contains most of the same existing uses as the 2016 EIR (the Santa Clara P.A.L. Track, Ameresco Methane Plant, Eastside Retention Basin, and surface parking lots). The prior golf course and Fire Station 10 have since closed and the fire station was demolished. Therefore, potential impacts on the displacement of existing housing would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 99 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant population and housing impacts including on displacement of people. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.13.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to population and housing that were not identified in the 2016 EIR. The Approved Project, with Scheme C, would result in less than significant impacts related to the displacement of people and no mitigation measures are warranted. Mitigation Measure LU-1.1, Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented for Scheme C. See Section 6.2, Land Use and Planning, for conclusions regarding Population Growth.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 100 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.14 Public Services and Recreation
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public services and facilities;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have a substantial adverse physical effect
on the environment.
☒ ☐ ☐
6.14.1 2016 EIR Findings
Public Services
The 2016 EIR found less-than-significant impacts related to fire protection, police protection, and schools; no mitigation measures were warranted. The Approved Project would result in an increase in Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) and Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) service calls and a corresponding incremental need for additional staffing, equipment, and facilities to maintain the City’s response time goals and staffing ratios. The Approved Project includes the potential relocation of the existing Fire Station 10 to one of three possible sites, and the 2016 EIR analyzed the construction of a replacement fire station of the same size as the existing Fire Station 10 either on-site or at the Convention Center. Any proposed replacement facility may need to be larger than the existing facility to accommodate the additional resources (firefighters, an additional aerial ladder truck, a hazardous materials response vehicle) necessary to maintain satisfactory service levels. However, the 2016 EIR found that the expansion of a replacement fire station beyond the existing size analyzed in the 2016 EIR would be minimal in relation to the construction of the overall Approved Project and would not be expected to generate significant or new construction-related impacts beyond what was analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in substantial adverse physical environmental impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered fire and emergency service facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Although additional SCFD and SCPD staff may be required, the Approved Project would not trigger the need for the construction of a new police facility or the expansion of the existing one.
The 2016 EIR concluded that the Approved Project would generate additional students that would attend the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD). The Approved Project would be subject to SB 50 School Impact Fees (established by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998). Section 65996 of the California Government Code explains that payment of school impact fees established by SB 50 is
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 101 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development that may be required from a developer by any State or local agency. Although the payment of the school impact fee could contribute toward the construction or expansion of schools, any actual construction or expansion of school facilities would not be a direct result of the Approved Project and would be required to undergo a separate CEQA review process. Therefore, the impact of the Approved Project related to schools was found to be less than significant.
Additionally, the increase in permanent residents generated by the Approved Project would decrease the existing book-volumes-per-capita and the library-items-per-capita ratios. However, the additional demand for book volumes and library items would not necessitate the construction of a new library facility.
Therefore, the 2016 EIR determined the Approved Project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
Parks and Recreation
The 2016 EIR identified three types of impacts on parks and recreational facilities that could result from the Approved Project. The Approved Project would result in the elimination of existing on-site active recreational facilities, which would increase the use of other existing recreational facilities in the area to accommodate these users. Additionally, the Approved Project would contribute to an increased demand for parkland due to new permanent residents and employees generated by the Approved Project. Lastly, the Approved Project would result in the combined impacts of eliminating existing on-site active recreational facilities, including the golf and tennis facilities and bike motocross track, plus the recreational demand from new residents and employees (see Section 2.1.1, 2024 Existing Site Conditions and Surrounding Context). The 2016 EIR determined the increase in use of other existing recreational facilities in the area as well as the generation of new park and recreational users would not result in substantial deterioration of the facilities or result in the need to construct new recreational facilities.
Furthermore, recreational space would be included within the Project site as a part of the Approved Project, plus fees paid by the Project Developer would be used by the City to acquire and/or develop new parkland and/or amenities or facilities which would mitigate any environmental impacts from the development of those facilities to a less-than-significant level. The 2016 EIR determined that the combination of the conversion of the on-site recreational facilities into a new mixed-use development, and the increased demand caused by new permanent residents and employees generated by the Approved Project, would result in a less-than-significant impact related to parks and recreation.
6.14.2 Project Analysis
Public Services
Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. The increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the construction timeline within the City Center parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time.
Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 102 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
in the 2016 EIR. Additionally, Scheme C would occur within similar building height limits and the same Project site as the Approved Project. Therefore, construction-related public services and recreation impacts would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR.
Similar to the Approved Project, Scheme C would result in substantial new development that would degrade the existing SCFD and SCPD service ratios. As shown in Section 6.13, Population and Housing, above, new permanent residents generated by Scheme C would be the same as the population growth assumed for the Approved Project (Increased Housing Alternative) and analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
Furthermore, the conversion of office use to industrial use under Scheme C would result in a comparable estimated employment growth. Therefore, Scheme C’s population increase would have substantially the same effect on existing SCFD and SCPD service ratios as the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
The demolition, temporary relocation, and replacement of Fire Station 10 was analyzed in the 2016 EIR for the development of Parcel 4. The 2016 EIR stated that while Fire Station 10 is being replaced, Fire Station 10 personnel would be temporarily relocated. Fire Station 8 reopened in February 2020 and Fire Station 10 closed in March 2020. While Fire Station 10 is closed, personnel and equipment from Fire State 10 have relocated to Fire Station 8, and will respond from Fire Station 8; thus, the temporary relocation will not result in a suspension of service and significant environmental impacts would not result.
44 As stated in the 2016 EIR, the increase of on-site employees and residents would require additional firefighters to be assigned to Fire Station 10 to maintain appropriate service and response times. The replacement fire station may need to be larger than the existing Fire Station 10 to accommodate additional fire personnel. However, the potential expansion of the existing fire station to a size greater than what was analyzed would be minimal in relation to the construction of the overall Approved Project and would not be expected to generate significant or new construction-related impacts beyond those analyzed throughout the 2016 EIR.
Similarly, Scheme C would require additional officers to maintain appropriate police service and response times. However, similar to the Approved Project, Scheme C would not trigger the need for the construction of a new police facility or the expansion of an existing one. Therefore, Scheme C would not be expected to generate significant or new construction-related impacts beyond those analyzed throughout the 2016 EIR.
No change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site under Scheme C. Although the land use on Parcels 1 and 2 would change from office to light industrial, all project buildings would be designed to comply with the most up-to-date building and fire codes and no additional fire facilities beyond what was analyzed would be required for each land use type. Therefore, although Scheme C would increase the service population of the SCFD and SFPD, this potential staffing increase and potential increase in size of the replacement fire station would be within the impact envelope assumed, analyzed, and addressed in the 2016 EIR.
44 City of Santa Clara, 2020. Fire Station 10 to close by March 1, 2020. Available at: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/ departments-a-f/fire-department/fire-station-10-to-close-by-march-1-2020#:~:text=Santa%20Clara%20Fire%20Station%208, replacing%20and%20relocating%20the%20station. Accessed June 6, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 103 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Schools
At the time of the 2016 EIR, the SCUSD consisted of 16 elementary schools, three middle schools, two high schools, one K-8 school, four alternative schools, and one adult education school that served all of Santa Clara, the eastern portion of Sunnyvale, the northern portion of San José, all of Alviso, the northeastern portion of Cupertino, and the western portion of Milpitas. The 2016 EIR determined that in 2014, both the SCUSD as a whole and the individual schools serving the Project site were over enrolled.
Considering SCUSD school sites that were closed at the time, planned school openings and reopenings, new school facilities planned in neighboring school districts, and the requirements of SB 50, the 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would not trigger the need for expansion or construction of new schools and would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Since 2016, SCUSD has opened two new elementary schools (Agnew Elementary School and Central Park Elementary School), one middle school (Huerta Middle School), and one high school (Kathleen MacDonald High School). As of 2023-2024, SCUSD facilities have a capacity of 18,704 and a student enrollment of 14,221 therefore having an excess capacity of 4,483. 45 As shown in Section 6.13,
Population and Housing, above, Scheme C residential development would be comparable with the residential increase assumed for the Approved Project (Increased Housing Alternative) and analyzed in the 2016 EIR. As such, the students generated by new residential development would also be comparable with the Approved Project and within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Furthermore, Scheme C would be subject to the requirements of SB 50 and would result in a less-than-significant impact on school facilities, consistent with the findings from the 2016 EIR.
Parks and Recreation
As discussed in the 2016 EIR, implementation of the Approved Project could result in three types of impacts on parks and recreational facilities: (1) impacts associated with eliminating existing on-site active recreational facilities; (2) impacts associated with recreational demand from new residents and employees on existing off-site park and recreational facilities; and (3) the combined impacts associated with eliminating existing on-site active recreational facilities and impacts associated with recreational demand from new residents and employees.
Elimination of Existing On-Site Active Recreational Facilities. The 2016 EIR determined that closure of on-site recreational facilities would not result in substantial physical deterioration of other existing recreational facilities or result in the need to construct new recreational facilities. Scheme C would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project and, although most of the on-site recreational facilities are no longer active, Scheme C would result in their elimination. Therefore, Scheme C would result in the same less-than-significant impacts relating to the elimination of existing on-site recreational facilities as the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
Increased Use of Off-site Parks. As shown in Section 6.13, Population and Housing, above, the number of new permanent residents generated by Scheme C would be comparable to the population growth analyzed in the 2016 EIR (Increased Housing Alternative). As shown in Section 6.13, Population and
45 Santa Clara Unified School District, 2024. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, March 28, 2024. Available at: https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1714077505/santaclarausdorg/jiv7lvbzaig 9gs5lzr4p/SCUSDLevel1DevelopmentFeeJustificationStudy2024.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 104 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Housing, Table 6.13-1 Scheme C would result in approximately 23,561 net new employees compared to the estimated 24,760 net new employees under Approved Project Scheme A, 23,620 net new employees under the IHA of the Approved Project, and 28,720 net new employees under Approved Project Scheme B. Therefore, Scheme C would result in a comparable increase in the use of surrounding park and recreational facilities. The impacts would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR.
Recreational Facilities due to New Residents/Employees. Scheme C would not alter the Approved Project’s open space concept to develop an integrated network of shared outdoor spaces and sustainable landscapes including active plazas, creational areas, and green spaces linked through planned coherent streetscapes. Overall, the Scheme C land use program would include approximately 90 acres of open space, which is substantially similar to the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR. 46 The Approved
Project’s residential-induced requirement for dedicated park and recreation land would not change under Scheme C. Specifically, Scheme C would be required to provide parkland dedication and/or fee in-lieu of dedication at a ratio of 2.53 acres per 1,000 residents – the same ratio as the Approved Project.47 As mentioned in the 2016 EIR page 3.13-21, the actual parkland and facilities provided along with the final approved in-lieu fee amount required would be determined during the approval process and that payment of in-lieu fees represents full and complete mitigation for parkland impacts due to new development.
Total Project Impact on Parks and Recreational Facilities. As with the Approved Project, Scheme C would result in a combined impact of eliminating existing on-site recreational facilities and increasing recreational demand from new residents and employees. As described above, Scheme C would result in less-than-significant impacts related to parks and recreation, consistent with the findings of the 2016 EIR.
Libraries
Similar to the Approved Project, Scheme C would result in substantial new development that would degrade existing Santa Clara City Library service ratios and performance objectives. As shown in Section
6.13, Population and Housing, the number of new permanent residents generated by Scheme C would be comparable with the population increase assumed for the Approved Project analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
Therefore, Scheme C would result in a comparable increase in the use of library facilities in the City as the Approved Project and would be within the impact envelope assumed and analyzed in the 2016 EIR.
As such, Scheme C would result in a less-than-significant impact on libraries, consistent with the findings of the 2016 EIR.
Cumulative Impacts on Public Services and Recreation
See section 2.2.2 above regarding Cumulative Impacts. The addition of housing units within Tasman East would result in unanticipated growth that could place additional burdens on public services. However, as described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less than significant public service impacts, and there is no evidence that new public services facilities would be required as a result of the cumulative scenario. Surrounding development would be required to pay school impact fees, which are based on the amount of proposed residential and commercial space, and would be required to comply with Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.35, which requires new residential development to provide adequate park and recreational land and/or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication to
46 Master Community Plan Scheme C Supplement dated June 2025. 47 (4,030 new residents * 2.53 acres per 1,000 residents) / 1,000 = 10.2 acres
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 105 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
mitigate the impacts of new growth. This process and fee payment would ensure that citywide growth would be reasonably accommodated within the cumulative context. Therefore, surrounding developments are not expected to result in a significant cumulative impact and Scheme C would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative public services and recreation impact.
6.14.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to public services and recreation that were not identified in the 2016 EIR. Since the impacts of Scheme C would be less than significant, no mitigation measures are warranted.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 106 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
6.15 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Equal or Less Severity
of Impact Previously
Identified in the 2016
EIR
Substantial Increase in
Severity of Previously
Identified Significant
Impact in the 2016 EIR
New Significant
Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board;
☒ ☐ ☐
b. Require or result in construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
☒ ☐ ☐
c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
☒ ☐ ☐
d. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
would new or expanded entitlements be needed;
☒ ☐ ☐
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the providers' existing commitments;
☒ ☐ ☐
f. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs;
☒ ☐ ☐
g. Violate applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; or
☒ ☐ ☐
h. Result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use. ☒ ☐ ☐
6.15.1 2016 EIR Findings
Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater
The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Approved Project demonstrated that sufficient water supplies exist to accommodate the Approved Project’s total water demand and cumulative water demands. Therefore, the 2016 EIR determined that these impacts would be less than significant.
The 2016 EIR found significant impacts related to the Approved Project’s required water delivery and stormwater drainage systems. Construction of public water mains over landfills is prohibited, unless the California State Water Resources Control Board grants the City a waiver, and thus both on- and off-site improvements would be required. Similarly, the Approved Project’s proposed stormwater drainage system could require both on- and off-site improvements. Any impacts associated with construction of these improvements would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of all relevant mitigation measures included for construction within the 2016 EIR. 48 48 Mitigation measures included for construction within the 2016 EIR include AES-1.1: Imported Material Storage; TRA-
18.1: Construction Management; AQ-2.1: Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions; AQ-2.2: Use Modern Fleet for On-Road Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction; AQ-2.3: Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction- Related Dust and Exhaust Emissions; AQ-2.4: Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 107 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
The 2016 EIR concluded that the Approved Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing treatment facilities, or exceed the San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility capacity to serve the Approved Project’s expected demand and existing entitlements. However, the Approved Project would contribute to a cumulative wastewater pumping capacity deficit that would require additional off-site wastewater delivery systems to meet this demand. The 2016 EIR determined this to be a significant cumulative impact that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the Project Developer’s fair-share contribution to the City for necessary upgrades.
Solid Waste
The 2016 EIR determined that sufficient permitted landfill capacity exists to accommodate the Approved Project’s solid waste disposal needs and therefore there would be a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste and landfill capacity. The 2016 EIR determined the Approved Project would have a considerable contribution to existing cumulative impacts related to landfill capacity resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. The 2016 EIR identified no mitigation measures to partially mitigate this impact.
Energy
The 2016 EIR determined that any potential for the Approved Project to use energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation in addition to all relevant mitigation measures included for construction within the 2016 EIR. 49 The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would contribute to the existing cumulative secondary environmental impacts
by potentially requiring the construction of new electricity generation facilities and transmission lines, increasing demand for new renewable energy facilities, and increasing demand for transportation fuels which can result in the need for additional facilities to produce, process, and transport such fuels. Furthermore, both the electricity and gas needed may be generated out of State
BAAQMD NOX Average Daily Emission Threshold; AQ-6.1: Assess Construction Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Potential Prior to Construction, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment, Filtration Systems, and/or other Measures as Necessary to Reduce Cancer Risks Associated with DPM during Construction; GHG-1.1: Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction; NOI-1.1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Adjacent Land Uses; NOI-2.1: Restrict Pile Driving; CR-1.1: Conduct Extended Phase I (XPI) Archaeological Investigations within the Project Site near Recorded Resources and within an Area of Archaeological Sensitivity; CR-1.2: Provide Archaeological Monitoring of the Project Site When in Native Soil; CR-
2.1: Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan; CR-2.2: Paleontological Resource Monitoring; CR-2.3: Paleontological Resource Reporting; CR-3.1: Stop work if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities; BIO-
1.1: Protect Nesting Birds; BIO-2.2: Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction; BIO-3.1:
Protect Western Pond Turtles; BIO-4.1: Protect Central California Coast Steelhead, Critical Habitat, and Chinook Salmon; BIO-5.1: Protect Retention Pond and Eastside Retention Drainage Swale, and San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River Aquatic Habitat during Construction; BIO-5.2: Compensate for Loss of Waters of the U.S. and State (including Wetlands); GEO-1.1: Detailed Grading and Erosion Control Plan; GEO-2.1: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation;GEO-2.2: Final Geotechnical Report Review;GEO-2.3: Construction Quality Assurance Plan; GEO-2.4: Final Project Design Review; WQ-1.1: Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures; WQ-
3.2: Vegetation Removal from the Retention Basin Drainage Swale; WQ-6.1: Incorporate Flood Warnings for the Lick Mill Boulevard Extension and Other Access Roads for Areas Vulnerable to Flooding; HAZ-4.5: Building Restrictions. HAZ-2.1: Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction; HAZ-5.1: Phase II Site Investigation; HAZ-5.2: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan; HAZ-5.3: Implement Measures Included in CCR Title 27, Section 21190(g); and HAZ-9.1: Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan. 49 Ibid.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 108 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
which makes it not reasonable to predict where new supply sources would be located or evaluate the environmental consequences from construction and operation of such facilities. Therefore, the 2016 EIR determined that there was a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. The 2016 EIR did not identify new mitigation measures to address this cumulative impact. Scheme C would result in the same significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
6.15.2 Project Analysis
The discussion of Scheme C’s utilities analysis is informed by Chapter 8C, Infrastructure Overview – Scheme C Variant, of the Master Community Plan Scheme C Supplement dated June 2025.
Water Demand and Infrastructure
Scheme C would replace the office land uses proposed under the Approved Project on Parcels 1 and 2 with approximately 1.6 million sf of light industrial use. The proposed land use changes would decrease the expected water demand for the Project site. As shown in Table 6.15-1, Scheme C would demand approximately 1,411 acre-feet per year (AFY), which would be less than what was estimated for the Approved Project. Therefore, the Scheme C estimated water demand is within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in a new or more severe significant impact.
TABLE 6.15-1
COMPARISON OF WATER DEMAND (AFY)
Parcel
Approved Project
(Scheme B 2016 EIR)
Scheme C
(af/yr)
Parcel 1 259.9 98.8
Parcel 2 434.8 127.0
Parcel 3a 192.9 0
Parcel 4 800.2 997.5
Parcel 5 233.0 187.3
Total 1920.8 1410.6
NOTE: AFY = acre-feet per year
a. Water demand estimates for the Approved Project, on page 3.14- 20 of the 2016 Draft EIR, assume development on Parcel 3. Although the Approved Project incorporates the EOS Variant, in which the City retains Parcel 3 park use, the proposed land uses and square footage of development are the same and thus the total estimated water demand remains valid for the Approved Project. SOURCES: ICF International, 2015. City Place Santa Clara Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. October 2015. Prepared for the City of Santa Clara. Available at:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/135/3649.
Langan, 2024. Related Santa Clara Master Community Plan Scheme C Supplement, Chapter 8C, Infrastructure Overview – Scheme C Variant. June 2025.
Consistent with the findings of the 2016 EIR, Scheme C would require the expansion of the City’s water delivery system at both on-site and some off-site locations but would not require expansion of the recycled water system off-site. The 2016 EIR determined that construction may result in significant impacts, but these would be reduced to less-than-significant by relevant construction-related mitigation measures.50 These mitigation measures would apply to Scheme C and, as such, Scheme C would result in
50 Ibid.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 109 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
no new and no more severe significant impact with respect to water demand and infrastructure than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Wastewater Generation and Infrastructure
As mentioned above, Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses on Parcels 1 and 2 and increase the density of approved uses on the southwestern area. As shown in Table 6.15-2, implementation of Scheme C would result in a total wastewater generation of approximately 1.19 million gallons per day (GPD), which would be less than what was estimated for the Approved Project. Therefore, the wastewater generated by Scheme C is within the impact envelope analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would result in no new and no more severe significant impact than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
TABLE 6.15-2
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER GENERATION BY SCHEME (GPD)
Approved Project
(Scheme B 2016 EIR) Scheme C
Total 1,749,138 1,188,960
NOTE: GPD = gallons per day
SOURCES: ICF International, 2015. City Place Santa Clara Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.
October 2015. Prepared for the City of Santa Clara. Available at: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/ Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/135/3649.
Langan, 2025. Related Santa Clara Master Community Plan Scheme C Supplement, Chapter 8C, Infrastructure Overview – Scheme C Variant. June 2025.
The area of ground disturbance required to construct the necessary on- and off-site improvements to the wastewater system is similar for Scheme C as the Approved Project. Accordingly, the same construction mitigation measures would apply to Scheme C and no new and no more severe significant impact with respect to wastewater infrastructure would result than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Like the Approved Project, Scheme C would contribute to an existing significant cumulative impact related to the need for additional off-site wastewater delivery systems due to future insufficient pumping capacity at the Rabello and Northside Pump Stations. This significant impact was identified for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR and would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact through implementation of Mitigation Measure UT-3.1, Make a Fair-Share Contribution to Upgrading the Rabello and Northside Pump Station’s System Capacity. This mitigation measure would apply to Scheme C and, with its implementation, Scheme C would result in no new and no more severe a significant impact than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Stormwater
The 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would be required to comply with San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit Provision C.3, Stormwater Technical Guidance, because it would involve the creation/ replacement of more than10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Similarly, Scheme C would result in more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and would therefore be required to comply with San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit Provision C.3, Stormwater Technical Guidance. Additionally, as discussed in Section 6.11, Hydrology and Water Quality, the 2016 EIR determined that the drainage system has sufficient storage and pumping capacity to convey 100-year peak flows safely. No substantial change has occurred in this respect since certification of the 2016 EIR. Furthermore, Scheme C would be subject to
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 110 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
the same regulations as the Approved Project including treating any potential additional sources of runoff created by Scheme C with the stormwater management measures described in Mitigation Measure WQ-1.1, Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures.
The 2016 EIR determined that, in some circumstances, the Approved Project would result in significant stormwater impacts during construction and that construction-related mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. As mentioned above, the increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the construction timeline in the City Center parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time. Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR. All relevant construction-related mitigation measures would apply to Scheme C and, as such, implementation of Scheme C would result in no new and no more severe significant impact than was disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
51 Solid Waste
Although Scheme C would introduce new light industrial uses, no change is proposed to the overall total gross square footage being developed across the Project site. The increased density in Parcel 4 could result in an increased duration of the construction timeline in the City Center parcels. However, Scheme C would require an overall duration of construction activity similar to the timeline analyzed in the 2016 EIR and would not result in intensified construction emissions over a shorter period of time. Scheme C construction-related activity, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations and envelopes are similar to those analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR. Scheme C construction would use similar equipment to the equipment analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, construction-related solid waste impacts would be the same as those identified in the 2016 EIR.
The Approved Project includes office use on Parcels 1 and 2. Scheme C would replace 1.6 million sf of office use on these parcels with approximately 1.6 million sf of light industrial use and would increase the density of the approved uses in the southwestern area of the Project site. As mentioned in Section 6.13, Population and Housing, office use has an employee generation rate of 270 gsf per employee and industrial use has an employee generation rate of 331 gsf per employee. Using these generation rates,
1.6 million sf of office use would result in 5,926 employees while 1.6 million sf of industrial use would result in 4,834 employees.
The City maintains agreements with multiple non-exclusive franchise (NEF) haulers to provide garbage, recycling, organics recycling, and debris bin services to businesses at properties zoned for industrial use.
The current agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2026. NEF haulers are required to provide a bundled service that includes garbage, recycling, and organics collection via a three-bin system to customers subscribing to two cubic yards of solid waste per week or by ensuring the waste is processed at a Materials Recovery Facility that has a recovery rate greater than or equal to 50 percent. Businesses
51 Ibid.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 111 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
located on parcels zoned for industrial use are free to choose a hauler that best suits their needs from the City’s NEF hauler list. At this time, it is currently unknown which hauler would serve the Project site.52 CalRecycle provides solid waste generation rates for commercial, industrial, institutional, residential, and service establishments. For each land use type, CalRecycle publishes a range of possible generation rates extracted from various sources.
53 Using the employment estimates mentioned above and an average of the published solid waste generation rates per land use type, 1.6 million sf of office use would result in approximately 7,343.3 tons of solid waste per year without any diversion and 1.6 million sf of industrial use would result in 5,485.7 tons of solid waste per year without any diversion. 54 Additionally, CalRecycle
publishes the Business Group Waste Stream Calculator, which uses the statewide average data for business waste streams to estimate solid waste based on employee counts. Using this calculator, 1.6 million sf of industrial use would generate approximately 7,248 total tons of solid waste per year under the manufacturing (all other) category. Scheme C would generate approximately 14,470 total tons of solid waste per year under the durable wholesale and trucking category. The office use categories of services (management, administrative, support, and social) and services (professional, technical, and financial) would generate 8,540 and 13,680 total tons per year, respectively. 55 Considering the variety of sources
and results, it is reasonable to conclude that the solid waste generated by 1.6 million sf of industrial use (estimated between 7,248 and 14,470 tons per year) is comparable to the solid waste generated by
1.6 million sf of office use (estimated between 8,540 and 13,680 tons per year). Therefore, the solid waste generated by Scheme C would be within the assumptions of the Approved Project.
The 2016 EIR determined that the Newby Island Landfill had sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Approved Project’s solid waste disposal needs. The City had a disposal agreement with the Newby Island Landfill as well as other landfills located outside of the County through 2024. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, a prerequisite for new residential development under Phase III (2025-2035) of the General Plan requires the City to identify adequate solid waste disposal sites after 2024, which is the end of the contract between the City and Newby Island Landfill. 56 At the time of the 2016 EIR, the Newby
Island Landfill was in the process of seeking authorization from the City of San José to expand the permitted capacity. The expansion has since been approved and allowed for an increase in capacity of approximately 15.12 million cubic yards (cy).
57 As of 2020, the most recent year for which there is
available data, the Newby Island Landfill had a maximum permitted capacity of 57,500,000 cy and a
52 City of Santa Clara, 2024. Commercial and Industrial Garbage & Recycling. Available at: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our- city/departments-g-z/public-works/environmental-programs/commercial-and-industrial-garbage-recycling. Accessed June 20, 2024.
53 CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ General/Rates. Accessed August 8, 2024.
54 Ibid. Solid waste was calculated for each relevant generation rate provided by CalRecycle and then the average of these totals was used. However, outliers that drastically skewed the data were removed. For office use, the January 1996 source with a solid waste generation rate of 100 lb/gross sq ft/day was not used. For industrial use, the April 1993 source with a solid waste generation rate of 62.5 lb/1000 sq ft/day, the January 1996 source with a solid waste generation rate of 3 lb/employee/1000 sq ft/day, and the August 1992 source with a solid waste generation rate of 41.64 lb/employee/day were not used. 55 CalRecycle. Business Group Waste Stream Calculator. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ BusinessGroupCalculator. Accessed August 8, 2024.
56 City of Santa Clara, 2024. General Plan. Available at: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community- development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed August 8, 2024. 57 City of San José, 2016. Newby Island Sanitary Landfill/The Recycler. Available at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/ environmental-review/completed-eirs/newby-island-sanitary-landfill-the-recycler. Accessed August 8, 2024.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 112 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
remaining capacity of 16,400,000 cy.58 As with the Approved Project, the solid waste generated by Scheme C could be accommodated at an expanded Newby Island Landfill or an alternative landfill.
As mentioned above, the 2016 EIR determined the Approved Project would result in a considerable contribution to existing cumulative impacts related to landfill capacity resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Although Scheme C would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity, the City still has no specific plan for disposing of solid waste beyond 2024. Given the uncertainties concerning the location of solid waste disposal beyond 2024, Scheme C would result in the same significant and unavoidable cumulative impact as the Approved Project.
Energy
For the analysis of energy consumption, the 2016 EIR applied a “common sense” threshold, whereby a project’s energy usage would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if the project were to violate Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, would be inconsistent with the energy-related measures in the City of Santa Clara’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, or would otherwise consume a substantially greater amount of energy, in either the construction or operational phase, than similar projects of a similar size that did not incorporate the Project’s design features and mitigation. This analysis employs the same metrics to judge significance for Scheme C.
Scheme C’s construction-related activities, including demolition, required infrastructure improvements on- and off-site, and general building locations, would be substantially similar to the Approved Project’s construction-related activities analyzed in the 2016 EIR. Therefore, Scheme C’s construction-related impacts related to energy would be the same as those identified for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR.
Scheme C would include all the energy use efficiencies described for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR and so also would exceed the energy efficiency required by California’s Title 24 standards. The 2019 updates to Title 24 now require solar photovoltaics and energy storage for air conditioned space in offices, warehouses, and mixed-use buildings where one or more of these building types constitute at least 80 percent of the floor area. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, Part 6, § 140.10(a). These new requirements will further reduce energy demand from what was analyzed for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR.
With respect to energy demand from operations, Scheme C would source at least 50 percent of its energy use from renewable energy, consistent with Mitigation Measure GHG-1.2, and would therefore decarbonize electricity production and decrease electricity demand. Additionally, as stated in the proposed MCP Scheme C Supplement, Scheme C would design office buildings against an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) target of 61.50 thousand British thermal units (kBtu) per square foot per year, which is expected to result in lower energy use for office space due to the use of less natural gas. Further, air quality models indicate that the default energy demand per square foot is higher for office uses than for manufacturing land uses or warehouse land uses comprised of 50 percent refrigeration facilities. 59,60
58 CalRecycle, 2020. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (43-AN-003). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1362?siteID=3388. August 8, 2024. 59 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®), Version 2022.1.1.26. Appendix G-28 Climate Zone 1. 60 As described in the MCP Scheme C Supplement, refrigerated warehouse space would be permitted up to a maximum of 50 percent of the building square footage on Parcels 1 and 2.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 113 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
Therefore, Scheme C’s operational impacts related to energy demand would be similar to those identified for the Approved Project in the 2016 EIR.
Scheme C would result in the same impact related to 2013 Climate Action Plan consistency as the Approved Project (see Appendix C). In addition, Scheme C’s energy demand would require implementation of mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation as well as all relevant mitigation measures included for construction within the 2016 EIR.61 As a result, Scheme C would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy and its impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level consistent with the findings of the 2016 EIR.
As discussed above, the 2016 EIR determined that the Approved Project would contribute cumulative energy demands that could result in significant and unavoidable secondary environmental impacts related to long-term energy generation and transmission. The cumulative energy demand would potentially require the construction of new electricity generation facilities and transmission lines, new renewable energy facilities, or increase demand for transportation fuels, which can result in the need for additional facilities to produce, process, and transport such fuels. The 2016 EIR determined it was not reasonable to predict where the new supply sources would be located or evaluate environmental consequences from construction and operation of such facilities, and therefore concluded that the Approved Project would have a considerable contribution to cumulative energy demands that would be significant and unavoidable. Because these same conditions would also exist under Scheme C, Scheme C would also be expected to result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
As described above, Scheme C would not result in an increase in the severity of previously identified less- than-significant-with-mitigation utilities and service system impacts including wastewater treatment facilities as well as less-than-significant impacts on stormwater treatment facilities. Therefore, Scheme C’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because Scheme C would not result in new significant impacts compared to those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
6.15.3 Conclusion
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2016 EIR, implementation of Scheme C would cause no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects than were disclosed in the 2016 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to utilities and service systems that were not identified in the 2016 EIR. Mitigation Measure UT-3.1, Make a Fair-Share Contribution to Upgrading the Rabello and Northside Pump Station’s System Capacity as well as Mitigation Measures AQ-2.1, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions; AQ-2.2, Use Modern Fleet for On-Road Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction, AQ-2.4, Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOX Average Daily Emission Threshold, GHG-1.1, Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction; GHG-1.2, Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures, TRA-1.1, Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (see Appendix A) would be applicable to and would be implemented by Scheme C.
61 See footnote 58.
6. CEQA Analysis
Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use 114 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Addendum 4 June 2025
These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to utilities and service systems would be equal to, or less severe than, those disclosed in the 2016 EIR.
Appendix A
2025 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-1 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
RELATED SANTA CLARA PROJECT PLANNING/CEQA FILE # PLN2014‐10554/CEQ2014‐01180 Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 Land Use
LU-1.1: Increase Residential Density in the City’s General Plan. During the next General Plan Update cycle, the City shall explore permitting higher residential densities in the City as well as allowing residential land uses in existing non-residential areas. Where feasible, the City shall target strategic areas of the City, specifically those closest to major employment and transit hubs, for new residential land uses and/or increased residential density. In order to maintain projected 2035 jobs/ housing ratios, the City shall explore permitting up to 11,000 units.
City to explore permitting
higher residential densities
in the City.
Director of
Planning and
Inspection
Director of
Planning and
Inspection
During the next General
Plan Update cycle
NOI-1.3: Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses.
Aesthetics
AES-1.1: Imported Material Storage. Soils from other parcels that are imported to Parcel 2 shall be stored in areas that are not within view of the Guadalupe River Trail. Alternatively, imported soils within view of the Guadalupe River Trail shall be distributed across Parcel 2 at a depth of 2 feet or less.
Project Developer to provide
applicable provisions of
construction contracts to the
City incorporating
requirement.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits
AES-1.2: Early Implementation of Master Community Plan Landscaping Plan for Parcels 1 and 2. The existing golf course trees along the eastern edge of Parcel 2 shall be retained (leaving the view from the Guadalupe River trail unchanged) until such time as development on the eastern portion of Parcel 2 would necessitate their removal. The Project Developer shall implement the Landscaping Plan, as presented in the Master Community Plan, at the earliest feasible period, given the constraints and pacing of the development. Prior to planting and installation, the Landscaping Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval.
Project Developer to submit
a landscape plan to replace
removed trees to the City for
review and approval.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Director of
Planning &
Inspection
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits for Parcel 2
AES-2.1: Installation of Low-Profile Lighting. The Project Developer shall install low-profile, low- intensity lighting directed downward to minimize light and glare.
Project Developer to submit
catalog cuts of the fixtures
proposed to the City
demonstrating compliance.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural Review
submittal, which may be
included within
Development Area Plans
AES-2.2: Installation of Shielded Fixtures. The Project Developer shall use shielded fixtures for street lighting and park lighting to minimize spill onto the public right-of-way and glare produced by the lighting on the Project site.
Project Developer to submit
catalog cuts of the fixtures
proposed to the City
demonstrating compliance.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural Review
submittal, which may be
included within
Development Area Plans
1 Where the timing of an action is specified as taking place before a permit is issued, that action must be taken with respect to the action underlying the permit, except where otherwise specifically noted.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-2 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 AES-2.3: Treat Reflective Surfaces. The Project Developer shall ensure application of low- emissivity glass at exterior surfaces of the proposed structures for the purpose of reducing reflection of visible light that strikes the glass exterior and reduction in the amount of interior light being emitted through the glass.
Project Developer to provide
evidence that low-emissivity
glass at exterior surfaces will
be used.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural Review
submittal, which may be
included within
Development Area Plans
AES-2.4: Provide Obstruction for Glare from Vehicle Headlights along designated truck routes and in the Proposed Garages. The Project Developer shall ensure that through the architectural design of the parking garages and through or in combination with landscaping or physical screening at the parking structures and along designated truck routes and area surrounding truck loading docks, glare from vehicle headlights shall be screened from off-site viewers.
Project Developer to provide
garage sections to City
showing how vehicle
headlights in the proposed
garages will be obstructed.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
Architectural Review
submittal, which may be
included within
Development Area Plans
Transportation
TRA-1.1: Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM). The Project Developer shall prepare and implement a TDM Plan approved by the Santa Clara Director of Community Development. The TDM Plan shall include trip reduction measures necessary to achieve an overall target of reducing Project office- generated daily traffic by a minimum of 4 percent and peak-hour traffic by a minimum of 10 percent, with an overall target of reducing Project residential- generated daily traffic by a minimum of 2 percent and peak-hour traffic by a minimum of 4 percent, compared to the traffic estimates used in this EIR. The TDM Plan shall also include and implement TDM Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the retail uses. The TDM Plan shall include measures to reduce the amount of vehicle traffic generated by City Place by shifting employees, customers, and residents from driving alone to using transit, carpooling, cycling, and walking modes through TDM measures, strategies, incentives, and policies. The TDM obligation in this measure is to apply for the lifetime of the Project. The TDM Plan may specify a phased implementation approach that provides initially for implementation of the TDM measures that are appropriate for multi-tenant offices (e.g., measures aimed at increased transit use and carpooling), which are expected to be developed during the first three phases of development, and then provide for TDM measures that are appropriate for large corporate office tenants in the remaining phases (such as shuttles). The Santa Clara Director of Community Development shall have the authority and discretion to permit modification of the measures provided that the modifications continue to achieve the overall trip reduction objective and/or the Santa Clara Director of Community Development is satisfied that all feasible TDM measures are being implemented if the overall trip reduction objective is not being met.
Specific requirements as to the TDM Plan, its contents, target reductions, monitoring and remedial action are as follows:
Project Developer to submit
a TDM Plan to the City for
each Development Area
Plan and prior to each
subsequent Development
Area Plan, submit a TDM
Plan reviewed by the third
party. Submit an annual
report documenting
compliance with the TDM
Plan.
Project Developer/
TMA
Department of
Public Works
Director of
Planning and
Inspection
Prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy
for first building under
each DAP for TDM Plan
(or expansion of TDM
Plan) associated with
development under the
DAP; obtain approval
prior to certificate of
occupancy; undertakes
annual reporting,
surveys and revisions to
TDM Plan in accordance
with mitigation measure.
A. Vehicle Trip Thresholds. Vehicle trip reductions will be measured through counts of vehicles that enter and exit the site and by comparison of the results to established trip thresholds. As part of the annual TDM Plan monitoring process, as described below, vehicle trip generation estimates, based on the land uses and their sizes, will be prepared by a transportation professional funded by the Transportation Management Association described below, and working under the direction of the City, who will use the trip generation rates and internalization and public transit ridership reductions used in the EIR transportation analysis. The TDM reduction targets will be applied to create the thresholds. The estimates and thresholds will be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer. While no thresholds are established for retail uses because it is difficult to enforce trip reductions for retail customers, this measure requires implementation of TDM BMPs for retail portions of the Project, as described below.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-3 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 B. Management Association (TMA) is a non-profit, organization that provides transportation services in a particular area, such as a commercial district, medical center or office park, controlled by members that are building owners or tenants in that area. A TMA shall be formed to oversee and coordinate implementation of the TDM measures to be implemented for the Project, including coordinating activities of the various employers and tenants. The TDM Plan shall identify the vehicle trip-reducing measures and strategies to be provided and implemented directly by the Project Developer, those to be implemented directly by the TMA and those to be implemented directly by individual tenants/employers, and any to be implemented directly by the City. The TDM Plan shall describe the roles and responsibilities of the TMA and its members, which shall be codified in a binding agreement with the City of Santa Clara, approved by the Director of Community Development, and recorded with the County of Santa Clara Clerk Recorder.
C. Office TDM Measures. TDM measures that target office employees shall be described in detail in the TDM Plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party (e.g., Project Developer, TMA, City, and tenants and employers.), The following TDM measures shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan for some or all portions of the office development, to the extent feasible and appropriate, either as part of an initial TDM Plan or as options for enhanced or remedial measures if trip reduction targets are not being met:
• On-site Support Facilities: shuttle bus stops with shelters, bicycle paths and lanes, pedestrian paths linking buildings and transit stations, priority parking for carpools and vanpools
• In-building Support Facilities: showers and changing rooms, bicycle storage rooms and bicycle racks, and bicycle repair stands, cafes, and fitness centers • Private shuttles for both long distance commute and last-mile service from nearby public transit
• Ridesharing options for long distance commuters such as carpool and vanpool matching services
• Guaranteed ride home services for commuters who carpool, take transit, or bicycle to work
• Financial incentives such as pre-tax benefits for transit and bicycle expenses (e.g., Commuter Check) or subsidized transit passes (e.g., Commuter Checks, Clipper Cards or VTA EcoPass) for all employees
• Additional support services for employees who use transit or rideshare, such as flexible work hours
• A website and marketing program to disseminate information on commute options; access to TMA management services
• A TDM information packet to be provided to all new City Place employees upon commencement of work at City Place and, the benefits of alternative commute methods stressed during new employee orientation programs
• Incentives for employees to live in locations well served by transit or shuttles • Bike share pods to enable trips on-site and to nearby destinations to be made by bicycle • Car share services with cars on-site for use by employees (or others) who use alternative modes to travel to the site but need a car to run an errand, travel to a meeting, etc.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-4 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 • Multi-passenger demand responsive ride services for local employees that are competitive with drive alone including transportation network/ride-sharing services such as Uber Pool, Lyft Line and Chariot on-demand and crowd-sourced bus services • Yet-to-be developed new services, programs, strategies and emerging technologies • Congestion cordon (boundary) pricing scheme2
• Parking management strategies such as paid parking and unbundled parking to restrict the parking supply3
D. Residential TDM Measures. TDM measures that target residents shall be described in the TDM Plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party (e.g., Project Developer, TMA, City, tenants and employers). The following TDM measures shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan for some or all portions of the residential development, to the extent feasible and appropriate, either as part of an initial TDM Plan or as options for enhanced or remedial measures if trip reduction targets are not being met:
• Bicycle infrastructure improvements
• Bicycle parking room or lockers
• Bicycle riders guide
• On-site bicycle repair facilities
• Financial subsidies for residents who commute by carpool, transit, walking or bicycle, such as VTA EcoPasses
• A website and marketing program to disseminate information on commute options; access to TMA management services
• Rideshare matching services
• On-site shuttle services, shuttle bus stops with shelters, pedestrians path linking buildings and transit stations
• Bus stops located near buildings
• Pedestrian-oriented site design
• Congestion cordon (boundary) pricing scheme
• Parking management strategies such as paid parking and unbundled parking to restrict the parking supply.
E. Retail Site Design BMPs. BMPs that target retail employees and customers shall be described in the TDM Plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party (e.g., Project Developer, TMA, City, tenants and employers). The following BMPs shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM Plan for some or all portions of the retail development, to the extent feasible and appropriate:
• Bicycle infrastructure improvements
• Bicycle rider encouragement program
2 Cordon pricing would entail charging vehicles a fee as they enter an area. The fees would be higher during congested periods. This type of strategy is most effective with limited access points and requires a high quality transit system to accommodate travel by a non-automobile mode. 3 These parking management strategies can be paired with a residential permit parking program (RPPP) to ensure that Project residents seeking parking do not park in nearby neighborhoods.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-5 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 • Bicycle parking, showers and lockers
• Bicycle riders guide
• On-site bicycle repair facilities
• Pre-tax commuter incentives
• Rideshare matching services
• On-site shuttle services, shuttle bus stops with shelters, pedestrians path linking buildings and transit stations
• A website and marketing program to disseminate information on commute options; access to TMA management services
• Bus stop locations near building entrances
• Pedestrian-oriented site design
• Congestion cordon (boundary) pricing scheme
F. Monitoring and Reporting. The TDM Plan shall be monitored annually to gauge its effectiveness in meeting the thresholds; while general guidelines are provided here, the monitoring and reporting process shall be explained in detail in the TDM Plan. A transportation professional working at the City’s direction and pursuant to a scope of work approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer shall conduct traffic counts annually using mechanical counters or other devices approved by the City of Santa Clara to measure the daily and peak-hour entering and exiting vehicle volumes for a 72-hour period, Tuesday through Thursday. The counts shall include traffic counts at all City Place driveways, traffic counts at the driveways to office parking locations, and traffic counts at the driveways to residential parking locations. The counts shall be conducted when schools are in session and during non-holiday weeks with fair weather. The individual driveway volumes will be summed to provide the total site traffic volumes. The volumes at the driveways to the office and residential parking locations will be summed to provide the office- and residential-generated traffic volumes. The volumes will be compared to the trip thresholds to determine whether the reduction in vehicle trips is being met. The TMA will assist with the monitoring activities that will be conducted.
In addition to monitoring driveway volumes, a survey will be developed by the transportation professional and administered in coordination with the TMA and individual office employers to determine actual mode splits for employees. The survey will also gather information on usage of individual TDM Plan components as well as gauge employee perception of the overall TDM Plan After an initial survey is conducted, subsequent surveys shall be conducted in years where the previous year’s annual report has concluded that trip thresholds and trip reduction targets are not being met.
The results of the annual vehicle counts and survey (if one is conducted that year) will be reported in writing by the transportation professional to the Santa Clara Director of Community Development. The report will include descriptions of the TDM measures in place, highlighting new or modified measures, summarize the results of the counts, summarize the results of the employee survey (if one is conducted that year), and conclude whether the trip thresholds and trip reduction targets are being met. The report (as well as any remedial action taken as a result) will be summarized in an annual informational report to the Planning Commission on the progress of TDM efforts throughout the City of Santa Clara.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-6 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 G. Remedial Action. If TDM Plan monitoring results show that the trip reduction targets are not being met, the TDM Plan shall be updated to identify replacement and/or additional feasible TDM measures to be implemented. The updated TDM Plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Santa Clara Director of Community Development. The updated TDM Plan shall also identify other TDM measures that were considered but determined to be infeasible or ineffective. The TMA shall oversee and coordinate the implementation of the feasible additional TDM measures and continue to explore methods of making other potential TDM measures feasible.
TRA-1.2: Intersection Improvements. The intersection improvements and off- setting mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20 shall be implemented, and Project Developer shall pay the fair-share contributions for the mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20. The intent of the table is to identify, based on a preliminary feasibility determination, physically feasible intersection mitigation measures (e.g., lane additions) that increase the intersection’s vehicle carrying capacity and reduce vehicle delay while fully mitigating the impacts. As described below, feasible mitigation measures that fully mitigate the impacts were identified at some locations. However, at other locations, measures that provide only partial mitigation were identified because of physical constraints. Although these mitigation measures do not fully address the impact, they do help reduce the severity of the impact. For intersections where there are no feasible physical improvements, off- setting mitigation measures were investigated. These measures would provide improvements to other modes of travel, thereby increasing the capacity of the transportation system. At some intersections no feasible improvement or off-setting mitigation measures were identified.
Implement intersection
improvements included in
Table 3.3-20 of the Draft EIR
and pay fair share
contribution in accordance
with Exhibit MMRP-1.
Project Developer
(as noted in Table
3.3-20 of Draft
EIR)
Department of
Public Works
In accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
The four potential entries are:
• Full Mitigation: At the affected intersection, a physical modification to the intersection that would fully mitigate the impact was identified. This could be accomplished by adding vehicle lanes or upgrading an intersection to an interchange or “fly-over.” These improvements would reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay at intersections that operate at unacceptable levels.
• Partial Mitigation: At the affected intersection, a physical modification to the intersection that would partially mitigate the impact was identified. The proposed measure mitigates the impact during one peak hour but not the other or reduces the delay but not enough to mitigate the impact.
• Off-setting Mitigation: In the North San José Deficiency Plan area, off-setting local street network, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements were identified to accommodate future travel growth but not directly mitigate the intersection with the identified impact. • No Feasible Mitigation: No physical improvements or off-setting mitigation measures were identified, typically because of physical limitations, costs, and/or right-of-way constraints.
Some of the intersection improvements would require right-of-way (ROW) acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-7 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, and no off-setting mitigation measure is identified, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.” The Project Developer’s responsibility is included in Table 3-3.20, which indicates if the Project Developer would be wholly or partially responsible for the mitigation measure. • As seen in the table, “100 percent” indicates that the cost and construction of the proposed mitigation measure is the full responsibility of the Project Developer. These are discrete mitigation measures that either fully or partially mitigate significant Project impacts. • “Percent of total traffic” indicates that the Project Developer shall pay a fair-share contribution to the proposed mitigation measure, which is typically a larger transportation improvement, such as an expressway interchange, that has been identified in an adopted plan. Twelve of the intersections are on the County expressway system and are identified in the County’s Expressway Plan to be upgraded to an interchange or “fly-over.” The Project Developer shall pay its fair share toward these interchange upgrades per agreements between Santa Clara County and the City of Santa Clara.
• “Pay the North San José fee or fair-share contribution of alternative or off-setting mitigation” is identified for affected intersections in the North San José area. There are two options for these locations. The Project Developer can pay the North San José fee or a fair-share contribution for the mitigation measure or off-setting mitigation measure based on the Project’s percent contribution of added traffic at the intersection.
• Where there is no feasible mitigation measure, no fair share is identified (0 percent).
The City-preferred mitigation measure is identified where there is more than one mitigation option.
TRA-1.3: Prepare and Implement a Multimodal Improvement Plan. The Project Developer shall fund the preparation of (including CEQA review for) a Multimodal Improvement Plan (MIP) addressing at least the Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections within the City of Santa Clara that are forecasted to operate at Level of Service F with the Project, either on a project level or cumulative basis. City shall reimburse the Project Developer for any cost of preparation of the MIP that exceeds the Project Developer’s fair share of such cost. Such MIP shall be prepared in accordance with the guidelines and regulations of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and shall be adopted by the City Council for submission to the VTA for consideration and approval no later than one year after approval of the Project. Once the MIP is adopted by the VTA, it shall be implemented in accordance with its terms and commensurate with the phasing of the development that its measures are intended to offset.
Provide requisite funding for
City preparation of the MIP
as City Costs under
Development Agreement.
City to prepare and approve
MIP for submission to VTA,
and implement MIP once it
is approved.
Project
Developer/City
Department of
Public Works
and Division of
Planning and
Inspection
City to submit approved
MIP to VTA within 1 year
of project approval, and
implement MIP
according with its terms.
TRA-2.1: Traffic Signal Installation. Install a traffic signal at Intersection 109, Liberty Street/Taylor Street once the traffic volumes meet the warrant requirements. The intersection of Liberty Street/ Taylor Street is located in San José; the installation of a traffic signal would need to be approved by the City of San José.
Project Developer shall
provide funding for traffic
signal installation at Liberty
Street/Taylor Street in the
City of San José and submit
evidence of compliance to
City.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for the
building that triggers
improvement in
accordance with Exhibit
MMRP-1.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-8 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 TRA-2.2: Traffic Signal Installation. Install a traffic signal at Intersection 114, Calle Del Sol/Calle De Luna, once the traffic volumes meet the warrant requirements.
Project Developer to install a
traffic signal at Intersection
114, Calle Del Sol/Calle De
Luna.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy
for the building that
triggers improvement in
accordance with Exhibit
MMRP-1.
TRA-3.1: Freeway Segment Improvements. The Project Developer will make a voluntary contribution toward the VTP’s 2040 Express Lane Projects (VTP 2040 project numbers H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, and H15) and Countywide Freeway Traffic Operation System and Ramp Metering Improvements (VTP 2040 project number S83).
These VTP 2040 projects (H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H15, and S83), once fully funded and constructed, will enhance travel choices for Project travelers and make more efficient use of the transportation network.
Project Developer shall pay
per trip fee to the City in
accordance with Exhibit
MMRP-1.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy
for a new or expanded
structure.
TRA-1a.1: Intersection Improvements for Existing with Project Phases 1, 2, and 3. The intersection improvements and off-setting mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-26 shall be implemented, and Project Developer shall pay the fair-share contributions for the mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-26. (This table also includes impacts and mitigation measures for the full Project for comparison purposes.) These improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay at intersections that operate at unacceptable levels. Table 3.3-26 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to a level that mitigates the impact.
See TRA-1.2 Project Developer Department of
Public Works
In accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, and no off-setting mitigation measure is identified, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”
TRA-5.1: Transportation Design Review. The site plans for Parcels 1 and 2 will undergo a design review by the City to ensure that City design standards are adhered to prior to construction. This review shall include an on-site intersection analysis prior to development plan approval. The on-site analysis shall include an intersection operations analysis to develop intersection traffic controls and lane geometries that meet City of Santa Clara traffic standards. These parcels shall also be reviewed for:
• Inbound queuing at parking facilities to ensure that queues do not block public streets and local streets
• Emergency vehicle access and circulation
• Vehicular circulation
Project Developer to prepare
site plans for Parcels 1 and
2 to be submitted to the City
to ensure that City street
design and traffic standards
are accommodated in each
Development Area Plan.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Concurrent with
Development Area Plan
submittal for each phase
to the extent that data is
available and with
Architectural Review to
the extent minor details
are not known at DAP
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-9 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 • Parking layout and circulation within the site
• Bicycle access and circulation
• Pedestrian access and circulation
• Pedestrian access to and from transit stops
• Truck circulation and loading dock access for commercial parcels TRA-6.1: Intersection Improvements With Access Variant Scheme. The intersection improvements summarized in Table 3.3-35 shall be implemented. These improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing them to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay for intersections that operate at unacceptable levels.
Table 3.3-35 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to a level that fully mitigates the impact.
Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”
Implement intersection
improvements summarized
in Table 3.3-35 of the Draft
EIR and pay fair share
contribution in accordance
with Exhibit MMRP-1.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
In accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
TRA-6.2: Intersection Improvements for Phases 1, 2 and 3. The intersection improvements summarized in Table 3.3-36 shall be implemented. These improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate Project impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be lower than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay for intersections that operate at unacceptable levels.
Table 3.3-36 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to a level that mitigates the impact.
Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork- chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”
Implement the intersection
improvements for Phases 1,
2, and 3, as summarized in
Table 3.3-36 of the Draft EIR
and pay fair share
contribution in accordance
with Exhibit MMRP-1.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
In accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-10 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 TRA-7.1: Sidewalk Gap Closure on Tasman Drive on the Lafayette Street overcrossing extending east to Calle Del Sol. The Project Developer shall construct a sidewalk on the north side of Tasman Drive on the Lafayette Street overcrossing and extending east to Calle Del Sol. The Project Developer shall fully fund the construction of this sidewalk segment between the Project frontage on Tasman Drive and Calle Del Sol.
Project Developer to
construct a sidewalk on the
north side of Tasman Drive
on the Lafayette Street
overcrossing, extending east
to Calle Del Sol.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to the issuance of
certificate of occupancy
for first building within
Phase 1
TRA-14.1: Signalized Intersection Improvements. The intersection improvements and off-setting mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20 shall be implemented and Project Developer shall pay the fair-share contributions for the mitigation measures summarized in Table 3.3-20, The Project Developer shall also pay the fair-share contribution for the additional intersections or off-setting mitigation measure identified in Table 3.3-50. The improvements will reduce vehicle delays and fully mitigate cumulative impacts at several intersections by allowing the intersections to operate at acceptable levels, with delays that would be less than they would be under no-project conditions, or with less than a 4-second increase in critical delay for intersections that operate at unacceptable levels.
Table 3.3-50 also contains physical improvements for select intersections that will reduce the delay, but not to less than no-project conditions such that the Project’s effects would remain cumulatively considerable.
Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork- chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement or mitigation is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.”
Project Developer to
implement intersection
improvements mitigation
measures summarized in
Table 3.3-20 of the Draft EIR
and pay the fair-share
contributions for the
mitigation measures in
accordance with Exhibit
MMRP-1.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
In accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
TRA-16.1: Intersection Improvements for Cumulative with-Project Access Variants. The intersection improvements summarized in Table 3.3-54 shall be implemented. Some of the intersection improvements would require ROW acquisition. A preliminary review of ROW constraints was done by viewing aerial photography as a part of the mitigation measure feasibility assessment. An intersection was identified as having ROW constraints if the mitigation measure would include widening the roadway or relocating aboveground utilities. (Use of the center median and “pork-chop” islands was not considered as roadway widening.) If the removal of bicycle facilities was required, the ROW required was defined as “possible.” If the City makes a final determination that a portion or all of an improvement or mitigation is not feasible because ROW cannot be acquired or for other reasons, the improvement, or infeasible portion, shall not be implemented and, if none of the improvement is feasible, that intersection shall be considered to have “no feasible mitigation.” Project Developer to
implement the intersection
improvements summarized
in Table 3.3-54 of the Draft
EIR and pay the fair-share
contributions for the
mitigation measures in
accordance with Exhibit
MMRP-1.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
In accordance with
Exhibit MMRP-1
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-11 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 TRA-18.1: Construction Management. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Developer and construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works Department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion during construction of the Project and develop acceptable detour routes for emergency vehicles and for shuttles to the Great America ACE/Capitol Corridor station. The City will coordinate with appropriate transit agencies. The Project Developer shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department, which shall share the plan with interested the Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority, the VTA, and ACE for review and comment. The plan, which shall be implemented during construction, shall include at least the following items and requirements:
• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes.
• Notification procedures for adjacent property owners, the public, transit operators, and public safety personnel regarding when detours and lane closures will occur.
Project Developer to prepare
and submit a Construction
Management Plan for the
purpose of managing traffic
and reducing traffic
congestion during
construction. City to review
and approve Plan.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of each
building permit
• Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the Project site).
• Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular, pedestrian, and transit vehicle traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected. Construction vehicles shall be required to use designated truck/haul routes.
• Provisions for removal of trash generated by Project construction activity. • A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. • Construction vehicles and construction workers shall not be allowed to park in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Construction vehicles will be required to park either in the construction zone or in the temporary parking lots.
TRA-19.1: Modified City’s Traffic Management and Operations Plan (TMOP) and Prepare a Project-Specific Traffic and Parking Management Plan. Modify the City’s TMOP to include plans to direct stadium traffic to the new parking locations on the site. (Some of the office parking areas will be used during special events.) A separate traffic and parking management plan shall be developed for the Project by the Project Developer and approved by the Director of Community Development and/or the Director of Public works. This plan would address:
• Parking areas to be used by office employees (versus stadium parking); • Project customer/employee parking (versus stadium parking); • Access and egress routes for vehicles to the site, taking into consideration the lane and roadway segment closures used to direct stadium traffic;
• A communications plan to inform customers and employees of game-day operations; and • Operational improvements such as signal timing and coordination to maximize efficiency of the streets during peak periods.
Project Developer to modify
the City’s TMOP to include
plans to direct stadium traffic
to the new parking locations
on the site, and a site traffic
and parking management
plan for review and approval
by City.
Project Developer Director of
Community
Development
and/or Director
of Public Works
Prior to the issuance of
first certificate of
occupancy within each
DAP area
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-12 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 Performance goals that reflect a successful traffic and parking management plan would be contained in the plan and may include items such as:
• Maintaining vehicular access to the Project with acceptable increases in travel times compared to non-game day conditions;
• Limited vehicle queuing within the Project site such that no internal circulation roadways are blocked; and
• Limited vehicle queuing extending from parking facilities within the Project onto external public roadways.
Even with mitigation, the local streets near the Project site would operate at an unacceptable LOS due to vehicle demand exceeding capacity. Widening roadways or intersections to increase capacity was considered as mitigation but rejected due to utility and secondary impacts. Street widening would provide capacity that would be needed only on game days and not at other times. The City of Santa Clara General Plan has policies to discourage the widening of existing roadways without first considering operational improvements such as the items included in the existing TMOP and items that will be included in the TDM Plan.
Air Quality
AQ-2.1: Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions.
The Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2017 and 2022 is equipped with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 3 engine is not available. Consistent with advancements of the statewide fleet average, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2023 and 2030 is equipped with EPA Tier 4 engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 4 engine is not available. This requirement will ensure construction equipment remains cleaner than the fleet-wide average.
4 Project Developer to provide
to City applicable provisions
of construction contracts
requiring that all off- road
diesel-powered equipment
used for construction
between 2017 and 2022 is
equipped with the U.S. EPA
Tier 3 or cleaner engines
and that all off- road diesel-
powered equipment used for
construction between 2023
and 2030 is equipped with
EPA Tier 4 engines.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to grading or
building permit issuance
AQ-2.2: Use Modern Fleet for On-Road Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction. The Project Developer shall ensure that all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site comply with EPA 2007 on-road emissions standards for PM10 and NO
X (0.01 grams per brake horsepower-hour
[g/bhp-hr] and 0.20 g/bhp-hr, respectively).
Project Developer to provide
to City applicable provisions
of construction contracts
requiring the use of modern
fleet for on-road material
delivery and that haul trucks
comply with EPA 2007 on-
road emissions standards
for PM10 and NOX.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to grading or
building permit issuance
4 As explained in MM AQ-6.1, below, as necessary to reduce cancer risk to on-site sensitive receptors related to construction diesel particulate matter emissions to a level below the BAAQMD, the Project Developer may need to use Tier 4 equipment after occupancy of on-site residences or daycare centers, or may use other appropriate measures (see AQ-6.1). If Tier 4 equipment is used earlier than 2023, this may reduce the amount of mitigation required in MM AQ-2.4.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-13 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 AQ-2.3: Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Exhaust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following measures.
Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clara for approval.
• All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. If water infiltration into landfill refuse layers is a concern, non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used instead. • All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour (mph) for a period of 2 hours or more. • Windbreaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks shall have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. • Exposed ground areas that are to be reworked more than 1 month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. If grass seeding is not feasible, then non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used. • All construction trucks and equipment, including tires, involved in ground disturbance or transit through loose soil areas shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. • Site accesses to a distance of 25 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Alternatively, a rumble plate may be used in place of chips, mulch, or gravel.
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. • Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be limited to 2 minutes. • All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of PM and NOX. • All contractors shall use equipment that meets the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
Project Developer to provide
to City applicable provisions
of construction contracts
requiring the use of
BAAQMD additional
construction mitigation
measures to reduce
construction-related dust
and exhaust emissions.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to grading and
building permit issuance
AQ-2.4: Offset NOX Emissions Generated during Construction that Are above BAAQMD NOX Average Daily Emission Threshold. The Project Developer shall track construction activity, estimate emissions, and enter into a construction mitigation contract with BAAQMD to offset NOX emissions that exceed BAAQMD NOX average daily threshold of 54 pounds per day.
The average daily emissions shall be calculated on an annual basis by determining total construction-related NO
X emissions in each calendar year and dividing by the number of actual workdays in that calendar year. BAAQMD will use the mitigation fees provided by the Project Developer to implement emissions reduction efforts that offset Project NO X emissions that exceed
BAAQMD threshold.
Implementation of this mitigation measure shall apply only to Phase 1 through Phase 4 construction on Parcels 4 and 5 because only construction on Parcels 4 and 5 has the potential to exceed the BAAQMD average daily NO
X threshold on an annual basis, depending on construction sequencing and overlapping activity.
City construction mitigation
contracts with BAAQMD.
Project Developer to provide
to City annual construction
activity monitoring data for
City verification that the data
is representative.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Approval of agreement
prior to grading and
building permit issuance,
annual submittal of
evidence documenting
compliance and of
construction activity
monitoring data during
construction of Phases 1
through 4 on Parcels 4
and 5.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-14 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 This mitigation includes the following specific requirements:
• The Project Developer shall require construction contractors to provide annual construction activity monitoring data for Phases 1 through 4 to estimate actual construction emissions, including the effect of equipment emissions reduction measures. The Project Developer shall submit the annual construction activity monitoring data and an estimate of actual annual construction emissions to the City and BAAQMD for review by February 1 of each year for the prior construction year.
The City shall examine the construction activity monitoring to ensure it is representative, and BAAQMD shall examine the emissions estimate to ensure it is calculated properly. • After acceptance of the emissions estimates by BAAQMD for the prior year, the Project Developer shall submit mitigation fees to BAAQMD to fund offsets for the portion of annual emissions that exceed the average daily NOX threshold. The mitigation fees shall be based on the mitigation contract with BAAQMD (see discussion below) but shall not exceed the emissions-reduction project cost-effectiveness limit set for the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) for the year in which mitigation fees are paid. The current Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness limit is $18,030 per weighted ton of criteria pollutants (NOX + ROG + [20*PM]). An administrative fee of 5 percent shall be paid by the Project Developer to BAAQMD to implement the program.
• The mitigation fees shall be used by BAAQMD to fund projects that are eligible for funding under the Carl Moyer Program guidelines or other BAAQMD emissions- reduction incentive programs that meet the Carl Moyer Program cost-effectiveness threshold and are real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable.
• The Project Developer shall enter into a mitigation contract with BAAQMD for the emissions- reduction incentive program. The mitigation contract shall include the following:
o Identification of appropriate off-site mitigation fees required for the Project. o Timing for submission of mitigation fees.
o Processing of mitigation fees paid by the Project Developer. o Verification of emissions estimates submitted by the Project Developer. o Verification that off-site fees are applied to appropriate mitigation programs within the SFBAAB.
The mitigation fees shall be submitted within 4 weeks after BAAQMD accepts an emissions estimate provided by the Project Developer showing that the average daily NOX threshold was exceeded (when measured on an annual basis).
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-15 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 AQ-6.1: Assess Construction Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Potential Prior to Construction, Utilize Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment, Filtration Systems, and/or other Measures as Necessary to Reduce Cancer Risks Associated with DPM during Construction.
The Project Developer shall implement the following measures, as necessary, to reduce cancer risks associated with DPM during construction to a level less than BAAQMD incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million:
• Revised Health Risk Assessment (HRA): The Project Developer may choose to assess the potential construction DPM emissions later in the design phase, but prior to construction, and to prepare a revised HRA using updated construction equipment activity data and submit to the City for review. If the revised HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the cancer risk for construction of the entire Project at all potentially exposed on-site and off-site sensitive receptors will be less than BAAQMD threshold cited, then no additional mitigation is necessary. If the revised HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the cancer risk for construction of the entire Project at some of the on-site or off-site sensitive receptors will be less than presented in the EIR but still over the BAAQMD threshold, then some of the mitigation below may not be necessary.
• As necessary to reduce cancer risks below the BAAQMD threshold in light of projected DPM emissions and exposure and other mitigation (MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.3 and MM GHG-
1.1), one or more of the following measures shall be implemented and the Project Developer will provide updated modeling to the City demonstrating that all on-site risks are reduced to below the BAAQMD threshold level:
Project Developer to provide
revised HRA (optional) or
provide updated modeling
and applicable provisions of
construction contracts
and/or building plans
including measures to
reduce cancer risks. City to
review and approve revised
HRA (optional to project
Developer) or approve
applicable provisions of
construction contracts and
building plans if no HRA is
prepared or if revised HRA
shows that cancer risks
would not be below
regulatory thresholds.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to construction that
is planned to occur after
the first occupancy of
on-site residences or
daycare centers and/or
prior to residential or day
care building permit
issuance if Project
Developer desires to
incorporate measures
into structure
• Tier 4 Construction Equipment. If on-site and residences and daycare centers are occupied, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction after occupancy of on-site residences or on- site daycare centers is equipped with EPA Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 4 engine is not available. This requirement would be in addition to the clean diesel requirements in Mitigation Measure AQ-2.1.
o Install Filtration Systems on Ventilation and Recirculation Systems. Filtration systems shall be installed on ventilation and recirculation systems within on-site residences and for the heating, cooling, or ventilation systems serving daycare centers. All filters must be rated MERV-13 or higher. The Project Developer shall submit a plan for installation and maintenance of all filters in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to the City prior to approval of the first building permits.
o If on-site and residences and daycare centers are occupied, the Project Developer shall employ other reduction measures, such as High Performance Renewable (HPR) Diesel Fuel, that would reduce DPM. Proposals for alternative reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, including evidence of the particulate reduction and/or risk reduction effectiveness of the proposed alternative measures.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1.1: Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction. Require construction contractors to use alternative fuels in at least 30 percent of the construction equipment that uses diesel fuel. Alternative fuels may include electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel (B-20), or renewable diesel, such as diesel high-performance renewable (HPR).
Developer to provide to City
applicable provisions of
construction contracts
requiring adequate use of
alternative fuels.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to grading and
building permits.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-16 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 GHG-1.2: Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures. The Project Developer shall implement the operational GHG emissions reduction strategies described below:
1. Energy Efficiency: The Project’s energy efficiency shall be 15 percent better than the base case energy model developed pursuant to the 2013 Title 24 requirements or shall meet the Title 24 requirements that are applicable at the time of issuance of the building permits for individual phases, whichever is more stringent (Climate Action Plan [CAP] Measure 2.1). 5 2. On-site Solar Energy: The Project already includes on-site photovoltaics (PV) solar to meet 10 percent of electricity demand. The Project shall obtain renewable energy electricity corresponding to 50 percent
6 of on-site electricity demand by 2030 through a combination of on-site solar, purchase of renewable energy or other measures (CAP Measure 2.4). This requirement may be phased in as follows: 2020 – 15%; 2025 – 29%; 2030 – 50%. If the Project Developer can demonstrate, to the City’s satisfaction, that through Project design, adopted State or federal regulations, or other assured actions that the Project’s emissions overall will meet the 2030 metric identified in this document without the implementation of this particular measure of its full implementation, then this measure (or its full implementation) may be waived by the City.
3. Food Waste: All retail restaurants shall be required to participate 100 percent in any extant City food waste and composting programs and any that may be developed in the future (CAP Measure
4.1).
#1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12:
Building and landscape
plans.
#2: Annual reporting unless
Project Developer
demonstrates at building
permit issuance that goal will
be met.
#10, 13: Ground leases to
require implementation of
measures and incorporation
of operational measures into
subleases.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
#1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12:
Prior to building permit
issuance
#2: Prior to building
permit issuance unless
the developer wishes to
demonstrate that
emissions will meet the
2030 metric.
#3, 8, 9, 10: Prior to
execution of ground
leases; provisions must
be included in each
applicable ground lease.
4. Electrical Landscaping Equipment: The Project shall include installation of electrical outlets near all maintained landscaping areas to allow for the use of electrical landscaping equipment (CAP Measure 5.1). In the landscaped City Center, only electrical landscape equipment shall be used.
Use of electrical landscaping equipment shall not be required for the extensive natural landscaping contemplated at the edges of the City Center and at Parcels 1, 2, and 3.
5. Electrical Vehicle Charging/Preferential Parking (CAP Measure 6.3). The Project shall provide preferential parking in all parking lots for electric vehicles and shall also provide charging equipment, as follows:
a. Residential Use: A total of 10 percent of the required parking spaces shall be provided with a listed cabinet, box, or enclosure and connected to a conduit that links the parking spaces to the electrical service in a manner approved by the building and safety official. Of the listed cabinets, boxes, or enclosures provided, 50 percent shall have the necessary electric vehicle supply equipment installed to provide active charging stations that are ready for use by residents. The remainder shall be installed at such time as they are needed for use by residents. Electrical vehicle batteries and charging technology may change substantially over the next 15 years. As such, the City shall have the discretion to modify the specific requirements for this measure over time, provided that 10 percent of the spaces have electrical service and 5 percent have active charging, depending on what the technology at the time requires.
5 The CEC intends for residential buildings in 2020 and later to be zero net energy (ZNE) and commercial buildings in 2030 or later to be ZNE, but because pending regulations are not yet adopted, this cannot be assumed in this analysis.
6 CAP measure 1.1 requires the City’s utility (SVP) to replace coal power within its portfolio with natural gas by 2020 and includes a stretch goal to replace the coal power with a combination of 50% natural gas and 50% renewable energy by 2035. Thus the CAP stretch goal is to increase renewable energy within its portfolio from 2020 to 2035. The 29 percent value for the mitigation above was calculated as the difference between the CAP Measure 1.1 reduction amount for the stretch goal for 2035 (71%) and the CAP Measure 1.1 reduction amount for 2020 (42%). As discussed in text, the Project has less than significant impact in comparison to the BAAQMD service population efficiency threshold based on the AB 32 target for 2020. Since the EIR finds that the project’s emissions are significant for the period after 2020, the use of the difference in the CAP Measure 1.1 between 2020 and 2035 is appropriate to the impact identified for the Project.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-17 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 b. Commercial Use: New commercial uses shall provide the electrical service capacity necessary as well as all conduits and related equipment necessary to serve 2 percent of the parking spaces with charging stations in a manner approved by the City’s Building Official.
Of these parking spaces, 50 percent shall initially be provided with the equipment necessary to function as online charging stations upon completion of the Project. The remainder shall be installed at such time as they are needed for use by customers, employees, or other users.
Electrical vehicle batteries and charging technology may change substantially over the next 15 years. As such, the City shall have the discretion to modify the specific requirements for this measure over time, provided that two percent of the spaces have electrical service and one percent have active charging, depending on what the technology at the time requires.
6. Shade Trees: Where surface parking lots are not covered by PV solar, shade trees shall be planted to reduce urban heat island effects on adjacent buildings (CAP Measure 7.1).
7. Urban Cooling: Any uncovered parking lots or spaces shall use light-colored pavement (CAP Measure 7.2).
8. Leases for businesses that base a diesel truck fleet within the Project site: Ensure those fleets meet the highest CARB engine-tier standard in place at the time of issuance of the building permits for the building that such businesses occupy, or the execution of a lease, whichever comes first.
9. Electrical hook-ups at loading docks for businesses that will receive deliveries from refrigerated diesel trucks: Stipulate in the lease agreement for such businesses a requirement to use the hook-ups if the trucks will be idling for more than two minutes.
10. Leases for business receiving deliveries: Prohibit all diesel-powered trucks from idling for more than 2 minutes.
11. Solar hot water heating systems: Incorporate for appropriate applications, including any swimming pools and buildings with swimming pools.
12. Electric heat pumps, or other energy-efficiency techniques, including radiant systems:
Include for space heating and cooling, under appropriate circumstances.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-18 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 Noise
NOI-1.1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Adjacent Land Uses. The Project Developer shall develop a noise control plan that requires that the Project construction activities comply with the City Code noise limits. The requirements and limitations specified in the plan shall be determined by phase and/or parcel and/or subsections of a parcel or phase. The construction noise control plan shall require the following:
• The Project Developer shall appoint a Project noise coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for noise-related complaints during Project construction. The Project noise coordinator shall transmit all construction noise-related complaints to the construction contractor, and the construction contractor shall enhance or refine the noise best management practices discussed herein to address the received noise complaints to the extent feasible. The contact information for the Project noise coordinator shall be sent to residents in the greater vicinity of the Project site that could be affected by Project noise and municipalities affected by Project construction noise. • Construction activities that have the potential to generate noise that is detectable at adjacent residential land uses or within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property shall occur only during the times listed below. Activities that would result in no detectable noise at adjacent land uses, such as interior painting, would not be limited by the hours below.
Project Developer to provide
noise control plan for City
review and approval.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of the
first building permit
within each
Development Area Plan
area
o Between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. o Between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
o No duration in time on holidays or Sundays.
• Construction contractors shall specify noise-reducing construction practices that will be employed to reduce construction noise for construction activities that would occur outside of the prohibited hours specified in the City Code and that would have the potential to exceed the receiving zone noise limits specified in the City Code. The measures determined by the Project Developer shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Measures that can be used to limit noise include, but are not limited to, those listed below. o Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses. o Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound- control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation. o Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than 2 minutes). o Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems. o Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment that has the potential to disturb nearby off-site land uses, or where otherwise necessary, to comply with the City Code noise limits for receiving zones.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-19 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 NOI-1.2: Implement Off-Site Traffic Noise Reduction Measures. The Project Developer shall implement off-site traffic noise reduction measures along the east side of Lafayette Drive between Tasman Drive and Hogan Drive such that the Project- related increase in traffic noise for noise receptors is less than 3 dBA. The Project Developer shall construct a solid barrier between the roadway and adjacent residential uses along Lafayette Drive between Tasman Drive and Hogan Drive unless deemed infeasible for any reason including unavailability of sufficient right of way or inability to secure design review/architectural approval.
The Project Developer shall implement off-site traffic noise reduction measures along the south side of Tasman Drive between Lafayette and Calle del Sol such that cumulative with project-related increase in traffic noise for noise receptors is less than 3 dBA or the project contribution to traffic noise is less than 1 dBA. The Project Developer shall construct a solid barrier between the roadway and adjacent residential uses along Tasman Drive between Lafayette and Calle del Sol unless deemed infeasible for any reason including unavailability of sufficient right of way or inability to secure design review/architectural approval.
The barriers shall be designed to provide shielding between areas of frequent human use (i.e., residence backyards) and the roadway. This would result in approximately 1,000 feet of noise barriers along this the Lafayette segment (between Tasman Drive and Hogan Drive) and up to 800 feet along the Tasman segment (between Lafayette and Calle del Sol). One effective approach would be to replace the existing privacy fences at single family residences with a solid barrier that is at least 6 feet high. The Project Developer shall prepare an off-site noise control plan that identifies the location, design, and effectiveness of the specific treatments to be implemented. This plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The off-site noise improvements shall be completed before Project operations commence.
Qualified professional to
determine which Phase of
the Project triggers the need
for the reduction measures.
Project Developer to provide
noise control plan for City
review, determination of
feasibility and approval.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Qualified professional to
determine which phase
triggers noise barrier
during Phase 1 of DAP
approval. City to
determine feasibility of
noise barriers, and
approve design if
feasible, as part of DAP
approval. If feasible,
barriers to be
constructed as part of
construction for the
Phase triggering the
need for the barrier.
NOI-2.1: Restrict Pile Driving. Pile driving occurring 175 feet or less from new residential or commercial buildings shall be conducted prior to those buildings being occupied by future occupants.
City will not approve building
permits that include pile
driving within 175 feet of
occupied residential.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
building permits if driven
pile foundations are
planned and prior to
occupancy of proximate
residential or
commercial buildings
NOI-5.1: Prepare and Implement a Noise Control Plan to Reduce Interior Noise at Sensitive Land Uses. The Project Developer shall conduct a design-level acoustic study that identifies exterior noise levels for residential and commercial uses on the Project site. This study shall take into account existing airport noise, Project, and reasonably foreseeable future noise sources (such as proposed increases in passenger rail service along the Lafayette Street corridor). Where this study finds that the exterior noise level would exceed the residential compatibility standard of 55 dBA Ldn or the commercial incompatibility standard of 65 dBA Ldn, the Project Developer shall prepare a design-level operational noise control plan to provide acceptable interior noise levels. This plan shall identify all Project features and treatments that will be implemented to ensure that the Project is in compliance with the interior noise standards listed in the City’s General Plan and City Code as well as the standards specified for new construction within the CLUP for SJC.
The study and plan shall be developed by an acoustical design professional. Design features and treatments will be identified to ensure that interior noise levels at new proposed uses are in compliance with the noise standards. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project. Depending on the noise exposure Project Developer to provide
design-level acoustic study
for City review and approval
and to incorporate
necessary measures into
building design when
exterior noise levels exceed
residential and commercial
incompatibility standards.
Project Developer/
Acoustical Design
Professional
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
residential and
commercial buildings
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-20 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 for a particular site, such treatments may include, but are not limited to, those listed below, as recommended by the acoustical design professional.
• Construction of enclosures around noise-generating mechanical equipment at commercial uses. • Use of setbacks from noise sources to maximum attenuation of noise over distance. • Installation of noise-reducing treatments in new buildings, including:
• High-performance, sound-rated double-glazed windows,
o Sound-rated doors,
o Sound-rated exterior wall construction,
o Special acoustical details for vents,
o Acoustical caulking at all exterior façade penetrations, o Sound-rated roof and ceiling constructions, and
o Adequate mechanical ventilation so that windows and doors may be kept closed at the discretion of the building occupants to control environmental noise intrusion.
Cultural Resources
CR-1.1: Conduct Extended Phase I (XPI) Archaeological Investigations within the Project Site near Recorded Resources and within an Area of Archaeological Sensitivity. Prior to construction, if it is determined that Project related ground- disturbing activities may extend into native soil within 100 feet of a previously recorded archaeological site, the Project Developer shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to conduct XPI investigations within the Project site.
The XPI investigations shall consist of subsurface trench excavations to determine the presence or absence of buried features associated with the known archaeological site. If feasible, at least two trenches shall be placed in recorded location P-43-000025/CA-SCL-5, which is recorded as partially in the Project site, to ensure adequate investigations in this area.
If the XPI investigations reveal resources, additional trenches or testing may be necessary.
Mitigation Measure CR-1.3, described below, shall be followed.
Project Developer to submit
XPI Archaeological
Investigation(s) to City.
Project Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permits that
would disturb native
soils within 100 feet of a
previously recorded
archaeological site
CR-1.2: Provide Archaeological Monitoring of the Project Site When in Native Soil. Prior to construction, if it is determined that Project-related ground-disturbing activities may extend into native soil, within 100 feet of a previously recorded archaeological site, the Project Developer shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to monitor earthmoving activities within the Project site. Monitoring shall consist of coordinating subsurface work to allow for the careful examination of vertical and horizontal soil relationships for the purpose of seeking positive archaeological finds (prehistoric and/or historic). The monitor shall maintain a field log of their presence and observations, carefully noting soil conditions. The archaeological monitor shall be pre-approved by the Director of Planning and Inspection. After written approval, the Planning Division shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading or other subsurface work on the site, and the Project Developer shall provide a written protocol for the City’s review and approval that stipulates the manner in which the Project Developer shall comply with the monitoring requirements. In the event that cultural resources are encountered, Mitigation Measure CR-1.3, described below, shall be followed.
City to approve monitor,
ensure monitor is in place,
and approve monitoring
protocol, which shall include
requirements of CR-1.3.
Project Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Monitoring protocol prior
to the issuance of
grading and building
permits that would
disturb native soils within
100 feet of a previously
recorded archaeological
site; monitoring shall
occur during
earthmoving activities
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-21 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 CR-1.3: Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all work within proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeological monitor can examine the find and document its provenience and nature (drawings, photographs, written description). The archaeological monitor shall then direct the work to either proceed if the find is deemed to be insignificant, or instruct the work to continue elsewhere or cease until adequate mitigation measures are adopted. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Planning Division, shall develop a Treatment Plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine the potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize the understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content, including the nature and quantity of artifacts.
Archaeological monitor
(retained by the Project
Developer), as necessary,
and in consultation with the
City, develop a Treatment
Plan. See also CR-1.2.
Project Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
During construction if
cultural resources are
encountered
CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan. Prior to any deep excavations below an elevation of -30 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD] 88) at the Project site on areas not underlain by landfill refuse, the Planning Division shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the excavation, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan (PRMP) in consultation with the Planning Division. The PRMP shall describe the tasks necessary to monitor, assess, and recover (if present) significant paleontological resources during Project excavation activities. The PRMP shall be implemented by the qualified paleontologist during the deep Project excavations below an elevation of -30 feet (NAVD 88).
Project Developer to submit
to City PRMP prepared by
paleontologist (retained by
the Project Developer).
Project Developer/
Qualified
Professional
Paleontologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
excavations below an
elevation of -30 feet at
Parcel 5 and areas of
Parcel 4 not underlain by
landfill.
CR-2.2: Paleontological Resource Monitoring. In accordance with the PRMP, a qualified paleontologist shall monitor for fossils in Pleistocene deposits during Project excavations below an elevation of -30 feet (NAVD 88) on areas not underlain by landfill refuse or below other elevations confirmed in the field by the qualified paleontologist. The qualified paleontologist shall be present initially for 100 percent of the excavation activities within the Pleistocene deposits. After 50 percent of the excavation is completed within the rock unit and if no fossils of any kind have been discovered, then the level of monitoring can be reduced or suspended entirely at the Project paleontologist’s discretion. If the paleontologist discovers potential paleontological resources, all ground disturbance within 50 feet of the find shall stop immediately until the qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate salvage, treatment, and future monitoring and mitigation actions.
Project Developer to provide
to City contract with
paleontologist for
implementing PRMP, which
shall include requirements of
CR-2.3.
Project Developer/
Qualified
Professional
Paleontologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
excavation below an
elevation of -30 feet at
Parcel 5 and areas of
Parcel 4 not underlain by
landfill
CR-2.3: Paleontological Resource Reporting. If significant paleontological resources are identified, the Project qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the field and laboratory methods, site geology and stratigraphy, faunal/floral list(s), and a brief statement of the significance and relationship of the fossils discovered to similar fossils found elsewhere. The final report should emphasize the discovery of any new or rare taxa, or paleoecological or taphonomic significance. A complete set of field notes, geologic maps, stratigraphic sections, and a list of identified specimens must be included in or accompany the final report. This report should be finalized only after all aspects of the PRMP are completed, including preparation, identification, cataloging, and curatorial inventory. Full copies of the final report shall be deposited with both the Lead Agency and the repository institution with the request that all locality data remain confidential and not made available to the general public.
Paleontologist to prepare
final report for submission to
City. See also CR-2.2.
Project Developer/
Qualified
Professional
Paleontologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
After a significant
paleontological resource
is identified during
construction
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-22 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 CR-3.1: Stop work if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities.
When human remains are discovered (in either an archaeological or construction context), all work within proximity of the remains shall stop so that the archaeological monitor can examine the remains. The County Coroner shall be notified, who shall make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. The NAHC shall notify those persons it believes are most likely descended from the deceased Native American.
Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Project Developer to submit
to City applicable provisions
of construction contracts
including applicable
requirements.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
County Coroner/
NAHC
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits
Biological Resources
BIO-1.1: Protect Nesting Birds. The Project Developer and its contractors shall avoid conducting vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1–August 31). If Project- related activities must commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nests of migratory birds. Surveys for nesting migratory birds shall occur within 3 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbance and vegetation removal in areas that will be affected by Project construction activities. Multiple nest surveys shall be required if construction is phased or when construction work stops for more than 2 weeks at a portion of the site where suitable nesting habitat remains. If construction is ongoing for multiple years, these surveys shall be conducted each year prior to construction in areas that have not yet been disturbed and are scheduled to be disturbed during the nesting season. In addition to nesting-season surveys, surveys shall be conducted during the non-nesting season (September 1– January 31) for overwintering burrowing owls in areas scheduled for initial disturbance during the upcoming season. The surveys shall also be conducted as described above, with a goal of identifying overwintering owls so they can be appropriately avoided during construction.
If an active nest is discovered, a no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree or shrub (or, for ground-nesting species, the nest itself) shall be established. The no-disturbance zone shall be marked with flagging or fencing that is easily identified by the construction crew and shall not affect the nesting bird or attract predators to the nest location. In general, the minimum buffer zone widths shall be as follows: 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor ground-nesting species, 50 feet (radius) for non- raptor shrub-and tree-nesting species, and 300 feet (radius) for raptor species. Buffer widths may be modified based on discussion with DFW. Buffers shall remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area and are dependent on the nest. If a burrowing owl nest is identified during pre-construction surveys, no-activity buffers will adhere to the recommendations in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 7 Most Project
activities would result in a high level of disturbance, constituting a 1,640-foot (500-meter) required buffer around occupied nests during any time of year.8
Project Developer to provide
to City applicable provisions
of construction contracts
including pertinent
requirements. If construction
will occurs in the nesting
season, Project Developer
to submit to City agreement
with qualified wildlife
biologist requiring surveys
and protective measures
under BIO-1.1 and
requirement that wildlife
biologist report to City if
conditions triggering BIO-2.2
exist.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor/
Qualified wildlife
biologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to the issuance of
grading and building
permits for construction
contracts; prior to
commencement of
grading for biologist
agreements; and prior to
ground disturbance for
surveys
7 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7. Available:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/survey_monitor.html#Mammals. 8 Scobie, D., and C. Faminow. 2000. Development of Standardized Guidelines for Petroleum Industry Activities that Affect COSEWIC Prairie and Northern Region Vertebrate Species at Risk.
Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-23 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 BIO-1.2: Implement Bird-Safe Design Standards into Project Buildings and Lighting Design.
Each Development Area Plan (DAP) approved by the City shall include a set of specific standards for minimizing hazards to birds, to be implemented by the Project Developer. The development of the specific bird safety standards for each Development Area Plan shall be tailored to the specific potential hazards to birds in that development area, taking into account the specific locations, types and heights of buildings, lighting, and landscaping. In addition, the DAP shall require enhanced protective measures for buildings within 300 feet of the retention pond, the Guadalupe River, and San Tomas Aquino Creek, such as siting buildings in relation to existing landscape features to reduce conflicts with existing features that may serve as attractive bird habitat; minimizing the reflection of existing vegetation on building facades; or using soil berms, furniture, landscaping, or architectural features to prevent reflection of water in glazed building facades.
The specific bird safety standards in each DAP shall be based on the following bird-friendly building principles, to the extent applicable to the particular development area:
• Reduce mirrors and large areas of reflective glass.
• Avoid transparent glass skyways, walkways, or entryways, free-standing glass walls, and minimize transparent building corners, or utilize glazing treatments to mitigate the hazard. • Minimize funneling of open space toward a building façade. • Strategically place landscaping to reduce reflection and views of foliage inside or through glass. • Reduce potential light and glare by implementing Mitigation Measures AES-2.1 (requiring low- profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward), AES-2.2 (requiring shielded fixtures for outdoor lighting), and AES-2.3 (requiring low emissivity reflective coating on exterior glass surfaces). • To the extent consistent with the normal and expected operations of the uses planned for the particular development area, take appropriate measures to avoid use of unnecessary lighting at night, especially during bird migration season (February-May and August-November) through the installation of motion sensor lighting, automatic lighting shut-off mechanisms, or other effective measures to the extent feasible.
The specific bird safety standards shall also provide for a monitoring program, and placing signs around the buildings with phone numbers for authorized bird conservation organizations.
City review and approve
each Development Area
Plan to ensure adequate
measures are included.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Approval of each
Development Area Plan
BIO-2.1: Detection of Burrowing Owls. The Project Developer shall allow access to the Project site or off-site areas for biologists who participate in the annual burrowing owl nest survey coordinated by the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP. Burrowing owl surveys are conducted between March and August of each year. As many as four surveys may be conducted each year, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
9 to determine whether burrowing owls are nesting and
whether nests are successful. Access to the site for burrowing owl surveys shall be granted until the Project site or off-site area is completely built out. The Project Developer shall not, however, be required to postpone planned development activities to provide such access, except to the extent such postponement is necessary to meet regulatory requirements.
The ground lessee shall
allow such access until
certificate of completion for
the phase.
Project
Developer/City
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Concurrent with
execution of each phase
ground lease
9 CDFW 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-24 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 BIO-2.2: Mitigation for Loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat during Construction. Should burrowing owls begin nesting on developable portions of the Project site or off-site areas that remain undeveloped as phases of the Project are constructed, or suitable habitat within 600 meters of an active nest is removed from the Project site, then lost burrowing owl habitat shall be replaced at a ratio of at least 1:1 prior to ground-disturbing activities in the area of the Project site or off-site area with an active nest. Affected habitat shall be defined as suitable habitat (based on the habitat mapping completed for this EIR) within a 600 meter radius of an active burrowing owl nest. Suitable land cover types include annual grassland, ruderal, or barren areas. Mitigation sites shall have documented nesting occurrences from at least 1 year within the previous 3 years.
If burrowing owls move onto undeveloped portions of the Project Site or off-site area, including the Retention Basin, once the site is fully constructed, there shall be no requirement to provide replacement habitat, unless that undeveloped habitat is developed in the future.
If required, Project
Developer to submit
certification to the City that
habitat has been replaced at
the specified ratio. City to
review and approve
certification.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to ground-
disturbing activities until
the Project site or off-site
areas are completely
built-out in the event that
wildlife biologist detects
circumstance triggering
BIO-2.2
BIO-3.1: Protect Western Pond Turtles. Prior to the start of construction activities in or within 50 feet of aquatic habitats, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for western pond turtles in all suitable habitats (aquatic and upland) in the vicinity of the work site. Surveys shall take place no more than 72 hours prior to the onset of site preparation and construction activities with the potential to disturb turtles or their habitat. If preconstruction surveys identify active nests on the Project site, the biologist shall establish no- disturbance buffer zones around each nest using temporary orange construction fencing. The demarcation shall be permeable to allow young turtles to move away from the nest following hatching. The radius of the buffer zone and the duration of exclusion shall be determined in consultation with DFW. The buffer zones and fencing shall remain in place until the young have left the nest, as determined by the qualified biologist. If western pond turtles are found on the Project site, the Project Developer shall still retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities in the vicinity of suitable habitat and implement appropriate measures to protect the western pond turtle.
Such measures may include removal and relocation of western pond turtles in proposed construction areas to suitable habitats outside the Project limits, consistent with DFW protocols and permits.
Relocation sites shall be subject to DFW approval.
Project Developer to submit
to City agreement with
qualified biologist and
applicable provisions of
construction contracts,
including requirement that
biologist submit to City
certification that
preconstruction surveys
have been conducted and
protective measures taken.
Project Developer/
Qualified Biologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to the issuance of
grading or building
permits for biologist and
construction
agreements; and
72 hours prior to site
construction activities in
or within 50 feet of
aquatic habitats
BIO-4.1: Protect Central California Coast Steelhead, Critical Habitat, and Chinook Salmon.
Construction, operations, and maintenance on the riverbank, as well as areas within 200 feet of the Guadalupe River, that could result in disturbed sediment depositing within the banks of the channel shall be limited to the summer low-precipitation period (June 1 to October 15), unless otherwise approved by appropriate resource agencies. Limiting riverbank disturbance during these months would reduce the likelihood of adverse effects on adult and juvenile salmonid migration.
Project Developer to provide
to City applicable provisions
of construction contract
ensuring work on the
riverbank as well as within
200 feet of the Guadalupe
River that could result in
disturbed sediment
depositing within the banks
of the channel is limited to
summer low precipitation
periods.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-25 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 BIO-5.1: Protect Retention Pond and Eastside Retention Drainage Swale, and San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River Aquatic Habitat during Construction. For construction activities within 50 feet of the aquatic habitat associated with the retention pond and drainage swale, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and Guadalupe River, protective measures shall be put in place to ensure that impacts on those aquatic features shall be avoided and minimized. The following measures shall be deployed during construction:
• A qualified biologist shall determine the locations where orange construction barrier fencing shall be installed around aquatic resources (USACE and the Regional Water Board jurisdictional wetlands/waters and DFW jurisdictional lakes and streams) that are to be avoided prior to initiation of construction activities.
• Designate the protected area an Environmentally Sensitive Area and clearly identify the area in the construction specifications.
• Maintain jurisdictional wetlands/water protection fencing throughout the grading and construction period.
• Prohibit grading, construction activity, traffic, equipment, or materials in fenced wetland areas.
Project Developer to provide
to City applicable provisions
of construction contract and
agreement with qualified
biologist that include the
specified protective
measures.
Project Developer/
Qualified Biologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits for construction
activities within 50 feet
of the pertinent aquatic
habitat
BIO-5.2: Compensate for Loss of Waters of the U.S. and State (including Wetlands). If impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or State cannot be avoided, the Project Developer shall obtain permits or approvals to develop from the USACE, the Regional Water Board, and DFW, as appropriate and required. Both the Guadalupe River and San Tomas Aquino Creek are subject to both State and federal jurisdiction because of their connection to the Bay. To ensure that the Project results in no net loss of wetland habitat functions and values, the Project Developer shall compensate for the loss of jurisdictional wetlands/waters through one of the following options. • Purchase of agency-approved mitigation credits from a suitably located mitigation bank prior to construction (ground disturbance that impacts wetlands/waters); • On-site wetland/waters restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation) establishment (creation) prior to or concurrent with construction impacts;
• Off-site wetland/waters restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation)/establishment (creation) prior to or concurrent with construction; or
• A combination of two or more of the above.
The amount of agency approved mitigation credits required from a suitably located mitigation bank and/or size and location(s) of the area(s) to be restored (re-established)/established (created) shall be based on appropriate mitigation ratios, as derived in consultation with DFW, USACE, and the Regional Water Board. The Project Developer shall prepare and implement a mitigation and management plan (MMP) as part of the permitting process in conformance with the USEPA/USACE 2008 Mitigation Rule. The mitigation ratios shown in the initial draft MMP submitted to the permitting agencies during Project permitting shall be a minimum of 2:1, as determined through the CEQA process. The MMP, if other than sole purchase of mitigation bank credits, shall include the requirements listed below:
• Mitigation implementation plan;
Project Developer to provide
to City wetland delineation,
copies of permits obtained
as and if required from
USACE, the Regional Water
Board and DFW, and the
MMP, all satisfying the
requirements of BIO-5.2
Project Developer to provide
to City annual monitoring
reports.
Project Developer/
Qualified Wetland
Biologist
DFW, USACE,
Regional Water
Board, City
Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prepare wetland
delineation prior to first
grading or building
permit for the Project.
Obtain requisite agency
permits and prepare
MMP prior to issuance of
grading or building
permits for construction
activities that will impact
jurisdictional wetlands.
Monitor plan for a
minimum of 5 years.
• Performance (success) standards or criteria to be met in order to determine that the mitigation has successfully replaced the impacted wetlands/waters in terms of “no net loss” of the impacted functions and values;
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-26 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 • 5-year monitoring plan for determining that performance criteria have been successfully met through the collection of wetlands/waters vegetation survival and cover field data; hydrology flooding, ponding, and/or soil saturation field data; and habitat area data; • Adaptive management plan to be implemented if mitigation performance is found through annual monitoring not to be progressing towards success within the 5-year monitoring period; • Conservation plan to ensure in-perpetuity land use protection of the mitigation site; • Long-term (in-perpetuity) conservation management plan; and • Funding plan for mitigation implementation, 5-year mitigation performance monitoring and maintenance, and an endowment (non-wasting fund) for long-term conservation management.
The final MMP shall be determined in consultation with DFW, USACE, and the Regional Water Board. The mitigation plan shall include measure to avoid and minimize the effects of construction on surrounding native habitats. The required performance standard is no net loss of wetland and waters habitat function and values. Monitoring shall occur for a minimum of 5 years, at which time, if the success criteria are met, wetland compensation shall be deemed complete.
BIO-C.1: Make a Fair-Share Nitrogen Deposition Fee Contribution to the Santa Clara Habitat Agency’s Voluntary Fee Payment Program. Consistent with its voluntary commitment to contribute a nitrogen deposition fee through the fee program of the Santa Clara Habitat Agency, the Project Developer shall make a pro-rated per-vehicle-trip nitrogen deposition fee contribution, which will be based on the amount charged by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency under its Voluntary Fee Payments Policy (http://scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/345).
Specifically, the per-vehicle trip fee shall be adjusted as set forth below to take into account the different dispersion characteristics of the Project vs. the average dispersion characteristics for development in the HCP/NCCP area.
The Project is located farther from serpentine grassland habitat than average development within the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP area. Thus, the required fair-share contribution shall be figured as 38 percent (based on the ICF analysis) of the established fee of the habitat agency for the year in which the building permits are issued for the Project. The fee may be paid up front or in installments in proportion to mitigated vehicle trip generation for the phase of the Project for which the building permits are issued. For fiscal year 2015–2016, the adopted HCP/NCCP nitrogen deposition fee was $4.20 per new vehicle trip. Using Scheme B’s estimated trip generation (140,730 trips/day), taking into account the trip reduction effect of Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1 (reduction to 137,910 trips/day), and the 38 percent adjustment factor, if all fees were paid in 2015, the estimated total would be $220,104.
Project Developer to provide
to City proof of payment.
Project Developer City Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits: to be
paid up front or in
installments in
proportion to mitigated
vehicle trip generation
for the phase of Project
for which the building
permits are issued.
Geology and Soils
GEO-1.1: Detailed Grading and Erosion Control Plan. A detailed grading and erosion control plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Building Department. The plan shall cover all Project parcels (not just the landfill portions) and off-site areas and include all information required to demonstrate that earthwork activities will be in compliance with CCR 21190 et seq. and incorporate by reference the Project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, as required by the Construction General Permit.
Project Developer to provide
detailed grading and erosion
control plan for review and
approval by City.
Project Developer City Planning
and Inspection
Division
Prior to the issuance of
demolition and grading,
permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-27 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 GEO-2.1: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, or construction permits at the Project site, a design-level geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a qualified professional (the qualified professional shall be retained by the Project Developer). The investigation shall include further field exploration (e.g., borings, cone penetration tests, test pits and/or geophysical surveys) to develop design-level recommendations to address erosion and other geotechnical concerns for the Project. The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include:
• Evaluation of anticipated settlement. Additional soil borings shall be installed to determine the depth to the refuse layer for aid in preparing grading plans. Additional samples shall be analyzed to determine potential settlement and determine the likely final post-settlement surface elevation.
The potential magnitude of differential settlements between improvements supported by a combination of structural slab and deep foundations and those that are supported by other foundation systems shall be fully analyzed and detailed in the design-level geotechnical report. • Evaluation of liquefaction potential. Additional borings shall be drilled at the Project site and off- site areas to fully characterize the liquefaction hazard associated with the Project. • Evaluation of slope instability. A detailed slope stability analysis for all existing slopes that would remain under the Project, including the perimeter landfill slopes, and all proposed new slopes shall be prepared.
• Evaluation of expansive soils. Additional borings shall be drilled at the Project site and off-site areas to fully characterize the expansive soil hazard associated with the Project. • Evaluation of corrosive soils. Project site and off-site soils and, in those areas where foundation components would come into contact with landfill materials, refuse shall be evaluated for corrosion potential.
The design-level geotechnical investigation work plan shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6.
Project Developer to provide
design-level geotechnical
investigation for review and
approval by City. City and
Developer to submit such
investigation to regulatory
agencies per GEO-2.6 with
respect to areas underlain
by landfill and secure
approval as required. Project
Developer to incorporate
resulting measures into
project plans.
Project Developer/
City
City Planning
and Inspection
Division
Prior to the issuance of
demolition, grading, and
building permits
GEO-2.2: Final Geotechnical Report Review. A final geotechnical report shall be prepared by a qualified professional based on the findings of the design-level geotechnical investigation (the qualified professional shall be retained by the Project Developer). The final report shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6. The final geotechnical report shall include:
Measures to address anticipated settlement:
• Specifications of methods to address differential settlement between improvements supported by a combination of structural slab foundations and those that are supported by other deep foundation systems or unsupported areas.
• Exterior slabs and ramps attached to buildings shall be hinged to allow the end of the slab or ramp not attached to the building to move downward as settlement occurs. The design shall not allow building entrance slabs to exceed a 5 percent grade, in compliance with ADA access requirements, and vehicular entrances shall not be allowed to exceed an 11 percent grade to prevent vehicles from scraping during entry or exit.
• Settlement vaults and flexible connections shall be required at locations where utilities transfer from a pile-supported building to a non-supported area for all phases of construction.
Project Developer to provide
final geotechnical report for
review and approval by City.
City and Developer to
submit such report to
regulatory agencies per
GEO-2.6 and secure
approval as required. Project
Developer to incorporate
resulting measures into
project plans.
Project Developer/
City
City Planning
and Inspection
Division
Prior to the issuance of
grading and building
permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-28 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 • Roadway and other paving at the Project site not located above an area-wide structural slab shall be constructed with flexible materials, such as asphalt or interlocking pavers. The use of concrete and other non-flexible materials shall be minimized. Where non-flexible material is used, expansion and spacing joints that allow rigid materials to shift without breaking shall be used to allow for anticipated settlement.
Measures to address liquefaction:
• In those areas not supported by the structural slab foundation (which would effectively mitigate the liquefaction hazard), other measures shall be developed to mitigate the hazard, such as shallow footings constructed over ground improvement. Foundations for structures shall be designed to completely mitigate settlement hazards associated with liquefaction (i.e., no liquefaction-induced settlement damage shall be accepted for the final design).
Measures to address slope instability:
• Measures (e.g., reducing slope steepness, providing structural support, or ground improvement) to ensure that an appropriate factor of safety (both static and seismic) is achieved for each slope.
Measures to address expansive soils:
• In those areas not supported by the structural slab foundation (which would effectively mitigate the hazard), other measures shall be developed to mitigate the hazard, such as removal of the problematic soils, treatment of the soils, or specification of appropriate foundation design. If any soils characterized as highly or moderately expansive (linear extensibility of 3.0 percent or more) are to remain at the surface or be used as fill in the upper 5.0 feet, these soils shall be treated (using calcium-based treatment or similar approach) such that the soils are reduced to a low expansion potential (linear extensibility of less than 3.0 percent).
Measures to address corrosive soils:
• A corrosion consultant shall be retained to provide specific recommendations regarding the long- term corrosion protection of pile elements and other subsurface materials. The recommendations of the corrosion consultant, which may include use of specific corrosion-resistant materials and/or treatment of corrosive soils, shall be implemented during construction.
GEO-2.3: Construction Quality Assurance Plan. A Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan that covers both the Project site and off-site areas shall be prepared by the Project Developer for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The CQA Plan shall establish procedures for testing final cover materials, detail the responsibilities of construction monitoring personnel, and provide procedures for addressing unexpected geologic conditions during grading activities.
Project Developer to provide
a CQA Plan that covers both
the Project site and off-site
areas for review and
approval by City. City and
Developer to submit CQA to
regulatory agencies per
GEO-2.6 with respect to
areas underlain by landfill
and secure approval as
required. Project Developer
to submit to City applicable
provisions of construction
contracts incorporating
requirements of CQA.
Project Developer Director of
Public Works
Prior to the issuance of
grading, and building
construction permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-29 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 GEO-2.4: Final Project Design Review. Final Project design plans that cover both Project site and off- site areas shall be prepared by the Project Developer and submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6.
Project site structures shall be designed to accommodate predicted ground settlement, as determined in the design-level geotechnical investigation for the Project improvements (see Mitigation Measure GEO-1.1).
For the portion of the Project overlying the Landfill, the Post-Closure Land Use Plan shall demonstrate that Project design will be protective of public health and safety and the environment, as required by 27 CCR 21190. Because of the potential for encountering buried obstructions, contingencies for relocating Auger Cast-in Place Piles and Drilled Displacement Columns during construction shall be included in the foundation design. The Project design plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building Department prior to initiation of field activities.
Project Developer to provide
final Project design plans
meeting criteria of GEO-2.4
for review and approval by
City. City and Developer to
submit such Project design
plans to regulatory agencies
per GEO-2.6 with respect to
areas underlain by landfill
and secure approvals as
required.
Project Developer/
City
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits
GEO-2.5: Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. A Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan that covers both the Project site and off-site areas shall be prepared by the Project Developer and submitted for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6. The Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan shall establish procedures for inspecting structures and improvements as well as evaluating the effects of settlement. It will also establish a mechanism for funding and implementing the Plan’s activities throughout the life of the Project.
Inspections that focus on documenting settlement, particularly at locations where different support systems meet, shall take place at least quarterly during the first 2 years following the completion of each phase of Project construction. Documentation of each inspection shall be submitted to for review and approval in accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.6 within 30 days of inspection completion. After 2 years, the frequency of inspections may be adjusted with written consent from each agency that approved the Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. The Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan shall detail the qualifications and responsibilities of monitoring personnel, including immediate notification of the City Building Department of any settlement that could affect the structural integrity of a building and/or structure or settlement that could create a hazard for the public (e.g., separations that create trip hazards for pedestrians). If the types of settlements are observed that could compromise structural integrity or cause hazards for the public, based on the judgment of the qualified inspector, remedial action shall be promptly completed. The Plan shall designate financial responsibility for remedial actions should the effects of settlement be identified and provide timetables for any required remedial action. All remedial action shall be overseen by the qualified geotechnical consultant designated by the Plan and approved by each agency that approved the Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan. Quarterly reports detailing inspection and remedial activities shall be submitted to each agency that approved the Site Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan following each inspection for review and approval.
Project Developer to provide
Site Operation, Monitoring,
and Maintenance Plan for
review and approval by City.
City and Developer to
submit Site Operation,
Monitoring, and
Maintenance Plan to
regulatory agencies per
GEO-2.6 for areas underlain
by landfill and secure
approvals as required.
Project Developer to submit
inspections to City for review
and approval, and to
regulatory agencies as
specified in GEO02.6 for
areas underlain by landfill,
within 30 days or
inspections.
Project Developer/
City
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Plan approval prior to
issuance of grading and
building permits.
Inspections at least
quarterly during the first
2 years following the
completion of each
phase of construction.
Documentation of each
inspection shall be
submitted within 30 days
of inspection.
GEO-2.6: Review and Approval by Relevant Regulatory Agencies. To the extent reports and plans required by Mitigation Measures GEO-2.1, -2.2, -2.3, -2.4 or -2.5 address the portion of the Project site overlying the Landfill, they shall be submitted jointly by the City (as owner and operator of the landfill) and the Project Developer for review and approval to the following: (i) the Local Enforcement Agency as principal landfill regulator; (ii) the Regional Water Board for approval of the issues related to the low permeability layer of the final landfill cover pursuant to 27 CCR 21990 (d) and pilings installed in or through the bottom liner of the landfill liner pursuant to 27 CCR 21990 (e)(6), and for review but not approval of other aspects of the plans and reports; (iii) to Cal Recycle Refer to GEO-2.1 through
GEO-2.5
Refer to GEO-2.1
through GEO-2.5
Refer to GEO-
2.1 through
GEO-2.5
Refer to GEO-2.1
through GEO-2.5
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-30 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 for review, but not approval; and (iv) any other agency which is specifically required by applicable law to approve a particular report, plan or component thereof. To the extent reports and plans required by this mitigation measure relate to other portions of the site not overlying the Landfill, they shall be submitted by the Developer to the City, and to any agency which is specifically required by applicable law to approve a particular report, plan or component thereof, for review and approval.
Hydrology and Water Quality
WQ-1.1: Design and Implement Stormwater Control Measures. In compliance with Provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s 100-year peak flood requirements, post-construction stormwater controls shall be implemented to reduce total runoff rates and associated pollutant discharges.
According to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s C.3. Stormwater Handbook, the three methods for hydraulically sizing flow-based stormwater treatment control measures are (1) volume-based, (2) flow-based, or (3) a combination of volume-/flow-based hydraulic sizing criteria. The simplified method for sizing bioretention areas and flow-through planters, known as the “4 percent method,” is based on a runoff inflow of 0.2 inch per hour, with an infiltration rate through biotreatment soil of 5 inches per hour. The 4 percent method requires the treatment measure to be 4 percent of the impervious area that drains to it.
The design of the stormwater treatment measures is currently at the conceptual level and further details will be addressed as part of the planning, construction, and operation of the development.
The treatment measures shall be designed to remove pollutants from stormwater using filtration, infiltration, and sedimentation. Because infiltration is not feasible due to the landfill, the treatment measures must be built into the structure of the development above the landfill itself. The stormwater treatment measures that provide infiltration shall be lined with an impermeable liner on the bottom and sides. Just above the liner there must be a layer of clean gravel and a network of perforated piping (underdrains). These underdrains must connect to solid drain piping at the exit of the treatment area and ultimately be connected to the storm drainage infrastructure. All of these components shall exist above the podium structure. The impermeable liner would prevent any leaks or ruptures into the landfill and structures. There shall also be perforated underdrain piping connected to solid piping at the exit of the treatment measure/planter solid piping that will connect to the storm drain infrastructure at manholes where leak monitoring can be performed. More information on the potential hazards of a leak or rupture of the stormwater treatment measures causing flooding of the landfill gas venting lines is provided in Section 3.11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following stormwater treatment (or Low Impact Development [LID]) measures are examples that will be considered and carefully selected as part of the final design process for the different sections of the proposed development:
Project Developer to provide
to City Stormwater
Management Report.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits
• Bioretention Areas (impermeable liner with underdrain—no infiltration into landfill) • Flow-through Planters
• Tree Well and Media Filters
• Infiltration Trenches (impermeable liner with underdrain—no infiltration into landfill) • Rainwater Harvesting and Reuse
• Green Roofs
• Green Streets (with bioretention, impermeable liner, and underdrain) • Pervious Pavements (impermeable liner with underdrain—no infiltration into landfill)
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-31 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 As noted above, a minimum of 4 percent of the site area shall be used for the stormwater treatment measures. As part of final design, these treatment measures for the Project site shall be incorporated into the aesthetics of the landscape. Some attenuation of the peak flows can be recognized, depending on the measures selected. The measures shall include an overflow to safely convey the more intense, less frequent rainfall events.
The stormwater treatment measures shall capture sufficient flows so that 100-year peak flood elevations or existing design flows within San Tomas Aquino Creek and the Guadalupe River will not increase as part of the Project. The exact reduction in 100- year peak runoff volumes and flows that the stormwater management measures will need to accommodate will be determined during the design process for the stormwater management measures and will be provided in the detailed Project Stormwater Management Plan.
Due to construction phasing, construction of interim treatment measures may be required once the 40-acre concrete pad has been constructed and before the surface of the pad is developed with new structures with their own associated post-construction stormwater treatment features. These interim measures will be reported to the San Francisco Bay Water Board. The stormwater management measures for each parcel shall be modeled during final design for buildings, parking garages, site landscaping, etc. Dynamic hydraulic modeling shall be used. Dynamic hydraulic modeling tracks the quantity and quality of runoff generated within each subcatchment as well as the flow rate, flow depth, and quality of water in each pipe and channel during a simulation period with multiple time steps. The results of the modeling shall be used to compare the proposed “permanent” stormwater peak flows and volumes for the Project with the existing peak flows and show compliance with the jurisdictional regulations. The dynamic hydraulic modeling shall consider the potential runoff volumes and rates coming from the top of the landfill. The resulting design of stormwater management measures shall be required to be sufficient to protect water quality and habitat resources along receiving waterways.
A Stormwater Management Report, including detailed hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, analysis, and conclusions, shall be prepared to document the final design of the stormwater management and storm drain system and obtain the requisite approvals.
WQ-3.1: Design New Bridge and Outfall Structures to Avoid Increase in 100-year Flow and Channel Erosion. In compliance with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD’s) 100-
year peak flood requirements, any new bridge and new outfalls in San Tomas Aquino Creek shall be designed to avoid increases in the 100-year flow and to avoid creek bed/channel erosion. The design shall also consider erosive action or redirection of flow during more frequent flood events in compliance with the City of Santa Clara’s storm drainage design criteria10 and consistent with SCVWD’s guidance.11 The outfalls will be set at elevations high enough to ensure the location of outfalls are above sediment levels within the bottom of the creek.12 The design shall be provided to the City of Santa Clara and the SCVWD for review and approval for the Project. Construction would be done in phases. For example, the new bridge over the San Tomas Creek would not be needed until Phase 2 and outfalls to the eastside drainage ditch would not be needed until later phases. The Project Developer to provide
design for any new bridge or
outfalls in San Tomas
Aquino Creek or the
eastside drainage channel
for review and approval by
City and submit to City
evidence of approval from
SCVWD.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to the issuance of
the building permit for
the development that
triggers the need for the
outfall or associated
construction activity
10 City of Santa Clara. 2015. Design Criteria for Improvements in Public Right-of-Ways and City Easements. Public Works Department. April. Available:
http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=14345. Accessed 12/29/15. 11 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2006. User Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams. A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County. Prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Originally adopted in August 2005. Revised: July 2006. 12 Outfalls and work within the SCVWD right-of-way are subject to approval and issuance of permits by the SCVWD.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-32 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 design review approval of outfalls shall occur prior to the issuance of the building permit for the development that triggers the need for the outfall or associated construction activity, and on a schedule similar to the phases of construction.
WQ-3.2: Vegetation Removal from the Retention Basin Drainage Swale. In accordance with the Retention Basin Drainage Swale Vegetation Clearing Project, and prior to the placement of new impervious surfaces on Parcels 1 or 2, overgrown tule and cattails shall be removed from the entire length of the drainage swale to restore the swale’s flood protection capacity and protect residents and businesses. Vegetation in the drainage swale shall be mowed by hand using rotary mowers, and tule and cattails shall be cut down to 3 to 4 inches above the ground surface. The clippings shall be loaded by hand and hauled from the drainage swale to the Retention Basin where the vegetation will dry out. Once dry, the vegetation shall be transported to the Newby Island Landfill. It is estimated that initial removal of overgrown vegetation will generate approximately 300 cubic yards of debris.
Prior to performance of this work, all necessary permits shall be obtained from environmental regulatory agencies for this vegetation removal, including any required compensation for loss of wetland/riparian vegetation.
City and Project Developer to
execute an agreement to
reimburse City for the one-
time
costs of removing vegetation
from the swale (including
compliance with any permit
conditions requiring onsite
actions to do so) as needed to
restore flood protection
capa
city suitable to support the
Project. City to be responsible
for obtaining any necessary
permits and for any
maintenance of the swale
thereafter.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Agreement executed
prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits on Parcels 1 or
2. Vegetation removal
complete prior to
issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the first
building on Parcels 1 or
2. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-2.1: Finalize Waste Management Plan for Construction. Prior to Project construction, a final Waste Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented. This plan shall be submitted to the LEA, CalRecycle, Regional Water Board, and BAAQMD for review and approval. Specifically, the final Waste Management Plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following requirements, which are included in the draft Waste Management Plan:
• Waste excavation shall be performed in accordance with a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) designed to minimize impacts from dust, odor, and other nuisances, and assure waste is handled in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
• During waste excavation and relocation, the worksite shall be monitored for dust, odor, or other nuisances in accordance with general landfill construction practices and the HASP. • At the end of the working day, any exposed waste shall be covered with soil or an alternative material, such as a geosynthetic blanket, (i.e., interim cover).
Project Developer to provide
to City final, approved Waste
Management Plan. City to
verify that final Waste
Management Plan includes
all required components and
all necessary approvals.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Plan approved by
pertinent agencies must
be submitted to City
prior to issuance of
demolition, grading, and
building permits
• Odors, should they occur, shall be controlled by application of a deodorant, masking agent, neutralizing agent, or lime, and an interim landfill cover at the end of each working day. • A “Project Contact” shall be designated who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about dust, odors, or other nuisances associated with the waste excavation and regrading operations.
• During excavation activities, excavation areas shall be monitored using a hand-held instrument calibrated to measure combustible gases (including methane), hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, and VOCs.
• No hot work (e.g., welding) shall be allowed in the vicinity of excavation activities unless methane concentrations are sufficiently below the lower explosive limit of 8 percent. If methane concentrations approach 5 percent, excavation activities shall be stopped until the landfill gas collection system can be modified to reduce the methane concentrations in the excavation area. If methane levels are persistent in areas where earthwork and/or hot work activities are necessary,
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-33 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 inert gases (e.g., nitrogen) can be introduced into affected subsurface materials to lower oxygen and methane concentrations. By introducing an inert gas into the affected area, methane and oxygen can be displaced to create insufficient oxygen concentrations to support combustion.
HAZ-4.1: Landfill Closure, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plans.13 Prior to issuance of building permits for structures within the area of the Landfill (Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4), a revised Closure Plan and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) shall be prepared in accordance with the regulatory requirements described in 27 CCR 21790–21840 and submitted to the LEA, CalRecycle, and Regional Water Board (as required) for review and approval. In addition, a PCLUP shall be prepared in accordance with the regulatory requirements described in 27 CCR 21190 and submitted to the LEA and Regional Water Board (as required) for review and approval. Collectively, these plans shall incorporate the requirements of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4.2 through 4.6, below. In addition, the Project Developer shall continue to work with the regulatory agencies (Regional Water Board, LEA, or CalRecycle) and ensure the implementation of all elements and measures necessary to mitigate Project-related health risks to residents and commercial workers to a level below the Regional Water Board’s cumulative incremental cancer risk threshold of 1E-06 and hazard index (HI) (i.e., adverse non-cancer risk) of 1.0 established for the Project are implemented.
Project Developer to provide
to City for its review and
approval revised Closure
Plan, Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan and Post
Closure Land Use Plan that
include evidence that health
risks can be mitigated to
identified levels and contain
all elements of HAZ 4.2
through 4.6. City to submit
these Plans to the Regional
Water Board, LEA, and
CalRecycle for their
approval. City and Project
Developer/Master Owner
Association to implement the
actions required by these
Plans in accordance with the
allocation of responsibilities
set forth in the Landfill O&M
Agreement attached to the
DDA.
Project
Developer/City
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permits within the area
of the Landfill (Parcels 1,
2, 3, and 4)
HAZ-4.2: Landfill Gas Collection and Removal System.
14 During Project construction, the existing
landfill gas collection and removal system (i.e., wells and conveyance lines) shall be systematically abandoned and replaced in conjunction with the phased Project site development while complying with applicable regulatory requirements that govern the performance of these systems. The new system shall be designed to effectively draw landfill gases (e.g., methane, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile COPCs) away from building sub-slab areas.
The system design shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, taking into account an evaluation of the following criteria: effective vacuum influence (based on pilot testing and pneumatic modeling), vacuum distribution control, oxygen management (for subsurface fire prevention), ease of maintenance, well location, effect of landfill settlement, mitigation of vapor intrusion risk, and the proposed development on the Project site. The system design shall incorporate temperature- and corrosion-resistant materials. The landfill gas collection and removal system shall be designed, operated, and maintained to control excessive gas concentrations as specified in 27 CCR 20939.
The monitoring of landfill gases is described under Mitigation Measures HAZ-4.4, below.
Project Developer to submit
to City system design for
review and approval. City to
submit system design to the
Regional Water Board, LEA,
and/or CalRecycle for their
approval, as required by the
relevant regulations and
approved plans. City to
operate and maintain the
system in accordance with
the allocation of
responsibilities set forth in
Project
Developer/City
Department of
Public Works
Prior to the issuance of
grading or building
permits within the area
of the Landfill (Parcels 1,
2, 3, and 4)
13 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
14 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-34 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 the Landfill O&M Agreement
attached to the DDA.
HAZ-4.3: Landfill Gas Protection Systems.15 During Project construction, landfill gas protection systems shall be constructed beneath the sub-slabs of structures located on Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to remove landfill gases (e.g., methane, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile COPCs) that could otherwise accumulate and/or migrate through the sub-slab. The systems may include active gas collection or passive ventilation mechanisms and shall meet the minimum design requirements described in 27 CCR 21190. The landfill gas protection systems shall be designed, operated, and maintained to control excessive gas concentrations as specified in 27 CCR 20939. The monitoring of landfill gases is described under Mitigation Measures HAZ-4.4, below.
Project Developer to provide
plans to City for review and
approval and “as built”
drawings to City once work
is complete. System will be
operated by Project
Developer until a Master
Owners Association is
formed, after with system will
be operated by Master
Owners Association.
Project Developer/
Master Owner
Association
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4,
with “as built” drawings
submitted prior to any
certificates of occupancy
on such sites
HAZ-4.4: Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control System Maintenance. 16 During Project
construction and operation on Parcels 1-4, a landfill gas monitoring and control program shall be implemented in accordance with 27 CCR 20921-20939. The gas monitoring network shall be designed by a registered civil engineer or a certified engineering geologist and shall ensure detection of the presence of landfill gas migrating beyond the disposal site permitted facility boundary and also into on-site structures. The monitoring network design shall include provisions for monitoring all structures on the Project site, including but not limited to, buildings, large subsurface vaults, or any other areas where potential landfill gas buildup may cause adverse impacts on the public health or safety or the environment. Methods for monitoring on-site structures may include, but are not limited to: periodic monitoring, utilizing either permanently installed monitoring probes or gas surveys, and continuous monitoring systems. A methane monitoring system shall be installed inside all buildings on the Project site. If methane gas concentrations exceed a threshold of 1.25 percent by volume in air, as described under 27 CCR 20921, the methane monitoring system shall automatically alert the Santa Clara Fire Department, who shall assess the methane conditions and, if necessary, trigger an audible fire alarm to initiate a building evacuation. In the event of an evacuation, the building shall not be reoccupied until the Santa Clara Fire Department has confirmed and approved by that: (1) concentrations of methane meet the applicable compliance requirements and (2) the landfill gas monitoring and control system is operating in a manner that ensures adequate control of methane/ vapor intrusion.
Project Developer to provide
landfill gas monitoring
network plans and
Operations and
Maintenance Plan to City for
review and approval. City to
submit these Plans to the
Regional Water Board, LEA,
and/or CalRecycle for their
approval, as required by
relevant regulations and
approved plans. City and
Project Developer/Master
Project Developer/
Master Owners
Association/City
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits for Parcels 1, 2,
3, and 4
The landfill gas control system shall be operated and maintained to control excessive gas concentrations as specified in 27 CCR 20939. This includes operating the landfill gas control system in such a manner as to satisfy the following requirements specified in 27 CCR 20921(a):
• The concentration of methane gas must not exceed 1.25 percent by volume in air within any portion of any on-site structures;
Owners Association to
implement the actions
required by these Plans in
accordance with the
allocation of responsibilities
set forth in the Landfill O&M
Agreement attached to the
DDA.
15 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
16 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-35 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 • The concentration of methane gas migrating from the disposal site must not exceed 5 percent by volume in air at the disposal site permitted facility boundary or an alternative boundary approved in accordance with Section 20925; and
• Trace gases shall be controlled to prevent adverse acute and chronic exposure to toxic and/or carcinogenic compounds that could result in a health risk exceedance of the Regional Water Board’s cumulative incremental cancer risk threshold of 1E- 06 and HI (i.e., adverse non-cancer risk) of 1.0 established for the Project.
In the event of an earthquake or other event that could cause a rupture or leak from overlying stormwater treatment measures (i.e., planters, vegetated areas), the landfill gas venting pipes shall be inspected at access ports within 24 hours of the event for leaks, ruptures, or any other conditions.
Access ports shall be installed at select locations, to provide full coverage of the system based on system design and access constraints, within the venting layer to monitor for the presence of, and removal of, water that might flood the system in the event that water leaks from collection systems above the landfill gas mitigation system. This system would help prevent the water from further migrating into the underlying landfill gas mitigation system. The access ports will allow for use of portable moisture sensing devises to periodically monitor for moisture in the event that a leak is suspected. The access ports shall also be designed to allow for pumping of water from the interstitial space in the event that water is detected.
In addition to the monitoring and control of excessive gas concentrations to protect public health and safety and the environment, as specified in 27 CCR 20939, the landfill gas monitoring and control program shall incorporate the monitoring and control requirements for preventing subsurface fires that are described under Mitigation Measure HAZ-9.1, below.
HAZ-4.5: Building Restrictions. The Project shall prohibit the construction of enclosed basements located over refuse on Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to minimize the risk of landfill gas accumulation. Over the landfill area, the Project shall also limit residential construction to only Parcel 4 areas located over open-air podium level garages or over at least one level of enclosed commercial space to mitigate vapor intrusion effects by increasing the free flow and exchange of air beneath the residences.
Project Developer to submit
final detailed design plans
for review and approval by
City.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Concurrent with building
permit application
HAZ-4.6: Landfill Hazards Disclosure. Information about the existing subsurface hazardous materials conditions and the ongoing mitigation and monitoring requirements described in the PCLUP shall be included in all ground leases and space leases for space located over the Landfill.
The text to be inserted shall be subject to review and approval by City.
Project Developer and City
to include language in
ground and tenant leases for
space located over the
landfill.
Project
Developer/City
Department of
Public Works
Prior to execution of
ground or tenant leases
HAZ-5.1: Phase II Site Investigation. Prior to Project construction, a Phase II Site Investigation shall be performed on Parcel 5 and the tennis courts located in the southwest portion of Parcel 4 to (1) delineate the extent of soil, soil gas, and potential groundwater contamination on the site and (2) assess potential health risks posed to construction workers and future site users. The Phase II Site Investigation shall be conducted and evaluated by a licensed professional prior to construction and earthwork activities. The findings of the Phase II Site Investigation shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency to the extent required by applicable law. The Project Developer shall conduct any additional investigation and/or risk assessment and/or implement any remedial or risk mitigation measures required by the regulatory agency.
If additional remedial or risk
mitigation measures are
needed, Project Developer
to submit plans to City for
review and approval.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits for Parcel 5 and
the portion of Parcel 4
beneath the existing
tennis courts.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-36 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 HAZ-5.2: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan. Construction on Parcel 5 and the tennis courts located in the southwest portion of Parcel 4 shall be conducted under a site-specific Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) to protect construction workers, the general public, and the environment from hazardous materials identified in the Phase II Site Investigation (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-5.1) and potential undocumented sources of such materials. The SGMP shall delineate specific soil and groundwater management and disposal procedures, construction worker health and safety requirements, and contingency measures in case unknown contamination is encountered during construction. The SGMP shall incorporate the soil and groundwater analytical data from the Phase II Site Investigation to ensure that soil and groundwater are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner protective of human health and the environment, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The SGMP shall specifically include the following:
• Procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of known soil • and groundwater contamination identified during the Phase II Site Investigation during Project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively;
• Procedures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of containing hazardous materials (if any) that have not previously been identified at the site; • Descriptions of required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and • Identification of personnel responsible for implementation of the SGMP.
City to review and approve a
Soil and Groundwater
Management Plan pertaining
to Parcel 5 and the portion
of Parcel 4 beneath the
existing tennis courts.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
grading and building
permits for Parcel 5 and
the portion of Parcel 4
beneath the existing
tennis courts
HAZ-5.3: Implement Measures Included in CCR Title 27, Section 21190(g).
Consistent with the Project Developer’s voluntary commitment, in order to mitigate gas migration into structures located within 1,000 feet of landfill, the City (as owner and operator of the landfill) and the Project Developer shall implement the following measures identified in Title 27, Section 21190(g), with respect to development on Parcel 5 and the southwest portion of Parcel 4:
(1) a geomembrane or equivalent system with low permeability to landfill gas shall be installed between the concrete floor slab of the building and subgrade; (2) a permeable layer of open graded material of clean aggregate with a minimum thickness of 12 inches shall be installed between the geomembrane and the subgrade or slab; (3) a geotextile filter shall be utilized to prevent the introduction of fines into the permeable layer; (4) perforated venting pipes shall be installed within the permeable layer, and shall be designed to operate without clogging;
(5) the venting pipe shall be constructed with the ability to be connected to an induced draft exhaust system;
(6) automatic methane gas sensors shall be installed within the permeable gas layer, and inside the building to trigger an audible alarm when methane gas concentrations are detected; and (7) periodic methane gas monitoring shall be conducted inside all buildings and underground utilities in accordance with Article 6, of Subchapter 4 of this chapter (section 20920 et seq.). At a minimum, quarterly monitoring is required, but more frequent monitoring may be required by LEA (Subchapter 4, section 20933(a)).
City to review and approve
detailed construction plans
including these measures for
Parcel 5 and the areas of
Parcel 4 beneath the
existing tennis courts.
Project Developer shall
submit quarterly reports that
report methane gas levels
for review by City.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
Parcel 5 and the areas
of Parcel 4 beneath the
existing tennis courts;
quarterly monitoring
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-37 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 HAZ-6.1: Finalize Draft Technical Memorandum: Leachate Collection and Removal System.17 Prior to Project construction, a final Technical Memorandum: Leachate Collection and Removal System shall be prepared and implemented as part of the PCLUP. The technical memorandum shall be submitted to the LEA for review and approval and to CalRecycle and the Regional Water Board for review and comment. Specifically, the final technical memorandum shall contain, at a minimum, the following requirements:
• During the construction phase of Parcel 3, the existing leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) risers LR-1 and LR-4 shall be protected and preserved during construction by flagging the well head locations, extending the risers, and installing a bollard around each riser. • If LR-1 or LR-4 are damaged during construction, repairs and modifications shall be completed promptly.
• LR-1 and LR-4 shall be supported and anchored to prevent potential settlement over time and finished to grade at the end of excavation and/or completion of construction. • Ongoing operation and maintenance of the leachate recovery system shall continue during and after Project construction. The LCRS monitoring shall continue in accordance with the Regional Water Board’s WDR Order No. R2-2002-0008 for the site, which shall be revised to consider the proposed development and modifications to the landfill systems.
Project Developer to submit
to City for its review and
approval a Leachate
Collection and Removal
System Technical
Memorandum. City to submit
to LEA for review and
approval and to CalRecycle
and the Regional Water
Board for review and
comment. As part of the
PCLUP City to operate and
maintain the leachate
recovery system in
accordance with the
allocation of responsibilities
set forth in the Landfill O&M
Agreement attached to the
DDA.
Project
Developer/City
Department of
Public Works
Submittal of Memo: Prior
to issuance of grading or
construction permits for
Parcels 1 and 3.
HAZ-9.1: Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan.18 Prior to construction, a Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan shall be prepared that describes how subsurface heating conditions above the landfill will be monitored, prevented, and suppressed. The plan, which may be included as part of a larger planning document, shall identify responsible parties and schedules for implementing the measures described in the plan. The Project Developer shall submit the plan to the LEA, CalRecycle, and the Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) for review and comment. Responses to comments shall be incorporated into a final Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan from the regulatory agencies. The plan shall also incorporate the prevention, detection, and response actions described under Mitigations HAZ-9.2 and HAZ-9.3, below, unless alternative actions are approved by LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD. The final plan shall be implemented during Project construction and operation.
Project Developer to submit
to City a Subsurface Fire
Prevention, Detection, and
Response Plan that has
been reviewed and
commented on by relevant
agencies. The Plan shall be
implemented consistent with
the Landfill Operations and
Maintenance Agreement.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Submittal of Plan prior to
issuance of grading or
construction permits for
Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Implementation during
Project construction and
operation
17 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation. 18 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-38 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 HAZ-9.2: Subsurface Fire Prevention and Detection Measures.19 The following measures may be included in whole, or in part, in the Subsurface Fire Prevention, Detection, and Response Plan, as required by the LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD. In addition, these agencies may require additional measures.
The landfill gas collection system shall be monitored and maintained to minimize the intrusion of oxygen (i.e., air) into the landfill and prevent the overheating of waste due to aerobic decomposition.
In accordance with BAAQMD monitoring requirements (Regulation 8-34), the gauge pressure, nitrogen or oxygen concentration, and temperature of landfill gas within each extraction wellhead shall be monitored once a month and evaluated to ensure the system is not overdrawing air into the landfill. The nitrogen and oxygen concentrations may be measured using a calibrated portable instrument. The landfill gas measured at each extraction well head must meet the following monitoring threshold requirements:
• Nitrogen concentrations less than 20 percent or oxygen levels less than 5 percent; and • Maximum temperature of 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
Project Developer to
integrate these measures
into the Subsurface Fire
Prevention, Detection, and
Response Plan as
requested by relevant
agencies.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Submittal of Plan: Prior
to issuance of grading or
construction permits for
Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Implementation during
Project construction and
operation
The nitrogen and oxygen thresholds shall be used to indicate if the gas collection system is overdrawing and causing excessive ambient air infiltration into the landfill through its surface and sides. An exceedance of the maximum temperature threshold shall indicate that a subsurface fire may exist. Other evidence of a potential subsurface fire shall include the following:
• Observations of rapid settlement over a short period of time; • Smoke or smoldering odor emanating from the gas extraction system or landfill; or • Combustion residue in extraction wells and/or headers.
The landfill gas collection system shall be adjusted to reduce well extraction rates (if necessary) to ensure the monitoring thresholds for nitrogen/oxygen and temperature are not exceeded, while continuing to ensure the control of other excessive gas concentrations in the landfill (e.g., methane and trace gases) as specified in 27 CCR 20939. In the event that one or both of the monitoring thresholds are exceeded or other evidence of a potential subsurface fire is observed, then gas samples shall be collected from the extraction wells in the affected area and submitted to a certified laboratory for analysis of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon monoxide. Analytical results for nitrogen and oxygen that exceed the monitoring thresholds shall be used as confirmation that an aerobic environment is present. Analytical results for carbon monoxide that exceed 1,000 parts per million shall be used as confirmation that a subsurface fire exists.
HAZ-9.3: Subsurface Fire Suppression. If a subsurface fire condition has been confirmed (i.e., carbon monoxide level exceed 1,000 parts per million), the LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD shall be notified immediately. The extraction wells surrounding the subsurface fire shall be shut down temporarily to reduce oxygen levels. The extraction wells shall then be returned to active use in stages in conjunction with monitoring to determine if the subsurface fire has been suppressed. If shutting down the extraction wells does not suppress the fire and/or results in the excess accumulation of methane and other trace gases beneath structures, then the LEA, CalRecycle, and SCFD shall consider injecting a Class A foam or wetting agent or liquid carbon dioxide (which also has the added benefit of rapidly cooling the refuse/fill) into the affected area. Large amounts of water shall not be used, because water can exacerbate the fire potential, generate contaminated runoff, increase leachate, and cause slope failure.
City to ensure that SCFD is
aware of and trained on
protocols. Project Developer
and/or City to notify
agencies if a subsurface fire
condition is confirmed and to
implement subsurface fire
suppression measures.
Project Developer/
City
City Planning &
Inspection;
SCFD
Prior to operation of
Project over landfill
areas for SCFD
protocols. After
confirmation of a
subsurface fire condition
as to agency notification
19 To the extent the implementation of this mitigation measure at Parcel 3 is made necessary by, or altered by, the City’s park development activities, the City shall be responsible for implementation.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-39 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
1 Utilities and Service Systems
UT-3.1: Make a Fair-Share Contribution to Upgrading the Rabello and Northside Pump Station System’s Capacity. The City will conduct detailed engineering study and analysis to determine the precise size and timing needed for the required pump station capacity upgrades to address overcapacity due to projected cumulative development. The City will implement the required capacity upgrades and the Developer will fund its fair share of such upgrades. The City shall determine the fair- share cost contribution for the Project based on the Project’s percent of wastewater flow cumulative capacity needs above the current pump capacity (based on conceptual planning to date, that fair share is estimated as 27 percent of 2035 cumulative overcapacity amount). The City may require the Developer to fund the design and construction of the conveyance capacity upgrades to the Rabello and Northside Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations concurrent with construction of Phase 2 of the Project; the pump station upgrades would be designed to address overcapacity due to projected cumulative development. If the Developer is required to fund pump station upgrade costs, with the exception of costs attributable to the Project’s fair share contribution to the upgrade, the City would reimburse the Developer for the design and construction costs through first (a) refunding the Project’s Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fees already paid by Developer or crediting those fees when due and (b) providing to Developer Sanitary Sewer Conveyance Fees collected from developers of projects that would use the Rabello and Northside Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations.
Conduct a detailed
engineering study and
analysis to determine the
precise size and timing
needed for the required
pump station capacity
upgrades to address
overcapacity due to
projected cumulative
development. Project
Developer to contribute fair-
share, and potentially front
costs of full upgrade.
Department of
Public Works
City Planning &
Inspection
Conduct study prior to
construction of Phase 2
of the Project, fund prior
to issuance of first
building permit for Phase
2 of the Project or later
as otherwise determined
necessary by City; if
Developer to fund full
pump station upgrade
costs, Developer and
City enter funding and
reimbursement
agreement prior to
upgrade
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-40 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
RELATED SANTA CLARA DAP 1, PHASE 1 PROJECT – SECONDARY IMPACTS FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING/ CEQA FILE # PLN2019-14186 (PLN2014‐10554/CEQ2014‐01180) PLN2014-10554/CEQ2014-01180 Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
Transportation
IM-TRA-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the construction contractor will develop the traffic control plan in accordance with the appropriate jurisdiction’s policies and submit for approval. The plan will be implemented throughout the course of construction and may include, but will not be limited to, the following elements.
• Limit truck access to the intersection during peak commute times (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 pm.).
• Require that written notification be provided to contractors regarding appropriate • routes to and from the intersection, and the weight and speed limits on local roads used to access the intersection.
• Provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
• Provide adequate parking for construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors as feasible.
• Maintain bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation during Project construction where safe to do so. If construction encroaches on a bike lane, warning signs will be posted that indicate bicycles and vehicles are sharing the roadway. If construction encroaches on a sidewalk, a safe detour will be provided for pedestrians at the nearest crosswalk. • Require traffic controls in the vicinity of the intersection, including flagpersons with bright orange or red vests and using a “Stop/Slow” paddle to control oncoming traffic. • Post standard construction warning signs in advance of the construction area and at any intersection that provides access to the construction area. • Repair or restore the road right-of-way to its original condition or better upon completion of the work.
Project Developer to
prepare and submit a
Construction Traffic
Control Plan for the
purpose of managing
traffic and reducing traffic
congestion during
construction. City to review
and approve Plan.
Project
Developer/
Project Contractor
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Air Quality
IM-AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce fugitive dust. Emissions reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval. • All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. If water infiltration into landfill refuse layers is a concern, non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used instead.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph for a period of 2 hours or more.
• Windbreaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks shall have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
Project Developer to
provide to City applicable
provisions of construction
contracts specifying
construction mitigation
measures to reduce
construction- related dust
emissions.
Project
Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-41 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
• Exposed ground areas that are to be reworked more than 1 month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. If grass seeding is not feasible, then non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used.
• All construction trucks and equipment, including tires, involved in ground disturbance or transit through loose soil areas shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. • Site accesses to a distance of 25 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12- inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Alternatively, a rumble plate may be used in place of chips, mulch, or gravel.
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
IM-AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval.
Project Developer to provide
to City applicable provisions
of construction contracts
construction mitigation
measures to reduce
construction-related exhaust
emissions.
Project
Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
• Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be limited to 2 minutes. • Ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2017 and 2022 is equipped with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 3 engine is not available. Consistent with advancements of the statewide fleet average, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-
• powered equipment used during construction between 2023 and 2030 is equipped with EPA Tier 4 engines. This requirement will ensure construction equipment remains cleaner than the fleet-wide average.
• Ensure that all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site comply with EPA 2007 on-road emissions standards for particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and nitrogen oxides (NO
X) (0.01 grams per brake horsepower-hour [g/bhp- hr] and 0.20 g/bhp-hr, respectively).
• Notwithstanding the above requirements, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall meet the California Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines and shall employ Best Available Control Technology for reductions in NO
X and particulate matter (PM) emissions if more stringent than the requirements above.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-42 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IM-GHG-1: Utilize Alternative Fuels during Construction. Require construction contractors to use alternative fuels in at least 30 percent of the construction equipment that uses diesel fuel. Alternative fuels may include electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), biodiesel (B-20), or renewable diesel, such as diesel high- performance renewable (HPR).
Project Developer to
provide to City applicable
provisions of construction
contracts requiring
adequate use of
alternative fuels.
Project
Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Cultural Resources
IM-CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resource Investigations and Protect and Recover Significant Resources. The Lead Agency shall conduct a cultural resource investigation that includes a background records search (including a search of records from Sonoma State and historical societies, contact with Native American representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and site pedestrian surveys) for the areas of ground disturbance from each roadway improvement. If significant known or suspected sites are discovered within the Project footprint and would be disturbed by the Project, then a cultural resource treatment plan shall be prepared, defining Project monitoring and resource recovery and curation requirements concerning any encountered cultural resources.
Lead Agency to conduct a
cultural resource
investigation that includes a
background records search
during ground disturbance.
If necessary, Lead Agency
to prepare and execute
cultural resource treatment
plan.
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
IM-CR-2: Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeological monitor can examine the find and document its provenience and nature (e.g., with drawings, photographs, written descriptions). The archaeological monitor shall then direct that the work proceed if the find is deemed to be insignificant, continue elsewhere, or cease until adequate mitigation measures are adopted. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate jurisdiction, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine the potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize the understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content, including the nature and quantity of artifacts.
Archaeological monitor
(retained by the Project
Developer), as necessary,
and in consultation with
the City, develop a
Treatment Plan.
Project
Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
During construction
if cultural resources
are encountered
IM-CR-3: Stop Work if Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities. If human remains are discovered (in either an archaeological or construction context), all work within proximity of the remains shall stop so that the archaeological monitor can examine the remains. The County Coroner shall be notified to make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC immediately. The NAHC shall notify those persons it believes are most likely descended from the deceased Native American. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Project Developer to
submit to City applicable
provisions of construction
contracts including
applicable requirements.
Project
Developer/
Project Contractor
County
Coroner/
NAHC
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits.
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-43 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
Biological Resources
IM-BIO-1: Replace Removed Trees. The Project Developer shall replace all trees removed as part of the intersection improvements in accordance with the tree preservation policies or ordinances of the jurisdiction in which the improvements are constructed.
Project Developer to
provide to City report
documenting plans to
replace all trees removed
as part of the intersection
improvements.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
IM-BIO-2: Preconstruction Surveys. For all intersections that have trees within the intersection footprint or that will remove trees, the Project Developer and its contractors shall avoid conducting vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1– August 31), if feasible. If construction activities must commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nests of migratory birds.
Surveys for nesting migratory birds shall occur within 3 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbance and vegetation removal.
If an active nest is discovered, a no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree or shrub (or, for ground-nesting species, the nest itself) shall be established. The no- disturbance zone shall be marked with flagging or fencing that is easily identified by the construction crew and shall not affect the nesting bird or attract predators to the nest location. In general, the minimum buffer zone widths shall be as follows: 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor ground-nesting species, 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor shrub- and tree-nesting species, and 300 feet (radius) for raptor species. Buffer widths may be modified based on discussion with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Buffers shall remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area and are dependent on the nest. If a burrowing owl nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, no-activity buffers will adhere to the recommendations in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Project Developer to
provide to City provisions
of construction contracts
including pertinent
requirements. If
construction occurs in the
nesting season, Project
Developer to submit to
City agreement with
qualified wildlife biologist
requiring surveys and
protective measures.
Project
Developer/Project
Contractor/
Qualified wildlife
biologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits for
biologist and
construction
contracts; prior to
commencement of
grading for biologist
agreements; and
prior to ground
disturbance for
surveys
IM-BIO-3: Site-Specific Surveys and Species/Habitat Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures. For intersections with the potential to have sensitive habitats, the Project Developer, in consultation with a qualified biologist, shall conduct site-specific surveys for special-status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands and waters of the United States, and nesting birds. If found, the Project Developer and its contractor shall implement avoidance and minimization measures, where feasible. Where avoidance is not possible, the Project Developer shall compensate for lost habitat at a minimum 1:1 basis. Compensation for lost habitat will be determined in consultation with CDFW/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as appropriate. The Project Developer shall obtain all required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW, and USFWS, as appropriate. The Project Developer shall provide buffer fencing and species relocation, as necessary, if permitted by CDFW/USFWS. Additionally, if special-status species or habitats are identified during the site-specific surveys, a Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for construction personnel will be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the Project Developer. The program will provide workers with information on their responsibilities with regard to the special-status species. The training will provide a physical description of the special- status species that have potential to occur and be affected by construction activities to each construction crew prior to the initiation of the crew’s construction Project Developer to
conduct site-specific
surveys for special- status
species, sensitive habitats,
wetlands and waters of the
United States, and nesting
birds and provide to City
for review and approval. If
special status species are
found, Project Developer
to submit documentation
to City detailing protective
measures for review and
approval.
Project
Developer/
Qualified biologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-44 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
activities. The worker awareness training will also detail each species’ habitat and legal protections, a photo of relevant species, and contact information for the primary biologist.
Geology and Soils
IM-GEO-1: Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to construction of any intersection improvement that requires retaining walls (or disturbance of existing retaining wall), disturbance or placement of fill, substantial excavation below grade, establishment of new slopes, and/or placement of new structures above or below grade, the Project Developer shall prepare a geotechnical investigation to evaluate the potential for geologic, seismic, and soil risks. The geotechnical investigation shall include recommendations to abate any potential risks. If risks are identified, the Project Developer shall implement the recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation.
Project Developer to provide
to City geotechnical
investigation for review and
approval. City and
Developer to submit such
report to regulatory agencies
and secure approval as
required. Project Developer
to incorporate resulting
measures into project plans.
Project
Developer/City
City Planning
and Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Hydrology and Water Quality
IM-WQ-1: Prepare a Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report. Prior to construction of any intersection improvement, the Project Developer shall prepare a hydrology and water quality technical report to evaluate the existing drainage and stormwater conditions at the subject intersections. The technical report shall include recommendations for drainage and stormwater controls to minimize impacts related to changes in drainage patterns that would result from the intersection improvements. The Project Developer shall be required to implement the report’s recommendations.
Project Developer to
provide to City a hydrology
and water quality technical
report to evaluate the
existing drainage and
stormwater conditions at
the subject intersections
for review and approval.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
IM-HAZ-1: Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prior to construction of any intersection improvement involving ground disturbance of acquired property, the Project Developer shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Where the potential to encounter hazardous materials or waste is identified, the Project Developer shall prepare and implement a soil/groundwater handing plan that identifies measures to properly dispose of contaminated materials. Measures could include worker education and training, as appropriate, and site- specific controls to avoid risks to workers and adjacent residents or others.
Project Developer to
submit Phase I
Environmental Site
Assessment to City for
review and approval.
Project Developer to
implement soil/
groundwater handling plan
to City for review and
approval.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-45 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
RELATED SANTA CLARA DAP 1, PHASE 1 PROJECT – SECONDARY IMPACTS PLANNING/CEQA FILE # PLN2019-14186 (PLN2014‐10554/CEQ2014‐01180) Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
Transportation
SW-TRA-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the construction contractor will develop the traffic control plan in accordance with the City’s policies and submit for approval. The plan will be implemented throughout the course of construction and may include, but will not be limited to, the following elements:
• Limit truck access to the soundwall site during peak commute times (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
• Require that written notification be provided to contractors regarding appropriate routes to and from the soundwall and the weight and speed limits on local roads that would be used to access the soundwall site.
• Provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to prepare
and submit a Construction
Traffic Control Plan for the
purpose of managing traffic
and reducing traffic
congestion during
construction. City to review
and approve Plan.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
Department of
Public Works
Prior to grading
and building
permit issuance.
• Provide adequate parking for construction workers, site visitors, and inspectors as feasible. • Maintain bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation during Project construction where safe to do so. If construction encroaches on a bike lane, warning signs will be posted that indicate that bicycles and vehicles are sharing the roadway. If construction encroaches on a sidewalk, a safe detour will be provided for pedestrians at the nearest crosswalk.
• Require traffic controls in the vicinity of the soundwall, including flagpersons with bright orange or red vests and using a “Stop/Slow” paddle to control oncoming traffic.
• Post standard construction warning signs in advance of the construction area and at any soundwall that provides access to the construction area.
• Repair or restore the road right-of-way to its original condition or better upon completion of the work.
Air Quality
SW-AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce fugitive dust. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval. • All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. If water infiltration into landfill refuse layers is a concern, non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used instead.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph for a period of 2 hours or more.
• Windbreaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks shall have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to City
applicable provisions of
construction contracts
specifying construction
mitigation measures to
reduce construction-related
dust emissions.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-46 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
• Exposed ground areas that are to be reworked more than 1 month after initial grading should be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. If grass seeding is not feasible, then non-toxic soil stabilizers may be used.
• All construction trucks and equipment, including tires, involved in ground disturbance or transit through loose soil areas shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. • Site accesses to a distance of 25 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12- inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Alternatively, a rumble plate may be used in place of chips, mulch, or gravel.
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
SW-AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions. The Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the specific construction mitigation measures below to reduce equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the measures below. Alternative measures may be identified by the Project Developer or its contractor, as appropriate, provided that they are as effective as the measures below. Alternative measures shall be submitted to the City for approval.
• Idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be limited to 2 minutes. • The Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2017 and 2022 is equipped with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment for which an EPA Tier 3 engine is not available. Consistent with advancements of the statewide fleet average, the Project Developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction between 2023 and 2030 is equipped with EPA Tier 4 engines. This requirement will ensure that construction equipment remains cleaner than the fleet-wide average.
• The Project Developer shall ensure that all on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site comply with EPA 2007 on-road emissions standards for particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and nitrogen oxides (NO
X) (0.01 grams per brake horsepower-hour [g/bhp-hr] and
0.20 g/bhp-hr, respectively).
• Notwithstanding the above requirements, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall meet the California Air Resources Board’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines and shall employ Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NO
X and particulate matter (PM) if more stringent
than the requirements above.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to provide
to City applicant provisions
of construction contracts
specifying construction
mitigation measures to
reduce construction- relate
exhaust emissions.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-47 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
Cultural Resources
SW-CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resource Investigations and Protect and Recover Significant Resources. The improvement Lead Agency shall conduct a cultural resource investigation of the areas of ground disturbance associated with the soundwall that includes a background records search (including a search of records from Sonoma State and historical societies, contact with Native American representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC], and site pedestrian surveys) for the areas of ground disturbance from each roadway improvement. If significant known or suspected sites are discovered within the Project footprint and would be disturbed by the Project, then a cultural resource treatment plan shall be prepared, defining Project monitoring and resource recovery and curation requirements concerning any encountered cultural resources.
Not Applicable
City to conduct a cultural
resource investigation that
includes a background
records search during
ground disturbance. If
necessary, City to prepare
and execute cultural
resource treatment plan.
City Planning &
Inspection Division
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
SW-CR-2: Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered during Ground- Disturbing Activities. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within proximity of the find shall temporarily halt so that the archaeological monitor can examine the find and document its provenience and nature (e.g., with drawings, photographs, written descriptions). The archaeological monitor shall then direct that the work proceed if the find is deemed to be insignificant, continue elsewhere, or cease until adequate mitigation measures are adopted. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate jurisdiction, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation shall target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine the potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery shall emphasize the understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content, including the nature and quantity of artifacts.
Not Applicable
Archaeological monitor
(retained by the Project
Developer), as necessary,
and in consultation with the
City, develop a Treatment
Plan.
Project Developer/
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
During
construction if
cultural
resources are
encountered
SW-CR-3: Stop Work if Human Remains Are Encountered during Ground-Disturbing Activities. If human remains are discovered (in either an archaeological or construction context), all work within proximity of the remains shall stop so that the archaeological monitor can examine the remains. The County Coroner shall be notified to make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the NAHC immediately. The NAHC shall notify those persons it believes are most likely descended from the deceased Native American. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to submit
to City applicable provisions
of construction contracts
including applicable
requirements.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor
County
Coroner/ NAHC
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Biological Resources
SW-BIO-1: Replace Removed Trees on a 2:1 Basis. The Project Developer shall replace all trees removed as part of soundwall construction at a minimum of 2:1, or more, as required by the local tree ordinance.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to provide
to City report documenting
plans to replace all trees
removed at a 2:1 ratio for
review and approval.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-48 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
SW-BIO-2: Preconstruction Surveys. The Project Developer and its contractors shall avoid conducting vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1–August 31) if feasible. If construction activities must commence during the migratory bird nesting season, the Project Developer shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nests of migratory birds. Surveys for nesting migratory birds shall occur within 3 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbance and vegetation removal.
If an active nest is discovered, a no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree or shrub (or, for ground-nesting species, the nest itself) shall be established. The no- disturbance zone shall be marked with flagging or fencing that is easily identified by the construction crew and shall not affect the nesting bird or attract predators to the nest location. In general, the minimum buffer zone widths shall be as follows: 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor ground-nesting species, 50 feet (radius) for non-raptor shrub- and tree-nesting species, and 300 feet (radius) for raptor species. Buffer widths may be modified based on discussion with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Buffers shall remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area and are dependent on the nest. If a burrowing owl nest is identified during pre-construction surveys, no-activity buffers will adhere to the recommendations in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to provide
to City provisions of
construction contracts
including pertinent
requirements. If construction
occurs in the nesting season,
Project Developer to submit
to City agreement with
qualified wildlife biologist
requiring surveys and
protective measures.
Project Developer/
Project Contractor/
Qualified wildlife
biologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
for biologist and
construction
contracts; prior
to commence-
ment of grading
for biologist
agreements; and
prior to ground
disturbance for
surveys
SW-BIO-3: Site-Specific Surveys and Species/Habitat Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures. The Project Developer, in consultation with a qualified biologist, shall conduct a site-specific surveys for special-status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands and waters of the United States, and nesting birds. If found, the Project Developer and its contractor shall implement avoidance and minimization measures, where feasible. Where avoidance is not possible, the Project Developer shall compensate for lost habitat on a minimum 1:1 basis.
Compensation for lost habitat will be determined in consultation with CDFW/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as appropriate. The Project Developer shall obtain all required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW and USFWS as appropriate. The Project Developer shall provide buffer fencing and species relocation, as necessary, if permitted by CDFW/USFWS. Additionally, if special-status species or habitats are identified during the site-specific surveys, a Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for construction personnel will be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the Project Developer. The program will provide workers with information on their responsibilities with regard to the special-status species. The training will provide a physical description of the special-status species that have potential to occur and be affected by construction activities to each construction crew prior to the initiation of the crew’s construction activities. The worker awareness training will also provide details regarding each species’ habitat and legal protections, a photo of relevant species, and contact information for the primary biologist.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to conduct
site-specific surveys for
special- status species,
sensitive habitats, wetlands
and waters of the United
States, and nesting birds and
provide to City for review and
approval. If special status
species are found, Project
Developer to submit
documentation to City
detailing protective
measures for review and
approval.
Project Developer/
Qualified biologist
City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-49 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Action Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
Geology and Soils
SW-GEO-1: Prepare a Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall prepare a geotechnical investigation to evaluate the potential for geologic, seismic, and soil risks. The geotechnical investigation shall include recommendations to abate any potential risks. If risks are identified, the Project Developer shall implement the recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to provide to
City geotechnical investigation
for review and approval. City
and Developer to submit such
report to regulatory agencies
and secure approval as
required. Project Developer to
incorporate resulting measures
into project plans.
Project Developer/
City
City Planning
and Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Hydrology and Water Quality
SW-WQ-1: Prepare a Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall prepare a hydrology and water quality technical report to evaluate the existing drainage and stormwater conditions at the soundwall site. The technical report shall include recommendations for drainage and stormwater controls to minimize impacts related to changes in drainage patterns that would result from the soundwall.
The Project Developer shall be required to implement the report’s recommendations.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to provide
to City a hydrology and water
quality technical report to
evaluate the existing
drainage and stormwater
conditions at the soundwall
site for review and approval.
Project Developer City Planning &
Inspection
Division
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SW-HAZ-1: Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
Where the potential to encounter hazardous materials or waste is identified, the Project Developer shall prepare and implement a soil/groundwater handing plan that identifies measures to properly dispose of contaminated materials. Measures could include worker education and training, as appropriate, and site-specific controls to avoid risks to workers and adjacent residents or others.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to submit
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment to City. Project
Developer to implement soil/
groundwater handling plan to
City for review and approval.
Project Developer Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Utilities and Service Systems
SW-UT-1: Identify Underground and Overhead Utilities and Provide Coordination with Utility Providers. Prior to construction of the soundwall, the Project Developer shall identify all underground and overhead utilities within the footprint of the soundwall. If utilities are present, the Project Developer shall coordinate with the appropriate utility owners regarding utility shutoff during construction and relocation, as necessary.
Not Applicable
Project Developer to identify
all underground and
overhead utilities within the
footprint of the soundwall
and provide documentation
to City of coordination with
the appropriate utility owners
regarding utility shutoff
during construction and
relocation for review and
approval.
City Planning &
Inspection
City Planning &
Inspection
Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
Appendix A. 2025 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program State Clearinghouse # 2014072078 Related Santa Clara Revised Land Use A-50 ESA / D201901172.02 CEQA Checklist June 2025
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B
Related Santa Clara Scheme C
Traffic Report