City Council and Authorities Concurrent
December 9, 2025

Schedule 18
Approved Subcontractors

1. Pinnacle Technical Resources dba Pinnacle Group, 5501 Lyndon B Johnson Fwy Ste 600, Dallas, TX 75240

2. Hexaware 185 Hudson Street, Suite 2400, Jersey City, NJ 07302.

3. Dell Global Services 1 Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas, 78682, United States

SCHEDULE 20

RESERVED
to the

IT MANAGED SERVICES AGREEMENT
between

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
and

UNISYS CORPORATION
Schedule 20 – Reserved`

[RESERVED]

SCHEDULE 21

RESERVED
to the

IT MANAGED SERVICES AGREEMENT
between

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
and

UNISYS CORPORATION
Schedule 21 – Reserved`

[RESERVED]
SCHEDULE 24

CONSENTS
TO

MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AND

UNISYS CORPORATION
Schedule 24 - Consents

Schedule 24
Consents
As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, there are no tools owned or provisioned by Service Provider that Customer requires Consents.

As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, there are no tools owned or provisioned by Customer that Service Provider requires Consents.

In the event any Consent is required by either Party during the Term, the provisions in Section 4.4 apply and this Schedule 24 will be updated through the Change Control Procedures.

SCHEDULE 25

RESERVED
to the

IT MANAGED SERVICES AGREEMENT
between

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
and

UNISYS CORPORATION
Schedule 25 – Reserved`

[RESERVED]
SCHEDULE 26

INVOICE FORMAT
TO

MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AND

UNISYS CORPORATION
Schedule 26 – Invoice Format

Schedule 26
Invoice Format
Monthly invoice format will be finalized during Transition Services and will include the following either on the invoice or the invoice backup supplied to the City of Santa Clara. (i) Main Invoice - Monthly
a. Fees by Service Tower
i. Fees for Service Tower A
ii. Fees for Service Tower B
iii. Fees for Service Tower C
iv. Fees for Service Tower D
b. Customer Project pool (excluding SVP Project Pool)
i. Total project pool
ii. Project pool utilized in the month
iii. Available project pool
c. Pass-Through Costs
i. Name of contract/agreement
ii. Costs
d. Adjustments
i. Service Credits
ii. Earnback
iii. Any other adjustments
e. Levi Stadium Operations
(ii) Service Tower invoice – Monthly
a. Base Service Fees
i. Resource Baseline
ii. Amount
iii. Variable Fees

1. ARC/RRC units beyond dead-band

2. ARC/RRC monthly rate

3. Total variable charges
b. FTE Charges
i. Roles
ii. Title of resources
iii. Fees
c. Projects
i. Project Name
Schedule 26 – Invoice Format

1. Resource Title

2. Project hours – Total and Billable (Beyond Project Pool) Hours

3. Rate
d. Adjustments
i. Adjustments based on vacancies, absence of FTEs
ii. Service Credits, Earnback
iii. Any other adjustments
SCHEDULE 27

INTERNAL CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
TO

MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AND

UNISYS CORPORATION
Schedule 27 – Internal Controls and Procedures

Schedule 27
Internal Controls and Procedures
Unisys has implemented certain controls with regard to vetting potential employees, granting of system privileges and auditing access, as follows:
• Unisys hiring process includes interviews and background checks. • Background checks are completed on all prospective employees prior to hire as permitted by law.

For any new hires, these checks assess work history, education, and criminal record. Drug screenings are also conducted.
• For specified Unisys employees, Unisys will comply with additional, defined background check requirements as reasonably required based on the employee’s role, e.g., with respect to Unisys employees supporting the City’s Public Safety.
• Unisys employees have a continuous performance appraisal process, including management review, input from peers, professional and personal development goals, and evaluation of technical and security proficiency.
• Annual security awareness training is required to be completed by all Unisys employees. Unisys employees are encouraged to pursue continuous education on technical and security topics. • Annual training is required of every Unisys employee with regard to Unisys Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and the Anti-Bribery policy. Every Unisys employee must certify their compliance with these policies. Targeted training with business teams on compliance policies is conducted as required.
• Separation of duties is implemented so that no single Unisys employee has universal access. All actions by highly privileged employees are audited and the audit logs are stored in a data repository that the employee does not have access to.
• Principles of least privilege are implemented to limit an employee’s scope of access to that which is required to perform his or her job duties.
• Logical connectivity is controlled via a sequence of jump boxes, one on the Unisys network and the other on the City’s network. In order for Unisys staff to access the City’s systems, the employee must request access to each system separately and then pass the review process for each system via two distinct and separate approval processes. Once approved and granted access, the Unisys employee must authenticate through both systems each with conditional multifactor authentication.
• Accounts are promptly disabled upon termination of a Unisys employee’s employment or upon the Unisys employee leaving the City’s account.
• A third-party auditing firm performs an annual SSAE-16 audit of the internal Unisys processes.

Schedule 28 – Financial Responsibility Matrix
SCHEDULE 28

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX

TO MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AND

UNISYS CORPORATION
Schedule 28 – Financial Responsibility Matrix

Schedule 28
Financial Responsibility Matrix

1. Financial Responsibility Matrix – Hardware
Own Refresh
Upgrade /
Enhance -
Capital
Improvem
ents
Install,
Move,
Add,
Change
(IMAC)
3rd Party
Maintenan
ce
Contracts
Services Cost of
Spares
Cost for
Disposal
Hardware at Customer Locations
Infrastructure Servers Customer Customer Customer Service Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Customer
Storage media/devices Customer Customer Customer Service Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Customer
Data center Facilities HW (UPS,
Generator, Physical Security
Devices)
Customer Customer Customer 3rd Party Customer Service
Provider Customer Customer
Network Devices (Such as ports,
modems, interface equipment and
terminals)
Customer Customer Customer Service
Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Customer
Desktops/Laptops - Used by
Customer Customer Customer Customer Service Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Customer Customer provided sample units
(e.g. desktop, laptop, cellular
devices) - Used by Service
Provider
Customer Customer Customer Service
Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Customer
Desktops/Laptops - Service
Provider provided - Used by
Service Provider staff
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Printers, plotters, multi-function
devices, copiers, scanners Customer Customer Customer 3rd Party Customer Service Provider Customer Customer Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) /
Mobile Data Computer (MDC) Customer Customer Customer Service Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Customer Cellular devices - Used by
Customer Customer Customer Customer 3rd Party Customer Service Provider Customer Customer Cellular devices - Used by Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Schedule 28 – Financial Responsibility Matrix

Own Refresh
Upgrade /
Enhance -
Capital
Improvem
ents
Install,
Move,
Add,
Change
(IMAC)
3rd Party
Maintenan
ce
Contracts
Services Cost of
Spares
Cost for
Disposal
Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Provider Smart phone's / PDAs - Used by
Customer Customer Customer Customer 3rd Party Customer Service Provider Customer Customer Smart phone's / PDAs - Used by
Service Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
All Hardware at Service Provider
Locations other than Customer
provided sample units
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider

2. Financial Responsibility Matrix – Facilities
Financial Responsibility
Customer facilities Customer
Service Provider staff at Customer facilities
Long distance telephone calls Customer financially
responsible for direct cost
related to providing
Services to Customer
Local telephone calls
Use of office space
Consumables
Use of other office equipment

3. Financial Responsibility Matrix – Personnel
Personnel Type*
Salary, Benefits,
Other
Compensation,
adjustments and
related Taxes.

Travel
Training
(Job
specific)
Training
(New skills
required for
Customer
requested
projects)
Severance
Post Service Commencement -
On-boarding of new employees
(e.g. hiring, Service Provider
internal process training,
knowledge transfer (if done in
parallel with existing staff))
Contract Staff - Type 1 Service Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Service Provider Service Provider
Contract Staff - Type 2 Service Provider Customer Service Provider Customer Service Provider Service Provider
Schedule 28 – Financial Responsibility Matrix

Personnel Type*
Salary, Benefits,
Other
Compensation,
adjustments and
related Taxes.

Travel
Training
(Job
specific)
Training
(New skills
required for
Customer
requested
projects)
Severance
Post Service Commencement -
On-boarding of new employees
(e.g. hiring, Service Provider
internal process training,
knowledge transfer (if done in
parallel with existing staff))
Contract Staff - Type 3 Service Provider Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer Service Provider Service Provider
Contract Staff - Type 4 Service Provider Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer Service Provider Service Provider
Contract Staff - Type 5 Service Provider Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer Service Provider Service Provider
Contract Staff - Type 6 Service Provider Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer Service Provider Service Provider
* - Classification of Personnel Type
 Contract Staff - Type 1 – Service Provider personnel providing Services and deployed for more than 3 months from Customer Locations  Contract Staff - Type 2 – Service Provider personnel providing Services and deployed for less than 3 months from Customer Locations  Contract Staff - Type 3 – Service Provider personnel providing Services and deployed for more than 3 months from Service Provider Locations
 Contract Staff - Type 4 – Service Provider personnel providing Services and deployed for less than 3 months from Service Provider Locations
 Contract Staff - Type 5 – Service Provider personnel providing Services and deployed on Long Term Commitment (> 1 Year) or dedicated FTE from Customer Locations
 Contract Staff - Type 6 – Service Provider personnel providing Services and deployed on Long Term Commitment (> 1 Year) or dedicated FTE from Service Provider Location

4. Financial Responsibility Matrix – Software
License Refresh
Upgrade /
Enhance -
Capital
Improvements
Install, Move,
Add, Change
(IMAC)
Services
3rd Party
Maintenance
Contracts
Customer Desktop OS Customer Customer Customer Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer
Customer Desktop
Applications Customer Customer Customer Service Provider Service
Provider Customer
Service Provider internal
employee Desktop OS
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Schedule 28 – Financial Responsibility Matrix

License Refresh
Upgrade /
Enhance -
Capital
Improvements
Install, Move,
Add, Change
(IMAC)
Services
3rd Party
Maintenance
Contracts
Service Provider internal
employee Desktop
Applications
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Server OS Customer Customer Customer Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer
Server based Applications and
applications provided as a
service
Customer Customer Customer Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer
Service Provider provides tools
identified in Schedule 22,
Service Provider Software
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
Customer provided tools
identified in Schedule 19,
Customer Software
Customer Customer Customer Service
Provider
Service
Provider Customer
SCHEDULE 29

CUSTOMER INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
TO

MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
AND

SERVICE PROVIDER
Schedule 29 – Customer Insurance Requirements

Schedule 29
Customer Insurance Requirements

INSURANCE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Without limiting the Service Provider’s indemnification of the City, and prior to commencing any of the Services required under this Agreement, the Service Provider shall purchase and maintain in full force and effect during the period of performance of the Agreement and for thirty-six (36) months following acceptance by the City, at its sole cost and expense, the following insurance policies from insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of California. These policies shall be primary insurance but only to the extent of the liabilities assumed by Service Provider as set forth in the Indemnification Article of this Agreement as to the City of Santa Clara so that any other coverage held by the City shall not contribute to any loss under Service Provider’s insurance. The minimum coverage, provisions and endorsements are as follows:

A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

1. Commercial General Liability Insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01. Policy limits are subject to review, but shall in no event be less than, the following:
$5,000,000 Each Occurrence
$5,000,000 General Aggregate
$5,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate
$5,000,000 Personal Injury

2. Limits may be satisfied in combination with excess/umbrella policies on a following form basis.

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

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

Schedule 29 – Customer Insurance Requirements

C. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

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

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

D. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Service Provider and its employees. Covered services as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per claim and ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in the aggregate. Any coverage containing a deductible or self-retention must first be disclosed to the City Attorney’s Office.

E. CYBER LIABILITY
Cyber Liability Insurance covering claims involving infringement of intellectual property, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with minimum limits of $10,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate.

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

1. Additional Insureds. City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents are hereby added as additional insureds but only to the extent of the liabilities assumed by Service Provider as set forth in the Indemnification Article of this Agreement in respect to liability arising out of Service Provider’s work for City, using Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 20 10 11 85, or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent.

2. Primary and non-contributing. Each insurance policy provided by Service Provider shall contain language or be endorsed to contain wording making it primary insurance but only to the extent of the liabilities assumed by Service Provider as set forth in the Indemnification Article of this Agreement as respects to, and not requiring contribution from, any other insurance which the indemnities may possess, including any self-insurance or self-insured retention they may have. Any other insurance indemnities may possess shall be considered excess Schedule 29 – Customer Insurance Requirements

insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with Service Provider’s insurance.

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

4. Other Endorsements. Other endorsements may be required for policies other than the commercial general liability policy if specified in the description of required insurance set forth in Sections A through E of this Schedule 29, above.

G. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE RELATED PROVISIONS
Service Provider and City agree as follows:

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

2. Service Provider agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Service Provider for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.

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

Schedule 29 – Customer Insurance Requirements

H. EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE
Prior to Effective Date of this Agreement, Service Provider, and its Sub-contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, purchase and maintain not less than the minimum insurance coverage with the endorsements indicated in this Agreement. Such insurance coverage shall be maintained with insurers, and under forms of policies, satisfactory to City however, such satisfactory approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and as described in this Agreement. Service Provider shall file with the City all certificates and endorsements for the required insurance policies for City’s approval as to adequacy of the insurance protection.

I. EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Service Provider or its insurance broker shall provide the required proof of insurance compliance, consisting of Insurance Services Office (ISO) endorsement forms or their equivalent and the ACORD form 25-S certificate of insurance (or its equivalent), evidencing all required coverage shall be delivered to City, or its representative as set forth below, at or prior to execution of this Agreement. In the event of any claim or potential claim and upon City’s reasonable request, Service Provider shall submit to City copies of the actual insurance policies or renewals or replacements. Unless otherwise required by the terms of this Agreement, all certificates, endorsements, coverage verifications and other items required to be delivered to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be mailed to:

EBIX Inc.

City of Santa Clara
Information Technology Department
P.O. Box 100085 – S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John’s Creek, GA 30097
Telephone number: 951-766-2280
Fax number: 770-325-0409
Email address: [email protected]
J. QUALIFYING INSURERS
All of the insurance companies providing insurance for Service Provider shall have, and provide written proof of, an A. M. Best rating of at least A minus 6 (A- VI) or shall be an insurance company of equal financial stability that is approved by the City or its insurance compliance representatives.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-1621 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Delegate Authority to the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement Between the Northern California Power Agency and the Cities of Palo Alto and Santa Clara for Consulting Services Related to Electric Transmission, Power Generation, and Regulatory and Electric Market Design, for a Total Cost Not-to-Exceed $3,287,500 Over a 5-Year Term, of Which $2,630,000 is the Maximum Contribution from the City of Santa Clara

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clara’s Electric Department, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), participates in the California energy market, which is subject to frequent regulatory and market changes implemented by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and other agencies that can have significant impact on customer rates. In order to analyze these changes and to make effective and appropriate comments, the Cities of Santa Clara and Palo Alto jointly contract with the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) to obtain the assistance of industry transmission experts. NCPA contracts with the appropriate industry experts to provide the services.

The Cities of Santa Clara and Palo Alto have been contracting out these services for the last 22 years. The current contract is set to expire on December 31, 2025.

Earlier this year, the NCPA sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to find the appropriate consultant to provide such services. NCPA received one proposal from Flynn Resources Consultant Inc. (Flynn RCI) who was responsive to the request and demonstrated substantial experience and qualifications to provide the necessary services. These services include monitoring the CAISO and PG&E transmission planning activities, analyzing specific cost impacts, meeting participation, coordinating with other parties, and as necessary, preparing formal position submittals to the CAISO, CEC, and other parties on transmission and grid planning issues.

DISCUSSION
The proposed agreement will allow for ongoing representation in forums related to California and Bay Area specific transmission and grid planning. Without this input and assistance, changes in regulations and markets made by the CAISO, CEC and other agencies could have unexpected impacts on SVP’s electric customers and their rates.

After negotiating with Flynn RCI, the NCPA, tentatively agreed to a 5-year term, with a total not to exceed amount of $3,250,000, subject to final approval of the Cities of Santa Clara and Palo Alto.

The NCPA charges an administrative fee for contract administration and oversight, processing invoices from Flynn RCI and billing the Cities of Santa Clara and Palo Alto. The administrative fee will not exceed $37,500 during the 5-year term. SVP’s portion of the agreement is 80% of the total contract amount, with Palo Alto paying the remaining 20%. The 80/20 split is based on electric sales for the Cities of Palo Alto and Santa Clara. SVP’s portion of the total compensation shall not exceed City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1621 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
$2,630,000 for the new 5-year term, or approximately $526,000 annually.

Pursuant to Section 2.105.270(b) of the Santa Clara Code, the City may contract, directly or indirectly with a vendor based on an agreement negotiated by a joint powers agency and which the City is a member.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions being considered do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15378 (b)(5) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total annual cost to SVP for services provided under the proposed agreement is approximately $526,000, for a total contract not-to-exceed amount of $2,630,000 over a five-year term. Sufficient funds are available in the FY 2025/26 Electric Utility Operating Fund. Funding in the out years is subject to budget appropriations and will be incorporated into the budget development process for those years.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Professional Services Agreement between the Northern California Power Agency and the Cities of Palo Alto and Santa Clara for a total not-to -exceed amount of $3,287,500 over the five-year term of the agreement, of which, $2,630,000 is the maximum contribution from the City of Santa Clara, subject to the review and approval as to form by the City Attorney funded by the Electric Utility Fund; and

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to (1) take any actions as necessary to implement and administer the agreement and (2) amend the agreement so long as there is no increase to the maximum compensation or extension of the term, subject to the appropriation of funds and the review and approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Reviewed by: Nico Procos, Director of Silicon Valley Power Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Professional Services Agreement with the Northern California Power Agency City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
1 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY

AND THE CITIES OF PALO ALTO AND SANTA CLARA
(THE "BAY AREA MUNICIPAL TRANSMISSION SERVICES AGREEMENT" OR "BAMx AGREEMENT")
This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the Northern California Power Agency (“NCPA”), a joint powers agency, and the Cities of Palo Alto and Santa Clara (each referred to as a "Contracting Member" and jointly referred to as “Contracting Members” or "BAMx Participants"). NCPA and the Contracting Members are together sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as “the Parties.” This Agreement is made as of January 1, 2026 (the “Effective Date”) in Roseville, California.

Section 1. RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into based on the following facts, among others:

1.1 NCPA is a public agency created by a joint powers agreement established under California law for the purpose of assisting its members in the efficient use of their common powers.

1.2 Contracting Members are engaged in, among other things, transmitting and distributing electric power within their respective corporate limits. Contracting Members are also each a member of NCPA. Contracting Members jointly desire that NCPA provide Contracting Members with the Services described in this Agreement.

1.3 Article III, section 3 of the “Amended and Restated Northern California Power Agency Joint Powers Agreement” (as amended and effective January 1, 2008) (hereinafter “JPA”) entitled “Powers and Functions” provides that "none of the debts, liabilities or obligations of NCPA shall be the debts, liabilities or obligations of any of the members of NCPA unless assumed in a particular case by resolution of the governing body of the member to be charged." Notwithstanding the foregoing, Article V, section 2 of the JPA entitled “General Provisions” provides that “[t]he governing Commission of NCPA is authorized to procure public liability and other insurance as it deems advisable to protect NCPA and each of the parties hereto, charging the cost thereof to the operating costs of NCPA.”

1.4 Contracting Members desire to secure NCPA’s Services under this Agreement in a manner that balances their interests and the interests of other NCPA Members with the ongoing financial viability and professional responsibilities of NCPA. Accordingly, Contracting Members desire to secure NCPA’s Services under this Agreement by accepting a limited insurance based recourse against NCPA, with the option of procuring additional insurance at Contracting Members' sole expense. By so doing, the Parties thereby ensure that NCPA will substantially limit its risk for the provision of such Services and allocates risks back to the Contracting Members in the event NCPA is not adequately insured.
2 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

1.5 The Parties have previously entered into a professional services agreement for this same purpose dated as of January 1, 2021 (“the Prior Agreement”) the term of which ends on December 31, 2025.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth, NCPA and Contracting Members agree as follows:

Section 2. DEFINITIONS
Whenever used in this Agreement with initial capitalization, these terms shall have the following meanings as applicable, whether in the singular or plural:

2.1 “Consultant” shall mean Flynn Resource Consultants Inc.

2.2 “Consulting Services Agreement” shall mean the Consulting Services Agreement Between the Northern California Power Agency and Flynn Resource Consultants Inc., dated as of January 1, 2026, as such may be amended from time to time.

2.3 “Good Utility Practice” shall mean any of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electric utility industry during the relevant time period, or any of the practices, methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result of the lowest reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety and expedition and the requirements of the Northern American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC") or Western Electric Coordinating Council ("WECC") Good Utility Practice is not intended to be limited to the optimum practice, method, or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather to be acceptable practices, methods, or acts generally accepted in the region.

2.4 “NCPA Members” shall mean the signatories to the JPA or those agencies which have executed an Associate Member Agreement with NCPA.

2.5 “Stranded Costs” shall mean all costs incurred by NCPA in providing Services to Contracting Members under this Agreement that could not reasonably be avoided by NCPA from the date it receives a written Notice of Termination. Such costs may include, but not be limited to, salary and employment costs, rent, utilities, or contracts incurred to provide Services under this Agreement. In this regard, Contracting Members acknowledge that NCPA will be entering into professional services agreements with third persons under the terms of this Agreement, and that sums owing to such third persons may become Stranded Costs upon termination of this Agreement.

2.6 “Uncontrollable Forces” shall mean any act of God, labor disturbance, act of the public enemy, war, insurrection, riot, fire, storm, flood, earthquake, explosion, any curtailment, order, regulation or restriction imposed by governmental, military or lawfully established civilian authorities or any other cause beyond the reasonable control which could not be avoided through the exercise of Good Utility Practice.
3 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002
Section 3. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED; AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES; STANDARD

OF PERFORMANCE

3.1 This Agreement is entered into by the Parties in order for NCPA to provide services to Contracting Members for the services described in Exhibit A hereto (“Services”). The Services do not include supervision of the performance of any of the third persons with whom contracts are entered into; such supervision shall be provided by the Contracting Members.

3.2 The following are the authorized representatives of the Parties (“Authorized Representatives”) for contract administration purposes under this Agreement:

NCPA:

Tony Zimmer, [email protected]
Assistant General Manager
Northern California Power Agency
651 Commerce Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
916-781-4227
Fax 916-783-7693
PALO ALTO:

Lena Perkins, [email protected]
Emerging Technologies Program Manager
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-329-2539
Fax: 650-326-1507
SANTA CLARA:

Paulo Apolinario, [email protected]
Electric Division Manager
881 Martin Ave.

Santa Clara, CA 95050
408-615-6630
No Authorized Representative is authorized to amend any provision of this Agreement except in accordance with Section 12.16.

3.3 Standard of Performance. NCPA will perform the Services using that level of skill and attention reasonably required to complete the Services in a competent and timely manner.

3.4 Assignment of Personnel. NCPA shall assign only competent personnel to perform Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that Contracting Members, in their sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, jointly desire the reassignment of any such persons, NCPA shall, immediately upon receiving notice from each Contracting Member of such desire of the Contracting Members, reassign such person or persons. 4 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

3.5 Time. NCPA shall devote such time to the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 3.3, above and to satisfy NCPA’s obligations hereunder.

Section 4. TERM AND TERMINATION

4.1 Authorization to Perform Services. NCPA is not authorized to perform any Services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until its receipt of a written resolution and/or other appropriate/applicable authorization from each Contracting Member’s governing body confirming each Contracting Member’s authority to enter into this Agreement and confirming that each Contracting Member has allocated funds for and approved contract payments to NCPA under this Agreement.

4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on December 31, 2030.

4.3 Early Termination and Stranded Costs. This Agreement may be terminated by either NCPA or by the Contracting Members, upon 30 days written notice to all other Parties (“Notice of Termination”). Provided, however, that a Notice of Termination on behalf of the Contracting Members shall be executed by each Contracting Member to be effective.

In the event of an early termination, Contracting Members shall pay NCPA for all fees and costs required under this Agreement through the effective date of their Notice of Termination plus all Stranded Costs. Upon payment of the above amounts, no Parties shall have any further obligations under this Agreement except as otherwise set forth in Section 5.7 regarding the survival of defense and indemnity obligations.

Section 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE

5.1 Limitation of NCPA’s Liability.

5.1.1 Except as provided in this section 5.1, NCPA shall not at any time be liable for any injury or damage occurring to Contracting Members or any other person or property from any cause whatsoever arising out of this Agreement.

5.1.2 The provisions of section 5.1.1 shall not apply where the injury or damage occurring to Contracting Members is caused by the negligence of NCPA or of any employee, agent or contractor of NCPA; provided that any liability under this subsection is limited to the extent of the actual coverage and coverage limits of the NCPA insurance policies described in this Section 5.

5.1.3 Notwithstanding Section 5.1.2 above, the Contracting Members agree to reimburse NCPA, in a timely manner, for all deductibles and/or self-insured retentions payable for any claim, liability or damage arising out of this Agreement.

5.2 Indemnification of NCPA. Except as specified in Section 5.1.2 above, Contracting Members shall, at their sole cost and expense, indemnify and hold harmless NCPA and all associated, affiliated, allied, member and subsidiary entities of NCPA, now existing or hereinafter 5 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002
created, and their respective officers, boards, commissions, employees, agents, attorneys, and contractors (hereinafter referred to as “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all liability, obligation, damages, penalties, claims, liens, costs, charges, losses and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, expert witnesses and consultants), which may be imposed upon, incurred by or be asserted against the Indemnitees arising out of this Agreement.

5.3 Defense of Indemnitees. In the event any action or proceeding shall be brought against the Indemnitees by reason of any matter for which the Indemnitees are indemnified hereunder, Contracting Members shall, upon reasonable prior written notice from any of the Indemnitees, at Contracting Members' sole cost and expense, resist and defend the same with legal counsel mutually selected by Indemnitee and the Contracting Members, unless mutual selection of counsel is expressly prohibited by an applicable insurance policy; provided however, that neither Indemnitee nor Contracting Members shall admit liability in any such matter or on behalf of the other without express written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, nor enter into any compromise or settlement of any claim for which Indemnitees are indemnified hereunder without prior express written consent. The Contracting Members' duty to defend shall begin upon receipt of a written notice identifying with specificity the allegations that give rise to this duty to defend.

5.4 Notice. The Parties shall give each other prompt notice of the making of any claim or the commencement of any action, suit or other proceeding covered by the provisions of this Section 5.

5.5 Insurance. During the term of the Agreement and prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, NCPA shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, in full force and effect, and at its sole cost and expense, the types and limits of insurance as are annually approved by the governing Commission of NCPA. NCPA warrants and represents that the types of insurance and coverage limits that are approved by the governing Commission of NCPA are in full force and effect and shall remain so during the term of this Agreement unless NCPA gives prior written notification (of not less than 15 days) of modification, cancellation or rescission of such coverage.

To the extent that NCPA uses a Consultant to perform the Services , NCPA shall cause the Consultant to name the Contracting Members as Additional Insured and ensure Contractor maintain its insurance in full force and effect through the term of this Agreement.

5.6 Contracting Members' Acknowledgment of Option to Secure Additional Insurance.

The Contracting Members acknowledge that there are limitations on NCPA’s liability to the Contracting Members under this Section 5 and that the Contracting Members may need to purchase additional insurance of their own to cover the additional risks and the potential additional liabilities they are assuming under this Agreement. Contracting Members agree that they will, with respect to any additional insurance they obtain or which is otherwise available to Contracting Members, cause their insurers to issue an endorsement providing a waiver of subrogation rights as to Indemnitees.

5.7 Survival of Obligations. The defense and indemnity obligations of Section 5 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
6 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002
Section 6. COMPENSATION

6.1 Charges for Services. Charges for the Services and those services performed by Consultant shall be billed separately to each Contracting Member in accordance with Exhibit B of this Agreement.

6.2 Security Deposit. Contracting Members shall each maintain on deposit in its General Operating Reserve Account held at NCPA the sum of Zero Dollars ($0) as security to NCPA for liabilities NCPA could incur under this Agreement. Contracting Members hereby authorize NCPA to reserve and commit this sum in its General Operating Reserve Account for the payment of the aforementioned liabilities should same become necessary. Interest on monies held by NCPA pursuant to this section shall be credited in accordance with the then standard practices of NCPA relating to the General Operating Reserve Account.

Section 7. BILLING AND PAYMENT

7.1 Invoices. NCPA shall submit invoices to Contracting Members, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, for Services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date.

7.2 Monthly Payment. Contracting Members shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for Services performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred.

Contracting Members shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay NCPA. Any amount due on a day other than a business day, i.e., any day except a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal Reserve Bank holiday, may be paid on the following business day.

If all or any portion of a bill is disputed by Contracting Members, the entire amount of the bill shall be paid when due, and NCPA’s Authorized Representative shall be concurrently provided written notice of the disputed amount and the basis for the dispute. NCPA shall reimburse any amount determined to have been incorrectly billed, within ten (10) days after such determination.

Amounts which are not paid when due shall bear interest computed on a daily basis until paid at the lesser of (i) the per annum prime rate (or reference rate) of the Bank of America NT & SA, or its successor, then in effect, plus two per cent (2%) or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by law. The provisions of this Section 7 shall survive expiration of this Agreement until satisfied.

7.3 Contracting Members shall pay for the Services and those services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Contracting Members shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by NCPA in rendering Services pursuant to this Agreement or for those services performed by Consultant. Contracting Members shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.

In no event shall NCPA submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment in accordance with this Agreement.
7 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

7.4 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the following fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B.

7.5 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are specified in Exhibit B.

Expenses not listed in Exhibit B are not chargeable to Contracting Members. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.

7.6 Payment of Taxes. NCPA is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

7.7 Payment upon Termination. In the event that Contracting Members or NCPA terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 4, Contracting Members shall compensate the NCPA for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written Notice of Termination. NCPA shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date.

7.8 Authorization to Perform Services. NCPA is not authorized to perform any Services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from each of the Contracting Members’ Authorized Representative following receipt of the required approvals under the terms of this Agreement.

7.9 The addresses of Contracting Members to which invoices shall be sent is:

Lena Perkins
Emerging Technologies Program Manager
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
650-329-2539
Fax: 650-326-1507
Paulo Apolinario
City of Santa Clara
Attn: Electric Department
1500 Warburton Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
408-615-6630
Section 8. STATUS OF NCPA; FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

8.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, NCPA shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of Contracting Members. Contracting Members shall have the right to control NCPA only insofar as the results of NCPA's Services 8 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002
rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Section 3.4; however, otherwise Contracting Members shall not have the right to control the means by which NCPA accomplishes Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other agency, state, local or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, NCPA and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing Services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by Contracting Members, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of Contracting Member and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by Contracting Members for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

8.2 Facilities and Equipment. The facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement shall be provided as follows: None.

Section 9. UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES

9.1 Obligations of the Parties, other than those to pay money when due, shall be excused for so long as and to the extent that failure to perform such obligations is due to an Uncontrollable Force; provided, however, that if either Party is unable to perform due to an Uncontrollable Force, such Party shall exercise due diligence to remove such inability with reasonable dispatch. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring a Party to settle any strike, lockout, or labor dispute in which it may be involved, or to accept any permit, certificate, contract, or any other service agreement or authorization necessary for the performance of this Agreement which contains terms and conditions which a Party determines in its good faith judgment are unduly burdensome or otherwise unacceptable.

9.2 Each Party shall notify the other promptly, by telephone to the other Party’s operating personnel and Authorized Representative identified in Section 3.2, upon becoming aware of any Uncontrollable Force which may adversely affect the performance under this Agreement. A Party shall additionally provide written notice in accordance with Section 12.8 to the other Party within 24 hours after providing. Each Party shall notify the other promptly, when an Uncontrollable Force has been remedied or no longer exists.

Section 10. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

10.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement, without regard for the choice of law doctrine.

10.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. NCPA and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the Services hereunder.

10.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, NCPA and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which Contracting Member is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
9 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

10.4 Licenses and Permits. NCPA represents and warrants to Contracting Member that NCPA and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required to practice their respective professions.

NCPA represents and warrants to Contracting Member that NCPA and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions.

10.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. NCPA shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by NCPA under this Agreement. NCPA shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of NCPA thereby.

Section 11. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.

11.1 Records Created as Part of NCPA’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that NCPA prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the Contracting Members. NCPA hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the Contracting Members upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the Contracting Members and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. Contracting Members and NCPA agree that, until final approval by Contracting Members, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both Parties, except as may otherwise be required by applicable law.

11.2 NCPA’s Books and Records. NCPA shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the Contracting Members under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the NCPA to this Agreement.

11.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 11.2 of this Agreement requires NCPA to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the Contracting Member. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of any Contracting Member or as part of any audit of any of the Contracting Members, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. 10 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

11.4 Confidential Information and Disclosure. During the term of this Agreement, any Party (“Disclosing Party”) may disclose confidential, proprietary or trade secret information (the “Information”), to another Party (“Receiving Party”). All such Information made available in a tangible medium of expression (such as, without limitation, on paper or by means of magnetic tapes, magnetic disks or other computer media) shall be marked in a prominent location to indicate that it is the confidential, proprietary and trade secret information of Disclosing Party at the time of disclosure to Receiving Party. Receiving Party shall hold Disclosing Party’s Information in confidence and shall take all reasonable steps to prevent any unauthorized possession, use, copying, transfer or disclosure of such Information. Receiving Party shall not attempt to reverse engineer or in any manner create any product or information which is similar in appearance to or based on the Information provided by Disclosing Party. Receiving Party shall not disclose Disclosing Party’s Information to any person other than Receiving Party’s employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors who have a need to know in connection with this Agreement.

Receiving Party’s confidentiality obligations hereunder shall not apply to any portion of Disclosing Party’s Information which:
(a) Has become a matter of public knowledge other than through an act or omission of Receiving Party;
(b) Has been made known to Receiving Party by a third party in accordance with such third party’s legal rights without any restriction on disclosure; (c) Was in the possession of Receiving Party prior to the disclosure of such Information by Disclosing Party and was not acquired directly or indirectly from the other Party or any person or entity in a relationship of trust and confidence with the other Party with respect to such Information;
(d) Receiving Party is required by law to disclose; or
(e) Has been independently developed by Receiving Party from information not defined as "Information" in this Agreement, as evidenced by Receiving Party's written records.

Receiving Party shall return or destroy Disclosing Party’s Information (including all copies thereof) to Disclosing Party promptly upon the earliest of any termination of this Agreement or the Disclosing Party’s written request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Receiving Party may retain one copy of such Information solely for archival purposes, subject to the confidentiality provisions of this Agreement. The parties understand that each Party is a public entity and is subject to the laws that may compel either to disclose information about the other’s business.

Section 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

12.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a Party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that Party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.

12.2 Venue. In the event that either Party brings any action against the other under this 11 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002 Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Placer or in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

12.3 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is rendered invalid or unenforceable by federal or state statute or regulation, but the remaining portions of the Agreement can be enforced without failure of material consideration to any Party, then the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. To that end, this Agreement is declared to be severable. Provided, however, that in the event any provision is declared to be invalid, void or unenforceable, any Party may terminate this Agreement upon 10 days written notice given within five (5) days of receipt of notice of final entry of judgment.

12.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.

12.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties.

12.6 Use of Recycled Products. NCPA shall endeavor to prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.

12.7 Conflict of Interest. NCPA shall not employ any Contracting Members' official or employee in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of Contracting Member shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.

12.8 Notices. Unless this Agreement requires otherwise, any notice, demand or request provided for in this Agreement, or served, given or made shall become effective when delivered in person, or sent by registered or certified first class mail, to the persons specified below:

NCPA:

Tony Zimmer
Assistant General Manager – Power Management
Northern California Power Agency
651 Commerce Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
With a copy to:

Jane Luckhardt – General Counsel
Northern California Power Agency
651 Commerce Drive,
Roseville, CA 95678
12 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002 PALO ALTO:

Alan Kurotori
Director of Utilities
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to:

Amy Bartell, Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
c/o City Attorney’s office
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
SANTA CLARA:

Nico Procos, Acting Chief Electric Utility Officer
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95050
With a copy to:

Glen Googins, City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Whenever it is required, permitted, or desired in this Agreement that written notice or demand be given by any Party to any other Party, such notice or demand may be either personally served or sent by United States Mail, or facsimile. Notice shall be deemed to have been given when personally served, when deposited in the United States Mail, certified or registered with postage prepaid and properly addressed, or when transmitted by facsimile provided however, notices delivered by facsimile shall only be effective if delivered during regular business hours on a day that is considered a regular business day for NCPA by the involved Parties.

12.9 Integration; Incorporation. This Agreement, including all the Exhibits attached hereto, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contracting Members and NCPA relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. All Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated by reference herein.

12.10 Dispute Resolution. If any dispute arises between the Parties that cannot be settled after engaging in good faith negotiations, Contracting Members and NCPA agree to resolve the dispute in accordance with the following:

12.10.1 Each Party shall designate a senior management or executive level representative to negotiate any dispute;
13 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

12.10.2 The representatives shall attempt, through good faith negotiations, to resolve the dispute by any means within their authority.

12.10.3 If the issue remains unresolved after sixty (60) days of good faith negotiations, despite having used their best efforts to do so, either Party may pursue whatever other remedies may be available to it.

12.10.4 This informal resolution process is not intended to nor shall be construed to change the time periods for filing a claim or action specified by Government Code § 900, et seq.

12.11 Other Agreements. This Agreement is not intended to modify or change any other agreement between any of the Parties, individually or collectively. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Agreement does not amend or extend the Prior Agreement.

12.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.

12.13 Obligations of Contracting Members Joint and Several; No Joint Venture. The duties, obligations and liabilities of the Contracting Members, including the obligations to make payments to NCPA, are intended to be joint and several. Provided that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create an association, trust, partnership or joint venture or to impose a trust or partnership duty, obligation or liability on or with regard to the Contracting Members.

12.14 Effect of Section Headings. Section headings and subheadings appearing in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be construed as interpretation of text.

12.15 Authority of Signatories. The signatories hereby represent that they have been appropriately authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom they sign.

12.16 Amendments. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties following each Party’s receipt of written resolution/authorization from their governing bodies, which resolutions/authorizations shall be condition precedents to any amendments of this Agreement and shall be attached as exhibits to this Agreement.
14 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002 The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY
________________________________
RANDY S. HOWARD, General Manager
Attest:
________________________________
Assistant Secretary of the Commission
Approved as to Form:
________________________________
General Counsel
CONTRACTING MEMBERS:

CITY OF PALO ALTO Approved as to Form:

By: ____________________________ By:_______________________________ City Attorney
Its:_____________________________
CITY OF SANTA CLARA Approved as to Form
By: ____________________________ By:_______________________________ City Attorney
Its:_____________________________
15 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

EXHIBIT A

SERVICES
NCPA will enter into the Consulting Services Agreement on behalf of the Contracting Members, so that NCPA may assist the Contracting Members in securing access to consulting services related to electric transmission, power generation, regulatory and electric market design issues affecting the Contracting Members. NCPA’s primary role as to the Services provided under this Agreement is to act as contract administrator and billing agent on behalf of the Contracting Members, as further described herein.

For the purpose of administering Services provided under this Agreement, each Contracting Member shall be represented by its Authorized Representative. During the term of this Agreement, the Authorized Representative for each Contracting Member is responsible for coordinating all requests for Services made to Consultant, and shall manage all related activities as further described herein.

A Contracting Member may designate a new or alternative Authorized Representative by providing written notice of such designation to NCPA; such action shall not be treated as an amendment to this Agreement.

The Contracting Members and Consultant intend to pursue the activities listed below during the term of this Agreement, pursuant to the Consulting Services Agreement. Such activities will include monitoring, meeting participation, coordinating with affected or other participating parties, and, as necessary, preparing and submitting formal position submittals. The Services provided in accordance with this Agreement and the Consulting Services Agreement include but are not limited to the following:

1. Grid Planning Activities:
a. CAISO Regionalization Process, Transmission Access Charge, Governance and Resource Adequacy;
i. Coordination with the California Municipal Utilities Association and Northern California Power Agency on these activities
b. CAISO/PG&E annual transmission expansion planning process; c. Support or oppose specific transmission additions;
d. Greater Bay Area long term studies;
e. CAISO local capacity technical study process;
f. Other regional and sub-regional transmission planning activities; g. CAISO Tariff and BPM Change Management Process;
h. Generator Interconnection Procedure;
i. Transmission cost minimization;
j. Impacts due to potential generation retirements;
k. Transmission for renewables deliverability issues; and l. Tracy to Bay development activites;

2. CPUC and CEC transmission matters:
a. Integrated Energy Policy Report;
16 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002 b. IRP Proceeding;
c. IOU Transmission Review Process;
d. Resource adequacy issues;
e. Renewable Portfolio Standard issues;
f. Long Term Procurement issues;
g. Approval of CPCNs and PTCs for new transmission lines; and h. Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI 2.0).

3. CAISO Market Issues:
a. CAISO markets proceedings and implementation matters; b. Resource Adequacy / Local Capacity/ Flexible Capacity/ Deliverability; c. LMP congestion and losses incidence and impacts; and d. Regionalization and New Participating Transmission Owner Issues.

4. Communicate Regularly with Contracting Members:
a. Client meetings, telephone conferences and written summaries of activities on key issues.

NCPA will accept invoices from Consultant and transmit them to each Contracting Members’ Authorized Representative, or their designee, for their review, and if acceptable, the Contracting Members’ Authorized Representative will direct payment by NCPA. Such payment direction shall be provided by each Contracting Members’ Authorized Representative, in writing. NCPA will prepare invoices indicating the share of Consultant's costs to be paid by each Contracting Member along with the appropriate charges by NCPA for its services; however, as provided in the Agreement, each Contracting Member is jointly and severally liable for the entirety of any amounts billed under this Agreement. NCPA will then pay Consultant utilizing Contracting Members' funds.

Contracting Members will be solely responsible for payment of the Consultant’s invoices, as well as determining whether or not the Services have been satisfactorily performed. The Services under this Agreement by NCPA to Contracting Members are limited to contract administration and billing/payment functions.
17 BAMx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PM-AGY-2025-002

EXHIBIT B

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND HOURLY FEES
Compensation for all Services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including hourly fees and expenses, paid to Consultant for consulting services shall not exceed Three Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,250,000.00) and all billing services fees paid to NCPA shall not exceed Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500) during the Term of the Agreement, or Six Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($657,500.00) plus any remaining unused funds from prior years of the Agreement during each annual period of the Term of the Agreement. (For example, if during the first year the total payment to Consultant is $600,000, the $50,000 not expended in the first year can be added to the second year for a total not to exceed amount of $700,000 for the second year.) The compensation schedule for the Services are as follows:

1. Monthly charges for Services provided by NCPA for billing and contract preparation under this Agreement shall be Six Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($625.00) per month. Such charges will be allocated to the Contracting Members in accordance with the allocation percentages listed in Table 1 of this Exhibit B.

2. Compensation paid to Consultant for all services as described in the Consulting Services Agreement , including hourly fees and expenses, shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 2 of that agreement. The compensation schedule and hourly fees for Services rendered by Consultant to Contracting Members are set forth in Exhibit B of the Consulting Services Agreement. Monthly Charges invoiced by Consultant to NCPA for services (described in the Consulting Services Agreement) provided to the Contracting Membersshall be allocated to the Contracting Members in accordance with the allocation percentages listed in Table 1 of this Exhibit B.

TABLE 1

ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES
Contracting
Member
Allocation
Percentage
City of Palo Alto 20.0%
City of Santa Clara 80.0%
Total 100.0%
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-1575 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on Amendment No. 9 to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement and Amendment No. 7 to the Amended and Restated License Agreement with Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley for an Affordable Homeownership Development Project at 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard to Extend the Agreements for an Additional One Year.

BACKGROUND
The City selected Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley (Developer or HHEBSV) in 2018 through a competitive process as the developer for a City-owned affordable housing site at 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard. The City is working with the Developer through an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) for the development of a family-oriented, affordable homeownership development.

However, due to design challenges, limited funding sources, and interest rate volatility, the Developer has been unable to secure all of the necessary funding for the Project, and the City and the Developer have not reached an agreement on the terms for a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) as contemplated in the ENA. Therefore, staff is requesting a one-year extension of the ENA to allow the Developer more time to secure funding and for staff to prepare a DDA and Amendment No. 7 to the Amended and Restated License Agreement (License). The current ENA and License expire December 30, 2025.

The State, through the CalHome program, has committed to fund a portion of the project. The developer is working on additional funds through a possible 2026 state housing bond which could supply new affordable housing funds to the County, federal grants, and any remaining opportunities to fully fund the project. The developer is working in good faith to secure funds, and therefore staff is recommending the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement be extended until December 2026.

The Property is currently a vacant 0.7-acre site and was previously developed with a City Fire Station, which was demolished in 2010. An 80-foot PG&E easement containing transmission lines supported on top of 100-foot-tall PG&E lattice towers is located along the Property’s eastern edge.

Surrounding land uses include light industrial buildings to the south, single-family residences to the east and north, and Montague Park to the west on the opposite side of De La Cruz Boulevard.

Golden State Baptist College is located to the southwest of the project site, also fronting on De La Cruz Boulevard, adjacent to Montague Park. The site is also within close proximity to Montague Elementary School.

Proposed Project
The proposed project is the construction of 15 new units (previously 13 units) of affordable housing at the site, available to a diverse range of mixed-income families earning between 50 percent (previously 60 percent) and 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The units would be developed as a mix of townhomes and flats, using a cohesive design that maximizes cost efficiencies City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1575 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
while providing homes that are attractive, energy efficient, and durable. The conceptual site plan is intended to maximize the number of affordable homes while strategically addressing various site constraints, including positioning the new homes to minimally impact the adjacent property owners and provide a transition to the industrial park to the south.

Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA)
On April 9, 2019, the City Council approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the Developer for the site (Attachment 1). The ENA provided an initial negotiating period of 18 months, commencing on the date the Agreement was fully executed, which could be extended for two additional periods of six months each by the City Manager upon presentation of a written request from the Developer, together with a schedule of tasks to be accomplished during the additional period. As allowed under the ENA, the City Manager previously granted two six-month extensions for the ENA (Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2) on December 14, 2020, and July 12, 2021, respectively.

Since that time, four additional six-month extensions were signed extending the ENA until December 30, 2023. Because the ENA was set to expire on December 31, 2023, and project financing was not yet secured, the City agreed to extend the ENA through December 30, 2024, with an additional twelve-month extension option through December 30, 2025.

DISCUSSION
This project has required multiple extensions to address design challenges, secure entitlements, and to close the funding gap. The funding gap as of November 2025 is $4,000,000. The project continues to make progress and received full entitlements at a Development Review Hearing (DRH) on February 1, 2023. It is important to note that affordable homeownership projects cannot access tax credit equity or tax-exempt bond financing, which are available to rental projects. As a result, these projects are more sensitive to interest rate fluctuations, and recent interest rate increases have significantly impacted feasibility.

The CalHome Program provides grants to local public agencies and nonprofit corporations to enable low- and very low-income households to become or remain homeowners. In November 2025, Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley received notice of a conditional $2.6M award from the State Housing and Community Development department. This award reduces the remaining capital stack for the project and the developer hopes to source the remaining project funding requirements with the next 12-24 months. The funding gap since receipt of this conditional award is $4,000,000.

The Developer started reaching out to the County Office of Supportive Housing for Measure A funding once entitlements were approved for this project but were repeatedly delayed taking the project up to the Board of Supervisors while the County addressed other funding applications.

Ultimately, in late 2024, the Developer was informed by the County that there were no more funds available from the County, and a potential state bond measure in 2026 was the best chance for accessing County funding.

Recently, the Developer also reached out to the federal government attempting to source a Community Project Funding (CPF) grant for this project, but they were denied access to the CPF program due to Congress not passing a new budget. The Developer continues to pursue alternate funding sources, including advocating for a new multi-county bond measure on the 2026 ballot and they remain in discussions regarding potential alternate federal funding methods. The developer is also active in lobbying the State to fund additional affordable homeownership programs.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1575 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Once additional funds are secured, a senior construction lender will be able to complete underwriting and issue a commitment for a senior construction loan. That loan would be paired with a permanent take-out loan, which will repay the construction loan as the homes are sold. The feasibility of the project will depend on prevailing interest rates at the time of the loan commitment. When both the construction and permanent loan commitments are in place, City staff can present a DDA to the City Council for consideration. However, the exact timing for these commitments remains uncertain due to interest rate fluctuations. The Developer is currently targeting a financing closing in late 2027.

Staff recommends extending the ENA for an additional one year until December 2026. This extension will provide the Developer additional time to secure funding commitments in a climate of scarce affordable housing subsidies and to allow time for staff to prepare a DDA for Council consideration.

The amendment to the ENA allows the City to terminate the ENA at any time during the extended term if the City determines that the Developer is not making sufficient progress on securing the necessary additional funds or that the project is financially infeasible.

Staff also recommends amending the License Agreement with the Developer to align with the ENA extension. The License Agreement provides temporary right of access and sets terms around access to the property for activities related to due diligence, such as conducting property surveys, geotechnical, environmental, and utility studies. The License Agreement would extend access through the proposed extension to the ENA term.

Implementation of the Developer’s proposal for 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard would achieve the City’s objective for the development of a mix of affordable housing project types throughout the City, and provide a relatively unique-small scale, family-oriented development. As proposed, the project achieves many of the goals and objectives of the City’s Request for Proposals for the property, including alignment with community interest in terms of the development program and City standards for financing and affordability. The Developer was also selected based on their well-established history in the production of affordable housing.

Conclusion
Staff is recommending the City Council approve Amendment No. 9 to the ENA extending the negotiating period under the ENA by one (1) year and Amendment No. 7 to the Amended and Restated License Agreement with Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley to allow more time to secure funding and for staff to prepare a DDA for the City Council’s consideration within the next year. The proposed amendments are included as Attachments 3 and 4.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City for these agreement amendments other than administrative time and expense.

COORDINATION
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1575 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 9 to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), and Amendment No. 7 to the Amended and Restated License Agreement with Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley for the Development of 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard extending the term of each agreement by one (1) year, in final forms approved by the City Attorney.

Reviewed by: Afshan Hamid, Director of Community Development Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Original Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with HHEBSV

2. Original License Agreement with HHEBSV

3. Draft Amendment 9 to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with HHEBSV

4. Draft Amendment 7 to License Agreement with HHEBSV
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™

EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS AGREEMENT
(APN 101-15-049)
This Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (this "Agreement") is entered into as of this M~\I qt]::. , 2019 by and between the City of Santa Clara (the "City") and Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley (the "Developer"). City and Developer may be referred to individually as a "Patiy" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."

RECITALS
A The City is the owner of a .69-acre parcel of real property in the City of Santa Clara located at 3575 De La Cmz Boulevard (APN 101-15-049), as shown on the map attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property").

B. After redevelopment agencies (RDA) were dissolved on Febmary 1, 2012, the City, as Housing Successor to the dissolved RDA, was designated to assume all housing assets (including land) of the fotmer redevelopment agency and these assets were placed into a Housing Successor Fund. The Housing Successor must initiate development activities on any land that it obtained from the former RDA consistent with the intent to provide housing that is 100% affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income.

C. On June 13, 2018, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued for the development of Property. On January 15, 2019, City Council noted and filed City staffs recommendation of Developer for development of the site and directed staff to draft an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement for Council consideration.

D. The Developer has proposed to develop the Property with 13 units of affordable ownership housing, including mixed-income townhomes and flats (the "Project"). The entire project is proposed to be affordable to households with income between 60% and 120% of Area Median Income (AMI).

E. The City is interested in exploring the feasibility of the Project and has selected the Developer as a potential developer of the Project. The City would convey fee title ownership of the Property through a grant deed and is considering offering a maximum subsidy of $100,000 per affordable housing unit to facilitate Project financing.

F. The Property is currently zoned as Public/Quasi-Public (B). The land is designated as Very Low Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use diagram. Redevelopment of the Property for new housing will subsequently require City approval, including City Council, Planning Commission approvals of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Architectural Review and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and potentially National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.

G. The development of this Project will allow the City to meet its obligations as Housing Successor to provide low- and moderate-income housing on the Property and meet the -1-
deadline required by the State of California to commence development of the site within five years after the Department of Finance confirmed the Property as a housing asset.

H. The Parties intend to enter into this Agreement to establish procedures and standards for the negotiation by the City and the Developer of a Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") pursuant to which the Developer will conduct specified development activities related to the Property. The Pmties further intend that this Agreement in itself will not grant the Developer the right to develop the Project, nor will it obligate the Developer to any activities or costs to develop the Project, except for the preliminary analysis and negotiations contemplated by this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
The Parties mutually agree as follows:

EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS RIGHT

1. Good Faith Negotiations. The City and the Developer shall negotiate diligently and in good faith, during the Negotiating Period described in Section 2, the terms of a DDA for the development of the Project on the Prope1ty. During the Negotiating Period, the Pmties shall use good faith eff01ts to accomplish the respective tasks outlined herein in Exhibit B to facilitate the negotiation of a mutually satisfactory DDA.

Among the issues to be addressed in the negotiations are the physical and land title conditions of the Property and remediation of any adverse conditions, the development schedule for the Project, and financing of the Project.

2. Negotiating Period. The negotiating period (the "Negotiating Period") under this Agreement shall be eighteen (18) months, commencing on the date this Agreement is fully executed, which may be extended for a period of an additional two periods of six ( 6) months each upon presentation of a written request from the Developer together with a schedule of tasks to be accomplished during the additional period. Granting of such extension(s) shall be at the discretion of the City Manager and shall only be effective upon the execution of an amendment to the Agreement.

If a DDA has not been executed by the City and the Developer by the expiration of the Negotiating Period, then this Agreement shall terminate and neither Party shall have any fu1ther rights or obligations under this Agreement, except as set forth in Section 4 and Section 11. If a DDA is executed by the City and the Developer then, upon such execution, this Agreement shall te1minate, and all rights and obligations of the Parties shall be as set forth in the executed DDA.

3. Exclusive Negotiations. During the Negotiating Period, the City shall not negotiate with any individual, organization, or entity, other than the Developer, regarding the sale or development of the Prope1ty or any po1tion thereof or solicit or entertain bids or proposals to do so.

4. City Consultant Costs Deposit. The Developer acknowledges that the City shall expend resources in the negotiation of the DDA and perf01mance of the tasks provided in -2-
Exhibit B. In order for this Agreement to remain in effect, the Developer and the City shall agree on an amount that the Developer shall submit to the City as a good faith and initial third-pa1iy consultant costs deposit, the sum of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND Dollars ($25,000) (the "Deposit") to be paid within thirty (30) days following execution of this Agreement by the City and the Developer. The Deposit shall be provided in the form of a check made to the order of the City and be placed in a separate City deposit account. Any interest earned on the Deposit and any subsequent deposits shall be added to the total Deposit amount and may be used in accordance with this Agreement.

The City shall have no obligation to begin the negotiation of the DDA or to retain thirdpmiy consultants until the Developer delivers the Deposit to the City. For the period of six (6) months following the date of the Agreement ("Due Diligence Period"), the Deposit shall be fully refundable, except for any costs incurred by the City as described below.

The City may use the Deposit to pay for the City's third-pmiy consultant costs and expenses in negotiating and preparing the DDA ( collectively, the "Transaction Documents"). Such costs may include but are not limited to reasonable fees and services of third-party consultants and attorneys, selected by the City at its sole discretion, relating to the Project and the preparation of the Transaction Documents ("Consultant Costs"). Prior to incun-ing any Consultant Costs, the City shall submit an outline budget for use of the Deposit describing the general scope of work, cost and timing of expenditure.

Following the Due Diligence Period, the Developer shall be responsible for all of the City's Consultant Costs subject to the restrictions contained in this Section 4. Prior to the City incurring Consultant Costs in excess of the Deposit, the City shall provide the Developer with a schedule of the Consultant Costs incurred to date and an estimate of the additional Consultant Costs anticipated to be incuned. The Developer shall reasonably approve or disapprove the Consultant Costs within seven (7) days following the City's submittal of the anticipated Consultant Costs. If Developer disapproves the City's Consultant Costs, the City and Developer will meet and in good faith evaluate the estimate and attempt to reach a compromised budget acceptable to both parties. The Developer shall deposit with the City the amount of the additional Consultant Costs as approved by the Developer within fou1ieen (14) days of such approval. The additional amount shall be added to the Deposit. The City shall be reimbursed for all additional Consultant Costs approved by the Developer and incmred by the City prior to the date of the termination of this Agreement.

To the extent this Agreement is terminated prior to or as of the end of the Negotiating Period and the City has incurred Consultant Costs that are less than the Deposit, and Developer has negotiated in good faith and is not in breach of this Agreement, the City shall return the unexpended balance of the Deposit to the Developer along with an accounting of the Consultant Costs incurred by the City.

If this Agreement is te1minated by the City due to a failure by the Developer to negotiate in good faith under this Agreement the Deposit and any interest earned thereon shall be retained by the City, as more fully provided in Section 10. Conversely, if this Agreement is terminated by the Developer due solely to a City default, the Deposit and any interest earned thereon shall be returned to the Developer.
-3-

5. Identification of Developer Representative. The Developer's representative to negotiate the DDA with the City is: Rob Simonds.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

6. Limitation on Effect of Agreement. This Agreement shall not obligate either the City or the Developer to enter into a DDA or to enter into any patticular DDA. By execution of this Agreement, the City is not committing itself to or agreeing to unde1take acquisition, disposition, or exercise of control over any property. City shall have final discretion and approval regarding the execution of a DDA and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. Any DDA resulting from negotiations pursuant to this Agreement shall become effective only if and after such DDA has been considered and approved by the City.

7. Notices. F01mal notices, demands and communications between the City and the Developer shall be sufficiently given if, and shall not be deemed given unless, dispatched by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or sent by express delivery or overnight courier service, to the office of the Patties shown as follows, or such other address as the Parties may designate in writing from time to time:

City:

Developer:

City of Santa Clara
1500 Warbmton A venue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Attention: City Manager
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
2619 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
Attention: Janice Jensen
Such written notices, demands and communications shall be effective on the date shown on the delivery receipt as the date delivered.

8. Costs and Expenses. Except for the Developer's obligation to fund certain City Consultant Costs under Section 4, above, each Patty shall be responsible for its owns costs and expenses in connection with any activities and negotiations undertaken in connection with this Agreement, and the performance of each Patty's obligations under this Agreement.

9. No Commissions. The City shall not be liable for any real estate commissions or brokerage fees that may arise from this Agreement or any DDA that may result from this Agreement. The City represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction, and the Developer shall defend and hold the City hatmless from any claims by any broker, agent or finder retained by the Developer.

10. Defaults and Remedies.
(a) Default. Failure by either Patty to negotiate in good faith as provided in this Agreement shall constitute default hereunder. The non-defaulting Party shall give written notice of a default to the defaulting Patty, specifying the nature of the default and the required -4-
action to cure the default. If a default remains uncured thirty (30) days after receipt by the defaulting patty of such notice, the non-defaulting Patty may exercise the remedies set forth in subsection (b ).
(b) Remedies. In the event of an uncured default by the City, the Developer's sole remedy shall be to te1minate this Agreement, upon which te1mination the Developer shall be entitled to the return of the uncommitted portion of the Deposit, as set forth in Section 4, and any interest earned thereon. Following such termination and the return of the appropriate amount of the Deposit and any interest earned thereon, neither party shall have any further right, remedy or obligation under this Agreement; provided, however, that the Developer's indemnification obligation pursuant to Section 11 shall survive such termination.

In the event of an uncured default by the Developer, the City's sole remedy shall be to te1minate this Agreement and to retain any unexpended funds remaining in the Deposit and any interest earned thereon. Following such termination, neither Party shall have any right, remedy or obligation under this Agreement; provided; however, that the Developer's indemnification obligation pursuant to Section 11 shall survive such te1mination.

Except as expressly provided above, neither party shall have any liability to the other for damages or otherwise for any default, nor shall either party have any other claims with respect to performance under this Agreement. Each party specifically waives and releases any such rights or claims they may otherwise have at law or in equity.

11. Developer's Obligation to Indemnify City. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from and against all suits and causes of action, claims, losses, demands and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, damage or liability of any nature whatsoever, arising directly or indirectly, in whole or in patt, are caused by, arise in connection with, result from, relate to, or are alleged to be caused by, arise in connection with perfo1mance of this Agreement on the patt of the Developer or any contractor or subcontractor of the Developer. The Developer shall pay immediately upon the City's demand any amounts owing under this indemnity. The duty of the Developer to indemnify includes the duty to defend the City, at the City's choosing, to pay the City's costs of its defense in any court action, administrative action, or other proceeding brought by any third Patty arising in any manner by reason of or incident to the performance of this Agreement on the patt of the Developer or any contractor or subcontractor of the Developer. The City shall have the right to approve any attorneys retained by the Developer to defend the City pursuant to this Section 11 and shall have the right to approve any settlement or compromise. The Developer's duty to indemnify the City shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, the Developer shall have no obligation to defend, indemnify or hold hatmless the City, for any and all suits and causes of action, claims, losses, demands and expenses caused by, arising from, or related in any pmt to, any gross negligence, fraud or misconduct on the patt of the City or its employees, agents, assigns, officers, or officials.

12. Compliance with Laws. Developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including but not limited to "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" ("SCCC"). In particular, Developer's attention is called to the regulations regarding Campaign Contributions (SCCC Chapter 2.130), Lobbying (SCCC -5-
Chapter 2.155), Minimum Wage (SCCC Chapter 3.20), Business Tax Ce11ificate (SCCC section

3.40.060), and Food and Beverage Service Worker Retention (SCCC Chapter 9.60), as such Chapters or Sections may be amended from time to time or renumbered. Additionally, Developer has read and agrees to comply with City's Ethical Standards (http:llsantaclaraca.govlhomelshowdocument?id=58299).

13. Nonliability of Officials, Officers, Members, and Employees. No member, official, officer, or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Developer or to its successor, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.

No member, officer, or employee of the Developer shall be personally liable to the City, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Developer or for any amount which may become due to the City or to its successor, or on any obligations under the te1ms of this Agreement.

14. Assignment. The Developer shall not assign its rights or responsibilities under this Agreement, in whole or in part, except with the written consent of the City. Any attempted assignment without such prior written consent shall be invalid and void.

15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and constrned in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Exhibits, contains all the agreements, representations and understandings of the Pmties, and supersedes and replaces any previous agreements, representations and understandings, whether oral or written.

17. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterpmis, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

II
II
II
-6-
The Patties acknowledge and accept the te1ms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
Dated: '7 \l, \9
~~cR DEA ~ ANTANA
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
"CITY"

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY EAST BAY/SILICON VALLEY
Developer
:~:: =J=5;;1~=~J:~n=~=e=:==-:\:
9 ~:::::: __________ _
---------------------
Title: President & CEO ---------------------
Local Address: _2_6_19_B_ro_a_d_w_a_._y ______________ _ Oakland, CA 94612
Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: 510-251-6304
Fax: 61 0 - 2. 5 I - G:.; 0 ~
"CONTRACTOR"
-7-
"'
u
u
~
"' ,(
~
u
~
®

EXHIBIT A

PROPERTY MAP
(APN: 101-15-049)
Exhibit A
-1-

EXHIBITB

NEGOTIATION PERIOD & TENTATIVE WORK PLAN

NEGOTIATION PERIOD

1. Overview. To facilitate negotiation of the DDA, the Patties shall use reasonable good faith efforts to accomplish the tasks set forth in Exhibit B in a timeframe that will support negotiation and execution of a mutually acceptable DDA prior to the expiration of the Negotiating Period. Within the first thiity (30) days of this Agreement, the Patties will agree upon a work plan for tasks to be accomplished.

2. Site Plan. The Developer shall prepare and submit to the City a proposed site plan identifying the size and shape of the parcels which comprise the Prope1ty (the "Development Parcels") and the location of the Project improvements to be constrncted on each of the Development Parcels.

3. Developer Cooperation and Coordination with Adjacent Parcels. Developer acknowledges the adjacent parcels and shall plan the site to be sensitive to these neighborhoods.

4. Financing and Costs of Development. The Developer shall provide the City with a detailed financial pro forma for the Project containing, among other matters, a detailed development budget setting forth the costs of the tasks to be unde1taken by the Developer. The financial proforma will be used to evidence the financial feasibility of the Project and to assist in the negotiation of te1ms regarding payment of costs of land and development.

5. Documents. Prior to execution of a DDA, the Developer shall provide the City with its organizational documents as well as organization chart outlining key personnel's roles and responsibilities. Developer shall also submit to the City for its approval, copies of all operating agreements, joint venture agreements or other agreements between the members of the development entity, and such financial statements or tax returns reasonably required by the City to determine the Developer's financial capability, excluding confidential or proprietary inf01mation.

6. Environmental Review. The City shall prepare or cause to be prepared any environmental documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEOA") for consideration of approval of the DDA; if any, provided, that nothing in this Agreement shall be constrned to compel the City to approve or make any patticular findings with respect to such environmental documentation. The Developer shall provide such information as may be required to enable the City to prepare or cause preparation and consideration of any CEQA-required document, and shall otherwise generally cooperate with the City to complete this task. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation of the required CEQA documentation.

7. Due Diligence. During the Negotiating Period, the Developer shall conduct the following due diligence activities:

Exhibit B
-1-
(a) Property Adequacy Determination. The Developer shall determine whether the Property is suitable for development of the Project, taking into account the geotechnical and soils conditions, the presence or absence of toxic or other hazardous materials, the zoning of the Property, the massing of the proposed Project improvements and the parking requirements imposed on projects of this type and the other environmental and regulatmy factors that the Developer deems relevant. If, in the Developer's judgment based on such investigations and analyses, the Prope1iy is not suitable for development, the Developer may notify the City in writing prior to the expiration of the Negotiating Period of its determination. Upon such timely notification by the Developer, the remaining balance of the Deposit shall be immediately refunded to the Developer and this Agreement shall be terminated without fu1iher action of either Party, and thereafter neither Pmiy shall have any further duties, obligations, rights, or liabilities under this Agreement; except as set fmih in Section 4 and Section 11 (b) Objections to Title. Promptly following the execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall cause Old Republic Title Company at 675 N. 1st St., #900, San Jose, California, to issue a Preliminary Title Report (the "Repmi") on the Prope1iy to the Developer and the City.

If the Developer objects to any exception appearing on the Report or should any title exception arise after the date of the Repmi, the Developer may object to such exception, provided such objection is made to the City in writing on or before 5 :00 P .M. on the thirtieth (30th) day following the date the Developer and the City receive the Report. If the Developer objects to any exception to title, the City, within fifteen (15) days ofreceipt of Developer's objection shall notify Developer in writing whether City elects to (i) cause the exception to be removed off record, (ii) obtain a commitment from for an appropriate endorsement to the policy of title insurance to be issued to the Developer, insuring against the objectionable exception, or (iii) terminate this Agreement, unless the Developer elects to take title subject to such exception. If either Pmiy elects to terminate this Agreement pursuant to this subsection, the remaining balance or the Deposit shall be immediately refunded to the Developer and neither Party shall thereafter have any obligations to or rights against the other hereunder, except as set fo1ih in Section 4 and Section 11 If the Developer fails to provide any notification to the City regarding this matter prior to expiration of the time period set forth herein, the condition set fo1ih in this subsection shall be deemed satisfied and this Agreement shall continue in effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall use good faith best efforts to keep the Property free and clear of any new liens or encumbrances during the Negotiating Period.

8. Site Access. No later than ten (10) days following execution of this Agreement, Developer and the City will enter into a separate agreement to provide Developer and its consultants with rights to enter, examine and conduct tests on the Property.

9. Repmis. The Developer shall provide the City with copies of all repmis, studies, analyses, c01Tespondence and similar documents, but excluding confidential or proprietary information, prepared or commissioned by the Developer with respect to this Agreement and the Project, promptly upon their completion. The City shall provide the Developer with copies of all reports, studies, analyses, c01Tespondence and similar documents (collectively, "Documents") prepared or commissioned by the City with respect to this Agreement and the Project, promptly following execution of this Agreement with respect to documents then in its possession or under its reasonable control, and promptly upon their completion with respect to any subsequently prepared documents.

Exhibit B
-2-
While desiring to preserve its rights with respect to treatment of certain information on a confidential or proprietary basis, the Developer acknowledges that the City will need sufficient, detailed information about the proposed Project (including, without limitation, the financial information described in Section 10) to make informed decisions about the content and approval of the DDA. The City will work with the Developer to maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information subject to the requirements imposed on the City by the Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6253, et seq.). The Developer acknowledges that the City may, subject to the limitations set forth in the preceding sentence, share information provided by the Developer of a financial and potential proprietary nature with third patty consultants and City Council members as pmt of the negotiation and decision making process. If this Agreement is te1minated without the execution of a DDA, the City shall return to the Developer any info1mation submitted by the Developer under this Agreement.

10. Schedule of Performance. During the Negotiating Period, the Developer and City will complete initial work and studies as described in Exhibit B. Following the Negotiating Period, the Developer shall provide the City with a detailed schedule of perfo1mance for the Project which shall include, but not be limited to: a plan setting f01th the proposed timeline for the preparation of development concepts, community outreach, and planning and environmental review/approval.

11. Progress Reports. Each Party on a monthly basis shall make oral or written progress reports advising the other party on studies being made and matters being evaluated by the reporting Party with respect to this Agreement and the Project.

Exhibit B
-3-

TENTATIVE WORK PLAN
CITY
• Begin environmental documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEOA");
• Facilitate meeting to review submittal for Planned Development Zoning, Planning and Development Permits and Tentative Map Application and circulation of Draft CEQA Analysis;
• Provide confirmation of all applicable City fees and waivers, including parks fees; • Arrange meetings for the negotiation of the DDA;
• Schedule Planning Commission Hearing;
• Schedule City Council Hearing;
• Provide City financing documentation for public finance applications; and • Other tasks as appropriate to meet project goals.

DEVELOPER (During Negotiation Period of ENA)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prepare a Scope of Development and Proposed Site Plan describing location and land uses of the proposed Project;
Prepare detailed Schedule of Performance for the Project and key partners; Submit a detailed pro fmma and begin negotiating a Te1m Sheet to discuss and evaluate the financial and operational components, including any requirements pertaining to the applicability of any prevailing wage requirements; Provide the City with organizational documents as well as an organization chaii outlining key personnel's roles and responsibilities;
Identify key stakeholders; Conduct and document Project Community Meetings for public input on site design and operations;
Preliminary Analysis of toxic and hazardous waste conditions throughout the Property;
Preliminary Analysis of geotechnical conditions of site surface and subsurface; DEVELOPER (Post execution ofDDA)
• Assessment of traffic and parking issues/constraints that may affect site development; • Assessment of major public and private utility capacities and connections for providing service to the Project;
• Assessment of site drainage and wate1way issues that may affect site development; • Submit Preliminary Planning Application
• Discuss with the City any subsequent deposits necessary, to offset the costs for retention of fi.niher consultants;
• Review of any site easements or other use restrictions that may affect site development;
• Create Construction drawings;
• Review of Title as it may affect site development and financing of development; • Obtain Planning and Development permits and tentative map; • Pursue necessary financing commitments; and
• Other tasks as appropriate to meet project goals.

Exhibit B
-4-
EBIX No. S200004223

LICENSE AGREEMENT

GRANTING RIGHT OF ENTRY TO AND ALLOWING ACCESS ON

CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY PREAMBLE
This license agreement ("License") is entered into by and between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation, with its principal place of business located at 1500 Warbmton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 ("City"), and Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, with its principal place of business located at 2619 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, ("Licensee"), for the purpose of providing Licensee the temporary right of access to Prope1ty described in this License and the right to use it for the activities referred to in this License. City and Licensee may be refe1Ted to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Patties" or the "Parties to this License." The Parties to this License agree that the rights, privileges, and obligations granted by this License are set fo1th as follows:

LICENSE PROVISIONS:

1. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES
In response to Licensee's request that City grant a temporary license to Licensee for access to ce1tain City owned real prope1ty located at 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard (the "Prope1ty") and in consideration of the sum of Zero dollars ($0.00) and other good and valuable consideration, City hereby grants Licensee a revocable license to use Prope1ty for the specific and limited use and purpose as set forth in this License. The Prope1ty is more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference.

Said temporary access to the Property is granted to Licensee, its employees, agents and contractors for the sole purpose of conducting the following activities:

A. Use. Licensee, its employees, agents and contractors are authorized to enter on and cross over Prope1ty only for the limited purpose of conducting a property survey and geotechnical, environmental, and utility studies and to perfo1m the necessary activities related to such limited purpose. It is understood by the Patties that the use(s) permitted under this License is/are limited to the purposes described above.

B. Access. Licensee is granted limited rights of access to the Property by this License. Licensee's access to the Property will be from De La Cruz Boulevard, the public road adjacent to the Prope1ty. Vehicular travel on the Property will be limited to areas outlined in Exhibit A. Licensee must provide notice to the City requesting access to the Property as outlined in Exhibit B.

License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Rev: 02-01-15

4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROPERTY
A. Licensee shall not use or store Hazardous Materials of any kind on or near the Prope11y which could contaminate the Property, without prior written permission from City. Subject to Section 4.D. below, in the event that any Hazardous Material is spilled or leaked or otherwise released on the Property or any area in the vicinity of the Property as a result of Licensee's exercise of this License, Licensee shall promptly take all steps necessary to remove any contamination resulting from such activities. Licensee accepts full responsibility for all activities and costs incmTed related to cleaning up the Property from the effects of such spill or leak. Licensee shall be responsible for meeting, and possess the means to satisfy, the requirements of all federal, state and local controlling agencies, such as the Bay Area Water Quality Management District and/or the Environmental Protection Agency, which may have jurisdiction over the region in which the Prope11y is located or over the substance being used by Licensee on the Prope11y.

B. Hazardous Materials Defined. The te1m "Hazardous Material(s)" shall mean any toxic or hazardous substance, material or waste or any pollutant or contaminant or infectious or radioactive material, including but not limited to, those substances, materials or wastes regulated now or in the future under any of the following statutes or regulations and any and all of those substances included within the definitions of "hazardous substances," "hazardous waste," "hazardous chemical substance or mixture," "imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture," "toxic substances," "hazardous air pollutant," "toxic pollutant" or "solid waste" in the (a) "CERCLA" or "Superfund" as amended by SARA, 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 9601 et seq., (b) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq., (c) CWA., 33 U.S.C.

Sec. 1251 et seq., (d) CAA, 42 U.S.C. 78401 et seq., (e) TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq., (f) The Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 407, (g) OSHA, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. (h) Hazardous Materials Transp011ation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq., (i) USDOT Table (40 CFR Pait 302 and amendments) or the EPA Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments), (j) California Superfund, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25300 et seq., (k) Cal. Hazardous Waste Control Act, Cal.

Health & Safety Code Section 25100 et seq., (1) Porter-Cologne Act, Cal. Water Code Sec. 13000 et seq., (m) Hazardous Waste Disposal Land Use Law, Cal.

Health & Safety Code Sec. 25220 et seq., (n) "Proposition 65," Cal. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25249.5 et seq., (o) Hazardous Substances Underground Storage Tank Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25280 et seq., (p) California Hazardous Substance Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 28740 et seq., (q) Air Resources Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 39000 et seq., (r) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory, Cal. Health & Safety Code Secs. 25500-25541, (s) TCPA, Cal. Health and Safety Code Secs. 25208 et seq., and (t) regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws or any replacement thereof, or as similar terms are defined in the federal, state and local laws, statutes, License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Rev: 02-01-15

C. Gates. Licensee agrees to keep all gates it utilizes closed if found to be closed, or open if found to be open.

D. Weather. All activities will be conducted on a "weather permitting" basis.

Licensee shall use its best efforts to keep surface disturbances to a minimum and avoid rntting of any roads. Any damage caused to the Prope1ty or any underground electrical ducts, sto~ sewer and water lines, manholes and appu1tenances located on or under the surface of the Prope1ty or to any roads shall be promptly repaired by Licensee. The roads or any other area shall not be left in a rntted or otherwise damaged condition.

E. Prohibitions and Limitations. Except as may be required to accomplish the pennitted use(s) described in subsection IA, above, the use(s) and activities authorized under this License shall not:

1. significantly disturb the surface of the Prope1ty

2. be inconsistent with those pe1mitted on the Property

3. interfere in any way with the City's ownership rights and privileges on the property; and/ or

4. cause or contribute in any way to the contamination of all or any pmtion of the Property, by any substance, especially Hazardous Materials as that term is defined in section 4 of this License.

2. TERM OF THE LICENSE
Unless sooner revoked or extended by City in writing, City grants this License for temporary access to the Property to Licensee for a time period commencing on the Effective date of the License and ending on December 31, 2019. Upon prior written approval by the City Manager or her designee, thi1ty (30) day extensions of the term of this License may be granted after Licensee submits a written request to City which justifies the extension.

3. RETURN PROPERTY TO EXISTING CONDITION
Immediately upon completion of the use of the Prope1ty pe1mitted by this License, or upon the expiration of the te1m of this License, whichever occurs first, Licensee shall restore the Property to substantially the same condition as it was existing prior to Licensee's use, as dete1mined by City representatives. At that time, Licensee shall remove from the Property any and all equipment or materials used in conducting the pe1mitted activities. Licensee expressly acknowledges its financial obligation to fulfill this condition promptly. Licensee shall repair any damage caused to the existing underground electric ducts, sto1m sewer and water lines, manholes and\or appurtenances located on, above or under the surface of the Prope1ty.

License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Rev: 02-01-15

regulations, orders or rules. Hazardous Materials shall also mean any and all other substances, materials and wastes which are, or in the future become regulated under
applicable local, state or federal law for the protection of health or the environment, or which are classified as hazardous or toxic substances, materials or wastes, pollutants or contaminants, as defined, listed or regulated by any federal, state or local law, regulation or order or by common law decision, including, without limitation, (i) trichloroethylene, tetracholoethylene, perchloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents, (ii) any petroleum products or fractions thereof, (iii) asbestos, (iv) polychlorinated biphenyls, (v) flammable explosives, (vi) urea formaldehyde, and (vii) radioactive materials and waste.

C. Hazardous Materials Indemnity. Subject to Section 4.D. below, Licensee shall indemnify, defend (by counsel reasonably acceptable to City), protect and hold City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses and/or expenses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the Property, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Property, damages arising from any adverse impact or marketing of the Property and sums paid in settlement of claims, response costs, cleanup costs, site assessment costs, attorneys' fees, consultant and expe1i fees, judgments, administrative rulings or orders, fines, costs of death of or injury to any person or damage to any property whatsoever (including, without limitation, groundwater, sewer systems and atmosphere), arising from, or caused or resulting, either prior to or during the term of this License, in whole or in pmi, directly or indirectly, by the presence or discharge in, on, under or about the Property by Licensee, Licensee's agents, employees, licensees or invitees or at Licensee's direction of Hazardous Material, or by Licensee's failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law, whether knowingly or by strict liability.

Licensee's indemnification obligations shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any required or necessary Hazardous Materials management plan, investigation, repairs, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Property, and the presence and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans, and shall survive the expiration of or early te1mination of the term of this License. For purposes of the indemnity provided herein, any acts or omissions of Licensee, or its employees, agents, customers, sublessees, assignees, contractors or subcontractors of Licensee (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Licensee.

D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section 4 Licensee shall not be liable for clean up of the exacerbation of pre-existing Hazardous Materials located on the Prope1iy ("Pre-existing Materials") that might be caused by Licensee's activities hereunder, including, but not limited to, the movement of Hazardous Materials between levels of soils or into groundwater, nor shall License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Rev: 02-01-15

Licensee's indemnification in Section 4.C. apply to any discovery or exacerbation of Pre-existing Materials.

5. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, Licensee hereby agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City, its council, officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns, from and against all claims, injury, liability, loss, cost, and expense, or damage however same may be caused, including without limitation, all costs and reasonable attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim arising therefrom, or any loss of or damage to property (real and/or personal), and for personal injury to or the death of any person or persons, arising out of, occu1Ting by reason of, or in any way connected with, Licensee's operations, acts, e1rnrs, omissions or use of the Prope1ty or exercise of it rights under this License, except to the extent arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of City.

6. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
During the term of this License, Licensee, and each of its contractors and agents which enter onto the Prope1ty to carry out permitted activities, shall each maintain in full force and effect the following insurance policies:

A. Commercial general liability policy (bodily injury and prope1ty damage); B.

Comprehensive automobile liability insurance policy; and C. Worker's Compensation and employer's liability policy.

Said policies shall be maintained with respect to employees, volunteers, pmticipants and spectators and vehicles using the Property with coverage amounts and including the required endorsements, ce1tificates of insurance, and coverage verifications as defined in Exhibit C, attached and incorporated by this reference.

7. CITY'S RIGHTS
City reserves the right to use the Prope1ty in any manner, provided such use does not unreasonably interfere with the rights granted to the Licensee in this License.

8. ASSIGNMENT - EXCLUSIVE TO LICENSEE
The access rights granted in this License are personal and limited solely to Licensee and its employees for the stated purpose set forth in this License. Licensee agrees not to commit waste or to constrnct, allow or maintain any use, constrnction or operate any equipment which constitutes a nuisance on the Property or which may in any way interfere with the use, enjoyment or possession of the Property by City, or the City's lessee(s) or licensee(s) on the Property, if any. The Property shall not be used by any person or entity, including the Licensee or its employees, for any purpose other than License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Rev: 02-01-15

stated in this License. Neither this License, nor the rights granted to Licensee within it, shall be assignable or otherwise transferable without the prior written consent of City.

Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment or other transfer will release or discharge the Licensee from any duty, responsibility or liability under this License.

9. REVOCATION OR TERMINATION OF LICENSE
This License may be revoked or te1minated with or without cause by City immediately upon providing written notice of said revocation or te1mination to Licensee, or its representative. If any notice given pursuant to the License is not personally delivered to Licensee, said notice shall be deemed to be delivered five (5) days after deposit of said notice in a sealed envelope, postage fully prepaid, in a mailing facility regularly maintained by the United States Post Office Department, addressed as follows:

If to Licensee:

Janice Jensen
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
2619 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
and to City at:

City of Santa Clara
Attention: City Manager
1500 Warbmion A venue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
or by facsimile at (408) 241-6771

10. AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENSE
City warrants that it is the owner of the Property and that it has the full rights and authority to grant the rights to the Licensee which are contained in this License.

11. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED ON SITE
This License, or a copy of the License, must be in the immediate possession of Licensee's representative at all times while on the Property.

12. COUNTERPARTS
This License may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrnment.

License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Rev: 02-01-15

13. FACSIMILE SIGNATURE
The Paities agree that signatures on this License, including those transmitted by facsimile, shall be sufficient to bind the Patties.

The Patties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. The Effective Date is the date that the final signatory executes the Agreement. It is the intent of the Patties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BRIAN DO
City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
"CITY"
City Manager
1500 Warbmton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY EAST BAY/SILICON VALLEY
Dated: ~ - t '2. - l '\ - -++-4----=------------------- B y: - -,---t- --.,=~-----,--.,..----------,----- a re of Person executing the Agreement)
Name: Ja • ce Jens en
Address: 2619 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone 510-251-6304
Fax: 510-251-6309
"LICENSEE"
S:\Attorney\AGREEMENTS\License\Right ofEntty License Agreement (Fonn).doc License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Rev: 02-01-15

LICENSE AGREEMENT

GRANTING RIGHT OF ENTRY TO AND ALLOWING ACCESS ON

CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY
APN: 101-15-049
"'
0 ,...
,_
®
,...

EXHIBIT A
License Agreement/ Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley /Exhibit A Rev: 02-01-15

LICENSE AGREEMENT

GRANTING RIGHT OF ENTRY TO AND ALLOWING ACCESS ON

CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY

EXHIBIT B

NOTICES
All access notices required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered with a minimum 24 hour notice prior to requesting access. Notices shall be delivered to the City at:

City of Santa Clara
Attention: Housing and Community Services Division
1500 Warbmion Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
If by electronic mail:
j [email protected]
copy to: [email protected]
The notice of request for site access shall include the following:
• Date/Time of requested access
• Anticipated length of time needed at the site
• Name(s) of films and individuals to be on site
• Scope of work (i.e., the activities to be conducted) with a confitmation that any appropriate pe1mits have been secured.

A representative of the City will arrange for the gates to be opened at its earliest convenience.

License Agreement/ Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley /Exhibit B Rev: 02-01-15

LICENSE AGREEMENT

GRANTING RIGHT OF ENTRY TO AND ALLOWING ACCESS ON

CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY

EXHIBITC
The Insurance Certificate must:
* Be an original document.
* List all subsidiaries or DBA's covered by the certificate provided. * Provide at least 30 days' notice of cancellation.
* Show complete insurance carrier names as listed in the AM. Best Property & Casualty Guide * Be completed in its entirety and signed. Binders are not acceptable.

Commercial General Liability (CGL)
Occurrence form - requires coverage not less than:
$1,000,000 General Aggregate
$1,000,000 Products and Completed Operations Aggregate
$1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence
* Coverage must be placed with a carrier rated not less than A- VI by A.M. Best & Co. * Additional Insured Endorsement Required. Attach a CG 2026 11/85 Additional Insured Endorsement, or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent, or CGL 090 7 4 18. * Additional Insured Wording must read: The City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, agents and volunteers.
* Coverage must be Primary and Non-Contributory above any other insurance The City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, agents and volunteers may carry.

Commercial Automobile Liability:

Must indicate coverage for Any Auto or Owned, Hired or Borrowed, and Non-owned Vehicles $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit
$1,000,000 Bodily Injury per Accident
Coverage must be placed with a carrier rated not less than A- VI by AM. Best & Co.

Workers' Compensation:

State Statutory Limits
Employers' Liability Coverage
$1,000,000 Each Accident
$1,000,000 Disease - Policy Limit
$1,000,000 Disease - Each Employee
Certificate Holder:

City of Santa Clara
c/o Ebix BPO - Insurance Compliance
P.O. Box 100085 - S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John's Creek, GA 30097EBIX Inc.

Fax documents for compliance & verification of insurance requirements to (770) 325-0409 or Email to [email protected]
For customer services and inquires, call (951) 766-2280 License Agreement/ Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley /Exhibit C Rev: 02-01-15

Amendment No. 9 to Habitat ENA Page 1 of 5
1524\06\4112360.2
AMENDMENT NO. 9

TO THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
AND HABITAT FOR HUMANITY EAST BAY/SILICON VALLEY, INC.

PREAMBLE
This agreement (“Ninth Amendment”) is entered into on this 31st day of December 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Santa Clara, a chartered California municipal corporation (“City”), and Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley, Inc., a California Non-Profit Corporation (“Developer”). City and Developer may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.”

RECITALS
A. The City is the owner of a .69-acre parcel of real property in the City of Santa Clara located at 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard (APN 101-15-049) (the “Property”). The Developer has proposed to develop the Property with 15 units of affordable ownership housing, including mixed-income townhomes and flats (the “Project”). The entire project is proposed to be affordable to households with income between 50% and 120% of Area Median Income (AMI).

B. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated April 9, 2019 and fully executed on June 17, 2019 (the “Original Agreement”). The Original Agreement provided a Negotiating Period of 18 months, which expired on December 17, 2020.

C. The Original Agreement established procedures and standards for the negotiation by the City and the Developer of a Disposition and Development Agreement (the “DDA”) pursuant to which the Developer will conduct specified development activities related to the Property.

D. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 1 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated December 17, 2020 (First Amendment). The First Amendment to Agreement provided a six (6) month extension which expired on June 17, 2021.

E. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 2 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated July 12, 2021 (Second Amendment). The Second Amendment to Agreement provided a six (6) month extension which expired on December 30, 2021.

F. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 3 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated December 20, 2021 (Third Amendment). The Third Amendment to Agreement provided a six (6) month extension which expired on June 30, 2022.

Amendment No. 9 to Habitat ENA Page 2 of 5
1524\06\4112360.2
G. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 4 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated October 11, 2022 (Fourth Amendment). The Fourth Amendment to Agreement provided a six (6) month extension which expired on December 30, 2022.

H. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 5 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated March 20, 2023 (Fifth Amendment). The Fifth Amendment to Agreement provided a six (6) month extension which expired on June 30, 2023.

I. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 6 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated June 16, 2023 (Sixth Amendment). The Sixth Amendment to Agreement provided a six (6) month extension which shall expire on December 30, 2023.

J. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 7 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated December 31, 2024 (Seventh Amendment). The Seventh Amendment to Agreement provided a twelve (12) month extension which shall expire on December 30, 2024.

K. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Amendment No. 8 to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement” dated December 31, 2024 (“Eighth Amendment”). The Eighth Amendment to Agreement provided a twelve (12) month extension which shall expire on December 30, 2025.

A. Developer has requested an extension of an ENA in order to complete certain tasks before a disposition and development agreement can be presented to the City Council. In particular, Developer needs additional time to procure necessary Project funding from available affordable housing sources including the federal, state and local governments (collectively, “Necessary Project Funding”). This Ninth Amendment to Agreement provides a one (1) year extension of the negotiating period, which was set to expire on December 30, 2025, and with this Ninth Amendment will expire on December 30, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Section 2 of the Eighth Amendment to the Agreement, entitled “Negotiating Period,” is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:
“2. Negotiating Period. The negotiating period (the "Negotiating Period") under this Agreement was initially eighteen(18) months, expiring on December 17, 2020. The Parties mutually agreed to extend the negotiating period for six (6) months, commencing on December 17, 2020, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on June 17, 2021.

Amendment No. 9 to Habitat ENA Page 3 of 5
1524\06\4112360.2
The Parties mutually agreed to a second extension of the negotiating period for six (6) months, terminating at 11:59 p.m. on December 30, 2021. The Parties mutually agreed to a third extension of the negotiating period for six (6) months, terminating at 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2022. The Parties mutually agreed to a fourth extension of the negotiating period for six (6) months, terminating at 11:59 p.m. on December 30, 2022. The Parties mutually agreed to a fifth extension of the negotiating period for six (6) months, commencing on December 30, 2022, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2023.

The Parties mutually agreed to a sixth extension of the negotiating period for six (6) months terminating at 11:59 a.m. on December 30, 2023. The Parties mutually agreed to a seventh extension of the negotiating period for twelve (12) months terminating at 11:59 a.m. on December 30, 2024. The Parties mutually agreed to an eighth extension of the negotiating period for twelve (12) months, commencing on December 31, 2024, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on December 30, 2025. The Parties mutually agree to a ninth extension of the negotiating period for one (1) year, commencing on December 31, 2025, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on December 30, 2026 (“Ninth Extended Term”) provided however, if at any time during the Ninth Extended Term the City determines that the Developer has not made adequate progress toward securing the Necessary Project Funding or that the Project is financially infeasible, the City can, upon thirty (30) days’ notice to the Developer terminate this Agreement, in which neither the City nor the Developer shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement except as set forth in Section 4 and Section 11 of the Original Agreement.

During the Ninth Extended Term, Developer agrees to exercise best efforts to procure Necessary Project Funding and to periodically, no less than every 3 months, update City in writing regarding such efforts. If a DDA has not been executed by the City and the Developer (or its affiliate) by December 30, 2026, and no additional extension has been approved through an additional amendment to this Agreement, then this Agreement shall terminate and no party shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement, except as set forth in Section 4 and Section 11. If a DDA is executed by the City and the Developer (or its affiliate), then, upon such execution, this Agreement shall terminate, and all rights and obligations of the Parties shall be as set forth in the executed DDA.”

2. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In case of a conflict in the terms of the Original Agreement, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment or the Eighth Amendment, the provisions of this Ninth Amendment shall control.

Amendment No. 9 to Habitat ENA Page 4 of 5
1524\06\4112360.2

3. This Ninth Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Amendment No. 9 to Habitat ENA Page 5 of 5
1524\06\4112360.2
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Ninth Amendment as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.

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

Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
Jōvan Grogan
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
“CITY”
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY EAST BAY/SILICON VALLEY, INC.
a California non-profit corporation
Dated: _______________________________
By: _

JANICE JENSEN
President & CEO
2619 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
Telephone: (510) 251-6304
Fax: (510) 251-6309
“DEVELOPER”
Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 1 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
EBIX No. S200004223
AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED

REPLACEMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT

GRANTING RIGHT OF ENTRY TO AND ALLOWING ACCESS ON

CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY PREAMBLE
This license agreement (“License”) is entered into by and between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation, with its principal place of business located at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 (“City”), and Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, with its principal place of business located at 2619 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612, (“Licensee”), for the purpose of providing Licensee the temporary right of access to Property described in this License and the right to use it for the activities referred to in this License. City and Licensee may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this License.” The Parties to this License agree that the rights, privileges, and obligations granted by this License are set forth as follows:

LICENSE PROVISIONS:

1. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES
In response to Licensee’s request that City grant a temporary license to Licensee for access to certain City owned real property located at 3575 De La Cruz Boulevard (the “Property”) and in consideration of the sum of Zero dollars ($0.00) and other good and valuable consideration, City hereby grants Licensee a revocable license to use Property for the specific and limited use and purpose as set forth in this License. The Property is more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference.

Said temporary access to the Property is granted to Licensee, its employees, agents and contractors for the sole purpose of conducting the following activities:

A. Use. Licensee, its employees, agents and contractors are authorized to enter on and cross over Property only for the limited purpose of conducting a property survey and geotechnical, environmental, and utility studies and to perform the necessary activities related to such limited purpose. It is understood by the Parties that the use(s) permitted under this License is/are limited to the purposes described above.

B. Access. Licensee is granted limited rights of access to the Property by this License. Licensee’s access to the Property will be from De La Cruz Boulevard, the public road adjacent to the Property. Vehicular travel on the Property will be Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 2 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
limited to areas outlined in Exhibit A. Licensee must provide notice to the City requesting access to the Property as outlined in Exhibit B.

C. Gates. Licensee agrees to keep all gates it utilizes closed if found to be closed, or open if found to be open.

D. Weather. All activities will be conducted on a “weather permitting” basis.

Licensee shall use its best efforts to keep surface disturbances to a minimum and avoid rutting of any roads. Any damage caused to the Property or any underground electrical ducts, storm sewer and water lines, manholes and appurtenances located on or under the surface of the Property or to any roads shall be promptly repaired by Licensee. The roads or any other area shall not be left in a rutted or otherwise damaged condition.

E. Prohibitions and Limitations. Except as may be required to accomplish the permitted use(s) described in subsection 1A, above, the use(s) and activities authorized under this License shall not:

1. significantly disturb the surface of the Property

2. be inconsistent with those permitted on the Property

3. interfere in any way with the City’s ownership rights and privileges on the property; and/or

4. cause or contribute in any way to the contamination of all or any portion of the Property, by any substance, especially Hazardous Materials as that term is defined in section 4 of this License.

2. TERM OF THE LICENSE
In order to align with the term of the Ninth Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement between the City of Santa Clara, California and Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley, Inc., City grants this License for temporary access to the Property to Licensee for a time period commencing on the Effective Date of the License and ending on December 30, 2026.

3. RETURN PROPERTY TO EXISTING CONDITION
Immediately upon completion of the use of the Property permitted by this License, or upon the expiration of the term of this License, whichever occurs first, Licensee shall restore the Property to substantially the same condition as it was existing prior to Licensee’s use, as determined by City representatives. At that time, Licensee shall remove from the Property any and all equipment or materials used in conducting the permitted activities. Licensee expressly acknowledges its financial obligation to fulfill this condition promptly. Licensee shall repair any damage caused to the existing Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 3 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
underground electric ducts, storm sewer and water lines, manholes and\or appurtenances located on, above or under the surface of the Property.

4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROPERTY
A. Licensee shall not use or store Hazardous Materials of any kind on or near the Property which could contaminate the Property, without prior written permission from City. Subject to Section 4.D. below, in the event that any Hazardous Material is spilled or leaked or otherwise released on the Property or any area in the vicinity of the Property as a result of Licensee’s exercise of this License, Licensee shall promptly take all steps necessary to remove any contamination resulting from such activities. Licensee accepts full responsibility for all activities and costs incurred related to cleaning up the Property from the effects of such spill or leak. Licensee shall be responsible for meeting, and possess the means to satisfy, the requirements of all federal, state and local controlling agencies, such as the Bay Area Water Quality Management District and/or the Environmental Protection Agency, which may have jurisdiction over the region in which the Property is located or over the substance being used by Licensee on the Property.

B. Hazardous Materials Defined. The term “Hazardous Material(s)” shall mean any toxic or hazardous substance, material or waste or any pollutant or contaminant or infectious or radioactive material, including but not limited to, those substances, materials or wastes regulated now or in the future under any of the following statutes or regulations and any and all of those substances included within the definitions of “hazardous substances,” “hazardous waste,” “hazardous chemical substance or mixture,” “imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture,” “toxic substances,” “hazardous air pollutant,” “toxic pollutant” or “solid waste” in the (a) “CERCLA” or “Superfund” as amended by SARA, 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 9601 et seq., (b) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq., (c) CWA., 33 U.S.C.

Sec. 1251 et seq., (d) CAA, 42 U.S.C. 78401 et seq., (e) TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq., (f) The Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 407, (g) OSHA, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. (h) Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq., (i) USDOT Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments) or the EPA Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments), (j) California Superfund, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25300 et seq., (k) Cal. Hazardous Waste Control Act, Cal.

Health & Safety Code Section 25100 et seq., (l) Porter-Cologne Act, Cal. Water Code Sec. 13000 et seq., (m) Hazardous Waste Disposal Land Use Law, Cal.

Health & Safety Code Sec. 25220 et seq., (n) “Proposition 65,” Cal. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25249.5 et seq., (o) Hazardous Substances Underground Storage Tank Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25280 et seq., (p) California Hazardous Substance Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 28740 et seq., (q) Air Resources Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 39000 et seq., (r) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory, Cal. Health & Safety Code Secs. 25500-25541, (s) TCPA, Cal. Health and Safety Code Secs. 25208 et seq., Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 4 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
and (t) regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws or any replacement thereof, or as similar terms are defined in the federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations, orders or rules. Hazardous Materials shall also mean any and all other substances, materials and wastes which are, or in the future become regulated under applicable local, state or federal law for the protection of health or the environment, or which are classified as hazardous or toxic substances, materials or wastes, pollutants or contaminants, as defined, listed or regulated by any federal, state or local law, regulation or order or by common law decision, including, without limitation, (i) trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, perchloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents, (ii) any petroleum products or fractions thereof, (iii) asbestos, (iv) polychlorinated biphenyls, (v) flammable explosives, (vi) urea formaldehyde, and (vii) radioactive materials and waste.

C. Hazardous Materials Indemnity. Subject to Section 4.D. below, Licensee shall indemnify, defend (by counsel reasonably acceptable to City), protect and hold City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses and/or expenses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the Property, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Property, damages arising from any adverse impact or marketing of the Property and sums paid in settlement of claims, response costs, cleanup costs, site assessment costs, attorneys’ fees, consultant and expert fees, judgments, administrative rulings or orders, fines, costs of death of or injury to any person or damage to any property whatsoever (including, without limitation, groundwater, sewer systems and atmosphere), arising from, or caused or resulting, either prior to or during the term of this License, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by the presence or discharge in, on, under or about the Property by Licensee, Licensee’s agents, employees, licensees or invitees or at Licensee’s direction of Hazardous Material, or by Licensee’s failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law, whether knowingly or by strict liability.

Licensee’s indemnification obligations shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any required or necessary Hazardous Materials management plan, investigation, repairs, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Property, and the presence and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans, and shall survive the expiration of or early termination of the term of this License. For purposes of the indemnity provided herein, any acts or omissions of Licensee, or its employees, agents, customers, sublessees, assignees, contractors or subcontractors of Licensee (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Licensee.

D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section 4 Licensee shall not be liable for clean up of the exacerbation of pre-existing Hazardous Materials located on the Property (“Pre-existing Materials”) that might be caused by Licensee’s activities hereunder, including, but not limited to, the movement of Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 5 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
Hazardous Materials between levels of soils or into groundwater, nor shall Licensee’s indemnification in Section 4.C. apply to any discovery or exacerbation of Pre-existing Materials.

5. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, Licensee hereby agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City, its council, officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns, from and against all claims, injury, liability, loss, cost, and expense, or damage however same may be caused, including without limitation, all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in providing a defense to any claim arising therefrom, or any loss of or damage to property (real and/or personal), and for personal injury to or the death of any person or persons, arising out of, occurring by reason of, or in any way connected with, Licensee’s operations, acts, errors, omissions or use of the Property or exercise of it rights under this License, except to the extent arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of City.

6. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
During the term of this License, Licensee, and each of its contractors and agents which enter onto the Property to carry out permitted activities, shall each maintain in full force and effect the following insurance policies:

A. Commercial general liability policy (bodily injury and property damage); B. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance policy; and C. Worker’s Compensation and employer’s liability policy.

Said policies shall be maintained with respect to employees, volunteers, participants and spectators and vehicles using the Property with coverage amounts and including the required endorsements, certificates of insurance, and coverage verifications as defined in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by this reference.

7. CITY’S RIGHTS
City reserves the right to use the Property in any manner, provided such use does not unreasonably interfere with the rights granted to the Licensee in this License.

8. ASSIGNMENT - EXCLUSIVE TO LICENSEE
The access rights granted in this License are personal and limited solely to Licensee and its employees for the stated purpose set forth in this License. Licensee agrees not to commit waste or to construct, allow or maintain any use, construction or operate any equipment which constitutes a nuisance on the Property or which may in any way interfere with the use, enjoyment or possession of the Property by City, or the City’s lessee(s) or licensee(s) on the Property, if any. The Property shall not be used by any Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 6 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
person or entity, including the Licensee or its employees, for any purpose other than stated in this License. Neither this License, nor the rights granted to Licensee within it, shall be assignable or otherwise transferable without the prior written consent of City.

Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment or other transfer will release or discharge the Licensee from any duty, responsibility or liability under this License.

9. REVOCATION OR TERMINATION OF LICENSE
This License may be revoked or terminated with or without cause by City immediately upon providing written notice of said revocation or termination to Licensee, or its representative. If any notice given pursuant to the License is not personally delivered to Licensee, said notice shall be deemed to be delivered five (5) days after deposit of said notice in a sealed envelope, postage fully prepaid, in a mailing facility regularly maintained by the United States Post Office Department, addressed as follows:

If to Licensee:

Janice Jensen
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
2619 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
and to City at:

City of Santa Clara
Attention: City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
or by facsimile at (408) 241-6771

10. AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENSE
City warrants that it is the owner of the Property and that it has the full rights and authority to grant the rights to the Licensee which are contained in this License.

11. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED ON SITE
This License, or a copy of the License, must be in the immediate possession of Licensee’s representative at all times while on the Property.

12. COUNTERPARTS
Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 7 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
This License may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

13. FACSIMILE SIGNATURE
The Parties agree that signatures on this License, including those transmitted by facsimile, shall be sufficient to bind the Parties.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/Habitat for Humanity Page 8 of 8 Rev: 02-01-15
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. The Effective Date is the date that the final signatory executes the Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.

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

Dated: ________________________
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
“CITY”
Jōvan Grogan
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY EAST BAY/SILICON VALLEY, INC.
a California non-profit corporation
Dated:

S:\Attorney\AGREEMENTS\License\Right of Entry License Agreement (Form).doc By:
(Signature of Person executing the Agreement)
Name: Janice Jensen
Address: 2619 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone 510-251-6304
Fax: 510-251-6309
“LICENSEE”
AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED

REPLACEMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT

GRANTING RIGHT OF ENTRY TO AND ALLOWING ACCESS ON

CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY

EXHIBIT A
Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/ Habitat for Humanity /Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Rev: 02-01-15
APN: 101-15-049

NOTICES
All access notices required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered with a minimum 24-hour notice prior to requesting access. Notices shall be delivered to the City at:

City of Santa Clara
Attention: Housing and Community Services Division
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
If by electronic mail:
[email protected]
copy to: [email protected]
The notice of request for site access shall include the following:
• Date/Time of requested access
• Anticipated length of time needed at the site
• Name(s) of firms and individuals to be on site
• Scope of work (i.e., the activities to be conducted) with a confirmation that any appropriate permits have been secured.

A representative of the City will arrange for the gates to be opened at its earliest convenience.

AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED

REPLACEMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT

GRANTING RIGHT OF ENTRY TO AND ALLOWING ACCESS ON

CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY

EXHIBIT B
Amendment No.7 Amend/Restated Replacement License Agreement/ Habitat for Humanity /Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 Rev: 02-01-15
The Insurance Certificate Must:
* The Insurance Certificate must: Be an original document. * List all subsidiaries or DBA’s covered by the certificate provided. * Provide at least 30 days’ notice of cancellation.
* Show complete insurance carrier names as listed in the A.M. Best Property & Casualty Guide * Be completed in its entirety and signed. Binders are not acceptable.

Commercial General Liability (CGL)
Occurrence form – requires coverage not less than:
$1,000,000 General Aggregate
$1,000,000 Products and Completed Operations Aggregate
$1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence
* Coverage must be placed with a carrier rated not less than A- VI by A.M. Best & Co. * Additional Insured Endorsement Required. Attach a CG 2026 11/85 Additional Insured Endorsement, or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent, or CGL 090 74 18. * Additional Insured Wording must read: The City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, agents and volunteers.
* Coverage must be Primary and Non-Contributory above any other insurance The City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, agents and volunteers may carry.

Commercial Automobile Liability:

Must indicate coverage for Any Auto or Owned, Hired or Borrowed, and Non-owned Vehicles $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit
$1,000,000 Bodily Injury per Accident
Coverage must be placed with a carrier rated not less than A- VI by A.M. Best & Co.

Workers’ Compensation:

State Statutory Limits
Employers’ Liability Coverage
$1,000,000 Each Accident
$1,000,000 Disease – Policy Limit
$1,000,000 Disease – Each Employee
Certificate Holder:

City of Santa Clara
c/o Ebix BPO – Insurance Compliance
P.O. Box 100085 – S2 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John’s Creek, GA 30097EBIX Inc.

Fax documents for compliance & verification of insurance requirements to (770) 325-0409 or Email to [email protected] - For customer service and inquires, call (951)766-2280 City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-1569 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara Unified School District for the BRAVE Program and Approve the Related Budget Amendment

BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2024, the City Council approved the implementation of the Building Respect, Awareness and Values through Education (BRAVE) pilot program with the Santa Clara Unified School District (School District) for the 2024/25 school year (RTC #24-630). The BRAVE program was designed to align with the evolving landscape of laws (e.g., use of marijuana and vaping) and youth challenges (e.g., peer pressure, bullying, cyberbullying, substance use prevention and education.)
The 2024/25 pilot program delivered BRAVE curriculum to approximately 480 4th grade students in the School District. The seven-week pilot program engaged students through a combination of classroom instruction, discussions and interactive activities. Key highlights include:
· Interactive Learning: Classroom lessons focused on topics such as respect, empathy and making responsible choices. Student participation was encouraged through discussions, group activities and question and answer opportunities. · Age-Appropriate Discussions: Lessons included sensitive but age-appropriate conversations about cybersecurity, peer pressure, bullying and substance use prevention and education helping students develop healthy coping strategies and responsible online behavior. · Anonymous Question Box: Each week students submitted anonymous questions for officers to answer the following week. The number of questions significantly increased as the program progressed, showing growing trust and engagement.
· Student Learning Assessments: Students participated in short tests designed to gauge learning progress and reinforce key concepts of the program. · Written Essay Activity: Students completed an essay reflecting on how they could apply the lessons of respect, kindness, and community in their daily lives. · Graduation: Students received BRAVE program completion certificates from the Police Department and Mascot K-9 Walsh.
· Positive Outcomes: The pilot program demonstrated increased student participation, improved awareness of key values, and enhanced relationships between students and officers. School administrators, teachers, parents and students shared positive feedback about the program.

DISCUSSION
The BRAVE Pilot program was tested at seven schools in the School District during the 2024/25 school year and received an overwhelmingly positive response. Adjustments to the curriculum were City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1569 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
made based on program surveys and teacher feedback. Building on the success of the pilot program and in partnership with the School District, the Police Department would like to continue to provide BRAVE in the 2025/26 school year.

The purpose of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the School District is to establish a formal partnership for the delivery of the BRAVE program to 4th graders by maintaining positive youth-law enforcement relationships, and addressing current issues such as responsibility, communication, peer pressure, bullying, cybersecurity and substance awareness.

The School Services Unit of the Police Department will provide eight weeks of the BRAVE curriculum to the 4th grade students at School District sites located within the City. A School Services sergeant will make periodic visits to the classroom to observe officer effectiveness and evaluate/adjust the program based on feedback. Furthermore, if requested by the School District, officers will provide BRAVE curriculum awareness and training for school staff.

The proposed term of the MOU with the School District for the BRAVE program is from August 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, with the option of two (2) one-year extensions.

By intervening through education in 4th grade (prior to transitional years), the BRAVE program positions students with critical information and awareness before they transition to middle school, a critical period for shaping behavior patterns and community connection.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed at the October 8, 2024 City Council meeting, if the School District expressed an interest in continuing the BRAVE curriculum, a negotiated cost sharing agreement would be implemented.

The School District will reimburse the City for staff time, consisting of one hour of preparation and one hour of instruction for two officers, and program supplies, at a rate of $161 per student enrolled in class on the first day of instruction for fiscal year 2025/26. Each subsequent year will include a 3% escalator which equates to a rate of $165 per student for fiscal year 2026/27 and $170 per student for fiscal year 2027/28. Payment will be due by June 15th each fiscal year.

School Year Average Number of
Students Per Year*
Rate per Student Annual Total
2025/26 924 $161 $148,764
2026/27 924 $165 $152,460
2027/28 924 $170 $157,080
* Assumes 42 classrooms at 22 students
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1569 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Staff recommends the following budget amendment in the General Fund to recognize and appropriate the School District reimbursements to the Police Department.

Budget Amendment
FY 2025/26
Current Increase/
(Decrease)
Revised
General Fund
Revenue
Other Agencies Revenue $558,000 $148,764 $706,764
Expenditure
Police Department $99,561,544 $148,764 $99,710,308

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara Unified School District for the BRAVE Program in a final form approved by the City Attorney’s Office; and

2. Approve the FY 2025/26 budget amendment in the General Fund to increase the Other Agencies Revenue estimate in the amount of $148,764 and increase the Police Department operating budget in the amount of $148,764 (five affirmative Council votes required to appropriate additional revenue).

Reviewed by: Cory Morgan, Chief of Police
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. MOU with City of Santa Clara (BRAVE)
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
MOU/Santa Clara Unified School District B.R.A.V.E. Program Page 1 of 4 07/17/2025

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
AND

SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
This agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 (“City”), and Santa Clara Unified School District, a Public School District, with its principal place of business located at 1889 Lawrence Road, Santa Clara, California, 95051 (“School District”). City and School District may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.” WHEREAS, The City of Santa Clara strives to assist and provide community oriented police services to the students, staff and parents of the City of Santa Clara; and, WHEREAS, The City Police Department has developed the B.R.A.V.E. (Building Respect, Awareness, and Values through Education) program to maintain a positive relationship between law enforcement and youth in 4th grade classes in the City of Santa Clara and in the School District ; and,
WHEREAS, B.R.A.V.E. curriculum addresses current issues, including but not limited to, responsibility, communication, peer pressure, bullying, cybersecurity and substance awareness; and,
WHEREAS, a pilot program was tested at 7 schools in the School District during the 2024-2025 school year and adjustments to curriculum were made based on program surveys and teacher feedback; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the School District share a desire to continue build community through the B.R.A.V.E. program.

AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
The Parties agree as follows:

1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
The School Services Unit of the City of Santa Clara Police Department will provide 8 weeks of the B.R.A.V.E. curriculum to the 4th grade students at School sites located within the City.

B.R.A.V.E. Officer(s) can provide awareness and training for School Staff in the areas of responsibility, communication, peer pressure, bullying, cybersecurity and substance awareness if requested by the Santa Clara Unified School District.

MOU/Santa Clara Unified School District B.R.A.V.E. Program Page 2 of 4 07/17/2025
The B.R.A.V.E. Officer(s) are supervised by the School Services Sergeant who will make periodic visits to the classroom to observe the effectiveness of the Officer(s), his/her presentations and ancillary activities.

The School Services Sergeant will evaluate the B.R.A.V.E. program based on site visits, staff feedback and School District feedback and adjust programing as appropriate.

2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on August 1, 2025, and terminate on June 30, 2026, with the option of two (2) oneyear extensions.

3. PAYMENT AND FEES
The School District shall pay to the City the cost of services provided at a rate of $161 per student enrolled in class on the first day of instruction for the first year, fiscal year 2025/26. Each subsequent year will include a 3% escalator: $165 per student for fiscal year 2026/27, $170 per student for fiscal year 2027/28.

Payment due by June 15 each fiscal year.

4. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the School District agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, commissions, officers, agents, and employees from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in providing a defense to any claim arising therefrom, for which City shall become legally liable arising from School District’s sole negligence, or in proportion to the School Districts comparative fault.

City agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the School District and its affiliates, directors, trustees, officers, agents, and employees, from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in providing a defense to any claim arising therefrom, for which School District shall become legally liable arising from City’s sole negligence, or in proportion to City’s comparative fault.

5. INSURANCE
The School District shall provide and maintain in force during the term of this Agreement, at its sole cost and expense, insurance in amounts reasonably necessary to protect it against liability arising from any and all negligent acts or incidents caused by School District employees. Coverage under such professional and commercial general liability insurance shall be not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate. Such coverage shall be MOU/Santa Clara Unified School District B.R.A.V.E. Program Page 3 of 4 07/17/2025
obtained from a carrier rated A or better by AM Best or a qualified program of selfinsurance. The School District shall maintain and provide evidence of worker’s compensation coverage as required by law. The School District shall provide City upon request with evidence of the insurance or equivalent self-insurance required under this paragraph.

City shall provide and maintain in force during the term of this Agreement, at its sole cost and expense, insurance in amounts reasonably necessary to protect it against liability arising from any and all negligent acts or incidents caused by City’s employees. School District acknowledges and accepts city’s Statement of Self-Insurance, attached hereto.

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

The School District and all person(s) employed by the School District who may participate in the Services do not act as agent(s) or employee(s) of the City. The School District has full rights to manage its employees in connection with this Agreement.

7. FAIR EMPLOYMENT
The School District and City shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local non-discrimination laws and maintain all licenses required by State, Federal and local governments and regulatory agencies.

8. TERMINATION AND NOTICE
This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notification to the other party. Such notice shall be deemed given in writing deposited in the United State mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party at the address set below:

To School District: Dr. Damon J. Wright, Superintendent Santa Clara Unified School District
1889 Lawrence Road
Santa Clara, CA 95052
To City: Cory Morgan, Chief of Police
City of Santa Clara
601 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Upon termination, payment will be due only for services provided by City.

MOU/Santa Clara Unified School District B.R.A.V.E. Program Page 4 of 4 07/17/2025

9. COUNTERPART/FACSIMILE SIGNATURE
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument; and, the Parties agree that signatures on this Agreement, including those transmitted by facsimile, shall be sufficient to bind the Parties.

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

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

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

SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dated:

By (Signature):

Name: Mark A. Schiel
Title: Deputy Superintendent / CBO
Principal Place of
Business Address: 1889 Lawrence Road, Santa Clara, CA 95052 Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: (408) 423-2000
“School District”
10/9/2025
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
25-1500 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on the 2518 Mission College Boulevard Public Park Schematic Design (Irvine Company)

BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2022, the City Council approved the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (2022), which establishes the future capacity and an overall vision for a new, high-density mixed-use community.

Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.35 requires new residential developments to dedicate parkland and/or pay in-lieu park fees. On April 22, 2024, the Irvine Company (Developer), filed an application to redevelop a 25.74-acre parcel located at 2518 Mission College Boulevard into a residential apartment community project (Project) consisting of 1,792 residential units, approximately 3,500 square feet of retail space, and 4.225 acres of public parkland.

On March 25, 2025, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, and an Addendum to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (2022) (Attachment 1) to allow for the development of the project.

The Project will satisfy its parkland dedication requirements through a combination of the following:

1. Development of a 4.225-acre park.

2. Installation of 4.223 acres of private recreational amenities, eligible for 50% credit toward parkland requirements.

3. Payment of in-lieu fees for the remaining balance of required parkland.

The public park will be dedicated to the City in fee title and improvements accepted once they have been inspected for confirmation that they are to the City’s satisfaction. The developer will construct all public park improvements in accordance with the City’s design criteria and standard specifications and will maintain the park in perpetuity following dedication.

As required in the City Code, the Developer will:

1. Enter into a park dedication agreement with the City;

2. Enter into a park maintenance agreement with the City;

3. Design and construct the park in accordance with the City Council approved schematic design; and

4. Dedicate the improved park to the City in fee title.

An online survey soliciting community input on the park design was posted on the City’s Park City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1500 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
Projects webpage and remained open from June 20 through July 7, 2025. An email notice announcing the survey was distributed through the City’s GovDelivery system, and similar messaging was shared on the Parks and Recreation Department’s social media platforms. In addition, a pop-up community engagement session was held on Friday, July 4, 2025, during the City’s Independence Day celebration at Mission College from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

At its July 14, 2025, meeting (Attachment 2), the Parks & Recreation Commission (Commission) received a presentation (Attachment 3) on the proposed schematic design for the park. The Developer also presented the results of the public survey and community engagement event, which together generated 203 online survey responses. The schematic design incorporates the community’s priorities and key design considerations.

The Commission reviewed the schematic design, received public comment, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed design.

DISCUSSION
At the December 9, 2025 meeting, the City Council will consider the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation to approve the proposed park design.

After Council approval, the Developer will prepare construction documents for building permit submittal, execute a park dedication and a park maintenance agreement, and complete the park improvements to the satisfaction and acceptance of the City. Following confirmation that the park improvements were constructed to the City’s satisfaction, the City will record the parcel dedication with the County of Santa Clara.

The public park improvements will be constructed by the Developer in accordance with the City’s design criteria and standard specifications and, upon dedication, will be maintained by the Developer in perpetuity.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity covered by the development of the park falls within the scope of the project analyzed under the Addendum to the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (2022), which included the construction of parks and was approved on March 25, 2025 (Resolution No. 25-9425) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no General Fund fiscal impact other than staff time that is budgeted in the Parks and Recreation Operating Budget for the design and construction of the park. The Developer will design the park to City standards, construct the park improvements to code, and dedicate the park to the City in fee title, all at no cost to the City. In addition, the Developer will enter into a park maintenance agreement with the City to pay for ongoing maintenance and capital renewal of the park in conformance with the Condition of Approvals for this project.

COORDINATION
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
25-1500 Agenda Date: 12/9/2025
This report has been coordinated with the Community Development Department, the Finance Department, the City Attorney’s Office and the City Manager’s Office.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the 2518 Mission College Blvd. Park Schematic Design (Attachment 4) Prepared by: Gina Saporito, Staff Analyst
Reviewed by: Damon Sparacino, Director, Parks & Recreation Department Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Addendum to the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan EIR

2. RTC #25-637: Action on the Proposed Schematic Design for the New Public Park at 2518 Mission College Boulevard (Irvine Company)

3. 2518 Mission College Boulevard Park Schematic Design Presentation

4. 2518 Mission College Boulevard Public Park Schematic Design City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 12/5/2025
powered by Legistar™
Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/
Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2020060425
The following Addendum has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.

Prepared for:

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

MIG, Inc.
800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, California 94710
February 2025
SCH Number #2020060425 2 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................4

2.0 Purpose of Addendum...........................................................................................................4

3.0 Project Description................................................................................................................9

4.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the 2022 Approved Project ..............43

5.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................172

6.0 Addendum Preparers.........................................................................................................173

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

3.1. Regional Location and Aerial.........................................................................................10

3.2. Project Site Overview.....................................................................................................15

3.3A. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................16

3.3B. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................17

3.4A. Site Plan Details .............................................................................................................18

3.4B. Site Plan Details .............................................................................................................19

3.5A. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan ........................................................................22

3.5B. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan ........................................................................23

3.6. Site Circulation Diagram................................................................................................24

3.7. Regional Bike and Vehicular Circulation Diagram........................................................25

3.8. Complete Streets - Overall Diagram ..............................................................................26

3.9. Complete Streets Exhibit – Sections..............................................................................27

3.10. Private Street “A” - Plan and Sections...........................................................................28

3.11. Overall Illustrative Landscape Plan ...............................................................................31

3.12. Architectural Style (Formal Italian) ...............................................................................32

3.13. Architectural Style (Modern Palazzo)............................................................................33

3.14. Architectural Style (Formal Spanish).............................................................................34 SCH Number #2020060425 3 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

3.15. Architectural Style (Palladian).......................................................................................35

3.16A. Landscape Site Plan (North Side) ..................................................................................36

3.16B. Landscape Site Plan (South Side) ..................................................................................37

3.17. Landscape Zone Diagram...............................................................................................38

3.18A. Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan ............................................................................40

3.18B. Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan ............................................................................41

4.1-1A. Shadow Study .................................................................................................................48

4.1-1B. Shadow Study .................................................................................................................49

4.1-1C. Shadow Study .................................................................................................................50

4.10-1 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations..........................................................................120 Appendices
A Santa Clara Park Project Air Quality Modeling
B Santa Clara Park Project Operational and Construction Noise Estimates SCH Number #2020060425 4 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Addendum and the attached supporting documents have been prepared to document that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project (2022, State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020060425) adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Santa Clara Park Apartment Community Project (Santa Clara Park [SCP] project), proposed in the City of Santa Clara, California, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required.

This Addendum provides an analysis of the environmental impacts evaluated in the 2022 EIR to determine whether new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur, or whether new mitigation measures would be required, in the event that the proposed changes to the Focus Area Plan are approved by the City.

2.0 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
On June 7, 2022, the City of Santa Clara (the "City") certified a FEIR (SCH No. 2020060425) prepared pursuant to CEQA for the Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project ("2022 EIR") by Resolution No. 22-9098, No. 22-9099, No. 22-9100, and No. 22-9101. The 2022 EIR analyzed the potential impacts of development anticipated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, a 108-acre area in the city of Santa Clara. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan designates the Freedom Circle area as a new “Future Focus Area” in the City’s General Plan and makes changes to the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram that describe the future land uses anticipated in the Future Focus Area Plan Area.

The approved Focus Area Plan, encompassing an area with land use designations of Very High Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D), High Intensity Office/Research and Development (R&D), Very High Density Residential with some Regional Commercial and Public/Quasi Public land uses, would allow development of up to 3,600 dwelling units (including the proposed Greystar project discussed below), 2,000,000 square feet of net new office space above the remaining 1,020,000 square feet of development currently allowed in the Plan Area, and 2,000 square feet of retail (on the Greystar project site), with additional land provided for public parks and open space (including the two-acre park proposed by the Greystar project). The Greystar project was also evaluated in the 2022 EIR, including the development of three buildings with 1,075 total residential units and 2,000 square feet of retail space, plus a two-acre park, on 13.3 acres in the Freedom Circle Plan Area. The Greystar project was approved on June 7, 2022, concurrently with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) provides that once an EIR has been certified, no Subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, one or more of the following:

SCH Number #2020060425 5 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
• Substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
• 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, shows any of the following:
o The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; o Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
o Mitigation measures 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 o Mitigation measures 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.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) states that the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some discretionary changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15164(d) provides that the decision-making body shall consider the Addendum in conjunction with the EIR prior to deciding whether to approve changes or additions to the project. Section 15164(e) requires the administrative record to include documentation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162.

The 2022 EIR anticipated and assumed the preparation and adoption of a “future planning document” (such as a specific plan) prior to new development or redevelopment in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area (not including the Greystar project) in order to establish more detailed policies, regulations, and actions applicable to future development within the Future Focus Area.

This is also a requirement of multiple General Plan policies, including 5.1.1-P8 (“Prior to approval of residential development for Phase III in any Future Focus Area, complete a comprehensive plan SCH Number #2020060425 6 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
for each area . . .”) and 5.4.7-P1 (“Require the adoption of the comprehensive plan prior to any rezoning within that designated Future Focus Area”); and Goal 5.4.7-G1 (“All applicable prerequisites are met, and a comprehensive plan is adopted, prior to implementation of any Future Focus Area.”).

At this time (2024), the City has not yet adopted a specific plan for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area. Following the certification of the 2022 EIR and the approval of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project, however, Irvine Company (applicant) submitted an application to the City to redevelop a 25.74-acre parcel of land in the central portion of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, currently developed with Office and R&D land uses, pursuant to a development plan to be adopted in accordance with the City’s Planned Development zoning regulations (“PD Plan”). Although the General Plan currently requires a comprehensive plan be developed for the entire future focus area prior to rezoning and redevelopment, the proposed project would add a new policy to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to allow the Santa Clara Park project to proceed under a plan specific to the project site. Thus, the proposed PD Plan would serve as the “future planning document” applicable to the project.

Irvine Company proposes to redevelop the site to provide an apartment community. Because a residential development for the site is proposed, but a “future planning document” has not yet been adopted for the project site, the proposed Santa Clara Park Apartment Community Project (the Santa Clara Park [SCP] project) would represent a “change” to the previously approved 2022 project as evaluated in the 2022 EIR.

The proposed SCP project requires a discretionary approval by the City of Santa Clara, and CEQA requires that a lead agency must evaluate the environmental consequences of a discretionary approval before that approval is granted. To comply with CEQA, the City as lead agency has examined the proposed changes to the previously approved Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project (i.e., the SCP project without a specific plan) to determine if those changes would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than previously identified and evaluated in the 2022 EIR.

As described above, major revisions to the 2022 EIR would be required if:
(1) The proposed SCP project were to result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant environmental effects previously identified and evaluated in the 2022 EIR,
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the SCP project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the 2022 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or
SCH Number #2020060425 7 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
(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 2022 EIR was certified as complete that shows:
(1) That the proposed SCP project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 2022 EIR,
(2) Significant effects previously examined in the 2022 EIR would be substantially more severe than shown in the 2022 EIR,
(3) Mitigation measures previously found not feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed project, but the SCP project proponent declined to adopt the mitigation or alternative, or (4) Mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2022 EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the SCP project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

This Addendum concludes that the proposed SCP project would not cause substantial changes to the previously approved Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project, and major revisions to the 2022 EIR would not be required. This Addendum further concludes that, if the proposed SCP project is approved, no substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the previously approved Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project is undertaken and, therefore, no major revisions to the 2022 EIR would be required. This Addendum also concludes 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 2022 EIR was certified, that shows (1) that the proposed SCP project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 2022 EIR, (2) significant effects previously examined in the 2022 EIR would be substantially more severe than shown in the 2022 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 SCP project proponent declined to adopt the mitigation or alternative, or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2022 EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the SCP project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This Addendum includes four refinements to 2022 EIR mitigation measures which provide clarification and detailed protocols for SCP project-specific implementation of the 2022 EIR mitigation measures: one in Air Quality, two in Biological Resources, and one in Cultural Resources. No new significant or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts have been identified compared to the 2022 EIR.

Consistent with CEQA, some mitigation measures from the certified 2022 EIR have been clarified and refined to address the proposed SCP project at a site-specific level. As stated above and SCH Number #2020060425 8 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
throughout the Addendum, the proposed SCP project would not result in new significant or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than previously identified and evaluated in the 2022 EIR. Therefore, this Addendum is the appropriate environmental document to demonstrate, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, that no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. This Addendum has been prepared to satisfy applicable requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

SCH Number #2020060425 9 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Summary of the Approved 2022 Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and Certified 2022 Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar EIR
The City of Santa Clara certified an EIR for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Project in 2022. See Figure 3.1 (Regional Location and Aerial). The 2022 EIR evaluated designation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Area as a new “Future Focus Area” in the City of Santa Clara General Plan along with changes to the General Plan Land Use Diagram describing future land uses anticipated in the Focus Area Plan Area and policies intended to guide future development and infrastructure improvements. In addition, the 2022 EIR evaluated a sitespecific development proposal and General Plan Amendment for the Greystar project to be developed independently of any other future Focus Area Plan Area development activity.

The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan encompasses an approximately 108-acre area currently designated primarily as High Intensity Office/R&D with some Regional Commercial, and allows for development of up to 3,600 dwelling units (including the approved 1,075-unit Greystar project), 2,000,000 square feet (SF) of net new office space above the remaining 1,020,000 SF of development currently allowed under the General Plan, 2,000 square feet of retail (on the Greystar project site), and at least two acres for public parks. (Of these totals, the Greystar project includes approximately 1,075 residential units, 2,000 square feet of retail, and a 2.0-acre public park.) In addition to certifying the 2022 EIR, the City approved a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and adopt the Focus Area Plan. For the Greystar site only, the Council approved a change to the General Plan land use designation, a rezoning, a vesting tentative parcel map, a development agreement, and architectural review.

3.2 Proposed Changes to the Approved 2022 Project
Irvine Company has applied to the City for a General Plan Text Amendment to allow the proposed residential and retail development on the SCP project site (the General Plan currently requires a comprehensive plan for the entire focus area, and the amendment would allow the Project to proceed with a plan for the Project site only) and for approval of the proposed Santa Clara Park (SCP) project, as discussed in more detail in the following “Project Components” section and throughout the remainder of this document.

A summary comparison of the existing site conditions and the SCP project is provided in Table

3.1 below.

SCH Number #2020060425 10 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.1
Regional Location and Aerial I Ill =---------------I
SCH Number #2020060425 11 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 3.1
Existing Site Conditions Compared to Proposed Santa Clara Park Project Existing Site Condition Proposed Santa Clara Park
GP Land Use Designation Very High Density Residential Very High Density Residential Zoning High Intensity Office/ R&D PD – Planned Development Site Size 25.74 acres 25.74 acres
Parcels 1 6
Structures (type) 12 commercial buildings (with
surface parking areas)
5 residential buildings (with
attached parking structures)
Building Heights (levels) Two stories residential buildings: five stories parking structures: four to six
levels, all above ground
Open Space N/A (planting strips, trees) public open space: 4.225 acres (includes a 3.48-acre neighborhood
park to be dedicated to the City)
private open space and amenity
space: 2.03 acres
Trees 417 932* (including 148 existing trees
to remain on-site), which exceeds
replacement requirement
removed trees to be replaced at
minimum 2:1 ratio (287 replaced
trees x 2 = 574 minimum)**
Pervious and Impervious Surface
Area**
917,642 sq. sf. (impervious)
291,987 sq. sf. (pervious)
803,334 sq. sf. (impervious)
393,392 sq. sf. (pervious)
SOURCE: Irvine Development Company; City of Santa Clara; MIG, Inc., 2024. * The proposed tree preservation strategy is preliminary and will be finalized based on arborist review, a final survey, and a site walk with City staff and applicant representatives. The final strategy may include more new onsite trees than noted here, and may also include a greater number of existing on-site trees to remain (currently estimated at 148).
** Fire Department aerial access standards may require removal of some additional trees, which would be determined during the Fire Department’s final project design review; the project would also replace these trees at a 2:1 ratio.
** Square footages may not total project site size due to drainage management areas extending off-site.

Proposed Project Entitlements
General Plan Amendment
The General Plan currently provides that prior to any residential development in a Future Focus Area, a comprehensive plan must be completed for the entire area meeting certain requirements.

The SCP project would require a General Plan Text Amendment (GPA) to add a new policy to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to allow the PD Zoning document for the Santa Clara Park project to serve as the required comprehensive plan, even though it would be specific to the project site..

This particular GPA (text amendment) would also establish the framework for development, development assumptions, and related performance standards to implement this site-specific development proposal. The GPA would implement the General Plan comprehensive planning SCH Number #2020060425 12 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
process for the project site required under Phase III of the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan, which is programmed to occur between 2023 and 2035, while deferring planning for the balance of the Future Focus Area. The first phase was completed at the end of 2014. The timeframe for implementation of Phase II was from 2015 to 2023.

The timing of the phases generally aligns with the housing element update cycles. The Prerequisite Goals and Policies described in the General Plan identify fundamental steps, or milestones, to be completed prior to moving on to each successive phase of the General Plan. For example, General Plan Prerequisite Policy 5.1.1‐P2 states: “Prior to the implementation of Phase III of the General Plan, update and adopt the applicable Housing Element, in accordance with State law.” Some of the prerequisites may require future General Plan amendments, or adjustments to allowed growth, to ensure that the City continues to meet the infrastructure and service requirements of new development. Some Goals and Policies are specific to a particular year or phase, while others apply to all phases. Each of the policies must be followed to graduate to the next phase.

The proposed GPA text, the development standards (see Table 3.2), and the plans submitted for the SCP Project constitute the comprehensive rezoning plan for the project site to be filed with this project, consistent with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and City of Santa Clara General Plan.

The General Plan Text Amendment, and Planned Development (PD) Rezoning would include the following:
(1) A General Plan Text Amendment to add a new policy to the Freedom Circle Focus Area to allow the PD Rezoning Document for the SCP Project to constitute the necessary “comprehensive plan” for the project site and deferring a Specific Plan for the balance of the Future Focus Area. (2) PD Rezoning: Per City code, an application for a Planned Development zoning district shall include and be accompanied by a development plan which, if approved by the City Council, shall become a part of the City’s zoning map as provided for by Santa Clara City Code

18.20.030.C. See Table 3.2, Development Standards for Planned Development (PD) Rezoning.

SCH Number #2020060425 13 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 3.2
Development Standards for Planned Development (PD) Rezoning Development Feature
(minimum unless otherwise indicated)
Santa Clara Park Project
On-site Parcel area: minimums required for each newly created parcel.

Parcel Area 10,000 sq. ft.

Street Frontage (feet) 70 ft.

Structural Coverage (maximum percentage)
Parcel Area less than 10,000 sq. ft. None
Parcel Area greater than 10,000 sq. ft. None
Setbacks (minimum) – setback lines are measured from sidewalk Residential (front, side corner, and interior) 10 ft.

Mixed-Use (front, side corner, and interior) 0
Office (front, side corner, and interior) 0
Height (maximum) - measured in front
Height within 20 ft. of the R1-6L, R1-8L, and
R2 zones; not for project site – included for
comparative informational purposes
32 ft.

Height all other zones (applies to project site) 100 ft.

Number of Stories (maximum)
Number of stories all other zones (i.e., not
within 20' of R1-6L, R1-8L, and R2 zones)
10 Gross Residential Density (minimum to maximum) shown in number of dwelling units per acre
Allowable Density 51-100 dwelling units (du’s)/acre
Recreation Space for Multi-Family Dwellings (minimum) measured in sq. ft. per dwelling unit
Private Recreation Space 25 gross square feet (GSF) per unit Common Recreation Space (per unit) 65 GSF per unit
SOURCE: Irvine Development Company; MIG, Inc., 2024.

Overview of the Santa Clara Park Project Development Components The 25.7-acre project site is currently occupied by the Santa Clara Park at Freedom Circle business center, which is comprised of 12 two-story office structures, surface parking, and landscaping.

Development of the proposed SCP project would require demolition and removal of all existing structures, parking, and landscaping. See Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 and Table 3.3, Santa Clara Park Project – Proposed Parcel Characteristics. The Santa Clara Park project proposes a 1,792-unit multi-family residential project comprised of five five-story buildings, with structured parking to accommodate approximately 2,459 parking spaces; 3,600 square feet (SF) of project-serving retail (an approximately 3,600 SF market located in Building 5); 14,400 SF of amenities (a 3,600 SF Resident Services Office in Building 2; a 7,200 SF Fitness Center in Building 3; and a 3,600 SF SCH Number #2020060425 14 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Co-Working space in Building 5). In addition, the SCP project would provide one secure private bicycle parking space per unit located in the five parking garages (1,792 total bicycle parking spaces), 120 short-term, public Class II bike racks within public park space, do-it-yourself bicycle repair facilities (e.g., air pump and basic tools) so cyclists can conduct repairs as needed, and ebike charging stations. Also, approximately 4.225 acres of public open space would be provided, including an approximately 3.48-acre neighborhood park to be dedicated to the City; the final park design would be finalized with the Parks division as the design details become more precise.

Project buildings 1 through 3 would have 6 levels of parking; Buildings 4 and 5 would have 4 levels of parking.

The project would provide a private street through the project site to connect the east and west sides of Freedom Circle, with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 north of the road, and Buildings 4 and 5 south of the road.

The project would comply with the City’s affordable housing ordinance by including an Affordable Housing Rental Agreement that meets the City’s 15 percent affordable housing requirement.

SCH Number #2020060425 15 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.2
Project Site Overview
F1:::_F=l
ii M
SCH Number #2020060425 16 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.3A
Existing Conditions ii M
IA---
."""" - Cl,a'COG,1,. IUOU$~
Cl
"' --- ---
nil
-----~--
l. lffl,IIUTIU,Tlilll_n,_IIIS'rlU{l!l;ali
--,..,;a,,~......o:n-- ,.. ____ OII _...__
VERT~69CI-MARK
p, -sY
JLE<lEN)
---- m
---
" . -•-
.....
,-
SCH Number #2020060425 17 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.3B
Existing Conditions ii M
SCH Number #2020060425 18 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.4A
Site Plan Details
.... , ... CUR'C onr.o ll.ooulut.c1111 ., __. __ ___
a - __. nu
b LY T
ii M

11...EaH)
--CIIJ.•-an:i ~~rn
I SITE Pl.AN OEIERAL NOral
L °""_,_..___lit-..: AII.-OII\IE'Mll"--1Hl"'°"°"" ""'-«w\___ f-M ......... ~-1WDO-'l:l-f'IID' ■-..,_ -----~- i;i.,tw,,-~•OIICl9l 'O "'-- ~llll --~111"-ftMYIC.
:t. -~----...... ... _.,.,,m-. l, __ ia_ .. _______ ~-- ---Ol'l'sweMOQ.M. anw.-----.

4. ~~&I.JlflOIC,,ftflMtNIII-Nal,.-T'r.- T.IJ!IWl',--r,._M'Ml,IC __ _

11. 1t --or---....ftl~AS-cr =.~~~~l:=='.5.ra-
.. ~-"-Wl-.a"ICU""'"'-._,~

1.---.::1--ATRU:CTM~
==~~:~~-=-.=.~ =-~-.... l -111;,--QIOOIUCT
~·"'·----.-'IO•
~~,:,,~ .. -----
"M-- uic....a.-MCNII.IES. ...... ----•-
SCH Number #2020060425 19 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.4B
Site Plan Details
:e~=
j
..
·~-
~ .,.,
~~-:--
. .
.

11..EQEN)
---
-~~
----· -· - -------~
SCH Number #2020060425 20 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Parcel Configuration
As shown in previous Figure 3.4, the project proposes to create six parcels from the one existing parcel, which would include one parcel for each of the five proposed residential buildings and one parcel for the public park to be dedicated to the City.

Table 3.3
Santa Clara Park Project – Proposed Parcel Characteristics Parcel No. Parcel Size Dwelling Units Parking
Spaces
Amenities/other Courtyards
1 161,711 sq. ft.
(3.71 acres)
362
DUs by unit type –
1 BR: 79
2 BR: 138
Studio: 145
500 -- 1
2 190,627 sq. ft.
(4.38 acres)
341
DUs by unit type –
1 BR: 68
2 BR: 133
Studio: 140
474 resident services
office: 3,600 sq.
ft.
2 3 256,097 sq. ft.
(5.88 acres)
536
DUs by unit type –
1 BR: 120
2 BR: 192
Studio: 224
728 fitness room:
7,200 sq. ft.
5 4 222,547 sq. ft.
(5.11 acres)
292
DUs by unit type –
1 BR: 186*
2 BR: 106
Studio: -0-
398 -- 2
5 171,493 sq. ft.
(3.94 acres)
261
DUs by unit type –
1 BR: 163*
2 BR: 98
Studio: -0-
359 (plus an
additional 18
retail spaces)
market: 3,600 sq.
ft.
co-working space:
3,600 sq. ft.
2 6 118,918 sq. ft.
(2.73 acres)
N/A –public park to
be dedicated to City
N/A (20 onstreet parking
spaces would
be available)
(various; see
“Public
Park/Open Space”
below)
N/A
SOURCE: Irvine Development Company; MIG, Inc.; 2024.
* means these include “1 BR plus den” units in the total SCH Number #2020060425 21 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Demolition and Site Preparation
See Figure 3.5. Prior to construction, the existing 12 on-site buildings and all parking surfaces would be demolished and removed. Remaining vegetation (grass and weeds), asphalt, and concrete would be removed.

Demolition of the existing buildings is anticipated to generate approximately 18,750 tons (37,500 cubic yards) of debris that will need to be removed from the site. Subsequent grading, excavation, and preparation for building foundations and utilities are estimated to result in the export of an additional 10,000 cubic yards of soil. Provisions for protecting 148 existing trees, as discussed below (see “Landscaping”), would be necessary.

Site Circulation and On-Street Parking
See Figure 3.6. Access to the project site is from Freedom Circle, via Mission College Boulevard.

Driveway access to the project buildings would be provided as follows: Building 1 – one driveway, via Freedom Circle; Building 2 – one driveway via the new private street (which connects to Freedom Circle); Building 3 – two driveways, both via the new private street (which connects to Freedom Circle); Building 4 – one driveway, via Freedom Circle; and Building 5 – one driveway via the new private street (which connects to Freedom Circle).

Additional circulation would be provided as follows:
• A new 28-foot-wide two-way private street, including bike lanes, roughly dividing the project site into a northern half (Buildings 1, 2, and 3) and a southern half (Buildings 4 and 5); 6-foot pedestrian sidewalks are located adjacent to both sides of the street, with a landscape parkway in-between the street and sidewalk.
• A public pedestrian path between Buildings 1/2 and Building 3 from Mission College Boulevard to the private street; between Building 4 and Building 5 from the private street to the park in the southeastern part of the project site; and generally from west to east and adjacent to Building 4 and Building 5 along the northern boundary of the park. • A Class II bike lane around the project site perimeter (“Freedom Circle Bike Lane”). • A Class IV bike lane proposed for Mission College Boulevard.

Loading zones would be provided for each building. Parallel street parking would be provided along the project frontage at the southern border of the park. As discussed later, the project proposes three new crosswalks, two of which were already proposed in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (see Figure 3.6). Additional details regarding site circulation, “complete streets” provisions, and the proposed private street are included in Figures 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10.

SCH Number #2020060425 22 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.5A
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
---...-~
! ,___..,... ___
--~ ....,.., ..... --~
LY 1•-·
·-·· JI, __ ___,__u-,-
_.__ __
ii M
==:::> i::::::::z
.
·-
·-;;
¢
-
~
w ,
51 r
!
::::..'b
SCH Number #2020060425 23 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.5B
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan ii m
0 0
IWlEN>
=:==
~:::::::::
-·········-····
------ -..-,u,i,.-
__ .,_..__
-·-H,o,Jl(I, -·---
....
-·---- .... ..__ ....... ,,_,_ __ _
L..- I
SCH Number #2020060425 24 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.6
Site Circulation Diagram
Legend
* *
Ill
■
Podostrian Com oction Point
Prrna,y re<:ton Point
Pri:nary Bike I Pedestri.;w, Con
PubWe Pedc~ rion. Pt1th
g• F'cde:!!trian Wt1lk
an Tomas AQuinos Trail
S I "'~k,,P,lt>J 81\ld.
(CJasa: d Mission College Freedom Circlei:~Pwd/J BikeloM (CAin Privato Stt.,i,! '~Bi~ !;"St'!.,J {Clas,rrl !lihtl'Wlt:rl Vehicular Garage Entry
Vehicular I Bike Connection
loading 2one
Existing Crosswalk
Proposed Crosswalk
Retail
Moilroom
Amenity
0 Primary Goleway
:'•••, .. :Secondary Galeway
':,•u••
.
.
:
. .
-"'
!
I!
ii
ti
f\mJRE
~::::i *
SCH Number #2020060425 25 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.7
Regional Bike and Vehicular Circulation Diagram ii
A ref\il'al open space will act as
p.ablic ga~rig space and activity
IMlb.
r
A 2.70 acre corm,unity park will provide an
open space and recreation opportu:rities and
ccmect to the San Tomas. Aquino Trai.

Open and active ground-Goor fronta~.
well-designed landscaping and en-site
amenitie$ will ens.we ,.;t,rancy.

M
EXIHWIO COMllleflCIAL

OIOTAPART)
EXBT-.io COMMERCIAL
4MOTAPAR'T)
.. .. .... _ ' ' -:

Proposed Crossw
A two-aae convnunity park vi.II ptavide an
open space and recreaoon IJS)pCl'tunlties.
and conned to the San T ornas Aquino
Trai. Open and active grooncUoor
frmtages, welk'Jesqled landscapirig and
on-site ametities will ensure viwancy.

EXIITINO COIIIHIERaAL
4NOTAPIJfT)
..... ..... ,
Legend
----- Primary Vehicular Connection
----- Local Vehicular Gonnectioo
- san Tomas Aquinos Trail {~UJS/loi.l!'<HISo!.'P-i!l1J
Class II Bike Lane
- - - - - .. Class IV Bike Lane (Proposed)
Greystar Project Boundary
Node
C) 11 1 0 100 200 400
SCH Number #2020060425 26 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.8
Complete Streets - Overall Diagram ii M
i
tr
/i
--c..-RQAL
(HOTAPARl]
BLDG 1
EXISllNG CC11NERC1AL
(NOT A PART}
fUruRE
PUOUCP< ..
(MOT APARl)
Legend
• Type A Street Condition
(Attached Sidewalk)
Type B Street Condition
(Detached Sidewalk)
Garage Entry
(28%)
(72%)
SCH Number #2020060425 27 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.9
Complete Streets Exhibit – Sections
I .,, L ,,.., a ... I ,r.., I ,.., lr ... ..,. L
- fRffOOMCI ACl.E · COMF't.ETESTRfETS
- CONDITION lYPE A (A.TTA.CHEO SIOEWAU()
ii ti
8 I ~ I
, i I
ii I II~ I
:

I
1 r I ~.., I ,.._.. It-I' rr-1' ~_.. \e .,,..,. I ,.... ... 1.-l&lftll -~- _. .::-~1- I.Mll 1- ..... 1 - u,;f .::-~1 -- 1--1 - · -- ® FREEDOM CIRCt.E •COMf'l.ETE STREETS
CONOfTION TYPE 8 (DETACtEO SIDEWALK)
SCH Number #2020060425 28 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.10
Private Street “A” - Plan and Sections
IT\ 111
V o 1s 30 so

KEYIIAP
®f----''""EC=n=o=•~-PR=IV=ATE=S=lRE=ET~··~· •=T~P=ARKW ==•v~c=°"='"=n=o=•~------- @~•=ECTIC=.,=•~-PR= IV=ATE=SlREET==·•~·•=T~LOAO =='"="='°"=E ________ _ ii ti
SCH Number #2020060425 29 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Building Lobbies and Related Building Amenities
Main building lobbies would be provided on the ground floor (Level 1) for each building as follows: Building 1, four lobbies; Building 2, three lobbies; Building 3, three lobbies; Building 4, four lobbies; and Building 5, four lobbies. Each parking level would have its own lobby for resident access.

Mail rooms would be provided on the ground floor (Level 1) for each building. Additional resident amenities would be provided on the ground floor as follows: Building 2 would have a Resident Services Office; Building 3 would have a Fitness Center; and Building 5 would have a market and Co-Working space.

Trash rooms would be provided on Parking Level 1 for each building as follows: Building 1, three trash rooms; Building 2, three trash rooms; Building 3, four trash rooms; Building 4, three trash rooms; and Building 5, three trash rooms. Each trash room would be connected to trash chutes serving the upper levels and accessible to residents via each parking level.

Courtyards and Pools
See Figure 3.11. The buildings would contain interior courtyards as follows: Building 1, one courtyard; Building 2, two courtyards; Building 3, five courtyards; Building 4, two courtyards; and Building 5, two courtyards. The project also proposes two swimming pool areas: one pool area between Buildings 1 and 2, and another adjacent to Building 4.

Publicly accessible open space would be provided around the project site perimeter as discussed further below (see “Public Park/Open Space”).

Architectural Design and Materials
Architectural styles proposed for the five residential buildings would include Modern Palazzo and Italian for Buildings 1, 2, and 3; Building 4 would be designed in the Palladian style; and Building 5 would be designed in the Formal Spanish style. The building designs would incorporate variations in heights and interior courtyard areas. Awnings and sunshades, balconies and railings, and varying window treatments would provide visual highlights. Other elements would include use of iron work with ornamental shapes and geometry; cast stone columns; overhangs with rafter tails; and concrete tile roofs. See Figures 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, and 3.15 for more details.

Landscaping
See previous Figure 3.11; also see Figures 3.16 and 3.17. The project site currently contains approximately 417 trees. The project proposes to protect “in place” 96 trees and relocate on-site 34 trees. A total of 287 trees are proposed to be removed. The tree preservation strategy is preliminary and will be finalized based on final survey and the arborist review, with city staff and applicant representatives; this final strategy might incorporate retention of a greater number of existing on-site trees. As required by the City, all removed trees will be replaced on-site at a 2:1 SCH Number #2020060425 30 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
ratio (utilizing 24-inch box or larger trees). Also, Fire Department aerial access standards may require removal of additional trees, which would be determined during the Fire Department’s final project design review; the project would also replace these trees at a 2:1 ratio.

New, replaced, relocated, and preserved trees would be located generally around the building perimeters and project site boundaries, near sidewalks and along the north-south pedestrian/bike path, along the new private street, around the pool areas, in the building courtyards, and in the urban plaza and the public park. The plant palette to be used at Santa Clara Park will include drought-tolerant, sustainable plants that require limited amounts of water and maintenance.

Public Park/Open Space
See previous Figures 3.11, 3.16, and 3.17. The project proposes approximately 4.225 acres of public park and open space, including a 3.48-acre neighborhood park located in the southern part of the project site and to be dedicated to the City, and approximately 1.43 total acres of public park/open space areas located between each building and Freedom Circle plus the north-south pedestrian path (see Figure 3.11, Overall Illustrative Landscape Plan). The 3.48-acre neighborhood park would include a free-play open turf area; a kids play area with a 2-5 age group area and 6-12 age group area; a sport court; a dog park; fitness stations; large group picnic area with dining tables and umbrellas; and outdoor game, picnic, and group seating. The public park facilities would include recreational amenities such as multi-use turf areas, bench seating and picnic areas, and group gathering areas with seating. In addition to the 4.225 acres of public space, the project will provide private open space and building amenities space for SCP project residents, as follows:

Each building would include private open space and amenity space primarily through building courtyards but also passive landscape, picnic areas, pool areas, fitness areas, and a game court, for a total of approximately 2.1 acres.

Storm Water and Flooding
See Figure 3.18. The project would connect to the City’s existing storm drain system extending along Freedom Circle. The project design would incorporate on-site storm water treatment provisions to comply with Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program requirements, including Low Impact Development (LID) practices and Best Management Practices (BMPs). On-site storm water treatment techniques would include a combination of bioretention treatment areas and potential Silva cell (or equivalent) methods. The park system would be designed as a self-retaining area; no drainage would extend beyond its borders. Along the project perimeter, the project intends to add on-site bioretention areas or other LID treatment measures to treat required off-site impervious areas.

SCH Number #2020060425 31 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.11
Overall Illustrative Landscape Plan Ii
~ICIIBOflN IIRM

EXISTING COMMERCIAL
(NOT APART]
M

EXISTING COMMERCIAL
(NOT APART]

FUTIJRE

PUBUCPARK
(HOT APART]
SCH Number #2020060425 32 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.12
Architectural Style (Formal Italian)

EAVE PROFILE DOOR SURROUND & WAINSCOT DETAIL
r

TRIM BAND PROFILE & ENHANCED PLASTER RAILING DETAIL
ii M
SCH Number #2020060425 33 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.13
Architectural Style (Modern Palazzo)

DOOR SURROUND & WAINSCOT DETAIL

TRIM BAND PROFILE WINDOW GROUPING AND PANEL
ii M
SCH Number #2020060425 34 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.14
Architectural Style (Formal Spanish)
24"OVERHANG WITH DECORATIVE RAFTER TAILS DOOR SURROUND TRIM & FIRED CLAY BRICK

TRELLIS DETAILS ORNAMENT RAILING DETAIL
ii M
SCH Number #2020060425 35 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.15
Architectural Style (Palladian)
1 S"OVERHANG WITH DECORATIVE RAFTER TAILS TRANSOM MASSING ELEMENT "
...

DECORATIVE FINIAL ELEGANT RAILING DETAIL
ii M
SCH Number #2020060425 36 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.16A
Landscape Site Plan (North Side) ii M

EXISTING COMMERCIAL
(NOT APART)
L coum'AJi:05:

J F'ASSl\lT:COl.lrrfNitlWlnieaQS,
~ 1 O~NI~ T,'l!LfS,, ANO LruiGE 5fAffiG
R8.JC 5flACf WITH~ RAY
OOJRiYAROi:

LEGEND - ARCHITECTURE
- RESIDENTIAL UNITS
- AMENITY I COMMON AREAS
- BUILDING ENTRY I EXIT LOCATIONS
NOTE:

All Puel.lC PARK F'ROGRAMI.IING 15 SHOWN fOR
RffE~CE ONLY. PARJC OE.stGH ANJ PROGRAMMll-fG
WI.L BE VETTEDA..••mCON~ED THROOGH MEETINGS
Wl1l1 THE CITY Of SANTA Cl.ARA A."'ID COli&IUtilTY
ENGAGEMENT PER THE CITY'S GU:DEUNES
PA5.SM: COURTYNm\WTl16:!,Q,OOIING
fOR MORE INfORMATION REGARDING F'ROPOSEO
PROGRAwa.lG FOR THE PUBLIC PARK SPACES, A.EASE
REFER TO SHEETS L1 13-U:l1
Tia.ES, LOUNGE SEAffiGAND REX T\Jfif ~
COURTYARO.S:
'Mlt1E6Q,,Df.lNGl.-aLE5,,
LCX.NGE SEATHGN>IDl'lf;5ff KfYMAP
rT\ 11 1 V o 2S 50 100
SCH Number #2020060425 37 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.16B
Landscape Site Plan (South Side)
I
~~= 1 TI'H:PU.-m..:; I
I
I
- - r:- -. .,,_•~~,.~, l~'Ylc<ul
DJSTir,«;~~ ·-·r
=~~l:;~ ;: t>~
"'"""'°,!,a. lla«::HSEAll~

EXISTING COMMERCIAL
(NOTA PART)
ii M
-1 -------- I
1 I
,1
"""""""""'"'""' """""""
I
,l.

I ~ P~PM/il..El.p,w(JNG
/ ST,t,LLSN..ONGPARKEDGc
I
I

LEGEND - ARCHITECTURE
- RESIDENTIAL UNITS
- AMENITY I COMMON AREAS
- BUILDING ENTRY/ EXIT LOCATIONS

PRIVATE STREET

REFER TO NEXT PAGE
(SHEET L 109)
NOTE:

All Pl&.IC PARK PROGRAMMING IS SHOWN fOft
REFE~ CE. ONLY. PARJC DESIGN NE PROGRNJA!I~
W1.l BE VETTED AND CONFEMEO THROUGH MEETINGS
WITH THE aTY Of SANT A ct.ARA A."ID COf&!UNITY
ENGAGEI.IENl PER TliE crrrs GUIDB..INES
fOft MORE INFOf;,'MATION ftEGAIU)ltiGfROPOSBl
PR.OGM M~G FOR. THE PUBLIC PARK SPACES, R EASE
REFEft TO 5HEET5 l1 1S· l121
KEYMAP
rT\ 111 V o 25 so 100
SCH Number #2020060425 38 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.17
Landscape Zone Diagram ii Hi
U<
It
Ji
"'"""""""
EXlmNGcotiaiERCW..
[NOTAPAKT)
'"""'"'~ (NOT APARTJ
""""" """"'- {NCJJAPARJ]
Legend
-Neighborhood Par1< Mini Parks
-Urban Plaza COurtyards
-Grand Pool Area
Fitness Pool Area
-Private Interior Street
■ Retail
Mailroom
Amenity
0 Primary Gateway
,,,,,.
t E Secondary Gateway
"•••"
fl\ 111 \.J O 50 100 200
SCH Number #2020060425 39 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
As shown in Figure 3.5, portions of the proposed project site are designated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping as Zone AH with a base flood elevation of 25 feet above mean sea level (ASL). All on-site project buildings have been designed so that the finished floor would be a minimum of 2 feet above the base flood elevation.

Sustainable Design
The project would support sustainability through incorporation of the following City Climate Action Plan measures: solar photovoltaic panels on the roofs of all project buildings; EV charging stations; all-electric building construction (with exceptions for gas hot water and pool heaters, and BBQs/fire pits); electric appliances and electric mechanical systems and equipment; and secure bike parking, including outlets for charging electric bikes. Additional sustainability design elements would include reuse of salvageable building materials and use of carbon-smart building materials; integration of natural stormwater systems at the site to reduce runoff and filter potential stormwater pollutants; use of recycled water for irrigation purposes; use of landscaping, green infrastructure, and natural stormwater systems to lower surface temperatures and reduce heat gain; compliance with CalGreen Tier 1 energy efficiency requirements; use of solar photovoltaic panels on garage and residential rooftops, electric vehicle charging stations (50 percent electric vehicle stall capacity), and all-electric building construction (excepting hot water systems and BBQ/fire pits); achievement of LEED Gold equivalent sustainable design; development of a TDM Program that reduces VMT by 20 percent, including 10 percent from TDM measures and 10 percent from physical design features (see section 4.14, Transportation); compliance with State solid waste laws that reduce organic waste by 75 percent; and planting new trees possibly exceeding City requirements.” Also see section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy.

Infrastructure
Infrastructure improvements (i.e., sewer, water, and storm drainage) would be constructed to serve the proposed project, generally as follows:

Potable water service would be provided by the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Department. The project intends to replace the domestic water main with ductile iron pipe starting at the intersection of Mission College and Freedom Circle (west), looping down and around Freedom Circle and connecting to the replaced water main that is a part of the Greystar project infrastructure improvements in Freedom Circle (east). Should the Greystar project not develop, the project intends to extend the water main replacement all the way around Freedom Circle and back to the Mission College water main.

SCH Number #2020060425 40 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.18A
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
L
~ ....
ii M
w
g
g
Lil
Lil
IC
II.
b
ClbPIDC IC.&LI:
-sH
ILE<IEIO
M-.::=..-::.3'M'..=.:..•.::.-::..-
=~...;.• .. ~-===-------"-'--- --CIILl.(111
- --
I Dwl .................. %1..,,._!....._ ... _, .. ,rl,..,11!11!.-,._fol"•,ll~•ltll C•r,<Ut11 ll>)'• U11IIIWl]ff'\.,. .. ~lt'3,._tll).t:hrgL:lr,lllllllll1"""RNI *""'" . ..,."..,"""'1t"'"""lvlsNmm, .. 1n1_,....,..,,....,.1,lh,-•nltl.,i..ng ,i .. _,....,;~.,..,.,.,..i)..,. __ _..,c...,......i-,i...~<--!'<W•-"-.0 ;...-<L • ...-1l<ulbe~-"'"''""•'•""""''_,•.,.1a1,t•.,I~ «tt#IICINI.U'ffldlll lM SU .. ..l!('lillt;,nQofld11 .... , '41-CMll,C ... _lll(f,__. "'°"" ............... ofl,...,.,.,,m,. .. ,...,IN_,....,_,_._.,,_,1QU1oonll•"lf l'ullmmPm-r .. im..._iM''IIUPr)....,...., ,o t'e::ettQfl'-)IJ;:X:e r11IUM1lI'r1!1DI .so1111. ,w-i.-w1DMrwlllll<t<hotlJ_ ,1.,ei.,...........,,s.,a~11,res.w, 'f«_.., ~'URl'l'PCJ!l(ffll'O•trlt1-.il.Afr,,:n&t.C/\.-it/llll.M,c""+l•liHl1WM,_sW. ......... .,,~,IK<!-vf l v n ..... hsv ... _M1, ..... 1.1itn1,.., ...... ..., ... ...i ,.,.,.,a11,,..r .. ~'J"ol'"~n1< .. rm""'"'"'"""'' r1ia1...,toil:1,oJ..,...,,llt,,:a1ir,,o,1 ••-~c ... , .... 1r1 ..... ..., ... ,,aar"'"""_..1,:,•,.,,.=1,,..i...:e1.<mil'ta• ......... , ... ""i.. .. ,,1 ........... ....,m..:1 .......... .._ ...... ,11 .. ,~ft·-,. l ~tllit0"~11rocttlilll~t'ltlo!Pffl11111<Cl!"JC,i-t~w.:111111M<IOl"-I"',_.,. ... ,, ... ,._, ... _,_.., .. ,,,y .. , .... i..._...
f'nf'""""""" .... '"" .. - ... wN(:$oll)~ , ... rr---' ..... l•-'>""1'r-.,,...f><•1'- i-11, .. offkpp:--.-"'- ·-----·\ 5 1 .... 111..,.orr.., .. ,,,,.,_,w, _ w \ · ... ~• •• .. 1ff6'Hfff_..,lli.11.i-m..o,;.,.., -~:::,:... ,:::~ ~!:;~W:-,.::==~n:::-.:r.'.:=n~:-:.:::'~.;e._•• _,_ • l..i.lloloJ•of lNlttuplw f, ""••U....,,.1'w,.,ulo.,.,..,...,,.ffh<•...,._....,..,,.,l'ft..:
_,...,on:,.1,11m..,..,_, .. m ... fflor.,111-r-.
............ ::.::~-~rldOiln,,:1110l1..,hr<fll'.MHma'Mwli.-nllN"1rit...,111__. .. , ~•~~~-••~~~ •~•~--~'~' ~'•~--~'~•~•~••~"~'•7"~r •~••~,b~•=- ~"•=•=~~•"~•~, ~ - .. ..._.. i :-~o:.-L.:::TI - } ,.__ =.-:;..-r=.-
, --- I -
,. B -;
- '
. -
(
I
'
I
;)
I
I
SCH Number #2020060425 41 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 3.18B
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan ii
\
\
•:,,
\ , .... -·-- ---·
-:-~
M
0 0
ILE<BO
l' I U I ~- Ml 'i'T J ... -..imr;;,"'\.....,7lll<Tlfl'IMJff'i n,A""'.Jl~ l,._~r, 1~- •TF• ""'"-"llMfN'" " •'"I
W?~
l!'!;C_;rz:zm
llo~"rl'lf•'"••~•r_, ,,,_, .,_,..,"""",,,....,.....,P ... ,,.i;..- ,.,.,.,,.. ; ..... • ~ ,•~:-•"'•-":•·....,...., , .. , .. L..,,A._;.,LI•• ..... ..,.~ 0 .. ,1 --....i .... ,._ _ .,u.1 ..... a.1 ....... .., •• • ,-~ . . ...... .. .. ........ ... ,-.. -.,._.. .._,_,.....,,,_...,. ,.,. ... _,""' ....... • <>•"""' l.._.,, ; -,, v,...a-11 h l-...., l't<-~..., l'r:....,lK'l'll- ttt,...-tw,11 . -·• _ ... . ioil,ulk-.---l,•.l.-.l o,o, ... lli___,t.,. >b,18..-,, ,,.....,_.,., SCWt.ltf(j-A,s:,,tUJ».111 "".our. c ... -P,;fflolll .. rio, gfJ • r .... .- =~·= 11 11;fM•4"'fl ·~ c :-:..==!
... "',.,._,_,..,...,_.,.,liiJIO'"r ~~...;!~::.;~~~~..
.:."' •~-:-~~~::-' ,..-...-,-.,ll ~ ... , ... '-"-- ~••.----·"""""'-•'"'_'"_.,,,_...,. ,_
---""l4'1
_ ..... ,..:;;-,,.,:.,.~IO~J.o_.,-_<11,..,..i
11o''1,..lf¥"",...l,...("--Wll-•Nl-l.e:;1
, .,w,"""',-,..:,t
.....-,1
_11.
! : '"'"'";,.,i:::;.,,,.,_ .. ~-;.:,.""""''"-"' "n.-ttd,~f'M'9<1"'"· ~":'._.,_,. ............... ,,.,...,»J ,.,,•loftJ--U - IJ • Lll!l'ol"a.u ,..,_ ,,, .. .,,::"'·• .. ··· .. ·~~···· .. ··· ., ..... ~ ... ...... ,_.r--',. ... ~-., _,..••• .... .. J",.."'-.. ..__...., ............... _ .,,. .,,,..,.,.._I ~ .. i..-.r-.•t"""Ubt-,.f .. pllrt1'f.....,.W,••f>n t 411""J"" l'>;ilo,• ......,..,...
"' lH
SCH Number #2020060425 42 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
The project proposes to utilize recycled water for irrigation. Although no recycled water main is currently available in Freedom Circle, the project intends to construct a new 8” recycled water main along a portion of the western part of Freedom Circle to connect the project site with the existing recycled water main located in Mission College Boulevard.

Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the Water & Sewer Utilities Department. No upsizing of sanitary sewer mains along the immediate project frontage is anticipated based on evaluation of the full build-out condition in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan EIR.

The project would be responsible for pipes on-site and connections to City water and sewer mains, per City approved plans and in compliance with City standards.

Regarding storm drainage, the project would increase on-site pervious surface area and provide LID stormwater treatment areas and source control measures, thereby decreasing the amount of stormwater runoff from the project site into the City mains. No upsizing of storm drainpipes is anticipated to be required.

Electricity would be provided to the project by Silicon Valley Power, which conducted a study of electrical infrastructure capacity and the need to upgrade two electrical transformers at the Agnew Substation to accommodate overall growth in its service area (see section 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems below). Natural gas service would be provided to the project by PG&E. The project proposes a joint trench generally running under the project’s proposed perimeter sidewalk and along its proposed private road. Telecommunications (telephone, cable, internet) would be available through any of several private companies. Solid waste recycling and trash removal would be provided by GreenWaste Recovery.

Project Construction Timing
Project construction is estimated to occur for a period of approximately five years, from 2026 through 2030.

SCH Number #2020060425 43 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 2022

APPROVED PROJECT
This Addendum provides an analysis of the environmental impacts evaluated in the 2022 EIR to determine whether a Subsequent EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, in the event that the proposed changes to the Focus Area Plan are approved by the City. As noted above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. This document assesses the SCP project’s proposed changes to the previously approved 2022 Focus Area Plan to determine whether such changes would result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

This Addendum addresses the potential effects resulting from construction and operation of the proposed SCP project. Each of the resource areas and potential impacts from the SCP project are discussed below.

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR.

The Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site is located entirely within Santa Clara, in an area in the northwestern part of the city with major hospitality and amusement uses and several business office centers. The Focus Area Plan Area in which the project site is located is bordered by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, U.S. 101 to the south, Great America Parkway to the west, and California’s Great America amusement park to the north. The Focus Area Plan Area is essentially built out with uses such as biotech and electronics, business offices, hotels, and various support services (such as car rental, UPS store, medical/dental, and restaurants). The Plan Area is generally flat with surface elevations ranging from 20 to 30 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Existing, limited vistas within the Plan Area, including the project site, include views of distant hills, but because Santa Clara is generally flat and urbanized, vistas are often blocked by buildings, trees, power poles, and walls.

The project site is enclosed within Freedom Circle and Mission College Boulevard, developed with 12 two-story buildings, adjoining parking lots, landscaping, and trees within the business park and along the perimeter. The project site is bordered by four three-story office buildings to the north across Mission College Boulevard, the 13-story Marriott Hotel to the west/northwest at Hichborn Drive, the 12-story Mission Towers to the west at Hichborn Drive, the 11-story Santa Clara Towers and two-story Pedro’s Restaurant and Cantina to the south, and the vacant Greystar project site to the east and southeast.

SCH Number #2020060425 44 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Views from inside the business park are limited, though some taller buildings are more easily seen in the west. Views from the eastern part of the business park include the Greystar project site and the office buildings east of San Tomas Aquino Creek, beyond the Focus Area Plan Area.

4.1.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result less-than-significant impacts on scenic vistas and light and glare issues, and a potentially significant impact on existing visual character and quality resulting from potential conflicts with General Plan policies governing scenic quality. The 2022 EIR’s conclusion regarding the potentially significant impact on existing visual character and quality is summarized below.

Impacts on Existing Visual Character and Quality
Per the 2022 EIR, as stated in the General Plan, a comprehensive planning study is required for future focus areas, which would include, among other items, “…appropriate design guidelines for private development, public facilities, streetscapes and transitions to adjacent land uses” (Prerequisite Policy 5.1.1-P8). The 2022 EIR concluded that, although the Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies intended to provide direction for minimizing visual impacts from future development, these general goals and policies lack the detail and enforceability that would be included in the comprehensive planning study, and therefore present potential conflicts with applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality, which represents a potentially significant impact.

The following mitigation measure would be applicable to the SCP project. 2022 EIR Mitigation Measure:

Mitigation 4-3. As required by the City of Santa Clara General Plan, the City shall prepare a future comprehensive planning study for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (whether a specific plan or another type of plan) and it shall include the following performance and design standards and guidelines that apply to all future individual development proposals in the Plan Area to minimize visual impacts by: (a) those enhancing form and design in the Plan Area; (b) those incorporating land use densities and associated changes in intensity consistent with the General Plan; (c) those encouraging street trees and landscaping along corridors to beautify the streetscape; (d) those coordinating signage color, shape, and graphic styles with the City’s signage system; (e) those including standards to ensure compatibility of new development with nearby existing and planned development; (f) those establishing standards related to building form, mass, and scale that enhance the pedestrian realm and provide transitions to adjacent lower-density development and public spaces; (g) those including guidelines and standards for pedestrian amenities; and (h) those fostering site design so that building height and massing would not overshadow new parks and plazas and/or interfere with solar collectors. Incorporation of such performance and design SCH Number #2020060425 45 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
standards and guidelines in the required comprehensive planning study for the Plan Area would minimize conflicts with General Plan policies pertaining to visual character. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
Effects on Scenic Vistas
The 2022 EIR concluded that because the Plan Area does not afford expansive or high-quality scenic views, and the proposed development that may be facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would neither exacerbate nor improve that condition, Plan impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Similar to the Plan Area, the SCP project site does not afford expansive or high-quality scenic views. The SCP project site is generally flat and already built out. The SCP project site is located near the center of the Plan Area and generally surrounded by tall buildings that block views of distant hills, and currently affords limited public access. These facts, in combination with the lack of significant scenic vistas in the vicinity, would ensure the SCP project will have a less-thansignificant impact on scenic vistas and will not cause a new or more substantial impacts on scenic vistas than those identified in the 2022 EIR.

Impacts on Existing Visual Character and Quality
According to the 2022 EIR, new development throughout the Plan Area could include a combination of residential, retail, office, and open space uses, and new uses could include combinations of residential, retail, restaurant, and office uses in single or mixed-use buildings, which could potentially conflict with various City policies intended to promote the enhancement of the form and design of development with the Plan Area; encourage street trees and landscapes along street corridors to beautify the streetscape; coordinate signage color, shape and graphic styles with City’s signage system; ensure the compatibility of new development with nearby existing and planned development; establish standards related to building form, mass, scale, pedestrian amenities; and foster sight design so that building height and mass would not overshadow new parks and plazas. To ensure that future Plan Area development proceeds in a manner consistent with these City policies, and thereby avoid a significant impact on existing visual character and quality, 2022 EIR Mitigation Measure 4-3 requires the City to adopt regulatory plans that establish appropriate design standards applicable to future individual development proposals within the Plan Area to minimize visual impacts, as described above.

The SCP project’s proposed GPA text and PD Plan would satisfy the requirements of 2022 EIR Mitigation Measure 4-3 because such planning documents establish development and design standards applicable to the SCP project for the purpose of reducing the project’s potential visual impacts to less-than-significant levels. To implement Mitigation Measure 4-3, the SCP project SCH Number #2020060425 46 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
includes proposed development standards for the following development features, as shown in Table 3.2 of section 3.0 (Project Description):
• On-Site Parcel Area: minimums required for each newly created parcel • Structural Coverage (maximum percentage)
• Setbacks (minimum) – setback lines are measured from sidewalk • Height (maximum) - measured in front
• Number of Stories (maximum)
• Gross Residential Density (minimum to maximum) shown in number of dwelling units per acre
• Recreation Space for Multi-Family Dwellings (minimum) measured in square feet per dwelling unit.

Site design features included in the project plans would also constitute the project’s performance and design standards and guidelines. Architectural styles proposed for the five residential buildings would include Modern Palazzo and Italian for Buildings 1, 2, and 3; Building 4 would be designed in the Palladian style; and Building 5 would be designed in the Formal Spanish style. The building designs would incorporate variations in heights and interior courtyard areas. Awnings and sunshades, balconies and railings, and varying window treatments would provide visual highlights.

The PD contains provisions for the project’s building design standards, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and signage, in an effort to provide a comprehensive planning approach. The PD takes into account continuity with new construction on neighboring properties to ensure a cohesive design approach for this property. Each individual project in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is subject to review and approval through the City’s architectural review process.

The development standards and design features included in the final SCP project plan set at the time of project approval, and the required City review of the project’s development standards and design features for consistency with General Plan requirements, would fulfill the requirements of EIR Mitigation Measure 4-3.

Project Shade and Shadow Effects
As explained in certified 2022 EIR (p. 4-20):

The issue of shade and shadow as it pertains to the [Focus Area Plan] involves the potential blockage of direct sunlight by proposed structures, and associated effects on adjacent properties.

The effects of shading by one structure upon another element (structure, space, etc.) can be either positive or negative depending upon the site-specific circumstances. Potential beneficial effects of shading for adjacent elements may be perceived as a desired cooling effect during warm weather.

Possible adverse effects of shading may include the loss of desirable natural light, including natural light for passive or active solar energy applications, or the loss of desired warming influences during cool weather. Factors influencing the effects of shadow are site-specific and can include building placement, the height, bulk and setback of structures, the time of year, the duration of SCH Number #2020060425 47 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
shading in a day, weather, landscaping, and the sensitivity of adjacent land uses to loss of sunlight.

Land uses are generally considered shadow-sensitive when sunlight is important to function, physical comfort, or the conduct of commerce. Facilities and operations identified as potentially sensitive to the loss of sunlight may include public parks, plazas, and open space areas; routinely usable outdoor areas of residential properties; commercial uses such as pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or restaurants with outdoor eating areas; and existing solar energy collectors.

Shadow-sensitive land uses within and adjacent to the SCP project site include portions of the adjacent Pedro’s Restaurant parcel, portions of the Santa Clara Towers parcel, portions of the Mission Towers parcel, portions of the Santa Clara Marriott hotel parcel, portions of the Greystar parcel, the future on-site public park, and the open spaces within the project site (i.e., pedestrian pathways, patios, courtyards).

Project-related maximum shadow pattern diagrams are depicted on Figures 4.1-1A through 4.1- 1C for the longest and shortest shadow periods during the four seasons (summer solstice, spring and fall equinoxes, and winter solstice).

The SCP project would cast shadows on several project features and adjacent properties over the course of the seasons, varying with the time of day (e.g., angle of the sun). Throughout the seasons, the areas that would have the most consistent temporary shadow effects would be the adjacent to the Freedom Circle right-of-way (ROW) and the project’s own courtyards, pedestrian pathways, new private street, and landscaped areas on the project site (not including the new public park).

ROWs are not considered sensitive to loss of sunlight, and the on-site features that would be affected most by shadows cast by project buildings would not experience shadow effects all year round and, when shadows are cast, they would vary daily with the movement of the sun. Shadow effects on adjacent properties would likewise be limited by the season and time of day, primarily in the mornings or late afternoons, and shadows would affect mostly parking lots and sidewalks along Mission College Boulevard and Freedom Circle.

Because the SCP project’s proposed site design features and development standards would constitute the comprehensive rezoning plan to be filed with the project, thereby implementing Mitigation Measure 4-3 of the 2022 EIR, and the project’s shadow effects would not be considered significant due to their limited duration and variability, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and would not cause a new or more substantial impacts than those identified in the 2022 EIR.

SCH Number #2020060425 48 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 4.1-1A
Shadow Study

SUMMER SOLSTICE
JUNE 21 AT 9:00 AM
ii
a.:

I •• ::--_'-.,~
i:: '--..___ --......... __
I I Al 1),/
. I
ti

SUMMER SOLSTICE
JUNE 21 AT 12:00 PM
':----.. __ _______
fS ( ;:;.--------~
fJ 77 ~r\ - . 1/ - p:C;;J -':-::r . .-JJ I
G . \;~_j '"' r-ir-l-i'/
3 ~7/
' -- ...... -~ ''
- 1
. J
"---.__ ,./

SUMMER SOLSTICE
JUNE 21 AT 3:00 PM
•N OTE:

SHADOWS BASED ON PRELIMINARY ROOF PLANS ANO SUIUECT TO FURTH UR REFINEMENT.

SCH Number #2020060425 49 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 4.1-1B
Shadow Study

SPRING/ FALL EQUINOX
MARCH / SEPT 21 AT 9:00 AM
ii ti
-
D :·~ ~ - I a J r -::::r ·-1
:1--:::::JOC~ r--&;

SPRING / FALL EQUINOX
MARCH / SEPT 21 AT 12:00 PM
• - I I
.::' =i
"· __ _.,,,.,,,, .J

SPRING / FALL EQUINOX
MARCH / SEPT 21 AT 3: 00 PM
• NOTE:

SHADOWS BASED ON PRELI MINARY ROOF PLA NS ANO SUQJ ECT TO FURTHUR REFINEMENT SCH Number #2020060425 50 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: Irvine Company Apartment Development
FIGURE 4.1-1C
Shadow Study

WINTER SOLSTICE
JUNE 21 AT 9:00 AM
ii ti

WINTER SOLSTICE
JUNE 21 AT 12:00 PM

WINTER SOLSTICE
JUNE 21 AT 3:00 PM
*NOTE:

SHADOWS BASED ON PRELIMINARY ROOF PLANS AND SUBJECT TO FURTHUR REFINEMENT.

SCH Number #2020060425 51 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Project Light and Glare Effects
The 2022 EIR noted development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan would be subject to light and glare requirements described in section 4.2 (Regulatory Setting) of the EIR (e.g., Santa Clara City Code, Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones). The 2022 EIR concluded that future lighting characteristics in the Plan Area would not be expected to represent a source of substantial new light or glare because (1) the Plan Area and vicinity are already developed with urban uses that are sources of daytime and nighttime light and glare, and (2) current and future uses in the Plan Area and vicinity would not contain uses that are especially sensitive to light or glare. Application of the City’s standard light and glare regulations would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The SCP project site, like the balance of the Focus Area Plan Area, is fully built out and already contains land uses that produce daytime and nighttime light and glare, plus the proposed project would not contain uses that are especially sensitive to light and glare. The SCP project would be subject to the requirements of the City Code and Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones. Title 24 specifies outdoor lighting requirements for residential and non-residential development to improve the quality of outdoor lighting and help reduce the impacts of light pollution, light trespass, and glare. The standards regulate lighting characteristics, such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. City Code Title 18 has provisions related to building height, exterior lighting, glare, and signs.

The SCP project would be expected to generate an overall increase in nighttime lighting over existing conditions, but the project’s lighting characteristics would not be expected to represent a source of substantial new light or glare which would adversely affect views and vision. The project would also not be expected to significantly increase daytime or nighttime light or glare in a way that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. For this reason and due to the application of State and City of Santa Clara standard regulations, the SCP project would have a less-than-significant light and glare impact and will not cause new or more substantial light and glare impacts than those identified in the 2022 EIR.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to aesthetics would be similar to those analyzed in the 2022 EIR. Similar to the Focus Area Plan, the SCP project would still have a potentially significant impact on existing visual character and quality which would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. EIR Mitigation Measure 4-3 from the 2022 EIR would apply. No new significant or substantially more severe significant aesthetics impacts would result from the SCP project beyond those analyzed in the 2022 EIR.

4.2 AIR QUALITY
To organize the project-specific air quality quantitative information, this section is formatted differently from the others in this CEQA Addendum.

SCH Number #2020060425 52 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.2.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR, with subsequent updates since the EIR was certified, none of which affect the impact conclusions or mitigation measures in the EIR.

Regulated Air Pollutants
The U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants: ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), which consists of “inhalable coarse” PM (particles with an aerodynamic diameter between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter, or PM10) and “fine” PM (particles with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 microns, or PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. The U.S. EPA refers to these six common pollutants as “criteria” pollutants because the agency regulates the pollutants on the basis of human health and/or environmentally based criteria. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the six common air pollutants regulated by the federal Clean Air Act plus the following additional air pollutants: hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfates (SOX), vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles.

Both the NAAQS and CAAQS are set at levels that are protective of human health. In addition to criteria air pollutants, CARB considered particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines, known as diesel particulate matter or DPM, to be a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Regionally, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of air pollutants within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB).

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Topography, Meteorology, and Attainment Status The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Area, including the Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site, is in the southern portion of the SFBAAB. The topography and meteorology of the SFBAAB are characterized by the coast mountain ranges and the seasonal migration of the Pacific high-pressure cell. Regionally, basin airflow is affected by the coast mountain ranges, which create complex terrains consisting of higher elevations, valleys, and bays. The SFBAAB is most susceptible to air pollution during the summer when cool marine air flowing through the Golden Gate can become trapped under a layer of warmer air (known as an inversion) and prevented from escaping the valleys and bays created by the Coast Ranges. Air pollution potential is generally highest in the southern part of the SFBAAB because this area is most protected from the high winds and fog of the marine layer, the emission density is relatively high, and pollutant transport from upwind sites is possible. Meteorological data collected at Moffett Airfield (2.9 miles west of the project site) and San Jose International Airport (2.5 miles southwest of the project site) indicates prevailing winds at the project site are likely from the north/northwest. The SFBAAB is currently unclassified or designated attainment for all NAAQS and CAAQS except federal ozone, state ozone, state PM10, federal PM2.5, and state PM2.5 standards.

SCH Number #2020060425 53 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Sensitive Receptors
The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as “facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly and people with illnesses” (BAAQMD 2023). The existing sensitive air quality receptors within 1,000 feet of the Focus Area Plan Area include:
• Individuals recreating along the San Thomas Aquino Creek Trail, which is located immediately east of and adjacent to the Plan Area; and
• Residential receptors at the Santa Clara Square Apartments, approximately 770 feet southwest of the southern portion of the Plan Area, across U.S 101.

There are no existing sensitive residential receptors within the boundaries of the Focus Area Plan Area.

Existing Air Quality Conditions in the Focus Area Plan Area and SCP Project Site The existing non-residential land uses in the Focus Area Plan Area, including the SCP project site, which consists of 12 two-story structures, surface parking, and landscaping, involve activities and sources of emissions (e.g., landscaping equipment, vehicle trips) that contribute to local and regional air quality conditions. Both the Plan Area and the SCP project site are exposed to these emissions, including TAC emissions from U.S. 101 that may pose adverse health risks to certain sensitive receptors in the vicinity.

4.2.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (Impact 5-1, pp. 5-27 to 5-34), would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational-related pollutant concentrations (Impact 5-6, pp. 5-50 to 5-54), and would not generate other significant emissions such as odors that could affect a substantial number of people (Impact 5-8, p. 5-57).

The certified 2022 EIR also concluded implementation of the Focus Area Plan would result in two potentially significant impacts: a cumulatively considerable net increase in non-attainment criteria pollutants (Impact 5-3, pp. 5-36 to 5-43) and construction-related TAC emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Impact 5-5, pp. 5-49 and 5-50). The 2022 EIR’s conclusions regarding increase in non-attainment pollutants and construction-related TAC emissions are summarized below.

SCH Number #2020060425 54 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants for which the Region is NonAttainment The 2022 EIR concluded the implementation of the Focus Area Plan could result in construction and operational activities that would emit criteria air pollutants at levels that exceed BAAQMDrecommended thresholds of significance, a potentially significant impact.

For construction activities, the 2022 EIR identified fugitive dust and O3 precursor pollutants1 as the pollutants of greatest concern. To reduce potentially significant construction emission levels, the 2022 EIR incorporated Mitigation Measure 5-3A (Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures) and Mitigation Measure 5-3B (Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan) into the Focus Area Plan.

For operational activities, the 2022 EIR identified O3 precursors from area and mobile source operations as the pollutants of greatest concern. To reduce potentially significant operational emissions levels, the 2022 EIR included Mitigation Measure 5-3C (Use Low and SuperCompliant VOC Architectural Coatings During Operational Activities) and Mitigation Measure 5- 3D (Implement TDM Program) into the Focus Area Plan.

The 2022 EIR concluded that, even with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 5-3A to 5-3D, the implementation of the Focus Area Plan could still result in construction and operational emissions in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds, which would be a significant and unavoidable air quality impact.

Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions that Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations During Construction
The 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Focus Area Plan could result in construction activities that would generate DPM concentrations at sensitive receptor locations at levels that would lead to adverse health risks in excess of BAAQMD-recommended significance thresholds, a potentially significant impact. To reduce potentially significant DPM concentrations at sensitive receptors, the 2022 EIR incorporated Mitigation Measure 5-5 (Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan) into the Focus Area Plan. The 2022 EIR concluded that, even with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 5-5, the implementation of the Focus Area Plan could still result in construction-related DPM concentrations that lead to adverse health risks in excess of 1 O3 precursor pollutants include volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, and oxides of nitrogen, or NOX. VOC is a U.S. EPA term that is similar to reactive organic gases, or ROG, which is a CARB term. Both terms generally refer to carbon compounds that are photochemically reactive, although ROG captures a greater degree of compounds. This Addendum uses the term VOC when referring to carbon-based O3 precursor pollutants.

SCH Number #2020060425 55 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
BAAQMD significance thresholds, which would be a significant and unavoidable air quality impact.
2022 Certified EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the SCP project.

Mitigation Measure 5-3A: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.

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

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

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

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

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

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure 5-3B: Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The City shall require applicants to submit a quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. The estimated construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions shall be compared against the thresholds of significance maintained by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation SCH Number #2020060425 56 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible.

Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:
• Selection of specific construction equipment (e.g., specialized pieces of equipment with smaller engines or equipment that will be more efficient and reduce engine runtime); • Requiring equipment to use alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas), meet cleaner emission standards (e.g., U.S. EPA Tier IV Final emissions standards for equipment greater than 50-horsepower), and/or utilizing added exhaust devices (e.g., Level 3 Diesel Particular Filter);
• Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes; • Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM; • Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; and
• Application of Low-VOC paints to interior and/or exterior surfaces (e.g., paints that meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 “Low-VOC” or “Super-Compliant” requirements).

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

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

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

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
The relationship of the proposed SCP project to the previously certified 2022 EIR air quality impact and mitigation conclusions is described below.

SCH Number #2020060425 57 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Conflict with BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
The SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan. Specifically, the number of dwelling units (1,792), population growth (4,068 residents and up to 8 employees)2 , and vehicle trips (9,183 daily trips
with trip reduction credits; see section 4.14) associated with the SCP project is less than the Focus Area Plan’s total dwelling units (3,600), service population (28,602 residents and employees) and vehicle trips (70,250 total daily vehicle trips) evaluated in the 2022 EIR. The project’s trip generation and population characteristics would, therefore, be consistent with what was analyzed in the Focus Area Plan (these two parameters are primarily used to demonstrate a plan’s consistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan).
3 The proposed SCP project also would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan. Table 4.2-1 summarizes the SCP project’s consistency with potentially applicable control strategies from the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Table 4.2-1
SCP Project Consistency with the 2017 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan Applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan
Control Measures Consistency
Transportation Control Measures
TR1: Clean Air Teleworking Initiative
Consistent. The SCP project would comply with the
requirements outlined in the City of Santa Clara’s Climate Action Plan and General Plan. The project is in the City’s Transportation Management District 1 (North of Caltrain) and is required to achieve a minimum VMT reduction of
20 percent, including 10 percent through TDM measures
(i.e., measures specifically implemented by the project, and not inherent trip reductions due to project location, such as proximity to transit). The project has prepared a TDM Plan to comply with City TDM requirements (see
Addendum section 4.14, Transportation).
2 Consistent with the certified 2022 EIR, the Focus Area Plan and SCP project are assumed to support 2.27 persons per household and approximately 1 employee per every 500 square feet of retail space. 3 The certified 2022 EIR analyzed the development of up to 3,600 dwelling units within the Future Focus Area Plan Area. The approved but not yet constructed Greystar project (1,075 dwelling units) combined with the proposed SCP project (1,792 dwelling units) yields a total of approximately 2,867 dwelling units within the plan area, which is 733 units less than the total evaluated in the 2022 EIR. Similarly, the Greystar project’s service population (2,444 residents and employees) combined with the proposed SCP project’s service population (4,076 residents and employees) yields a total service of approximately 6,520 residents and employees, which is 22,082 less residents and employees than evaluated in the 2022 EIR. Finally, the Greystar project’s total trip generation estimate (5,722 vehicle trips) combined with the proposed SCP project’s trip generation estimate (9,183 vehicle trips) yields 14,905 total daily vehicle trips, which is 55,345 daily vehicle trips less than the total evaluated in the 2022 EIR.

SCH Number #2020060425 58 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.2-1
SCP Project Consistency with the 2017 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan Applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan
Control Measures Consistency
TR2: Trip Reduction Programs
Consistent. The SCP project would be required to comply with the City of Santa Clara’s Climate Action Plan and
General Plan, which require the development and
implementation of TDM measures. The project has
prepared a TDM Plan to comply with City TMD
requirements (see section 4.14).

TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
and Facilities
Consistent. The SCP project would provide up to one
secure private bicycle parking space per unit located in the five parking garages (1,792 total bicycle parking
spaces), 120 short-term, public Class II bike racks within public park space, do-it-yourself bicycle repair facilities (e.g., air pump and basic tools) so cyclists can conduct repairs as needed, and e-bike charging stations. The
project would also include approximately 6.5 acres of
public open space that would connect to other existing
and future trail connections. In addition, the project
includes a Class II shared-use path as part of its two-way private street, a Class II bike lane around the project site perimeter, and a Class IV bike lane proposed for Mission College Boulevard.

Building Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings
Consistent. The SCP project would be designed to
CalGreen Code standards. The project would also feature many green elements such as high efficiency heat pump,
solar roofs, and EV charging facilities.

BL2: Decarbonize Buildings
Consistent. The SCP project has been designed to the
latest CalGreen Code standards, which establish
statewide standards for sustainable building practices and the decarbonization of buildings.

BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation
Consistent. The SCP project would be subject to the latest Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (currently 2022), which would require the proposed buildings to
have roofs that meet the aged solar reflectance and
thermal emittance requirements specified in CalGreen
Code Section 140.3(a)(1)(A)(ii). Different requirements exist for low-sloped roofs than steep-sloped roofs. These requirements include measures to reduce unwanted
energy transfer into buildings, such as that can occur
through the urban heat island effect.

SCH Number #2020060425 59 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.2-1
SCP Project Consistency with the 2017 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan Applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan
Control Measures Consistency
Waste Management Control Measures
WA4: Recycling and Waste
Reduction
Consistent. The SCP project would divert construction
waste, consistent with CalGreen Code requirements.

Furthermore, the project would use recycled or
sustainable products during construction which would
preserve natural resources.

The SCP project would not have the potential to result in growth that exceeds that evaluated in the 2022 EIR. In addition, as shown in Table 4.2-1, the SCP project would be consistent with applicable control measures contained in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. For these reasons, the SCP project impact related to potential conflict with the Clean Air Plan would remain less than significant, and the SCP project would not result in a new significant or substantially more severe significant impact than those identified in the 2022 EIR.

Cumulatively Considerable Net Increases in Criteria Pollutants Construction Emissions: As described in section 4.2.2, the SCP project is subject to, and would comply with, the applicable mitigation measures from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions, including Mitigation Measure 5-3A (Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures), Mitigation Measure 5-3B (Require a Project-level Construction Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan), and Mitigation Measure 5-5 (see Mitigation Measure 5-3B).

Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 5-3B, MIG, Inc. has prepared an SCP project-specific construction emissions assessment using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. The construction emissions assessment incorporates project-specific assumptions regarding construction phasing, equipment, and vehicle trips and incorporates fugitive dust control measures (e.g., site watering) pursuant to Mitigation Measure 5-3A. The results of the construction emissions assessment are summarized in Table 4.2-2. Refer to Appendix A-1 for the complete CalEEMod project file.

SCH Number #2020060425 60 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.2-2
SCP Project Construction Emissions Assessment
Year
Average Daily Emissions (lbs / day)
VOC(
A) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
2026 3.2 20.2 34.6 6.2 0.5 1.6 0.5
2027 6.6 29.8 68.9 13.8 0.6 3.3 0.6
2028 6.4 28.0 66.2 13.8 0.6 3.3 0.5
2029 6.2 26.2 63.2 13.8 0.5 3.3 0.5
2030 76.0 17.8 43.8 9.8 0.3 2.4 0.3

BAAQMD CEQA
Threshold
54 54 None BMPs(B) 82 BMPs(B) 54
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No N/A No No No No
Source: MIG, 2024 (see Appendix A-1)
(A) The VOC emissions presented in this table are based on CalEEMod ROG emissions estimates. (B) The BAAQMD’s best management practices (BMPs) for controlling fugitive dust are shown in certified EIR Mitigation Measure 5-3A above.

As shown in Table 4.2-2, the SCP project’s potential construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD’s recommended CEQA significance thresholds during each year of construction for all criteria pollutants except for ROG emissions during architectural coating activities in 2030.

Accordingly, as already required by 2022 EIR Mitigation Measure 5-3B, the City shall require the SCP project to use “low VOC” architectural coatings. A Condition of Approval (COA) to implement Mitigation Measure 5-3B will be required as follows:

Santa Clara Park (SCP) Project Mitigation Measure 5-3B Implementation: The City shall require the SCP Project to use interior coatings that have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content of 50 grams per liter or less. This requirement shall be listed on all bid, contract, and engineering and building plan documents.

The SCP project’s construction emissions after the incorporation of emission reduction measures required pursuant to 2022 EIR Mitigation Measure 5-3B are summarized in Table 4.2-3.

As shown in Table 4.2-3, the incorporation of emission reduction measures required pursuant to 2022 EIR Program Mitigation Measure 5-3B would reduce the SCP project’s ROG emissions in 2030 (52.2 average pounds per day) to a level below the BAAQMD’s recommended CEQA significance threshold (54 average pounds per day). For this reason, the SCP project would slightly reduce the severity of the construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions impact identified in 2022 EIR Impact 5-3. No new significant or substantially more severe significant construction emissions impact would occur.

SCH Number #2020060425 61 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.2-3
SCP Project Construction Emissions with 2022 EIR Mitigation Year
Average Daily Emissions (lbs / day)
VOC(
A) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
2026 3.2 20.2 34.6 6.2 0.5 1.6 0.5
2027 6.6 29.8 68.9 13.8 0.6 3.3 0.6
2028 6.4 28.0 66.2 13.8 0.6 3.3 0.5
2029 6.2 26.2 63.2 13.8 0.5 3.3 0.5
2030 52.2 17.8 43.8 9.8 0.3 2.4 0.3

BAAQMD CEQA
Threshold
54 54 None BMPs(B) 82 BMPs(B) 54
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No No No
Source: MIG, 2024 (see Appendix A-1)
(A) The VOC emissions presented in this table are based on CalEEMod ROG emissions estimates. (B) The BAAQMD’s best management practices (BMPs) for controlling fugitive dust are shown in certified EIR Mitigation Measure 5-3A above.

Operational Emissions: As described under the “Conflict with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan” analysis above, the SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan. Per BAAQMD methodology, consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan at a plan level addresses operational criteria air pollutant emissions from the subsequent development of individual land uses in that plan area. The SCP project also does not include any operational activities or emissions sources that were not evaluated in the certified 2022 EIR. Since the SCP project would be consistent with the growth assumptions and emissions sources associated with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, it would not have the potential to result in a new significant or substantially more severe significant operational emissions impact than that identified in the certified 2022 EIR.

Furthermore, as described in section 4.2.2, the SCP project is subject to, and would comply with, the applicable mitigation measures from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce operations-related criteria air pollutant emissions, including Mitigation Measure 5-3C (Use Low and SuperCompliance VOC Architectural Coatings During Operational Activities) and Mitigation Measure 5-3D (Implement TDM Program). For these reasons, the SCP project impact related to cumulatively considerable net increases in criteria pollutants would not be substantially more severe than identified in the 2022 EIR.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Construction Emissions: As described in section 4.2.2, the SCP project is subject to, and would comply with, the applicable mitigation from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce construction-related TAC emissions, including Mitigation Measure 5-5 (Require a Project-level Construction SCH Number #2020060425 62 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Assessment for New Development Proposed Under Implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan).

Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 5-5, MIG, Inc. prepared a project-specific construction emissions assessment and corresponding health risk assessment (HRA) for the SCP project. As described under the “Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants” analysis above, the construction emissions assessment was conducted using CalEEMod, and the resulting DPM emissions estimates were evaluated for potential adverse health risks at existing sensitive receptor locations near the SCP project site. MIG used the U.S. EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model to predict construction-related ground level DPM concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. The AERMOD dispersion model is an U.S. EPA-approved and BAAQMD-recommended model for simulating the dispersion of pollutant emissions and estimating concentrations of pollutants at specified receptor locations. AERMOD requires the user to input information on the source(s) of pollutants being modeled, the receptors where pollutant concentrations are modeled, and the meteorology, terrain, and other factors that affect the potential dispersion of pollutants. Cancer risk and non-cancer health risks to sensitive receptors were estimated using assumptions consistent with the recommendations contained in the BAAQMD’s Health Risks Assessment Modeling Protocol, as well as the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual (BAAQMD 2020; OEHHA 2015). The results of the construction HRA are summarized in Table 4.2-4. Refer to Appendix A-2 for the AERMOD output file and health risk calculations.

Table 4.2-4
SCP Project Construction Health Risk Assessment
Receptor Age at Start of Project Construction
Total Incremental Excess Cancer Risk
(per Million Population) at Maximum
Exposed Individual Receptor (A)(B)
Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester) 3.1
Residential Child Receptor (1-2 Years of Age) 1.8
Residential Child Receptor (2-16 Years of Age) 0.7
Residential Adult Receptor (16 to 30 Years of Age) 0.1
Residential Adult Receptor (30 to 70 Years of Age) 0.1
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: MIG, 2024 (see Appendix A-2)
(A) The maximum exposed individual receptor is located at 591126.17 meters easting and 4137742.66 meters northing. (B) Risks presented are representative of receptor’s age and life stages over the project’s five-year construction period. For example, “Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from 3rd Trimester (Year 1) through age 5 (Year 5); “Residential Child Receptor (1-2)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from age 1 (Year 1) through age 6 (Year 5); and so on.

As shown in Table 4.2-4, the SCP project would not generate concentrations of DPM at sensitive receptor locations that would exceed the BAAQMD’s carcinogenic health risk threshold of 10 excess cancers per million population. For this reason, the SCP project would reduce the severity of the construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions impact identified in 2022 EIR Impact 5- SCH Number #2020060425 63 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

3. No new significant or substantially more severe significant construction TAC emissions impact would occur.

Operational Emissions: The SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan, and would not include any operational activities or TAC emissions sources that were not evaluated in the certified 2022 EIR.

Since the SCP project would be consistent with the growth assumptions and emissions sources associated with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, it would not have the potential to result in a new significant or substantially more severe significant operational TAC emissions impact than that identified in the certified 2022 EIR.

Odors
The SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan, and would not include any activities or sources of odors that were not evaluated in the certified 2022 EIR. Since the SCP project would be consistent with the growth assumptions and emissions sources associated with Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, it would not have the potential to result in a new significant or substantially more severe significant odor impact than that identified in the certified 2022 EIR.

4.2.3 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Modeling Protocol. December 2020.

BAAQMD 2023. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. April 2023.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA. February 2015.

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR and the Biological Resources Report (titled “Freedom Circle Residential Project Biological Resources Report,” prepared by MIG, Inc., dated July 2024) prepared for the project.

Existing Vegetation and Common Wildlife
Trees and shrubs in the Focus Area Plan Area are primarily urban landscaping and nonnative vegetation, do not include special-status plant species, and only provide minor value to wildlife.

Disturbed or ruderal lands often lack habitat characteristics suitable for special-status species.

Small lawn areas and planting strips (non-native grassland) make up most of the larger vegetated SCH Number #2020060425 64 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
areas in the Plan Area, but they are fragmented and of a small scale, resulting in low-quality habitat to wildlife. There is no riparian habitat in the Plan Area.

According to the project Biological Resources Report, there is one biotic habitat/landcover type present on the SCP project site: developed/landscaped. Most of the site is developed with existing buildings, parking lots, and paved pathways. Other areas of the site are composed of landscaped areas with a variety of ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbaceous/flowering species. Dominant tree species include coast redwood; however, this species was planted as part of the site’s landscaping and is not native to the Santa Clara Valley. Other non-native tree species present include London plane tree, sweet gum, Japanese maple, and Chinese pistache. Dominant shrub and herbaceous species include English lavender, boxwood shrub, rock rose, bird of paradise, horsetail, English ivy, Sprenger’s asparagus fern, and trailing bellflower. Several artificial ponds are present within the office park. They are filled from the existing office park plumbing system, are surrounded by ornamental plantings and do not support emergent vegetation.

The developed/landscaped habitat on the project site is of relatively low value to wildlife but provides nesting and foraging opportunities for some urban-adapted species of birds. Native bird species that were observed during the April 23, 2024 site visit conducted by MIG biologists include the American crow, Anna’s hummingbird, lesser goldfinch, dark-eyed junco, mourning dove, and California towhee. Each of these species may use the trees or landscape vegetation on the site for nesting. Several old and currently active bird nests were observed on the buildings and in trees on the site. The artificial ponds have limited value for wildlife as they are likely regularly maintained but may occasionally provide resting and drinking opportunities for avian species such as mallard ducks.

No nests of raptors (e.g., hawks, owls, and falcons) were observed on the project site or in immediately adjacent areas during the April 23, 2024 survey. However, many large trees, especially redwood trees, present on the site provide potential nesting sites for common raptors such as red-tailed hawks and Cooper’s hawks.

Potential roost cavity habitat is present on some of the buildings under the eaves but no signs of the presence of roosting bats were observed on the existing buildings. No roosting habitat (crevices or cavities) was observed on any of the trees on the site.

Common urban-adapted mammal species that may occur on the project site include the native raccoon and nonnative house mouse, Norway rat, black rat, and eastern gray squirrel. The western fence lizard, a common native reptile, may also occur within landscaped areas of the project site.

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan was adopted to protect biological resources and enhance ecological diversity and function in the greater portion of Santa Clara County, while allowing appropriate and compatible growth and development. The City of Santa Clara is not a Habitat Plan SCH Number #2020060425 65 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
participant. The Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site is approximately 1.3 miles to the west (outside) of the Habitat Plan permit area at its nearest point.

The project site includes artificial ponds constructed as part of the existing development. These ponds have a clay bottom and are chemically treated with chlorine products. See the “Jurisdictional Waters” discussion below under 4.3.3 (Impact Analysis).

4.3.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts to special-status animal species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and protected trees, plants, and shrubs, with potentially significant impacts to threatened and endangered species habitat, special-status plants, nesting birds, and roosting bats. The 2022 EIR’s conclusions regarding potentially significant impacts to threatened and endangered species habitat, special-status plants, nesting birds, and roosting bats are summarized below.

Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat
The 2022 EIR concluded that, if an individual development project in the Future Focus Area Plan Area disregards City evaluation of the need for further biological resource surveys for a specific development site, this would violate City policy, namely Policy 5.10.1‐P1 of the Santa Clara General Plan, resulting in a potentially significant impact to threatened and endangered species habitat (EIR, p. 6-10). The 2022 EIR included Mitigation Measure 6-2 to reduce impacts on threatened and endangered species habitat from future development projects within the Plan Area to less than significant.

Special-Status Plants
The 2022 EIR concluded that, without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Focus Area Plan implementation and any future projects within the Plan Area could inadvertently result in the removal of special-status plants, including Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2) and arcuate bush mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2). The removal of these special-status plants is considered a potentially significant impact. The 2022 EIR included Mitigation Measure 6-3 to reduce potentially significant impacts on Congdon’s tarplant and arcuate bush mallow to less than significant.

Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats
The 2022 EIR concluded that, without a proactive mitigation procedure in place, Plan implementation could inadvertently result in the removal of existing trees and/or buildings containing nests or eggs of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, or roosting bats, which would be considered unlawful take under the MBTA and the CFGC. Unlawful SCH Number #2020060425 66 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
take of migratory birds, raptors, or bird species during the nesting season, or roosting bats, is considered a potentially significant impact. The 2022 EIR included Mitigation Measure 6-4 to reduce potentially significant impacts on migratory birds, raptors, bird species during the nesting season, and roosting bats, to less than significant.

The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the Santa Clara Park (SCP) project. 2022 EIR Mitigation Measures:

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

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

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

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

SCH Number #2020060425 67 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
CDFW may require the preparation and implementation of a mitigation plan that details avoidance, preservation, and/or compensation for the loss of individual special-status plant species. Mitigation may include the purchase of mitigation bank credits, preserving and enhancing existing on-site populations, creation of off-site populations through seed collection and/or transplantation and monitoring these populations to ensure their successful establishment, and/or preserving occupied habitat off-site in perpetuity. Specific amount and method of mitigation and/or credits shall be determined in formal consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS [United States Fish and Wildlife Service].

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

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

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

To avoid impacts to roosting bats that may rarely utilize the project area vegetation, roof tiles, and/or vacant buildings for day roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for roosting bats no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of demolition of any vacant buildings left with entry and egress points accessible to bats or removal of suitable bat roosting vegetation. If demolition of buildings or vegetation removal efforts do not begin within the 14 days following the roosting bat survey, another survey shall be required. If roosting bats are detected, the biologist shall enact a minimum of a 150-foot no-work buffer and confer with CDFW to determine potential roost protection or roost eviction practices. After conferring with CDFW, the protective buffer may be adjusted based on specific roost needs. Once SCH Number #2020060425 68 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
bats have been suitably protected by a buffer and/or safely evicted from roosting sites (as approved by CDFW, avoiding take as defined by CESA [California Endangered Species Act] and the CFGC), construction may resume outside the buffered area.

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

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
As stated above, MIG prepared a Biological Resources Report for the proposed Santa Clara Park (SCP) project, dated July 2024. HortScience/Bartlett Consulting prepared a Preliminary Arborist Report for the SCP project, titled “Preliminary Arborist Report Santa Clara Park Santa Clara, CA” and dated September 8, 2023, revised January 2024 (henceforth referred to as the “Preliminary Arborist Report”).

In accordance with The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR Mitigation Measure 6-2, the Biological Resources Report was prepared to identify potential sensitive biological resources on and adjacent to the SCP project site with the potential to be impacted by the project and which required measures to avoid significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Impacts on Special-Status Species, Riparian Habitat, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Wetlands
Riparian Habitat
According to the Biological Resources Report, western pond turtles are known to occur in San Tomas Aquino Creek, less than 300 feet to the east of the SCP project site. Although no suitable aquatic or upland nesting habitat is present on the project site, the site is close enough to the San Tomas Aquino Creek that it is possible for a dispersing individual turtle to wander onto the site.

The Biological Resources Report therefore concluded it is possible that project construction could result in the injury or mortality of individual turtles due to worker foot traffic, equipment use, or vehicle traffic (MIG, p. 22). The Biological Resources report also noted that increases in human presence and activity in the vicinity of pond turtle habitat during construction may result in an increase in native and non-native predators, including raccoons, American crows, and common ravens, which would be attracted to trash left at the work site and may prey opportunistically on western pond turtles.

SCH Number #2020060425 69 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
The Biological Resources Report was prepared consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 6-2 of the 2022 EIR. To implement the mitigation measure, the Biological Resources Report details survey methods, results, performance standards, and avoidance and minimization measures required to protect special-status species with potential to be impacted, consistent with the regulatory agency protocols. The Biological Resources Report contains project-specific protocols to implement the certified 2022 EIR mitigation measures described above. Specifically, to implement EIR Mitigation Measure 6-2, the Biological Resources Report in its site-specific analysis includes protection protocols for the western pond turtle (pp. 22-23). The following protocols clarify and refine the program mitigation actions included in EIR Mitigation Measure 6-

2. There would be no new impact. Implementation of the project-specific protocols below would avoid impacts on the western pond turtle, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. The protocols have been added to 2022 EIR adopted Mitigation Measure 6-2.

Mitigation Measure 6-2a: Conduct Pre-construction Survey for Western Pond Turtle. No more than 48 hours prior to initial ground disturbance, a preconstruction survey for the western pond turtle will be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey will consist of walking along the existing artificial ponds and looking for turtles within and along these features. If an adult or juvenile western pond turtle is found, project activities near the turtle will cease until the individual has been captured and relocated to suitable habitat outside of the activity area by a qualified biologist.

A qualified biologist is an individual who shall have a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post-degree experience conducting surveys for each special-status species that may be present within the project area.

During or following academic training, the qualified biologist shall have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special-status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements. Additionally, the qualified biologist must be permitted or authorized to handle and relocate western pond turtles, as necessary.

Mitigation Measure 6-2b: Worker Environmental Awareness Program. All construction personnel will participate in a worker environmental awareness program. These personnel will be informed about the possible presence of all special-status species and their habitats in the project site, and that unlawful take of the animal or destruction of its habitat is a violation of law. Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist will instruct all construction personnel about (1) the description and status of the species; (2) the importance of their associated habitats; (3) a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts on these species during project construction and implementation; and (4) measures to be followed if special-status species are encountered during construction activities. A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared for distribution to the construction crew and anyone else who enters the project site.

SCH Number #2020060425 70 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Sensitive Communities
According to the Biological Resources Report, no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities are present on or immediately adjacent to the project site (MIG, p. 24). Therefore, the SCP project would not impact any sensitive communities.

Jurisdictional Waters
The SCP project proposes to remove the existing artificial ponds on site. According to the Biological Resources Report, the existing on-site ponds may be considered “waters of the state” and therefore may be subject to jurisdiction by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW (MIG, p. 24). As a standard jurisdictional protocol, the SCP project proponent must submit permit applications to the RWQCB and CDFW before the RWQCB and CDFW will issue determinations on jurisdiction and any need for avoidance and protection measures.

Compliance with state requirements to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants during construction under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCP)-required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would reduce the project’s potential impacts; the Biological Resource Report describes project-specific protection protocols pursuant to existing jurisdictional regulations to reduce potential impacts, as described below.

The Biological Resources Report was prepared consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 6-2 of the 2022 EIR. To implement Mitigation Measure 6-2, the Biological Resources Report in its site-specific analysis included protection protocols for potential jurisdictional waters (MIG, p. 25). The following protocols clarify and refine the program mitigation actions included in EIR Mitigation Measure 6-2. Implementation of the project-specific protocols below will determine if the on-site ponds are subject to RWQCB and/or CDFW jurisdiction and, if so, will avoid potentially significant impacts on potential jurisdictional waters, resulting in a less-thansignificant impact. The project-specific protocols have been added to the 2022 EIR adopted Mitigation Measure 6-2.

Mitigation Measure 6-2c: Determine if the Ponds are Subject to Jurisdiction by the Regulatory Agencies. Prior to site preparation and grading activities, the project applicant will file a Notification of Lake and Streambed Alteration with CDFW and submit a Notice of Applicability (NOA) for enrollment under a General Waste Discharge Requirement Order (WDR) from the RWQCB. The agencies will review the notifications and if the agencies determine that the ponds are not jurisdictional (i.e., waters of the state), then permits will not be required, and no further action is required.

If the agencies assume jurisdiction over the ponds, the agencies will require permits prior to the start of site preparation and grading activities. The permits may require additional SCH Number #2020060425 71 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
conservation and mitigation measures, including compensatory mitigation for the loss of waters of the state. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the state may be achieved through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of aquatic habitat either on-site or in a suitable off-site location. The extent of mitigation would be determined based on the extent of the impact and the quality of the impacted habitat relative to the mitigation activity; mitigation ratios (i.e., the ratio of mitigation lands to impact areas, expressed in terms of acreage) typically vary from 1:1 to 3:1.

Potential Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat As described above, the 2022 EIR concluded the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would have potentially significant impacts on threatened and endangered species habitat and included Mitigation Measure 6-2 to reduce impacts to less than significant. As required by Mitigation Measure 6-2, following a determination by the City that biological resources within the SCP project site required further analysis, the project proponent commissioned a biological resource survey of the habitat and special-status species that may be impacted by project activities, either directly or indirectly.

The Biological Resources Report determined the SCP project would have no impact on habitat fragmentation because the entirety of the project site is developed and landscaped, with the site surrounded almost fully by existing developed landcover to the north, west, and south.

Redevelopment of the site would therefore not result in changes to or fragmentation of natural habitats (MIG, p. 27).

Without project-specific protection measures, the SCP project could have a significant impact on native wildlife nursery sites because project construction during the avian breeding season could disturb native bird species that nest on the project site. The SCP project’s implementation of “Mitigation Measure BIO-4” included in the Biological Resources Report (see “Jurisdictional Waters,” above), would reduce potentially significant impacts on native wildlife nursery sites to less than significant.

The Biological Resources Report noted that if the project’s proposed multi-story buildings incorporate large glass facades, there is potential for avian collisions with the new buildings because birds do not perceive glass as an obstruction the same way humans do; therefore, glass windows and facades have the potential to cause injury or mortality to birds (MIG, p 28). In addition, landscaping and artificial night lighting can increase the risks of building collisions because these features can attract nighttime migratory birds to developed areas. The potential injury or mortality of birds that may result from the project’s buildings, landscaping, and artificial lighting constitutes a potentially significant impact.

To implement Mitigation Measure 6-2, the Biological Resources Report in its site-specific analysis included bird-safe building and landscape design recommendations to protect against avian SCH Number #2020060425 72 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
collisions with proposed project buildings (MIG, pp. 27-28). The following protocols clarify and refine the program mitigation actions included in EIR Mitigation Measure 6-2. Implementation of the project-specific protocols below would ensure impacts related to avian collisions with project buildings would be less than significant. The project-specific protocols have been added to 2022 EIR adopted Mitigation Measure 6-2.

Mitigation Measure 6-2d: Bird-Safe Design Assessment and Implementation of BirdSafe Design.

Prepare a bird-safe building assessment for the proposed development design that reviews the development, landscaping, and lighting design features of the project. The assessment should be prepared by a qualified ecologist with experience and knowledge of avian ecology and behavior. The assessment shall include an analysis of the preliminary design plans to determine if the design presents avian collision risks. If the ecologist determines that no avian collision risks would result from the project design, no additional measures are required. If avian collision risks from the proposed design may result from the project design, the assessment will include recommendations to avoid and minimize the impacts. Recommendations may include, but not be limited to, reducing the amount of glass facades on new buildings; applying glass and façade treatments such as fritted and frosted glass, and addition of louvers and awnings in front of the glass; minimization of landscaped plantings near glass facades; avoidance, minimization, and treatment of glass railings and walkways near potential flight corridors; avoidance of uplighting and light spillage; and use of motion sensing lights. The project design team shall incorporate all recommended measures to reduce potential collision risk impacts.

Potential Impacts on Special-Status Plants
As described above, the 2022 EIR determined the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would have potentially significant impacts on special-status plants species and included Mitigation Measure 6-3 to reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 6-3 requires that prior to any project work within the Plan Area, a qualified botanist shall conduct within the months of May to September site-specific, focused surveys according to CDFW guidelines to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species on the individual project site and any adjacent potential area of disturbance.

The Biological Resources Report implements Mitigation Measure 6-3 of the 2022 EIR. Preparation of the Biological Resources Report included a comprehensive, site-wide survey conducted in late April to encompass the Congdon’s tarplant and arcuate bush mallow’s blooming periods. (Based on biological resource conditions at the time and the professional judgement of the biologist team who conducted the survey, it was determined that the “late April” survey date was consistent with the “May to September” window identified in EIR Mitigation Measure 6-3.) The Biological Resources Report serves as the survey results report provided to the City. The Biological Resources SCH Number #2020060425 73 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Report provides: (1) a description of the survey methodology; (2) a discussion of the survey results; and (3) a map showing the survey area and the location of any special-status plants encountered.

According to the Biological Resources Report, the field survey did not encounter any specialstatus plant species on the SCP project site and adjacent area. The SCP project site and adjacent area do not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant species and, therefore, the SCP project would have no impact on special-status plants (MIG, p. 2). Per Mitigation Measure 6-3 of the 2022 EIR, no further mitigation is required.

Potential Impacts on Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats
Nesting Birds
All migratory bird species and their nests are protected under the MBTA and CFGC. According to the Biological Resources Report, tree removal and building demolition during the avian breeding season (February 1 through September 15 for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests (MIG, p. 23).

As described above, the Biological Resources Report was prepared consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 6-2 of the 2022 EIR. To implement Mitigation Measure 6-2, the Biological Resources Report in its site-specific analysis included protection protocols for migratory bird species and their nests (MIG, pp. 23-24), including requiring a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds at most 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, or buildings, including prior to grading or other construction activity if these activities would occur during the nesting period. The following protocols clarify and refine the program mitigation actions included in EIR Mitigation Measures 6-2 and 6-4. Implementation of the project-specific protocols below would avoid potentially significant impacts on active nests of birds protected by the MBTA or the CFGC, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. The project-specific protocols have been added to 2022 EIR adopted Mitigation Measure 6-4.

Mitigation Measure 6-4a: Pre-Construction Survey for Nesting Birds.

Avoidance. Construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place inside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC shall be avoided through implementation of the protections described in this mitigation measure. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1 through August 31.

Pre-Construction Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 16 and January 31 – as determined between the City and the project proponent - then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction. These surveys will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and SCH Number #2020060425 74 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, and similar activities. If project activities are delayed by more than 7 days, an additional nesting bird survey must be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, culverts) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys will be documented.

If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction activities, the biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 1,000 feet for raptors and up to 250 feet for nonraptor species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and CFGC will be disturbed during project construction. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance or mobilization of heavy equipment - including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading - will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring by a professional biologist will be required to ensure compliance with MBTA and CFGC requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.

Roosting Bats
According to the Biological Resources Report, building demolition and tree removal could result in the disturbance of active bat maternity colonies or day roosts of common bat species that are protected by the CFGC. This impact is significant under CEQA.

As described above, the Biological Resources Report was prepared consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 6-2 of the 2022 EIR. To implement Mitigation Measure 6-2, the Biological Resources Report in its site-specific analysis included protection protocols for roosting bats (MIG, p. 24). In addition, the Biological Resource Report’s recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts on roosting bats addresses the requirements of Mitigation Measure 6-4 of the 2022 EIR, which requires a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for roosting bats no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of demolition of any vacant buildings left with entry and egress points accessible to bats or the removal of suitable bat roosting vegetation.

The following protocols clarify and refine the program mitigation actions included in EIR Mitigation Measures 6-2 and 6-4. Implementation of the project-specific protocols below would avoid potentially significant impacts on roosting bats, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

The project-specific protocols have been added to 2022 EIR adopted Mitigation Measure 6-4.

Mitigation Measure 6-4b: Pre-Construction Survey for Roosting Bats. No more than 30 days prior to building demolition, a qualified biologist will conduct a focused survey for roosting bats. The focused survey shall include a daytime inspection of potential roost habitat (e.g., buildings and trees). If the biologist is unable to determine if bats are present, an evening SCH Number #2020060425 75 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
survey shall be conducted to watch for bats that exit the roost, if present. If any bats are found, but they do not represent an active maternity roost, they shall be excluded from the building through installation of one-way doors or other similar exclusion methods. A qualified bat biologist will consult on the exact methods used to exclude bats.

If a maternity colony is determined to be present, then no demolition or modification of the roost, and any points of ingress or egress, will occur during the period April 1 to August 31 (or until young are demonstrated to be flying well). After August 31 (or after the young are flying), bat exclusion (i.e., installation of one-way doors) can proceed. No exclusion during demolition will occur during rainy or cold conditions (i.e., less than 50°F).

Potential Impacts on Protected Trees, Plants, and Shrubs City of Santa Clara Tree Protection Ordinance
The City of Santa Clara Tree Protection Ordinance (City Code Chapter 12.35) and the General Plan (Conservation Policies 5.10.1-P3 and P4, and Appendix 8.10) detail protections for street trees and preservation of all City-designated heritage trees. General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10 also requires new development to provide street trees as well as a minimum 2:1 on- or off-site replacement for trees removed.

According to the Preliminary Arborist Report, four hundred and seventeen (417) trees were assessed, representing 15 species (HortScience/Bartlett Consulting, pp. 2-5). All species were relatively common ornamentals in the South Bay area. The dominant tree (61%) in the existing 12-building business park is coast redwood, with 256 trees. Coast redwood is native to California but is not indigenous to Santa Clara. The SCP project proposes to remove two hundred and fortynine (249) of the existing on-site trees. Of the 249 removals, 182 trees have protected status and would require a permit for removal. According to the Arborist Report, one hundred and sixty-eight (168) trees can be preserved. The project proposes to box and relocate 34 of the existing coast redwood trees elsewhere on the project site. Replacement trees are required at a 2:1 ratio at a box size of 24 inches or larger per the City’s tree replacement standards. The project would provide replacement trees consistent with the City’s tree replacement standards.

The proposed tree preservation strategy is preliminary and will be finalized based on arborist review, a final survey, and a site walk with City staff and applicant representatives. The final strategy may include additional trees. Fire Department aerial access standards may require removal of some additional trees, which would be determined during the Fire Department’s final project design review; the project would also replace these trees at a minimum 2:1 ratio.

Although the City’s preference is to preserve existing trees to the extent feasible, the SCP project’s removal of existing coast redwood trees, and other trees with a protected status, to accommodate the proposed project would represent a direct conflict with the Santa Clara City Code and Santa Clara General Plan only if the project does not secure a tree removal permit prior to any tree SCH Number #2020060425 76 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
removal and does not replace the trees at the appropriate ratio. Existing trees that would be retained on site may potentially experience injury or mortality from root damage caused by construction and other ground disturbance, excessive pruning, or damage to trunks from equipment.

As described above, the 2022 EIR concluded the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Area would have a less-than-significant impact on protected trees, plants, and shrubs through individual project compliance with the uniformly applicable development regulations established in the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10 to avoid or reduce impacts on trees, plants, and shrubs along City streets and within public spaces. The Biological Resources Report in its site-specific analysis identifies adopted, applicable development regulations to ensure that the SCP project complies with the City requirements for tree removal, including securing a tree removal permit prior to any tree removal and implementing protection protocols for existing trees tree to remain (MIG, p. 29). The following protocols will extend the uniformly applicable development regulations to the project site.

Uniformly Applicable Development Regulation BIO-1: Obtain Tree Removal Permit and Provide Tree Replacement.

The project applicant will comply with City tree protection policies and shall apply for a permit for the removal of any trees covered by the ordinance. Any street trees or heritage trees to be removed may require replacement according to the discretion of the City Director of Planning, and the City may require on-site or off-site replacement of trees at a minimum 2:1 ratio per General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10 (see section 3.3.2 above). The replacement trees will be planted on site unless otherwise authorized by the City, and the project proponent will comply with all other tree removal requirements imposed by the City.

Uniformly Applicable Development Regulation BIO-2: Prepare a Tree Protection Plan The project applicant will implement precautionary measures during site construction to limit adverse effects on ordinance-protected trees that are to be retained. The project applicant shall prepare a tree protection plan based on the arborist report prepared in January 2024 and consistent with Chapter 12.35 Trees and Shrubs of the Santa Clara City Code. The tree protection plan will further refine the details to avoid and minimize impacts on trees. The tree protection plan is subject to approval by the City of Santa Clara.

Conservation Plans
According to the Biological Resources Report, the SCP project site is not located within an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (MIG, p. 29). Therefore, the project would not conflict with any conservation plans.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to biological resources would be similar to those analyzed in the certified 2022 EIR. Like the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, the SCP SCH Number #2020060425 77 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
project would have less-than-significant impacts on plants, shrubs, and protected trees (with implementation of uniformly applicable development regulations). Like the Focus Area Plan, the SCP project would still have potentially significant impacts on threatened and endangered species habitat, special-status plant species, special-status animal species, jurisdictional waters, and movement of native wildlife, all of which impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the 2022 EIR program mitigation measures, including clarifications and refinements to those mitigation measures as identified in this Addendum section. EIR Mitigation Measures 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 from the 2022 EIR apply. No new significant or substantially more severe significant biological resources impacts would result from the SPC project beyond those analyzed in the 2022 EIR.

4.4 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR.

Historic Resources
The Future Focus Area Plan Area, including the project site, was some of the last land in Santa Clara to be developed. Aerial photography and USGS maps show that the Future Focus Area Plan Area remained agricultural until at least 1975 and had not reached the modern extent of development until the mid-1980’s, with the City’s need for additional business districts.

Under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources), buildings, structures, and objects that are listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or on a local register of historic resources are presumed to be historically or culturally significant. A 50-year age “threshold,” which originally resulted from 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.4 and pertains to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is used by some jurisdictions as a guide for determining whether or not a resource may warrant evaluation.

Regionally, the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) keeps records of historic resources that have been documented in Santa Clara County. Locally, the City adopted Criteria for Local Significance in 2004 that established a Historic Resources Inventory. To date, no building or structure in the Future Focus Area Plan Area, including the project site, is on a local or State historic resource inventory nor the National Register.

Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Ohlone Native Americans inhabited what is now known as the San Francisco Bay area prior to invasion by the Spanish in 1769 and were named Costanoans by the Spanish. Costanoanspeaking tribal groups occupied the area from the Pacific Coast to the Diablo Range and from San Francisco to Point Sur. The language of the local tribe was the Tamyan linguistic group.

SCH Number #2020060425 78 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Prehistoric archaeological sites are commonly found near historical water courses. Prehistoric archaeological resources found at such sites often include middens and bedrock milling stations, as well as chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone, dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials.

Though the Future Focus Area Plan Area, including the project site, is developed, with some small areas of managed vegetation, there is a possibility that as-yet unrecorded prehistoric cultural resources could exist beneath the surface of the project site.

4.4.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in potentially significant impacts to historic resources, buried archaeological resources, including human remains, and tribal cultural resources. The 2022 EIR’s conclusions regarding impacts to potentially significant historic resources and archaeological and tribal cultural resources are summarized below.

Historic Resources
The 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Focus Area Plan may ultimately cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more potentially historic resources if an individual future development project proposes to demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics that justify the determination of a historic resource’s significance under CEQA (EIR, p. 7-11). The 2022 EIR concluded such adverse changes in the significance of a CEQAdefined historic resource would be a significant impact. The 2022 EIR included Mitigation Measure 7-1 to reduce impacts on historic resources from implementation of a comprehensive planning study (such as a specific plan) adopted by the City to guide Future Focus Area Plan Area development.

Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Focus Area Plan could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources, including human remains, and tribal cultural resources in the Future Focus Area Plan Area (EIR, p. 7-15). The 2022 EIR concluded this possibility represents a potentially significant impact. The 2022 EIR included Mitigation Measure 7-3 to reduce impacts on archaeological and tribal cultural resources from future discretionary public improvement and private development projects under the subsequent comprehensive planning study.

The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the Santa Clara Park (SCP) project.

SCH Number #2020060425 79 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
2022 EIR Mitigation Measures:

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

The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decision-making authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5).
(b) If the City determines that measure (a) is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource is avoided. Implementation of measure (b) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

If the City determines that neither measure (a) nor measure (b) is feasible, to the extent required by CEQA, additional analysis shall be conducted in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 15162, particularly in order for specific project alternatives to be designed and evaluated. If the City determines that neither measure (a) nor (b) is found to be feasible, then the City shall, as applicable and to the extent feasible, implement the following measures in the following order:
(c) Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards SCH Number #2020060425 80 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate with the level of significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the Bancroft Library, as well as local libraries and historical societies.
(d) Retain and reuse the historic resource to the maximum feasible extent and continue to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum feasible extent in all alterations, additions, and new construction.
(e) Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character-defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use on-site, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance. (f) Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Plan Area.

Implementation of measures (b), (c), (d), (e), and/or (f) would reduce a significant impact on historic resources, but not to a less-than-significant level. Without knowing the characteristics of the potentially affected historic resource or of the future individual development proposal, the City cannot determine with certainty that measure (a) or (b) above would be considered feasible.

Consequently, this impact is currently considered significant and unavoidable.

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

In general, to make an adequate determination in these instances, the archaeologist shall conduct a preliminary field inspection, in collaboration with a Tamien Nation Tribal Representative, to (1) assess the amount and location of visible ground surface, (2) determine the nature and extent of previous impacts, and (3) assess the nature and extent of potential impacts. Such field inspection SCH Number #2020060425 81 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
may demonstrate the need for some form of additional subsurface testing (e.g., excavation by auger, shovel, or backhoe unit) or, alternatively, the need for on-site monitoring of subsurface activities (i.e., during grading or trenching).

In addition, the City shall continue to notify the Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Plan Area of the discretionary, public improvement and private development projects if those proposed improvements or projects are subject to a CEQA Negative Declaration (including Mitigated Negative Declaration) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with California Assembly Bill 52, and if a Native American tribe requests consultation, conduct a good faith consultation.

Following field inspection and completion of all necessary phases of study as determined by the archaeologist, the Tamien Nation Tribal representative, and the City, damage to any identified archaeological resources shall be avoided or mitigated to the maximum extent possible.

Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifact(s) and the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts on an archaeological site. Preservation may be accomplished by:
• Planning construction to avoid the archaeological or tribal cultural site; • Incorporating the site within a park, green space, or other open space element; • Covering the site with a layer of chemically stable soil; or • Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

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

Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures recommended by these two groups (CHRIS and NAHC), as reviewed and approved by the City in collaboration with the Tamien Nation Tribal representative, shall be undertaken prior to and during construction activities. Although the precise details of the mitigation measures would be specific to the particular project site, the measures shall be consistent with the avoidance and mitigation strategies described in this programmatic mitigation measure.

A data recovery plan and data recovery for a historic resource shall not be required if the City in collaboration with Tamien Nation determines that testing or studies already completed have SCH Number #2020060425 82 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the data have already been documented in an EIR or are available for review at the CHRIS Northwest Information Center (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4[b]).

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

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

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.4.3 Impact Analysis
Basin Research Associates prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the proposed Santa Clara Park (SCP) project, titled “Cultural Resources Review – In Support of Future Environmental Clearance for Irvine Company 3900 Freedom Circle Development (APN 104-40- 019) City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County,” and dated January 31, 2024, revised May 2, 2024 (henceforth referred to as the “Basin report”).

Historic Resources
The SCP project site is located within the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Area. The site consists of an existing 12-building, moderate-intensity, low-rise office park with associated surface parking, constructed in 1980 (Basin Research Associates 2024, p. 1). The 12 on-site buildings are less than 50 years in age, of typical modern construction for both the business park and surrounding commercial development, and not considered significant due to their recent and typical construction. To implement Mitigation Measure 7-1 from the 2022 EIR, the Basin report included an assessment of the subject property to determine whether the property is a significant historic resource and whether the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historic resource. The Basin report was prepared by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards.

The Basin report concluded there are no standing historic buildings and/or structures present within the bounds of the project site due to the previous development of the site in 1980 (Basin Research SCH Number #2020060425 83 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Associates 2024, p. 5). Therefore, the requirements of Mitigation Measure 7-1 for projects that may have a potentially significant effect on a historic resource do not apply to the SCP project.

Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Basin report included a CHRIS/NWIC archival records search, a historic maps review, a review of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF), and communication with the NAHC and local Native Americans individuals/groups listed by the NAHC. A systematic field inventory of the project was not undertaken due to the lack of native soil available for inspection resulting from prior development including building footprints, hardscape and introduced landscaping.

According to the Basin report, while prehistoric sites are often found within 0.25 miles of flowing water in the northern Santa Clara Valley, and the project site is located in proximity to the historic channels of both Saratoga and San Tomas Aquino creeks, the site has a low to low-moderate sensitivity for subsurface prehistoric resources due to the lack of any reported cultural materials exposed during subsurface disturbance over the past 50 years for development projects, flood control, and trail construction (p. 16).

The Basin report was prepared consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure 7-3 of the 2022 EIR. The Basin report included contact with the CHRIS and a determination by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards regarding any potential cultural values remaining on the site and any warranted site-specific protection protocols. As stated above, Basin Research Associates did not conduct a field inspection due to the lack of on-site native soil available for inspection resulting from prior development including building footprints, hardscape, and introduced landscaping.

To implement Mitigation Measure 7-3, the Basin report in its site-specific analysis included protection protocols (pp. 18-19). The following protocols refine the mitigation actions included in Mitigation Measure 7-3 for site-specific impacts and shall be added as a condition of approval for the SCP project.
(a) The project applicant shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including prehistoric Native American burials.
(b) Prior to the start of ground disturbing construction, the project applicant shall implement a Worker Awareness Training (WAT) program for cultural resources. Training shall be required for all construction personnel participating in ground disturbing construction to alert them to the archaeological sensitivity of the project site and to provide protocols to follow in the event of a discovery of archaeological materials. The training shall be provided by a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA). In addition, the RPA shall develop and distribute for job site posting an "ALERT SHEET" summarizing potential SCH Number #2020060425 84 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
archaeological finds that could be exposed and the protocols to be followed, as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery. (c) The project applicant shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction to review, identify, and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be exposed during construction. The archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (d) If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, they shall notify the City and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend protection protocols in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources).

Protocols may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing, and data recovery, among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction.

Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the City of Santa Clara in consultation with the Professional Archaeologist and relevant jurisdictional agencies. (e) State law shall be followed regarding Native American burials (Chapter 1492, Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code; Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code). This shall include immediate notification of the County Coroner/Medical Examiner and the City of Santa Clara.

Also, City of Santa Clara staff notified tribes in the area of the SCP project, received comments, and communicated directly with tribal representatives. The 2022 EIR mitigation plus the Basin report protocols above are consistent with those comments and communications.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to or less significant than those analyzed in the certified 2022 EIR. The SCP project would not have potentially significant impacts related to the impact of future development on historic resources because the project site does not contain potentially historic resources. The SCP project’s potential impacts on historic resources would be less significant than those of the overall Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, which the 2022 EIR concluded would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the Focus Area Plan, the SCP project would still have potentially significant impacts on archaeological and tribal cultural resources which would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated; Mitigation Measures 7-1 and 7-3 from the 2022 EIR apply. Implementation of the SCP project would not result in new significant impacts or a SCH Number #2020060425 85 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No new mitigation is required.

4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.5.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR, with some updates.

Seismicity/Groundshaking: The City of Santa Clara is located in the northern region of the Santa Clara Valley, which is within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Region of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. There are no active earthquake faults and no Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones in the city. Faults located within 10 miles of the Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site include the Hayward fault, the Calaveras fault, the Monte Vista-Shannon fault, and the Sargent fault. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 11 miles from the project site.

Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil: As discussed in the Project Description (section 3), the project site is currently developed with 12 two-story structures, surface parking, and landscaping, all of which would require demolition and removal prior to construction of the proposed SCP project. Project site clearing would temporarily disturb existing site conditions and could leave soils exposed to wind and water erosion during the construction period. Eroded soils carried into stormwater runoff could be discharged to surface waters, thereby reducing the water quality of receiving waters.

Ground Instability (Topography and Surface Soils): The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Area is generally flat, with surface elevations ranging from 17 to 50 feet “above sea level.” The SCP project site is currently developed and essentially flat, with surface elevations varying from 22 to 25 feet.4 Soils in the Plan Area are comprised of (1) very deep, poorly drained alluvial soils derived from mixed rock sources, with moderate clay content and (2) subsurface silty clay loam and deep clay that is naturally moderately well drained. Soils with clay content may pose risk from expansion (“shrink-swell potential”) because variations in moisture content result in volume changes, as discussed in the certified 2022 EIR.

The 2022 EIR determined that no impacts related to fault rupture, landslides, or septic/alternative wastewater systems would result due to project construction, and these issues were not discussed further in the 2022 EIR.

The 2022 EIR noted that while no creeks pass through the Plan Area, historical maps indicate that a portion of Saratoga Creek once crossed through the southwest portion of the Plan Area and the 4 Project site plans (Plan Sheets C1.0, C2.0, C2.1, C4.0, and C4.1) note that elevations are based on North American Vertical Datum 88 (NAVD 88), which has replaced the older “above sea level” designation to correct distortions in surveyed elevations in sea level measurements and provide a common, consistent method for establishing elevations based on satellite systems.

SCH Number #2020060425 86 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
southwest portion of the project site. During the 1970s/1980s, Saratoga Creek was rerouted upstream to connect with San Thomas Aquinas Creek. According to the 2022 EIR, the creek channel on the site appears to have been filled in.

Paleontological Resources: The project site is located in an area where surficial geologic units include Holocene alluvial and Bay mud deposits, plus Pleistocene alluvial deposits with the underlying Santa Clara Formation. The Holocene unit is not typically considered paleontologically sensitive because remains found in this unit usually are not older than about 10,000 years and would be too young to be fossilized. Deposits may contain remains that are lifted from older deposits due to movement of the geologic units.

4.5.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that future development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in significant impacts related to potential ground instability (topography and surface soils) and paleontological resources.

Ground Instability (Topography and Surface Soils):

The 2022 EIR concluded that potential for ground instability depends on specific, highly localized underlying soil conditions. Determination of differential settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence potential would require site-specific geotechnical studies for future individual development proposals. Possible ground instability conditions would need to be properly engineered or could result in associated significant damage to project buildings, other improvements, and adjacent property, with direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Any potential for earthquake-induced differential settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence, and associated damage to proposed buildings or other improvements, would be generally restricted to the area where the building foundation or other improvement would be constructed. The 2022 EIR identified Mitigation Measure 8-5 to mitigate potential ground instability impacts by requiring future projects to implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations included in the City-required individual project, site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies for future development proposals, subject to City review and approval.

The 2022 EIR concluded that these geotechnical mitigation requirements, which would include soil testing and soil treatments; recommendations for building foundation, structural strengthening, and subsurface design; and associated construction methods, among other protocols, rely on methods developed and refined by the California Building Standards Commission (through the California Building Code) and the California Geological Survey (especially Special Publication 117A, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California 2008”). These geotechnical requirements, along with continued academic and professional environmental and SCH Number #2020060425 87 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
engineering geologists’ research, would reduce seismic hazards to structures and persons to a less than significant level.

These requirements and related City inspection and verification procedures would provide reasonable, professional assurances that projects would incorporate the design and engineering refinements necessary to reduce the degree of impacts to less-than-significant levels. In addition, City grading permit and building permit provisions, requirements, and regulations already in place would ensure that an individual development project would not be given final approval without project compliance with geotechnical/geologic requirements.

Paleontological Resources:

The 2022 EIR concluded that the potential for disturbance of paleontological resources could result in a significant impact because development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan could result in disturbance of unrecorded paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activities. The 2022 EIR identified Mitigation Measure 8-7 to mitigate potential disturbance of paleontological resources by requiring future development projects to include (1) an education program with resource identification training procedures for construction personnel; (2) spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and (3) procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. The education program would be conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. In addition, for resources that are encountered, additional measures would require (1) halting excavation within a buffer area; (2) paleontologist evaluation of the resource and its stratigraphic context; (3) other procedures related to monitoring, sample collecting, and cataloging/curating material; and (4) preparation and submittal of a report to the City documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities.

The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed SCP project. 2022 EIR Mitigation Measures:

Seismicity/Groundshaking:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) standard geotechnical requirements mandated by the City and performed by professional engineers, including preparation of a final geotechnical report based on detailed geotechnical investigation and laboratory testing of subsurface soils; (2) compliance with the current California Building Code; (3) construction monitoring to observe foundation installation, ground improvement, and fill placement; and (4) City inspection and verification of project compliance with geotechnical/geologic requirements before project occupancy would reduce the risk of property loss or hazards to occupants due to seismicity/groundshaking to a less-than-significant level.

SCH Number #2020060425 88 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) standard grading- and construction-period erosion control techniques required by the City for individual projects in addition to regional water quality requirements would ensure this potential impact would be less than significant by reducing surface water runoff over exposed soil and grading; and (2) construction activities would be anticipated to result only in minor erosion or the minor loss of some topsoil.

Ground Instability (Topography and Surface Soils):

Mitigation 8-5. Subject to City review and approval, complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in the required individual project and site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies for site-specific proposals, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards. Such recommendations could address design- and construction-level details regarding the type of building foundation, the extent of subsurface excavation, the details of retaining structures, any need for subsurface water extraction, and other engineering issues and solutions. Incorporation of this mitigation requirement would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Paleontological Resources:

Mitigation 8-7. For all public improvement and private development projects in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Area, the following measures shall be implemented:
(1) Education Program. Project applicants shall implement a program that includes the following elements:
• Resource identification training procedures for construction personnel, conducted by a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards; • Spot-checks and monitoring by a qualified paleontologist of all excavations deeper than seven feet below ground surface; and
• Procedures for reporting discoveries and their geologic context. (2) Procedures for Resources Encountered. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until the project paleontologist evaluates the resource and its stratigraphic context. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by a qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils SCH Number #2020060425 89 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage.

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

Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
The relationship of the proposed SCP project to the previously certified 2022 Focus Area Plan EIR geology and soils impact and mitigation conclusions is described below.

Seismicity/Ground shaking:

The proposed SCP project would not be expected to exacerbate the existing risk of strong seismic ground shaking nor result in the risk of property loss or hazards to occupants because the project would be required to comply with the seismic design provisions of the latest California Building Standards Code (CBSC), as adopted by the City with City amendments. A preliminary geotechnical feasibility study was prepared for the proposed project by Langan Treadwell Rollo (January 5, 2015) and updated (April 22, 2024), collectively referred to here as the “Geotechnical Study.”
The Geotechnical Study was based on review of previous studies in the site vicinity and data from those investigations; the Geotechnical Study did not perform any site-specific soil sampling or laboratory testing. Based on the data from the previous studies, the Geotechnical Study evaluated the following geological conditions and hazards, and made preliminary recommendations, as discussed further in “Ground Instability (Topography and Surface Soils),” below:
 subsurface soils and soil conditions;
 groundwater levels; and
 geotechnical issues related to adequate foundation support, settlement behavior, and geologic hazards, including expansive soils, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and cyclic soil densification.

The Geotechnical Study (p. 10) concluded: “A detailed geotechnical investigation for any proposed development should be performed to confirm the existing subsurface data prior to development of final plans.” This condition under “final plans” will ensure that the most accurate and precise details of project design are considered in the quantitative analysis.

SCH Number #2020060425 90 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Because standard geotechnical requirements would (1) be mandated by the City and performed by professional engineers, including preparation of a final geotechnical report based on site-specific geotechnical investigation and laboratory testing of subsurface soils; (2) include monitoring during construction, particularly to observe foundation installation, ground improvement, and fill placement; (3) be required to comply with current State building codes, as adopted and amended by the City; and (4) be inspected and verified by the City to ensure project compliance with these geotechnical/geologic requirements prior to project occupancy, the risk of property loss or hazards to occupants due to seismicity and groundshaking would be less than significant.

The SCP project’s impacts related to seismicity/ground shaking would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil:

The proposed SCP project would not be expected to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil because project construction activities would be required to comply with (1) City grading and stormwater standards; (2) the State General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity requirements, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); (3) other stormwater runoff quality requirements for constructionperiod and post-construction activities, as specified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (“C.3” requirements); and (4) Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) to eliminate or reduce the discharge of pollutants from construction-related activities. (See chapter 11, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the 2022 EIR for further discussion.) These City and regional water quality requirements would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

The SCP project’s impacts related to soil erosion/loss of topsoil would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Ground Instability (Topography and Surface Soils):

As described above, the Geotechnical Study made recommendations to apply to final project design regarding the following:
 subsurface soils and soil conditions;
 groundwater levels; and
 geotechnical issues related to adequate foundation and settlement, and geologic hazards, including expansive soils, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and cyclic soil densification.

Subsurface Soils and Soil Conditions (Geotechnical Study, p. 2): Subsurface soil conditions vary, with upper soils of generally stiff, very highly expansive clay, which is over-consolidated, and near-surface clay that is moderately corrosive. Under the near-surface clay are alluvial deposits of SCH Number #2020060425 91 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
medium stiff to hard, moderately expansive clay and silt with layers of medium dense to very dense sand and silty sand interbedded within.5
Groundwater Levels (Geotechnical Study, p. 2): The design groundwater level at the project site is estimated at eight feet below ground surface.

Foundation and Settlement (Geotechnical Study, p. 7): Light-weight at-grade structures such as wood-framed buildings may be supported on shallow footings, with footings near the bottom of the severe moisture change zone or with post-tensioned (P-T) slabs over select fill. Heavier structures such as parking garages may need more support on deep foundations, such as piles or on ground improvement elements like compacted aggregate piers. Consolidation settlements are estimated to be about ½ to 1 inch, based on structures in the vicinity of similar height, loading, and construction type.

Because the proposed building site is susceptible to consolidation of underlying alluvial deposits under the weight of new building loads or new fill and liquefaction-induced settlement, the Geotechnical Study concluded: “The structural engineer should evaluate the impact of liquefaction-induced settlement to structures supported on shallow foundations. If the total and differential settlements are not tolerable, then a stiffer foundation system, such as an interconnected grid system or mat should be used. If PT [post-tensioned] slabs are proposed, then design recommendations may be provided during final design. If higher bearing capacities are needed for heavy structures like the concrete parking garage, static settlements will be greater.” In addition, the Geotechnical Study recommended that soil used to fill Saratoga Creek should be evaluated during the design-level geotechnical investigation.

Geologic Hazards (Geotechnical Study, pp. 5-6):
 Expansive Soils. To reduce effects of expansive soils under foundations, slabs, and concrete flatwork, soils should be moisture conditioned and a layer of select, non-expansive fill provided below the zone of severe moisture change; an alternative would be to import select fill and/or use lime treatment of near-surface soil.
 Soil Liquefaction. Site soils may include layers of loose to medium dense saturated sand, silty sand and silt, with varying thickness from approximately 2 to 4½ feet below the groundwater level, and could potentially liquefy and/or result in liquefaction-induced settlement during a major earthquake. Up to 1½-inch of liquefaction-induced settlements may occur with differential settlement between columns up to one-inch during a major earthquake, in addition to the predicted static induced consolidation settlement. The Geotechnical Study concluded:
5 These soils and conditions are common in developed portions of the Bay Area.

SCH Number #2020060425 92 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
“Additional field exploration should be performed during a design-level geotechnical investigation to further evaluate the density of the soil, the depth to groundwater, and the potential for liquefaction.”
 Lateral Spreading. Due to the relatively flat topography of the project site and the noncontiguous nature of potentially liquefiable soils, lateral spreading is not likely to affect the site.
 Cyclic Densification. Nearby soil sample borings and cone penetration tests indicate soils above the water table are predominantly stiff to hard clayey soils, and seismic densification would be unlikely.

The 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of EIR Mitigation Measure 8-5, calling for City review and approval of the required individual site-specific geotechnical investigations and engineering studies, and implementation of the recommendations identified in the studies, in coordination with City grading permit and building permit performance standards, would reduce ground instability impacts to a less-than-significant level.

As a condition of project approval, the City shall require the applicant to prepare a final geotechnical report, by a geotechnical engineer, for City review and approval. The final geotechnical report shall address the geotechnical issues identified in the preliminary and updated Geotechnical Study referenced above and shall incorporate on-site soil testing/cone penetration testing to confirm the findings included in the updated project Geotechnical Study, along with recommendations to be incorporated into the final project design.

The SCP project’s impacts related to ground instability would remain less than significant with mitigation, and the SCP project would not result in new or more severe ground instability impacts than those identified in the 2022 EIR.

Paleontological Resources:

The 2022 EIR determined that impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. The proposed project includes no changes or new conditions that would alter this conclusion, based on the following information: (1) project construction activities, especially related to grading and excavation, were evaluated in the 2022 EIR with respect to potentials for disturbing unrecorded paleontological resources; and (2) the proposed project grading and excavation activities would be expected to be similar to those evaluated in the 2022 EIR.

The 2022 EIR concluded that Pleistocene alluvial deposits and the Santa Clara Formation have high paleontological sensitivity and could be discovered during ground-disturbing activities; EIR Mitigation Measure 8-7 would be required to ensure that project activities would not significantly impact paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures 8-7 would require worker training related SCH Number #2020060425 93 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
to paleontological resource identification and work stoppage in case of a discovery of paleontological materials, followed by assessment and treatment of the deposits by a qualified, professional paleontologist, in compliance with federal criteria and Santa Clara General Plan policies.

Project compliance with Mitigation Measure 8-7 would ensure project impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant.

The SCP project’s impacts related to paleontological resources would remain less than significant with mitigation, and the SCP project would not result in new or more severe paleontological resources impacts than those identified in the 2022 EIR.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to geology and soils (including paleontological resources) are similar to those analyzed for the 2022 Focus Area Plan. For reasons stated above, construction and operation of the SCP project would not result in new significant impacts related to geology and soils (including paleontological resources) or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant geology and soils (including paleontological resources) impacts. No new mitigation is required.

4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY

4.6.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR.

Climate Change
Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time. Climate change can result from natural processes and from human activities. Natural changes in the climate can be caused by indirect processes such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or direct changes within the climate system itself (e.g., changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere through emissions of gases and changes to the planet’s surface. The term “climate change” is preferred over the term “global warming” because “climate change” conveys the fact that other changes can occur beyond just average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface, such as changes in precipitation patterns and acidification of the ocean.

Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is intimately tied to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet, and without it, life as we know it on Earth would not exist. Human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 150 years ago) have been adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that “trap” energy. Gases that absorb and emit infrared thermal radiation (heat) in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as greenhouse SCH Number #2020060425 94 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
gases (GHGs). Many chemical compounds in the Earth’s atmosphere exhibit the GHG property.

GHGs allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When the sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, it is either absorbed or reflected back toward space. Earth, or materials near the Earth’s surface, that have absorbed energy from sunlight warm up during the daytime and emit infrared radiation back toward space during both the daytime and nighttime hours. GHGs absorb this long-wave, infrared radiation and help keep the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere. The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs— carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—and two groups of gases—hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These GHGs are the primary GHGs emitted into the atmosphere by human activities.

GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are emitted. The potential for a particular GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO2, which is assigned a baseline GWP of one. By comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 25, which means that one molecule of CH4 has 25 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their CO2 equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined GWP to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions.

Energy
The burning of fossil fuels for energy releases air pollutants and GHGs. Energy is primarily categorized into three areas: electricity, natural gas, and fuels used for transportation. California has one of the lowest per capita energy consumption levels in the U.S. This is a result of California’s mild climate, extensive efforts to increase energy efficiency, and implementation of alternative technologies. Electric and natural gas utility providers for the Future Focus Area Plan Area and the SCP project site are Silicon Valley Power (SVP) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). As of January 2018, SVP provides carbon-free power to all residential customers.

Existing GHG Emissions and Energy Use in the Future Focus Area Plan Area and SCP Project Site
The existing non-residential land uses in the Future Focus Area Plan Area, including the SCP project site, which consists of 12 two-story structures, surface parking, and landscaping, involve activities and operations that consume energy and emit GHGs (e.g., building energy use for space and water heating, vehicle trips). The existing uses in the Plan Area and at the SCP project site contribute to regional energy consumption levels and global climate change. Emissions of GHGs that contribute to climate change are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate regulation is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects.

SCH Number #2020060425 95 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.6.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Impact 9- 3, pp. 9-40 to 9-43) or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Impact 9-5, p. 9-45). The certified 2022 EIR also concluded implementation of the Focus Area Plan would result in one potentially significant impact from emissions of GHGs that could have a significant climate change effect and/or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions (Impact 9-1, pp. 9-28 to 9-35).

The 2022 EIR’s conclusion regarding emissions of GHGs is summarized below.

GHG Emissions and Plan Consistency
The certified 2022 EIR concluded the implementation of the Focus Area Plan could result in construction and operational activities that would emit GHG emissions, in terms of metric tons of CO2e per service population, at a level that exceeds an interpolated efficiency metric derived from BAAQMD-recommended thresholds of significance; the result would be a potentially significant impact. Although the Focus Area Plan’s GHG efficiency would be above the significance threshold applied in the 2022 EIR, the EIR concluded the Plan would be consistent with all plans and policies adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and applicable at the time the 2022 EIR was certified, including the City’s 2013 Climate Action Plan.

The 2022 EIR identified energy and mobile sources as the primary contributors to the emissions of GHGs that would occur with implementation of the Focus Area Plan. To reduce potentially significant emissions of GHGs, the 2022 EIR incorporated Mitigation Measure 9-1A (Implement TDM Program) and Mitigation Measure 9-1B (Utilize GHG-Free Electricity) into the Focus Area Plan. The 2022 EIR concluded these measures would reduce GHG emissions below the efficiency metric applied in the EIR’s analysis, thereby rendering the Focus Area Plan’s GHG emission levels a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
2022 Certified EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the SCP project.

Mitigation Measure 9-1A: See Mitigation Measure 5-3D (Implement TDM Program).

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

SCH Number #2020060425 96 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
The relationship of the proposed SCP project to the previously certified 2022 EIR GHG emissions and energy impact and mitigation conclusions is described below.

GHG Emissions and Plan Consistency
As described in section 4.3.3 (Air Quality), the proposed SCP project is consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan. The project would not result in more dwelling units, population, or vehicle trips than were evaluated in the 2022 EIR, and it does not include any construction activities or area, energy, stationary, or mobile source operations that were not evaluated in the 2022 EIR. Furthermore, as described in section

4.6.2 above, the SCP project is subject to, and would comply with, the applicable mitigation measures from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce emissions of GHGs, including Mitigation Measure 9-1A (Implement TDM Program) and Mitigation Measure 9-1B (Utilize GHG-Free Electricity). TDM measures incorporated into the project include, but are not limited to, unbundled parking, carshare and rideshare services and programs, and transit fare incentives. Refer to section

4.14 (Transportation) for more detailed information about the TDM measures incorporated into the SCP project. In addition, the project would achieve GHG-free electricity use from a combination of on-site solar PV electricity generation, which would supply more than enough energy to power the proposed 3,600 square foot market, and being a residential customer of Silicon Valley Power, which as noted above, has been providing carbon-free power to its residential customers since 2018. Finally, in 2022, the City adopted an updated its Climate Action Plan (CAP) which outlines the actions the City will take to achieve its proportional share of the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target (GHG emission that are 40 percent below 1990 levels). The SCP project has completed the City’s Climate Action Plan Compliance checklist and is incorporating the City’s latest GHG emissions reduction actions into the project, as well as other sustainable design features, including:
• Reuse of salvageable building materials and use of carbon-smart building materials • Integration of natural stormwater systems at the site to reduce runoff and filter potential stormwater pollutants
• Use of recycled water for irrigation purposes
• Use of landscaping, green infrastructure, and natural stormwater systems to lower surface temperatures and reduce heat gain
• Compliance with CalGreen Tier 1 energy efficiency requirements • Use of solar photovoltaic panels on garage and residential rooftops, electric vehicle charging stations (50% electric vehicle stall capacity), and all-electric building construction (excepting hot water systems and BBQ/fire pits)
SCH Number #2020060425 97 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
• Achievement of LEED Gold equivalent sustainable design • Development of a TDM Program that reduces VMT by 20%, including 10% from TDM measures and 10% from physical design features (see section 4.14) • Public and private bicycle parking facilities, including electric outlets for e-bikes • Compliance with State solid waste laws that reduce organic waste by 75 percent • Planting of 997 new trees
The incorporation of GHG emissions reduction actions consistent with the City’s CAP would reduce the Focus Area Plan’s potential GHG emissions impact and ensure continued Focus Area Plan and SCP project consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. The SCP project, therefore, would not have the potential to result in a new significant or substantially more severe significant GHG emissions impact than that identified in the certified 2022 EIR.

Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources As described under the “GHG Emissions” analysis above, the SCP project is consistent with the growth assumptions, energy consumption sources, and mitigation requirements in the 2022 EIR.

Also, incorporation of actions consistent with the City’s CAP would reduce the Focus Area Plan’s potential electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel consumption impact and ensure continued Focus Area Plan and SCP project consistency with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The SCP project, therefore, would not have the potential to result in a new significant or substantially more severe energy resource impact than that identified in the 2022 EIR.

4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.7.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR.

Hazardous Materials: The Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site is located in the Plan Area evaluated in the 2022 EIR, which determined that the Plan Area may contain hazardous materials as identified on State, Federal, and local data resources, including the State Department of Toxic Substance’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database (Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List), the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker database (Leaking Underground Storage Tank Site List), the U.S. EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA) information system, and information from the Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) Hazardous Materials Division.

SCH Number #2020060425 98 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Airport Hazards: The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (San Jose International Airport or ”SJC”) is located about 1.5 miles to the southeast of the Plan Area. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the San Jose International Airport establishes an Airport Influence Area (AIA) within which all actions, regulations, and permits must be evaluated by local agencies to determine how the Airport LUP policies may impact the proposed development. The portion of the Plan Area between Mission College Boulevard and California’s Great America amusement park, and bounded by Great American Parkway on the west and the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail on the east, is in the San Jose International Airport AIA. The rest of the Plan Area, south of Mission College Boulevard, is not. However, the CLUP also establishes development standards related to noise, structure height, and safety that are applicable to development in areas surrounding the airport and maps these areas to help evaluate land use compatibility in the vicinity of the airport. The Plan Area is located in the CLUP Height Restriction Area, which uses the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary surfaces to delineate the area within which structures above a maximum structure height may constitute a safety hazard. As noted in the 2022 EIR regarding building heights: “For the parts of the Plan Area that require review for structure height, the maximum structure height allowable under the CLUP varies from approximately 90‐95 feet above ground at the southeast corner of the Plan Area to an approximate elevation of 145‐150 feet at the northwest corner of the Plan Area…”.

Emergency Response: The 2022 EIR determined that because future development would be required to comply with the plans and policies identified in the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan/Emergency Operations Plan, the Focus Area Plan and future development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan would not interfere with the Hazard Mitigation/Emergency Operations Plan.

Potential impacts on emergency response would be less than significant, and this issue was not discussed further in the 2022 EIR.

Wildfire Hazards: The 2022 EIR determined that because the City of Santa Clara is in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) for wildland fire protection and is not mapped by CAL FIRE in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), no impact related to wildfire hazards would result, and this issue was not discussed further in the 2022 EIR.

4.7.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that future development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in no significant impacts, as discussed below. 2022 EIR Mitigation Measures:

Hazardous Materials:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR because implementation of adopted, standard procedures and regulations, including implementation of standard City-, County-, SCH Number #2020060425 99 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
regional-, and State-mandated procedures and requirements as part of the development review process, would reduce project impacts related to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.

Airport Hazards:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR because implementation of adopted, standard protocols under the San Jose International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) would reduce land use compatibility and safety impacts to a less-than-significant level.

4.7.3 Impact Analysis
The relationship of the proposed SCP project to the previously certified 2022 Focus Area Plan EIR hazards and hazardous materials impact and mitigation conclusions is described below.

Hazardous Materials:

The proposed SCP project would not be expected to involve the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to the extent that a significant public or environmental hazard would occur. Project construction activities and operation would be expected to use materials (e.g., chemical agents, solvents, paints, fuel for equipment; cleaning and maintenance materials) that are common for residential land uses and would not be used in quantities that pose a significant hazard to the public or environment. Use and transport of such materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.

Regarding potential for exposure to existing hazardous materials contamination, an environmental site assessment (ESA) was conducted, as described below.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA): The SCP project site was the subject of a Phase I ESA (“Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [Phase I ESA], Freedom Circle Site, 2518, 2520, 2540, and 2560 Mission College Boulevard and 3900, 3910, 3920, 3930, 3940, 3960, 3970, and 3990 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, California, Assessor Parcel No.: 104-40-019,” Roux Associates, Inc., February 28, 2024), conducted within the scope and limitations of the ASTM International’s Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process E1527-21. Roux Associates, Inc. conducted a site reconnaissance, collected additional information through interviews and documents, and performed a records review that included regulatory agency and regulatory database records. The Phase I ESA evaluated information to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), de minimis conditions, and Business Environmental Risks (BERs).6 RECs, CRECs, HRECs, de 6 As used in the Phase I ESA, per ASTM Standard E 1527-13, the term “recognized environmental conditions (RECs)” means “(1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, in, on, or at the subject property due a release SCH Number #2020060425 100 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
minimis conditions, and BERs are defined in the ASTM standards. The information below is taken directly from the Phase I ESA.

Phase I ESA Conclusions. The Phase I ESA (pp. 37-38) made the following conclusions:
 Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs): One REC was identified on the project site due to “agricultural uses, primarily orchards, from at least the 1930s until it was developed into the current office park in the late 1970s. While there is no soil sampling data from the Subject Site [e.g., the current SCP project site] previous environmental investigations at the adjacent site (Intel Freedom Circle) to the east and south and adjacent to the Subject Property identified the presence of pesticide impacted shallow soil which was consistent with the reported past agricultural uses. The pesticide impacts at the adjacent site include arsenic, lead and organochlorine pesticides, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (“DDT”), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (“DDD”), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (“DDE”), and dieldrin. An engineered cap and deed restriction were implemented at this site as a result. Due to the shared historical agricultural use for both the site and the Subject Property, it is likely that the soil at the Subject Property is impacted with metals and pesticides. However, given that the majority of the Subject Property is [currently] paved, there is low potential for exposure of metals and pesticides to [current] occupants.”
 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs): No CRECs were identified on the project site.
 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs): No HRECs were identified on the project site.
 De minimis conditions: The following de minimis conditions were identified related to staining, based on previous site investigations and the site reconnaissance conducted for the Phase I ESA: “[S]taining in the elevator mechanical room at Building 3920 was observed, … to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, or at the subject property due to a release of likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” The term “controlled recognized environmental conditions (CECs)” means “Recognized environmental condition affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to implementation of required controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations).” The term “historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs)” means “A previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the Subject Property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). A historical recognized environmental condition is not a recognized environmental condition.” The term “de minimis conditions” means “A condition related to a release that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. A condition determined to be a de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition nor a controlled recognized environmental condition.” And the term “business environmental risk (BERs)” means “A risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of commercial real estate, not necessarily related to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice.” (Phase I ESA, pp. 3-4) SCH Number #2020060425 101 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
it is unlikely the soil has been impacted as a result based on the general good condition of concrete”; and “Staining was observed in the janitorial closet drains in Building 3940 and 3960 and on the exposed concrete flooring of the janitorial closet in Building 3970 … likely due to the use of general household cleaning chemicals and are not associated with hazardous materials use, [so] therefore do not pose a significant potential to releasing to the environment.”  Business Environmental Risks (BERs): Three BERs were identified on the SCP project site:
(1) potential for asbestos- and lead- containing materials as well as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in caulking and electrical equipment due to the age of the buildings; (2) documented limited chemical use and hazardous waste handling on-site, which is considered a BER even absent any documentation of an actual chemical release; and (3) identification of an unknown conduit during landscaping renovations, which although there is identified documentation of historical hazardous waste handling, there were no indications of a hazardous material release associated with this excavation.”
Regarding the REC related to previous agricultural activities identified on the SCP project site, additional environmental site assessment was conducted, as discussed below.

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA): A Phase II ESA was prepared for the Santa Clara Park project (“Subsurface Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation Report, [Phase II ESA], Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, California,” Roux Associates, Inc., June 14, 2024). The purpose of the Phase II ESA was to evaluate subsurface soil and soil vapor conditions on the project site in connection with the proposed SCP residential project (Phase II ESA, p. 2); the Phase II was “designed to achieve the following objectives:
 Identify the presence and potential extent of arsenic, lead and chlorinated pesticides in soil at the [SCP project] [s]ite from past agricultural uses;
 Assess soil vapor concentrations at the periphery of the [SCP project] [s]ite and near buildings with historic chemical use to help evaluate if future development may need vapor mitigation;  Evaluate sampling results in the context of a potential mixed-use development, including residential, private recreation, parks, and retail uses.” The information below is taken directly from the Phase II ESA.

Soil Sampling Findings: The Phase II ESA collected samples from 14 soil borings onsite (Phase II ESA, p. 3). Six of the borings were conducted on landscaped areas or berms (“berms and landscaping areas”); six of the borings were conducted in paved parking and driveway areas of the site (“samples below pavement”); and two of the borings were conducted under existing buildings (“samples below building slabs”). The Phase II ESA (Phase II ESA, pp. 3-4 and 10) relied on the following criteria for determining risk levels associated with the samples: (1) remediation goals for background arsenic approved by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) for the nearby Santa Clara Square (SCS) residential development site; (2) DTSC screening SCH Number #2020060425 102 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
levels for lead; and (3) U.S. EPA regional screening levels for chemical contaminants at superfund sites for organochlorine pesticides. The following summarizes the analysis of the samples:
 the six berms and landscaping area samples all “had concentrations of arsenic, lead, and pesticides above screening levels, hazardous waste concentrations (if the soil is to be excavated for disposal), and/or site specific background arsenic levels within the berms”;  five of the six samples below pavement “had arsenic, lead, and chlorinated pesticide impacts above the screening or natural background”; and
 the two samples below building slabs of existing buildings ranged significantly between the two buildings, with one location measuring above screening or background levels to a depth of 92 inches whereas the other location measured above screening or background levels to a depth of only 8 inches below the slab.

The Phase II ESA also discussed average depth and concentration of contaminations at varying depths; variations between depth of contaminants in the northern part of the SCP project site compared to the southern part of the site; and possible hazardous waste characterization of the contaminated soils based on the screening levels applied in testing.

Soil Vapor Sampling Findings: The Phase II ESA conducted 14 soil vapor samples at 12 locations plus two duplicate locations. Due to concerns regarding the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) analysis, the Phase II ESA (pp. 4-5) determined that “…the validity of the soil vapor data should be considered questionable and qualitative in nature” and therefore recommended that “additional soil vapor investigation be conducted to accurately characterize soil vapor conditions.” Phase II ESA Conclusions. The Phase II ESA (pp. 5-6) concluded that the results of the sampling analysis would not “preclude future residential, private recreation, parks or retail uses at the [SCP project] [s]ite” with appropriate measures that are commonly implemented at nearby sites and oversight by an appropriate agency of jurisdiction, such as the DTSC, to ensure site assessment, evaluation, and remediation would be conducted according to jurisdictional protocols.

As discussed in the 2022 EIR under “Impact 10-3: Potential Exposure to Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination,” projects in the Plan Area “would be required to comply with all applicable, existing City-, County-, regional-, and State-mandated site assessment, remediation, removal, and disposal requirements for soil, surface water, and/or groundwater contamination,” as described in EIR “Regulatory Setting” section (2022 EIR section 10.2). These established requirements would prevent exacerbation of existing contamination or accidental release, and ensure that possible health and safety impacts would be less than significant.

The 2022 EIR identifies standard procedures that would typically be involved, which are consistent with standard procedures required as part of City-, County-, regional-, and State-mandated requirements. As noted in the 2022 EIR, “The steps are not considered additional mitigations required by this EIR because the steps are existing development standards applied uniformly to all SCH Number #2020060425 103 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
applicable projects.” The 2022 EIR separates the steps for soil contamination from the steps for surface or groundwater contamination. The SCP project is following the steps for soil contamination.

The first step calls for investigation of the site to determine whether it has a record of hazardous material discharge into soils, and if so, to characterize the site according to the nature and extent of soil contamination that is present before development activities proceed at that site. This step has been completed with the Phase I ESA discussed previously.

The second step calls for determining the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the soil conditions on the contaminated site, based on the proposed activities associated with the proposed project. This step has been completed with the Phase II ESA discussed previously. In addition, as part of this second step, if the proposed development activity would involve human contact with soils, such as may be the case with residential use, then the third step would be necessary.

Step 3 (in the 2022 EIR) explains: “If it is determined that extensive soil contact would accompany the intended use of the site, undertake a Phase II Environmental Assessment investigation, involving soil sampling at a minimum, at the expense of the project applicant, property owner, or responsible party. Should further investigation reveal high levels of hazardous materials in the site soils, mitigate health and safety risks according to City of Santa Clara and regulatory agency requirements. This would include site-specific health and safety plans prepared prior to undertaking any building or utility construction. Also, if buildings are situated over soils that are significantly contaminated, undertake measures to either remove the chemicals or prevent contaminants from entering and collecting within the building. If remediation of contaminated soil is infeasible, a deed restriction would be necessary to limit site use and eliminate unacceptable risks to health or the environment.”
The Phase II ESA (p. 8) indicated areas of soil impacted by historical agricultural use but noted that “that potential contaminants can be effectively remediated and/or mitigated to minimize potential exposure by future Site residents or workers.” The SCP project environmental hazards consultant is currently under contract to work with DTSC to receive “no further action” status and will conduct further testing as needed to refine the remediation work plan. According to the applicant,7 the Phase II conducted at the Site indicates that there are areas of soil impacted by historical agricultural use. The Phase II also indicates that this soil can be effectively managed onsite through a combination of consolidation and deed restrictions without significant export of impacted soil. The existing Phase II has not confirmed the presence of volatile organic compounds in soil gas that would require vapor mitigation for new buildings, however, should further investigation be required by regulatory agencies and it identifies the presence of volatile organic 7 Comments received from applicant representative (R. Hajost), 9/18/24.

SCH Number #2020060425 104 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
compounds in soil gas that could impact indoor air quality, vapor mitigation systems, similar to those already implemented at nearby residential sites would be implemented at new buildings.

When the SCP project completes this Step 3, and the City confirms project compliance with any further requirements from the reviewing agency (presumably DTSC), then Step 3 would be deemed complete, and impacts related to potential exposure to existing onsite soil contamination would be less than significant.

As discussed in the 2022 EIR, project construction and other activities that could result in exposure to asbestos and PCBs would be regulated by compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) protocols. Similarly, if lead paint is present in existing buildings to be demolished, the project applicant would be required to notify the City's Building and Fire Safety Division prior to starting work and would need to follow CalOSHA protocols. With the proposed SCP project, this impact would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

As discussed in the 2022 EIR, there are no schools in the Plan Area, but Mission Community College is within .25 miles of the Plan Area; however, the College is more than .25 miles from the SCP project site. With the proposed project, this impact would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

As discussed in the 2022 EIR, the Plan Area contains two sites identified in the Cortese List data resources. The SCP project site, however, is not identified as a Cortese site in those data resources.

With the proposed project, this impact would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Airport Hazards:

The 2022 EIR determined that because “the maximum structure height allowable under the CLUP varies from approximately 90‐95 feet above ground at the southeast corner of the Plan Area to an approximate elevation of 145‐150 feet at the northwest corner of the Plan Area,” building heights that could exceed those maximums would require notification to the FAA for review to ensure that the proposed structure would not be a hazard to air navigation.

Proposed building heights would be up to approximately 75 feet (Plan Sheet A7-1.0). Because the building would be in the southeast area of the Plan Area, and building heights would not exceed 90-95 feet, this impact would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to hazards and hazardous materials are similar to those analyzed for the 2022 Focus Area Plan. For reasons stated above, implementation of the SCP project would not result in new significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. No new mitigation is required.

SCH Number #2020060425 105 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.8.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR.

Hydrologic Setting
The City of Santa Clara (City) is located in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. More specifically, the City is in Santa Clara Subbasin (Subbasin) of the larger Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The principal hydrogeologic features of the Santa Clara Plain management area include Quaternary alluvial deposits of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay that eroded from the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range; Holocene (younger than 10,000 years-old) deposits from streams and Bay Mud along the San Francisco Bay overlay older Pleistocene (10,000 to 1.8 million years-old) deposits. Impermeable bedrock underlies the alluvial sediments at varying depths. Groundwater supplies in the Subbasin are supplied both by natural recharge and through percolation ponds and stream beds
The Future Focus Area Plan Area in which the SCP project site is located is in the confined area of the Santa Clara Plain management area. Groundwater supplies in the confined area are laterally extensive, but vertically restricted by geologic units with low permeability; therefore, the confined area is not considered a groundwater recharge area.

No creeks pass through the Future Focus Area Plan Area or the project site. San Tomas Aquino Creek, located about 65 feet east of the Future Focus Area Plan Area, is separated from the Future Focus Area Plan Area by a levee and the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail. The creek flows seasonally south-north in an earthen channel generally parallel to the Future Focus Area Plan Area.

Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater levels in the Subbasin have fluctuated over time but have largely increased since the mid-1960s following the implementation of an artificial recharge program and overall decreases in pumping. Prolonged drought conditions in the early 2010s resulted in lower groundwater levels, but groundwater levels recovered in 2015 and 2016 due to reduced community water use, retailer shifts to treated surface water, and increased managed recharge.

Valley Water manages groundwater in Santa Clara County and is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for both the Santa Clara and the Llagas Subbasins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Santa Clara Subbasin has been designated a High Priority Groundwater Basin by the California Department of Water Resources. Under the SGMA, preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is required for medium and high priority groundwater basins. As an alternative to a GSP, SCVWD developed the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins (GWMP). The GWMP establishes qualitative groundwater sustainability goals and strategies for managing water supply reliability, SCH Number #2020060425 106 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
minimizing land subsidence, and protecting against saltwater intrusion. The Plan also incorporates quantitative outcome measures to gauge progress.

Water Quality
During periods of rain, water can flush sediment and pollutants from urbanized areas into the storm drain system, where they are discharged directly to surface waters. This urban runoff can contribute significant quantities of total suspended solids, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other pollutants to surface waters. The City of Santa Clara storm drain system includes curb inlets and pipelines underneath city streets. Curb inlets collect surface runoff water and convey it to underground pipelines, then to the City’s channelized creeks, including Calabazas Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek, where the runoff is ultimately discharged into San Francisco Bay.

In the Future Focus Area Plan Area, a series of storm drain pipes conveys stormwater to San Tomas Aquino Creek via outfalls: at the southern boundary near U.S. 101 and San Tomas Aquino Creek; near the intersection of Mission College Boulevard and San Tomas Aquino Creek at the Freedom Circle Storm Drain Pump Station; and near the intersection of Agnew Road and San Tomas Aquino Creek. Other smaller pipes collect stormwater from other parts of the Future Focus Area Plan Area (the northwestern portion of Freedom Circle and Mission College Boulevard, the eastern side of Great America Parkway, and the Patrick Henry Drive cul-de-sac) and convey this stormwater north along Great America Parkway to the Westside Storm Drain Pump Station on Old Mountain ViewAlviso Road, and from there to the outfall at San Tomas Aquino Creek.

Flooding
Flooding in Santa Clara has historically occurred in areas adjacent to the streams and creeks, following extensive storm events. Valley Water is the local agency responsible for flood protection in Santa Clara County and has conducted bank stabilization and sediment reduction activities in San Tomas Aquino Creek to increase flood protection. A levee is between the Future Focus Area Plan Area and the creek.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) develops Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that determine flood risks in communities. According to According to FEMA, most of the Plan Area is located in Zone X (“Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee” – i.e., not in the 1% annual flood hazard zone). The SCP project site is mostly located in Zone X (“Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee” – i.e., not in the 1% annual flood hazard zone). However, some parts of the project site are located in a SFHA, including the AH and AO zones.

Flooding in Zone AO usually occurs as sheet flow on sloping terrain. A Zone AO extends into the SCP project site at the intersection of Mission College Boulevard and Freedom Circle. In the event of a 1% annual flood, flowing flood waters may reach an average depth of 1 foot.

SCH Number #2020060425 107 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Flooding in Zone AH results in the formation of ponds. An area extending from the Mission Towers property and about halfway into the interior of the SCP project site’s existing 12-building business park is designated as Zone AH (elevation 25 feet above mean sea level (ASL), which is the base flood elevation for these areas). Two other portions of Santa Clara Park are designated Zone AH:
one portion near Mission College Boulevard and the eastern side of Freedom Circle, and the other portion farther south and near Freedom Circle (a “heart-shaped” area). In the event of a 1% annual flood, flood waters may pond in these areas to an elevation of 1 to 3 feet above the base flood elevation.

Seiches and Tsunamis
There are no bodies of water within the project site, Future Focus Area Plan Area, or in the vicinity that pose a hazard for seiche. According to the California Emergency Management Agency, the California Geological Survey, and the University of Southern California, neither the project site nor the Future Focus Area Plan Area is located in a tsunami inundation area.

4.8.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in less-than-significant hydrology and water quality impacts.

Construction Period and Post-Construction Water Quality Impacts Potential construction-period and post-construction water quality impacts would be less than significant because Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City of Santa Clara water quality protection requirements and conditions applicable to implementation of the Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would reduce potentially significant impact to less than significant.

Long-Term Water Quality Impacts from Project Operation
Potential long-term water quality impacts from Focus Area Plan implementation would be less than significant because future development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would be required to comply with RWQCB- and City-mandated post-construction, non-point source pollution control measures (uniformly applied development standards; also known as facilities and maintenance practices).

Effects on Groundwater Recharge and Groundwater Management Potential effects on groundwater recharge and groundwater management would be less than significant because the Focus Area Plan and the required comprehensive planning study would comply with established programs for controlling pollution (including stormwater management plans, Total Maximum Daily Load implementation plans, and construction site stormwater runoff and erosion and sediment controls), thereby avoiding conflict with the San Francisco Bay Water SCH Number #2020060425 108 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). In addition, the Plan Area would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan because the Plan Area is not an area designated by Valley Water for groundwater recharge.

Drainage Patterns and Risk of Flooding
Potential impacts related to drainage patterns and risk of flooding would be less than significant because development under the Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would not significantly alter the total volume or rate of stormwater runoff into the existing municipal storm drain system or substantially alter drainage patterns, particularly because implementation of stormwater control measures would slow down the rate and reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, especially when compared to existing hardscape areas. In addition, the Focus Area Plan proposes public parkland (which would typically include additional landscaped, open space, and park areas with pervious surfaces) and also proposes to minimize surface parking by requiring below‐grade or structured parking facilities. The City requires development applications to include a utility plan addressing, among other infrastructure components, the storm drain system and the incorporation of practices that include controlling the amount and timing of runoff from development sites and raising the elevation of buildings or other flood protective measures. Lastly, development under the Focus Area Plan and future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would be required to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects (e.g., comply with NPDES C.3 requirements).

The 2022 EIR did not identify any potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts, and no mitigation was required.

4.8.3 Impact Analysis
Construction Period and Post-Construction Water Quality Impacts The 2022 EIR concluded Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City of Santa Clara water quality protection requirements and conditions applicable to implementation of the Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would reduce potentially significant construction period and post-construction water quality impacts to less than significant.

The SCP project would be required to comply with site-specific, mandated measures (uniformly applied development standards) to protect water quality, including but not limited to those measures required under the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) and the City’s standards for minimizing erosion from grading activities during construction. Per the 2022 EIR, the SCP project is required to prepare a site-specific erosion and sediment control plan subject to City review and approval as part of the City’s standards processes for issuing grading permit(s). The erosion and sediment control plan would show the types and SCH Number #2020060425 109 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
locations of proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent residual silt runoff to storm drains or waterways. Typical erosion and sediment control BMPs include erosion control blankets, fiber rolls, silt fences, straw wattles, storm drain inlet protection, and stabilized construction exits.

The SCP project would require a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Region 2 for Santa Clara) because the project proposes grading activities involving disturbance of more than one acre. The NOI would be submitted to the RWQCB to be covered by the General Construction Permit prior to the beginning of project construction. The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Because the SCP project would involve disturbance of more than one acre, the SWPPP must be prepared before construction begins and must include specifications for BMPs that would be implemented during project construction to control contamination of surface flows and the potential discharge of pollutants from commencement to completion of construction.

Per the 2022 EIR, the use of heavy equipment and hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, during the construction periods for individual development projects could introduce materials that might be spilled in the Plan Area and subsequently washed into water bodies. Implementation of standard required NPDES, SCVURPPP, and City construction period measures to reduce the risk of construction period pollutants would reduce this risk to a less-than-significant level. The SCP project is required to implement standard NPDES, SCVURPPP, and City construction period measures to prevent adverse effects on water quality in water bodies.

Lastly, the 2022 EIR noted road resurfacing and sidewalk repair and/or replacement proposed outside the footprint of existing impervious area on a site would be required to treat and detain stormwater runoff per NPDES C.3 Permit requirements. The SCP project proposes a new public street that would roughly bisect the project site in the east-west direction and involve work in pervious areas. The SCP project would be required to implement NPDES C.3 requirements to treat and detain runoff during the construction of the new street.

For these reasons, construction period water quality impacts resulting from construction of the SCP project would be less than significant.

Long-Term Water Quality Impacts from Project Operation
The 2022 EIR concluded that future development facilitated by the Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would be required to comply with RWQCB- and City-mandated post-construction, non-point source pollution control measures (uniformly applied development standards; also known as facilities and maintenance practices).

These requirements would ensure the effects of contaminated site runoff on water quality in the local (municipal) storm drainage system would be less than significant.

SCH Number #2020060425 110 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
The SCP project is required to comply with RWQCB- and City-mandated uniformly applied development standards intended to reduce long-term water quality impacts from the construction of individual development projects. The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) requires development projects to implement post-construction measures to prevent or control pollutants in runoff and identify a plan to inspect and maintain these measures. The SCP project proposes site design measures in the form of minimum impact parking lot design (i.e., parking within the new buildings); disconnected downspouts that direct runoff from roofs, sidewalks, and patios to landscaped areas; self-treating and self-retaining landscaped areas; and preserved open space (i.e., the new park), as described further below. The SCP project proposes source control measures in the form of a covered dumpster area that drains to the sanitary sewer, sanitary sewer connections/accessible cleanouts for water features (e.g., swimming pools, spas, and fountains), beneficial landscaping (e.g., minimizes irrigation, runoff, pesticides and fertilizers; promotes treatment), regular maintenance activities (e.g., pavement sweeping, catch basin cleaning, “good housekeeping”), and storm drain labeling.

Permanent post-construction BMPs are required for all new projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet ("small projects") or more ("large projects") of roofs or pavement, including new development, redevelopment, and commercial and industrial sites. The project site’s existing 12-building business park contains approximately 917,642 square feet (SF) of impervious surface area, including roofs and pavements. The SCP project proposes to replace 761,174 SF of the existing on-site impervious surface area. The SCP project, therefore, qualifies as a “large project” that must implement permanent post-construction BMPs.

As part of the standard City development process, future project applicants are required to submit, for City review and approval, a Santa Clara “C.3” data form, which is used to determine whether C.3 requirements apply (i.e., projects meeting or exceeding the size threshold for impervious surfaces) and to identify which site design measures, pollutant source controls, and/or stormwater treatment measures are proposed to prevent runoff pollution. The SCP project exceeds the size threshold for impervious surface areas and has prepared a Santa Clara C.3 form per City requirements.

Per the project’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) (dated 8/30/2024) and C.3 form, the SCP project would increase the amount of pervious surface area on site by approximately 101,405 SF compared to existing conditions through (1) the construction of bioretention basins, including bioretention basins within Silva cells (i.e., a modular suspended pavement system), and (2) selfretaining landscape areas, including the 3.35-acre park to be dedicated to the City. The SCP project would convey all stormwater collected on site to on-site C.3 treatment areas. Roof drains on the new buildings would direct water through internal plumbing to treatment basins. Storm drain inlets located through the site would collect runoff and direct the runoff to storm drain pipes, leading runoff to the bioretention basins. The site would be graded to ensure sheet flow runoff in the site’s open areas would be directed into treatment basins. From the treatment basins, runoff would be SCH Number #2020060425 111 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
conveyed into the City’s storm drain system through storm drain pipes for treated stormwater at existing manholes and catch basins where possible, or new manholes where needed.

The SCP project as designed would comply with RWQCB- and City-mandated uniformly applied development standards intended to transmit runoff directly to subsurface soils and thereby prevent pollutants from entering the waterways, resulting in less-than-significant long-term, operational water quality impacts.

Effects on Groundwater Recharge and Groundwater Management The 2022 EIR concluded that while it is possible that the Focus Area Plan could result in a net increase in overall impervious surface area because the details of future development projects were not known at the time, because the Focus Area Plan and the required comprehensive planning study would comply with established programs for controlling pollution (including stormwater management plans, Total Maximum Daily Load implementation plans, and construction site stormwater runoff and erosion and sediment controls), there would be no conflict with the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The 2022 EIR also concluded also concluded the Plan Area would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan because the Plan Area is not an area designated by Valley Water for groundwater recharge.

The SCP project, as described above, would comply with established programs for controlling pollution through its proposed site design, stormwater management plan and associated BMPs, and construction period erosion and sediment controls, consistent with RWQCB- and Cityrequired uniformly applied development standards. The SCP project would decrease the amount of impervious surface area on site compared to existing conditions and would increase permeable area by approximately 101,405 SF. The project’s proposed bioretention basins and self-retaining landscape areas, including the new 3.35-acre park, also would increase groundwater infiltration compared to existing conditions.

For these reasons, the SCP project would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater recharge and management.

Drainage Patterns and Risk of Flooding
The 2022 EIR concluded that, because the Focus Plan Area is already almost completely developed with structures, paved surface parking, and introduced landscaping, development under the Focus Area Plan and the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan) would not significantly alter the total volume or rate of stormwater runoff into the existing municipal storm drain system or substantially alter drainage patterns, particularly because implementation of stormwater control measures would slow down the rate and reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, especially when compared to the existing hardscape areas. In addition, the Focus Area Plan SCH Number #2020060425 112 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
proposes public parkland and proposes to minimize surface parking by requiring below‐grade or structured parking facilities.

The City applies uniformly applicable stormwater management regulations to avoid or reduce the potential for flood flow or drainage impacts of development, and future development projects are required to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects through compliance with NPDES C.3 requirements. The City’s Flood Damage Prevention Code (City Code Chapter 15.45) requires development in Special Flood Hazard Areas to meet City standards related to anchoring of structures, construction methods and materials, elevation of structures, and floodproofing (as applicable to reduce or eliminate flood damage). City erosion and sediment control plan requirements would reduce the potential for erosion and/or sedimentation resulting from any changes in drainage patterns. The City also requires of individual developments a utility plan addressing, among other infrastructure components, the storm drain system.

Implementation of these development standards would be required as a condition of individual development project approval, prior to issuance of grading or building permits.

As described above, the SCP project would comply with the City’s stormwater management regulations and C.3 requirements by reducing the amount of impervious surface area on site compared to existing conditions, implementing stormwater control measures as required by the City and the RWQCB, minimizing surface parking by creating parking facilities within new buildings, and constructing new landscaped stormwater treatment areas and open space, including a 3.35-acre park. These stormwater management BMPs and site design features are detailed in the project’s SWMP and C.3 form, both of which have been submitted to the City for review and approval.

The SCP project site is mostly located in Zone X (“Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee” – i.e., not in the 1% annual flood hazard zone). However, some parts of the project site are located in an SFHA, specifically the AO zone and the AH zone with a base flood elevation of 25 feet ASL.

Portions of the new multi-story buildings would be located within the AH zone. No structures would be constructed in the AO zone. The SCP project is required to comply with applicable provisions of the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Code (City Code Chapter 15.45) to reduce or eliminate flood damage where proposed development would be located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Per the project’s Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (Drawing No. C4.0 and C4.1, dated 8/30/2024), all buildings on site have been designed to have a finished floor that is a minimum of 24 inches above the base flood elevation.

As described above, the SCP project would comply with the City’s erosion and sediment control plan requirements. The SCP project is required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan that would be implemented during the project construction period. As a standard requirement, the SCP project is also required to secure a General Construction Permit from the RWQCB and prepare SCH Number #2020060425 113 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in the process of obtaining that permit.

Lastly, the SCP project would prepare a utility plan addressing the storm drain system per City requirements. Currently, the SCP project applicant has prepared a Preliminary Utility Plan (Plan Set Drawing No. C5.0 and C5.1, dated 8/30/2024) and Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (Plan Set Drawing No. C6.0, C6.1, and C6.2, dated 8/30/2024) as part of the project’s development application. This Preliminary Utility Plan and Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan include details about the project’s proposed storm drain infrastructure, including Low Impact Development (LID) features that would control runoff quantities as well as improve water quality, as described above.

For these reasons, the SCP project impacts related to drainage patterns and potential flooding would be less than significant.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to hydrology and water quality would be similar to those analyzed in the 2022 EIR. Similar to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, the SCP project would still have less-than-significant hydrology and water quality impacts that do not require mitigation. Implementation of the SCP project would not result in new significant impacts on hydrology and water quality or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the 2022 EIR. No mitigation specific to hydrology and water quality is required.

4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.9.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is partly summarized from the certified 2022 EIR. This section also describes changes to Freedom Circle Future Focus Area land use policy adopted following certification of the 2022 EIR.

Existing Land Uses
The Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site is located within the approximately 108-acre Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Area, as designated by the General Plan, in the northwestern part of the city and generally bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, California’s Great America amusement park to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, and U.S. 101 to the south. Except for the currently vacant Greystar project site located in the southeast portion of the Future Focus Area Plan Area, the Plan Area is essentially built out and is in an area of the city with land use designations in the General Plan as Very High Intensity Office/R&D, High Intensity Office/R&D, Very High Density residential with some Regional Commercial and Public/Quasi Public, with uses such as biotech and electronics, business offices, hotels, and various support services (such as car rental, UPS store, medical/dental, and restaurants). The SCP project site has a land use designation of Very High Density Residential.

SCH Number #2020060425 114 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area was added as a Phase III Future Focus Area to the General Plan in 2022. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan designates the SCP project site as Very High Density Residential (51-100 dwelling units per acre). Per the General Plan and Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, any change in land use designation or rezoning of land within the Freedom Circle area is subject to the requirements of the Future Focus Area Goals and Policies of the General Plan.

The SCP project will accomplish this via its proposed General Plan Text Amendment and rezoning.

Buildings cover about 23 percent of the Future Focus Area Plan Area. The Plan Area has a “superblock street layout” with ample surface parking that supports dependence on cars. The buildings are spaced relatively far apart, with surface parking lots in between. Pedestrian linkages are limited.

Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses in the vicinity of the Future Focus Area Plan Area include California’s Great America amusement park (and parking lots) and the Towers @ Great America (office/research & development campus, with parking structure) to the north; commercial, office, religious, and other uses (e.g., hotel, restaurants) to the west along Great America Parkway, including research and development (R&D), light industrial (electronics and computer software development), and other uses around Patrick Henry Drive; office, residential, and retail uses to the south of U.S. 101 (Santa Clara Square); and office and R&D uses to the east past San Tomas Aquino Creek.

Airport Compatibility
The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (San Jose International Airport or “SJC”) is located about 1.5 miles to the southeast of the Future Focus Area Plan Area. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the San Jose International Airport establishes an Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is a boundary around the airport within which Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies may apply to proposed development. The portion of the Future Focus Area Plan Area south of Mission College Boulevard, including the SCP project site, is not located within the AIA.

The CLUP establishes development standards related to noise, structure height, and safety that are applicable to development in areas surrounding the airport and provides maps of these areas to help evaluate land use compatibility in the vicinity of the airport. While the Future Focus Area Plan Area is not located in a mapped safety or noise area, it is within the CLUP Height Restriction Area, which uses the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary surfaces to delineate the area within which structures above a maximum structure height may constitute a safety hazard. In these cases, the FAA must be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at SCH Number #2020060425 115 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
least 200 feet in height above ground. The proposed SCP project would not include any structures over 200 feet high.

4.9.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to physical arrangement of the community and consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects because (1) the Focus Area Plan commits to land use principles and policies characteristic of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area; (2) the Focus Area Plan’s vision is to create a dynamic, mixed-use district of residential developments and community amenities with a diverse range of employment uses to complement other North Santa Clara neighborhoods and provide pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway connections to employment centers, transit stops, trails, and other destinations; and (3) the Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies to support this vision consistent with the General Plan.

Per the 2022 EIR, future development activity under the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community because current development is generally an internally focused collection of large, self-contained parcels while Plan-facilitated development would integrate physical and functional connections between Plan Area parcels and with the adjacent community. The 2022 EIR concluded that because the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would establish land use provisions and development standards and guidelines through a comprehensive planning study to encourage substantial beneficial land use effects in (1) revitalizing the Plan Area; (2) facilitating development where services and infrastructure can be most efficiently provided by promoting higher residential densities within or near existing employment and public transportation areas; and (3) promoting compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented development patterns and land use, the Focus Area Plan would have a beneficial land use and planning effects. No mitigation was required.

4.9.3 Impact Analysis
Project Effects on the Physical Arrangement of the Community The existing 12-building business park is a self-contained site located near the center of the Future Focus Area Plan Area. As described in section 3.0 (Project Description), the SCP project proposes a new private street that would roughly bisect the existing site in the east-west direction and provide new connections from Freedom Circle to the interior of the project site. The project’s proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure includes pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the new private street and public pedestrian/bike paths throughout the site. The project site would provide pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between the project site and the surrounding area.

SCH Number #2020060425 116 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
While there is currently no comprehensive planning study in place for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) text, the development standards (see section 3.0 [Project Description]), and the plans submitted for the SCP project would constitute the comprehensive rezoning plan to be filed with this project, consistent with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and City of Santa Clara General Plan. The General Plan Text Amendment, and Planned Development (PD) Rezoning would include the following:
(1) A General Plan Text Amendment to add a new policy to the Freedom Circle Focus Area to allow the PD Rezoning Document for the SCP Project to constitute the necessary “comprehensive plan” for the project site and deferring a Specific Plan for the balance of the Future Focus Area.
(2) PD Rezoning: Per City Code, an application for a Planned Development zoning district shall include and be accompanied by a development plan which, if approved by the City Council, shall become a part of the City’s zoning map as provided for by Santa Clara City Code 18.20.030.C. See Table 3.2, Development Standards for Planned Development (PD) Rezoning.

The SCP project’s proposed land use provisions and development standards, consistent with the vision of the Focus Area Plan, (1) encourage land use patterns intended to revitalize the Plan Area; (2) facilitate development where services and infrastructure can be most efficiently provided by promoting higher residential densities within or near existing employment and public transportation areas; and (3) promote compact, transit-accessible, pedestrian-oriented development patterns and land use. The SCP project would introduce high density housing in a compact development pattern in a location where services and infrastructure already exist, and where existing employment and public transportation opportunities are in the vicinity. The SCP project’s proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure would contribute to connectivity within the project site and between adjacent areas.

The SCP project’s proposed land use provisions, development standards, and project plans (collectively, “the rezoning plan” described above) would not result in significant impacts on the physical arrangement of the community. This impact would remain less than significant, as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Project Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating Environmental Effects
Per the 2022 EIR, the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is substantially consistent with adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations. The Focus Area Plan includes goals and policies, consistent with the General Plan, that would direct a required comprehensive planning study, which must be prepared before development would be allowed in the Plan Area (except for the Greystar project, which received its own entitlements under the Plan). The 2022 EIR noted SCH Number #2020060425 117 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
potential conflicts could remain related to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and utilities and service systems; however, implementation of the mitigation measures already identified in the environmental topic chapters of the 2022 EIR would ensure project consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.

As stated above, the SCP project includes proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) text, development standards, and project plans that would constitute the comprehensive rezoning plan (i.e., the required comprehensive planning) for the SCP project site. Although General Plan Policies 5.1.1-P8 and 5.4.7-P2 ordinarily require the preparation of a comprehensive plan for an entire future focus area prior to development, the proposal would add a new policy to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to allow the project to proceed with the Planned Development zoning document serving as the comprehensive plan for the project site. As described in the other sections of this Addendum, the SCP project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 2022 EIR, potentially including mitigation measures pertaining to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and utilities and service systems. The SCP project’s implementation of applicable 2022 EIR mitigation measures would ensure the SCP project is consistent with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. This impact would remain less than significant, as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Finding: The potential environmental impacts and beneficial effects of the SCP project related to land use and planning would be similar to those analyzed in the 2022 EIR. Similar to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, the SCP project would still have less-than-significant land use and planning impacts that do not require mitigation. Implementation of the SCP project would not result in new significant impacts related to land use and planning or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified related significant impacts (i.e., in other land use related environmental topic areas). No mitigation specific to land use and planning is required.

4.10 NOISE
To organize the project-specific noise quantitative information, this section is formatted differently from the others in this CEQA Addendum. In addition, the reader should refer to certified 2022 EIR Chapter 13.1.1 for background information and context on environmental noise and impact analyses.

4.10.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR, with subsequent updates since the EIR was certified; none of the updates affect the impact conclusions or mitigation measures of the 2022 EIR.

The City of Santa Clara General Plan identifies transportation sources, including vehicular traffic and the San Jose Norman Y. Mineta International Airport, as the primary contributors to the city’s SCH Number #2020060425 118 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
noise environment. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, including the Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site, is near several major roadways, including Mission College Boulevard, Bowers Avenue/Great America Parkway, and U.S. 101, but is not within the 65 dBA Community Noise Exposure Level (CNEL) noise contour of San Jose International Airport. 2022 Certified EIR Ambient Noise Levels
The certified EIR presented the results of short-term (ST) and long-term (LT) noise monitoring conducted in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan area in September 2020 (see certified EIR pp. 13-5 to 13-9 and Appendix 25.5). One of the ST sites (ST-1) was not located near the proposed SCP project, but two of the ST sites (ST-2 and ST-3) were near the project site:
• Location ST-2 was adjacent to Freedom Circle, near the southwest boundary of the SCP project site. The ambient noise levels measured at ST-2 were representative of background daytime noise levels away from Mission College Boulevard and U.S. 101. The energy-averaged noise level at ST-2 ranged from 58.6 to 59.8 dBA Leq over the measurement period (20 minutes). • Location ST-3 was adjacent to Mission College Boulevard, near the northeast boundary of the SCP project site. The ambient noise levels measured at ST-1 were representative of background daytime noise levels along Mission College Boulevard. The energy-averaged noise level at ST2 ranged from 65.4 to 67.4 dBA Leq over the measurement period (20 minutes).

The long-term site (LT-1) was located adjacent to U.S. 101, approximately 520 feet south of the SCP project site. The calculated 24-hour CNEL at LT-1 was 78.6 dBA. 2024 Supplemental Ambient Noise Monitoring
MIG, Inc. conducted a supplemental noise survey to assess if ambient noise conditions in the plan area and at the SCP project site have changed since the 2022 EIR was certified. The survey was conducted from approximately 1:00 PM to 6:00 PM on Thursday, May 2, 2024. The ambient noise levels were digitally measured and stored using two Larson Davis SoundTrack LxT sound level meters that meet American National Standards Institute requirements for a Type 1 integrating sound level meter. The sound meters were calibrated immediately before and after the monitoring period using a reference one-kilohertz (1kHz) check frequency and 114 dB sound pressure level and found to be operating within normal parameters for sensitivity. Measurements were continuously collected over the sample periods in 1-minute intervals. This interval was selected to capture short-term noise events and increases in noise levels above typical background conditions.

Weather conditions during the monitoring were generally clear. Temperatures were in the low to high 70s and winds were generally light.

The 2024 supplemental ambient noise monitoring locations are described below and shown on Figure 4.10-1. For continuity with the certified EIR, which included locations ST-1 to ST-3, the supplemental monitoring locations begin with ST-4.

SCH Number #2020060425 119 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
• Location ST-4 was located south of the SCP project, approximately 120 feet north of the centerline of U.S. 101, in the same location as previous monitoring location LT-1 from the 2022 EIR.
• Locations ST-5, ST-6, and ST-7 were along the southern portion of the SCP project site, approximately 30 feet north of the centerline of Freedom Circle. • Location ST-8 was at the northwest corner of the SCP project site, near the intersection of Mission College Boulevard and Freedom Circle, and approximately 45 feet from the centerline of Mission College Boulevard.
• Location ST-9 was in the center of the northern part of the SCP project site, approximately 43 feet from the centerline of Mission College Boulevard.

Based on observations made during the ambient noise monitoring, vehicle traffic on Freedom Circle, Mission College Boulevard, and U.S. 101 is the predominant noise source in the vicinity of the SCP project site. The results of the ambient noise monitoring are summarized in Table 4.10-

1. In general, ambient noise levels in the plan area and at the SCP project site have not substantially changed since 2020. The measured noise levels at ST-5, ST-6, and ST-7 in 2024 were approximately 61 to 62 dBA Leq, which are consistent with 2020 measured noise levels at ST-2 of approximately 60 dBA Leq in 2020. Similarly, the measured 5-hour Leq noise level at ST-4 was

74.1 dBA, which is consistent with measured 2020 daytime noise levels at LT-1 of 73.5 dBA Leq to 75.8 dBA Leq.

SCH Number #2020060425 120 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
SOURCE: MIG, Inc.; Google Earth
FIGURE 4.10-1
Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations Ii M
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan
Greys tar Project
Santa Clara Park Project
2020 and 2024 l\bise Monitoring Locations
SCH Number #2020060425 121 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Existing and Future Baseline Modeled Traffic Noise Levels The certified 2022 EIR modeled traffic noise levels for year 2019 (existing) and year 2030 (future baseline) in the vicinity of the Future Focus Area Plan area. The results of the modeling indicated traffic noise levels on Mission College Boulevard adjacent to the SCP project site were 70.0 dBA CNEL under existing 2019 baseline conditions, increasing to 70.6 dBA CNEL under future 2030 baseline conditions, at a distance of 100 feet from the road centerline. Modeled traffic noise levels on Freedom Circle East south of Mission College Boulevard were less than 64 dBA CNEL under existing 2019 and future 2030 baseline conditions.

Sensitive Receptors
The City’s General Plan Noise Element identifies that residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, natural areas, parks and outdoor recreation areas are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial establishments. The existing noise sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the SCP project site include:
• The San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, located between approximately 200 to 380 feet east of the SCP project site. The creek trail is adjacent to and within approximately 50 feet or less of the Future Focus Area Plan area’s eastern boundary;
• The Santa Clara Marriott, located approximately 415 feet west of the SCP project site (as measured from the boundary of the project site to the closest outdoor amenity area – tennis courts – on the hotel property). This hotel is within the Future Focus Area Plan area; and • Our Lady of Peace Church and Shrine, located approximately 915 west of the SCP project site.

This institution is 170 feet west of the Focus Area Plan boundary, across Great America Parkway.

In addition to these existing land uses, there is one approved project – the Greystar residential project – located across Freedom Circle East from the SCP project site. Although approved, this project had not begun construction as of August 2024.

SCH Number #2020060425 122 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.10-1: Summary of Measured Short-Term Ambient Noise Levels Day/Site Duration Time Start Measured Noise Levels (dBA) Leq(A) Lmin(B) L90(C) L50(C) L8.3(C) Lmax(B)
Thursday, May 2, 2024, 1:00 PM to 6:00 PM
ST-4 30 minutes 1:08 PM 74.2 66.6 71.7 74.0 76.0 79.3
ST-5 30 minutes 1:08 PM 61.5 51.5 54.3 58.0 65.9 76.5
ST-4 30 minutes 1:45 PM 74.4 65.5 71.8 74.1 76.1 88.7
ST-6 30 minutes 1:45 PM 61.4 53.7 55.9 58.1 65.9 76.3
ST-4 30 minutes 2:24 PM 74.0 64.0 71.6 73.9 75.8 80.6
ST-7 30 minutes 2:24 PM 61.7 50.4 53.3 56.8 66.5 80.0
ST-4 30 minutes 3:08 PM 73.4 61.0 70.4 73.2 75.5 81.9
ST-8 30 minutes 3:08 PM 70.1 50.4 57.6 65.4 74.6 86.8
ST-4 30 minutes 4:35 PM 74.4 64.6 72.0 74.2 76.1 87.0
ST-9 30 minutes 4:35 PM 69.8 52.2 58.2 66.3 74.0 90.4
ST-4 5 hours 1:00 PM 74.1 61.0 71.6 73.9 76.0 88.7
Source: MIG (see Appendix B-1)
(A) The Leq value represents the equivalent steady-state noise level that would contain the same amount of acoustical energy as the time-varying noise level during the listed period. (B) The Lmin and Lmax represent the lowest and highest instantaneous noise levels measured during the listed period, respectively.
(C) Values represent the noise level exceed a certain percentage of the period, e.g., L90 is the noise level that was exceeded 90% of the time for the listed period.

4.10.2 Findings of Previous EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would not generate permanent vibration levels that exceed the City’s vibration perception threshold of

0.01 inches per second pear particle velocity (Impact 13-9, p. 13-54) and would not expose people living or working in the plan area to excessive airport-related noise (Impact 13-11, p. 13-55).

The certified 2022 EIR also concluded implementation of the Focus Area Plan would result in four potentially significant impacts: a substantial, temporary increase in noise levels (Impact 13-1, pp. 13-22 to 13-30); a substantial temporary increase in vibration levels (Impact 13-3, pp. 13-34 to 13- 38); a substantial permanent increase non-transportation noise levels (Impact 13-5, pp. 13-41 to 13-44); and a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels (Impact 13-7, pp. 13-47 to 13- 51). The 2022 EIR conclusions regarding increase in temporary noise and vibration levels and permanent non-transportation and traffic noise levels are summarized below.

Finally, the certified 2022 EIR discussed other disclosures and planning considerations that were not considered CEQA impacts, including how the existing noise environment in the plan area was SCH Number #2020060425 123 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
compatible and consistent with City goals, policies, and standards for the type of development that would be anticipated to occur with implementation of the plan (pp. 13-55 to 13-58).

Temporary Increases in Noise Levels
The certified 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in temporary construction noise that could exceed the City’s significance thresholds at residential and commercial land uses within 400 feet and 200 feet of work areas, respectively, assuming the construction activity would last for more than one year. The use of pile driving equipment would increase the distance at which construction activities would exceed the City’s significance thresholds at residential and commercial land uses to 500 and 400 feet, respectively.

To reduce potentially significant, temporary increases in noise levels associated with construction activities the 2022 EIR incorporated Mitigation Measure 13-1 (Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Noise Levels) into the Focus Area Plan. The 2022 EIR concluded this measure would reduce construction noise through a combination of notification/disclosure, permissible work times, equipment noise controls, and construction activity management measures designed to ensure residential and commercial construction noise thresholds are not exceeded, thereby rendering the Focus Area Plan’s temporary increase in noise levels a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

Temporary Increases in Vibration Levels
The certified 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in temporary construction-induced vibrations that could result in structural damage when impact hammers were used within 30 feet of a building and be excessively perceptible to human when vibratory rollers and impact hammers were used within 50 feet and 140 feet of an occupied building, respectively.

To reduce potentially significant, temporary vibration levels associated with construction activities the 2022 EIR incorporated Mitigation Measure 13-3 (Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Vibration Levels) into the Focus Area Plan. The 2022 EIR concluded this measure would ensure future construction activities in the plan area do not result in significant structural damage or other excessively annoying vibration levels through a combination of notification/disclosure, permissible work times, equipment vibration controls, and construction activity management measures designed to limit and reduce construction equipment vibration levels, thereby rendering the Focus Area Plan’s temporary increase in noise levels a less-thansignificant impact with mitigation.

Permanent Increases in On-site Noise Levels
The certified 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in new on-site activities (e.g., vehicle parking, landscaping) and stationary mechanical SCH Number #2020060425 124 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
equipment (e.g., pumps, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment [“HVAC” equipment]) that could exceed the City’s standards and the existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the plan area. To reduce potentially significant, permanent increase in on-site noise levels, the 2022 EIR incorporated Mitigation Measure 13-5 (Control Fixed and Other On-Site Noise Generating Sources and Activities in the Freedom Circle Area Plan) into the Focus Area Plan. The 2022 EIR concluded this measure would ensure future on-site operational activities and equipment in the plan area would comply with City noise standards, thereby rendering the Focus Area Plan’s on-site increase in noise levels a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

Permanent Increases in Traffic Noise Levels
The certified 2022 EIR concluded implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in a substantial permanent increase traffic-related noise levels on roadways used to access the plan area, including Freedom Circle. The 2022 EIR identified that Air Quality Mitigation Measure 5-3D (see section 4.3) would require individual development projects to achieve a 20 percent reduction in VMT, but that even with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 5-3D, the implementation of the Focus Area Plan could still result in substantial, permanent increase in traffic noise levels, a significant and unavoidable noise impact.

Other Disclosures and Planning Considerations
Although not a CEQA impact, the certified 2022 EIR disclosed that noise exposure levels in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan area could exceed the conditionally acceptable and normally unacceptable noise compatibility standards established in the City’s General Plan. The potential for this to occur was assumed to be highest near major roadways like Great America Parkway and U.S. 101, and lowest along the interior portions of Freedom Circle. To address potential noise compatibility issues, the 2022 EIR incorporated Condition of Approval NOI-1 (Prepare Final Acoustical Analysis) into the Focus Area Plan. The 2022 EIR concluded this requirement would ensure future development in the plan area was designed and constructed in a manner that is compatible with the ambient noise environment and consistent with State and City noise requirements.
2022 Certified EIR Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval The following mitigation measures and conditions of approval would be applicable to the SCP project.

Mitigation 13-1: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential noise levels from Focus related to construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least one week prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the SCH Number #2020060425 125 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the Applicant/project representative and the City of Santa Clara responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per Section 8). This notice shall be provided to: A) The owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas; and B) The owner/occupants of commercial buildings (including institutional buildings) within 200 feet of construction work areas or within 400 feet of construction work areas if pile driving equipment will be used. 2) Notify San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Users of Construction Activities. Prior to the start of construction activities within 500 feet of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, signs shall be posted along the trail warning of potential temporary elevated noise levels during construction.

Signs shall be posted within 250 feet of impacted trail segments (i.e., portions of the trail within 500 feet of a work area) and shall remain posted throughout the duration of all substantial noise generating construction activities (typically demolition, grading, and initial foundation installation activities).
3) Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Code Section 9.10.230. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, unless otherwise authorized by City permit.

The applicant/project representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of this requirement.
4) Control Construction Traffic and Site Access. Construction traffic, including soil and debris hauling, shall follow City-designated truck routes and shall avoid routes (including local roads in the Plan Area) that contain residential dwelling units to the maximum extent feasible given specific project location and access needs.
5) Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used in the Plan Area: A) To the extent feasible, contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities; B) Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential and commercial land uses as possible; C) All stationary noise generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three- or four-sided enclosure provide the structure/barrier breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operations; D) Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, etc. These devices shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities; E) Pneumatic SCH Number #2020060425 126 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust; F) The applicant/project representative and/or their contractor shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators (if feasible); G) No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
6) Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction activities in the Plan Area: A) Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing, or other pulverization activities, shall be employed to the maximum extent feasible; B) Demolition Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a commercial building (including institutional buildings), a physical noise barrier capable of achieving the construction noise level standards set forth in Section 7 below shall, if required pursuant to Section 7, be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i) A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) of sufficient height (determined pursuant to Section 7) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB; ii) Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB; iii) any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities; iv) The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site); and C) Pile Driving: If pile driving activities are required within 500 feet of a residential dwelling unit or 400 feet of a commercial building, the piles shall be pre-drilled with an auger to minimize pile driving equipment run times. 7) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Noise Evaluation. Prior to the start of any specific construction project lasting 12 months or more, the City shall review and approve a projectspecific construction noise evaluation prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that: A) Identifies the planned project construction sequence and equipment usage; B) Identifies typical hourly average construction noise levels for project construction equipment; C) Compares hourly average construction noise levels to ambient noise levels at residential and commercial land uses near work areas (ambient noise levels may be newly measured or presumed to be SCH Number #2020060425 127 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
consistent with those levels shown in Table 13-2 and 13-3 of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and D) Identifies construction noise control measures incorporated into the project that ensure: i) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 60 dBA Leq at a residential dwelling unit and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year; and ii) activities do not generate noise levels that are above 70 dBA Leq at a commercial property (including institutional land uses) and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year. Such measures may include but are not limited to: a) The requirements of Sections 4, 5, 6, and 8; b) Additional project and/or equipment-specific enclosures, barriers, shrouds, or other noise suppression methods. The use of noise control blankets on building facades shall be considered only if noise complaints are not resolvable with other means or methods.
8) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The Construction Noise Complaint Plan shall:

A) Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues; B) Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints; C) At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint; D) The elements of the Construction Noise Complaint Plan may be included in the project-specific noise evaluation prepared to satisfy Section 7 or as a separate document. 9) Owner/Occupant Disclosure. The City shall require future occupants/tenants in the Plan Area receive disclosure that properties in the Plan Area may be subject to elevated construction noise levels from development in the Plan Area. This disclosure shall be provided as part of the mortgage, lease, sub-lease, and/or other contractual real-estate transaction associated with the subject property.

Mitigation 13-3: Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Vibration Levels. To reduce potential vibration-related structural damage and other excessive vibration levels from Focus Area Plan related construction activities, the City shall ensure future development projects within the Plan Area:
1) Notify Residential and Commercial Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 1. 2) Restrict Work Hours. See Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Section 2.

SCH Number #2020060425 128 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
3) Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The use of large vibratory rollers, vibratory/impact hammers, and other potential large vibration-generating equipment (e.g., hydraulic breakers/hoe rams) shall be prohibited within 100 feet of any residential building façade and 50 feet of any commercial building façade during construction activities. Plate compactors and compactor rollers are acceptable, and deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled. 4) Prepare Project-Specific Construction Vibration Evaluation Plan. If it is not feasible to prohibit vibratory equipment per Section 3) due to site- or project-specific conditions or design considerations, the City shall review and approve a project-specific construction vibration evaluation that: A) Identifies the project’s planned vibration-generating construction activities (e.g., demolition, pile driving, vibratory compaction); B) Identifies the potential projectspecific vibration levels (given project-specific equipment and soil conditions, if known) at specific building locations that may be impacted by the vibration-generating work activities (generally buildings within 50 feet of the work area); C) Identifies the vibration control measures incorporated into the project that ensure equipment and work activities would not damage buildings or result in vibrations that exceed Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold for peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.1 inches/second (in/sec). Such measures may include, but are not limited to: i) the requirements of Sections 1, 2, and 3; ii) the use of vibration monitoring to measure actual vibration levels; iii) the use of photo monitoring or other records to document building conditions prior to, during, and after construction activities; and iv) the use of other measures such as trenches or wave barriers; D) Identifies the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues; and E) Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first condition D) above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing ground-borne vibration levels to peak particle velocity levels that do not exceed accepted guidance or thresholds for structural damage that are best applicable to potentially impacted buildings (e.g., see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-6) and Caltrans’ strongly perceptible vibration detection threshold (PPV of 0.1 in/sec, see Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Table 13-7).

Mitigation 13-5: Control Fixed and Other On-site Noise-Generating Sources and Activities in the Freedom Circle Area Plan. To ensure on-site, operations related equipment and activities associated with the Focus Area Plan do not generate noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, future development projects shall submit a project-specific operational noise analysis to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, or as otherwise determined SCH Number #2020060425 129 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
by the City. The noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall identify all major fixed machinery and equipment, non-residential truck docks/dedicated loading zones, waste collection areas, and above ground parking garages included in the final project design/site plan. The noise analysis shall also document how project noise sources and activities will comply with the exterior sound limits established in City Code Section 9.10.040, Schedule A and the noise compatibility guidelines in General Plan Table 8.14-1. Fixed machinery and equipment may include, but is not limited to, pumps, fans (including air intake or exhaust fans in parking garages), compressors, air conditioners, generators, and refrigeration equipment. The control of noise from such equipment may be accomplished by selecting quiet equipment types, siting machinery and equipment inside buildings, within an enclosure (e.g., equipment cabinet or mechanical closets, or behind a parapet wall or other barrier/shielding. Truck docks/dedicated loading zones consist of a loading dock or other dedicated area for the regular loading and unloading of retail, commercial, or other nonresidential goods from delivery trucks. The control of noise from such truck docks/loading areas, waste collection areas, and parking garages may be accomplished by placing such areas away from sensitive land uses, restricting activities or operating hours for certain areas, or other design means.

Condition of Approval NOI-1: Prepare Final Acoustical Analysis. Future development projects shall submit a project-specific acoustical analysis to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project, or as otherwise determined by the City. The analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, based on the final design of the project, and identify:
1) Exterior noise levels at all property lines, building facades, and public or common open space, recreation, and/or other exterior use area boundaries.
2) Final site and building design measures that would attenuate noise in public open space and recreational lands to 65 CNEL or less, if feasible, but not more than 75 CNEL. This may be achieved by locating such areas away from major roadways or providing setbacks for facilities adjacent to major roadways (e.g., orienting parking and other support areas closer to roadways.) 3) Final site and building design measures that would attenuate noise to no more than 70 CNEL and 75 CNEL at common residential and commercial exterior use areas, respectively (this does not include private balconies).
4) Final site and building design measures that would achieve exterior to interior noise reduction levels necessary to meet a 45 CNEL interior noise level for residential and other sensitive land uses and a 50 dBA hourly Leq noise level for offices, retail, and other less sensitive indoor spaces (when in operation). Such standards are to be achieved with a windows closed condition. The specific attenuation measures necessary for the project will depend on the specific project location, ambient noise levels, and project design. Potential noise insulation design features that may be required to achieve interior noise levels include sound barriers, enhanced exterior wall, ceiling, SCH Number #2020060425 130 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
and roof assemblies with above average sound transmission class or outdoor/indoor transmission class values, enhanced insulation methods (acoustical caulking, louvered vents, etc.).

4.10.3 Impact Analysis
The relationship of the proposed SCP project to the previously certified 2022 EIR air quality impact and mitigation conclusions is described below.

Temporary Construction Noise
As described in section 4.10.2, the SCP project is subject to, and would comply with, applicable programmatic Mitigation Measure 13-1 (Reduce Potential Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Construction Noise Levels) from the certified 2022 EIR that reduces temporary construction noise levels. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 13-1, MIG, Inc. has prepared a project-specific construction noise evaluation using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Version 1.1. The RCNM is a computer program that uses empirical data and sound propagation principles to predict noise levels associated with a variety of construction equipment and operations. The noise evaluation incorporates project-specific assumptions regarding construction phasing and equipment that were also used in the projectspecific construction emissions assessment (see section 4.3 and Appendix A-1). Potential SCP project noise levels were estimated for the following existing receptors:
• R1: Santa Clara Fire Department Station 8 located at 2400 Agnew Road • R2: Pedro’s Restaurant and Cantina located at 3935 Freedom Circle • R3: Santa Clara Towers located at 3945 Freedom Circle • R4: Mission Towers located at 3975 Freedom Circle
• R5: Santa Clara Marriott located at 3700 Mission College Boulevard • R6: Mission Technology Center located at 2441 Mission College Boulevard The distances between each typical work area/construction phase and modeled receptors are summarized in Table 4.10-2.

SCH Number #2020060425 131 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.10-2: Distances Between Modeled Receptors and Construction Noise Sources SCP Construction Phase Receptor Distance to Construction Activity (Feet) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Demolition 435 250 275 385 330 325
Site Preparation 760 870 760 550 835 585
Grading 760 870 760 550 835 585
Trenching 515 570 290 280 280 415
Building Construction 515 570 290 280 280 415
Paving 840 820 680 500 860 670
Architectural Coating 300 360 160 195 140 295
The results of the construction noise modeling are summarized in Table 4.10-3 and compared against the City’s commercial receptor construction noise threshold applied in the 2022 EIR. Refer to Appendix B-2 for the complete RCNM project file.

Table 4.10-3: Modeled Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors SCP Construction Phase
Modeled Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Demolition 63.5 68.3 67.5 64.6 65.9 66.0
Site Preparation 58.9 57.7 58.9 61.7 58.1 61.2
Grading 60.7 59.5 60.7 63.5 59.9 63.0
Trenching 63.0 62.1 67.9 68.2 68.2 64.8
Building Construction 63.8 62.9 68.7 69.1 69.1 65.6
Paving 57.1 57.3 59.0 61.6 56.9 59.1
Architectural Coating 62.1 60.5 67.5 65.8 68.7 62.2
2022 EIR Threshold 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: MIG, 2024 (see Appendix B-2)
As shown in Table 4.10-3, the SCP project’s construction noise levels would vary by phase but would generally range between approximately 57 dBA Leq and 69 dBA Leq. The highest noise levels (69.1 dBA Leq) would occur at R04 and R05 during the Building Construction phase. As shown in Table 4.10-1, a construction noise level of 69.1 dBA Leq would be approximately 7 dBA higher than measured daytime noise levels (61.7 dBA Leq) at ST-4, which would be representative of the Mission Towers (R4) and the southern half of the Santa Clara Marriott property (R5); however, a modeled construction noise level of 69.1 dBA Leq would be approximately 1 dBA lower SCH Number #2020060425 132 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
than measured daytime noise levels (70.1 dBA Leq) at ST-5, which would be representative of the northern half of the Santa Clara Marriott property. Overall, the modeled construction noise levels at all receptors would range from approximately 10 dBA lower than measured daytime conditions (e.g., at R1 – Fire Station 8 – during demolition) to approximately 7 dBA higher than measured daytime conditions (e.g., at R4 as described above and at R2 – Pedro’s Restaurant and Cantina – during demolition).
2022 EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1 required noise control measures to be incorporated into future development projects in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan area to ensure construction activities do not generate noise levels that are above 70 dBA Leq at a commercial property and exceed the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for more than one year. The SCP project would be constructed over an approximately five-year period (see Appendix A-1) and could generate construction noise levels that are more than 5 dBA above measured 2024 ambient noise levels; however, modeled construction noise levels do not exceed 70 dBA Leq at any receptor during any construction phase.

As described above, the SCP project would not generate construction noise levels that exceed the 2022 EIR threshold of significance for commercial receptors and, therefore, would reduce the severity of the temporary construction noise impact identified in 2022 EIR Impact 13-1. No new significant or substantially more severe significant temporary construction noise impact would occur. Furthermore, although the SCP project would not require the incorporation of specific noise control measures identified in 2022 EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1, Sections 6B, 6C, and 7D, the project is subject to, and would comply with, the other applicable programmatic mitigation measures from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce temporary construction noise levels, including Mitigation Measure 13-1, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6A, and 8 (see section 4.10.2, above).

Temporary Construction Vibration Levels
There are no residential receptors currently located in the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan area and the existing Freedom Circle right-of-way is approximately 70 feet wide at minimum.

Therefore, the SCP project would not involve the use of large vibration generating equipment within 50 feet of any commercial building façade or within 100 feet of any residential building façade. In addition, the SCP project would not require the use of pile drivers. The SCP project would not have the potential to generate construction vibration levels that could exceed the vibration-induced structural damage or human annoyance response thresholds applied in the 2022 EIR and, therefore, would reduce the severity of the temporary construction vibration impact identified in 2022 EIR Impact 13-3. No new significant or substantially more severe significant temporary construction noise impact would occur. Furthermore, although the SCP project would not require the incorporation of specific vibration control measures identified in 2022 EIR Mitigation Measure 13-2, Section 4, the project is subject to, and would comply with, the other applicable programmatic mitigation measures from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce temporary SCH Number #2020060425 133 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
construction vibration levels, including Mitigation Measure 13-3, Sections 1, 2, and 3 (see section

4.10.2, above).

Permanent On-Site Noise Levels
The SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan. Specifically, the number of dwelling units (1,792), population growth (4,068 residents), and gross vehicle trips (9,183 daily trips with trip reduction credits; see section 4.14) associated with the SCP project is less than the Focus Area Plan’s total dwelling units (3,600), service population (28,602 residents and employees) and vehicle trips (70,250 total daily vehicle trips) evaluated in the 2022 EIR. The project’s development type, trip generation, and population characteristics would, therefore, be consistent with what was analyzed in the Focus Area Plan’s analysis of on-site operational noise impacts.

Once constructed, the SCP project would generate noise levels from increased parking activities, stationary sources of equipment such as HVAC equipment and pool equipment, and use of the proposed residential, park, and retail facilities. As described in section 4.10.2, the SCP project is subject to, and would comply with, the applicable programmatic mitigation measure from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce on-site operational noise levels, including Mitigation Measure 13- 5 (Control Fixed and Other On-Site Noise-Generating Sources and Activities in the Freedom Circle Area Plan). Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 13-5, MIG, Inc. has prepared the following projectspecific operational noise analysis for the SCP project. For reference, the City’s noise standards (and 2022 EIR on-site noise thresholds) are reproduced in Table 4.10-4 and Table 4.10-5 below.

Table 4.10-4: General Plan / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (dBA CNEL) Land Use 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Residential
Educational
Recreational
Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
Key:

Compatible
Require design and insulation to reduce noise levels
Incompatible – avoid land use except when entirely indoors and an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL can be maintained.

Source: City of Santa Clara, 2010, Table 8.14-1

I I I I I I I
I
SCH Number #2020060425 134 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.10-5: City Code Schedule A Exterior Sound or Noise Limits Receiving Zone Land Use Category Time Period Maximum Noise Level (dBA)
Category 1
Single-family and duplex residential (R1, R2) 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 10:00PM to 7:00 AM 50
Category 2
Multi-family residential, public space (R3,B) 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 10:00PM to 7:00 AM 50
Category 3
Commercial, Office (C,O) 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 65
10:00PM to 7:00 AM 60
Category 4
Light Industrial (ML, MP) Anytime 70
Heavy Industrial (MH) Anytime 75
Source: City of Santa Clara, 2024
Parking Garage Noise: Noise sources associated with proposed parking garages at Buildings 1 - 5 (e.g., car horns, doors slamming, cars starting, etc.) would be intermittent. Of the five buildings, Building 3 would have the largest parking capacity (745 spaces). Potential increases in noise resulting from the new parking garage were quantified using the following equations contained in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual (FTA, 2018).

Leq(h) = SELref + CN - 36.5 and CN = 10 x log(NA / 1,000) Where:

Leq(h)= Hourly Leq at 50 feet
SELref= Source Reference Level at 50 feet
CN = Volume Adjustment (SELref is based on 1,000 cars in peak activity hour) NA = Number of Automobiles per Hour
To calculate the Leq and CNEL at 50 feet from the parking garage, hourly noise levels were first calculated throughout the day using the equations above, where, according to the FTA, the SELref for parking garages is 92 dBA. The AM peak hour calculations accounted for 178 hourly trips, the PM peak hour calculations accounted for 221 hourly trips, and the remaining approximately 2,329 trips were divided evenly throughout the remaining 22 hours in the day (i.e., approximately 106 average trips her hour; Fehr and Peers, 2024). This methodology is considered conservative (i.e., likely to overestimate CNEL) since it likely overestimates activity at the parking garage from the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM, when a 10 dBA penalty is applied to the hourly noise levels used SCH Number #2020060425 135 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
to calculate the CNEL. The results of the calculation indicate the parking garage would result in a worst-case hourly Leq value of 49.8 dBA (during the PM peak hour activity) and a CNEL of 53.5 dBA, which is more than 10 dBA lower than the 2024 ambient noise levels measured in the vicinity of the SCP project site and the traffic noise modeling conducted for the 2022 EIR. In general, when two noise levels are 10 dB or more apart, the lower value does not contribute significantly (less than 0.5 dB) to the total noise level. Thus, potential noise levels from SCP parking garages would not exceed any receiving land use noise standard contained in City Code Section 9.10.040 and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SCP project.

In addition to standard use and operation of the garage, each proposed parking garage would include a system to facilitate air circulation and venting to reduce potential levels of carbon monoxide and other vehicle exhaust gases. Such a system usually consists of fresh air intake fans situated near ground level and exhaust fans (either centralized in one location or specific to each floor/deck) that move air into and out of the garage, respectively. Pursuant to the California Building Code, the system may operate continuously or automatically be means carbon monoxide and other sensors. Since the proposed garages would not include a basement level and are anticipated to be partially open-sided, this analysis assumes the ventilation system would primarily serve as a supplement to natural air movement during periods of high garage use (e.g., AM or PM peak hour entry and exit periods), and would not consist of jet-fan or other high volume air flow components. A typical, louvered, direct drive ¼ horsepower exhaust fan capable of moving 8,000 cubic feet per minute at high speed generates a noise level of 76 dBA at 3 feet (Continental Dynamics, 2024), which would attenuate to less than 50 dBA at distance of approximately 60 feet.

All parking garages would be located on the interior of the project site and generally shielded from project property lines by residential buildings. Therefore, any ventilation fans would be located at least 150 feet from any adjacent property line. At this distance, ventilation fans would not exceed any receiving land use noise standard contained in City Code Section 9.10.040 and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SCP project. No new significant or substantially more severe significant on-site noise impact would occur.

Mechanical Equipment: Mechanical equipment associated with the SCP project would include HVAC equipment such as condensers and heat pumps, water heating equipment (boilers), pool equipment (e.g., pumps), and other miscellaneous stationary equipment; however, the SCP project does not include a back-up generator. Project equipment would not have the potential to generate noise levels that could exceed any receiving land use noise standard contained in City Code Section

9.10.040 for the following reasons:
• HVAC Equipment: SCP project HVAC equipment would consist of high efficiency, single package rooftop heat pump units, such as the Carrier brand 50GCQ WeatherMaster model (Carrier, 2024). Such units would be distributed throughout the rooftop area in groups or banks of up to 20 units on individual building rooftops, usually in the center of the roof area. The closest grouping or bank of units would be located at least 50 feet from the SCP project SCH Number #2020060425 136 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
boundary and 120 feet from any receiving land use across Freedom Circle. The maximum rated sound power rating for nominal 5-ton WeatherMaster model is 79 dBA. The SCP project’s estimated maximum HVAC noise level at the closest project property line is summarized in Table 4.10-6. It is noted that the noise level estimates contained in Table 4.10-6 do not assume any shielding by a parapet wall and therefore provide a conservative analysis (i.e., likely to overestimate) of potential HVAC noise levels.

As shown in Table 4.10-6, the SCP project’s rooftop heat pumps would not exceed any receiving land use noise standard contained in City Code Section 9.10.040 and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SCP project. No new significant or substantially more severe significant on-site noise impact would occur. • Water heating equipment: The SCP project would include rooftop boilers that would generate noise from combustion, air movement (e.g., a blower), water movement (e.g., water pump) and rattling/vibrating equipment components. Large, multi-family residential boilers up to 500 horsepower can generate noise levels up to 82 dBA under high load conditions (Firetube Boilers, 2024). Rooftop boilers would be located at least 120 feet from any receiving land use across Freedom Circle. At this distance, the noise level from a large boiler would attenuate to 50 dBA Leq. It is noted that this noise level estimate does not assume any shielding by a parapet wall and therefore provides a conservative analysis (i.e., likely to overestimate) of potential boiler noise levels. The SCP project rooftop boilers would not exceed any receiving land use noise standard contained in City Code Section 9.10.040 and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SCP project. No new significant or substantially more severe significant on-site noise impact would occur. • Pool equipment. Pools and pool equipment would be located on the interior of the SCP project site, behind the proposed residential buildings, and at least 300 feet from any receiving land uses. Pool equipment would also be located within mechanical rooms that insulate equipment noise from the outdoor environment. For these reasons, the SCP project pool equipment would not exceed any receiving land use noise standard contained in City Code Section 9.10.040 and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SCP project. No new significant or substantially more severe significant on-site noise impact would occur.

Other Operational Noise Sources: The SCP project would include a small potential retail space (a 3,600 square foot market in Building 5), resident amenities such as a fitness center, approximately

4.225 acres of public open space (including an approximately 3.48-acre neighborhood park), and refuse collection services.

SCH Number #2020060425 137 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Table 4.10-6: Estimated Project Heat Pump Noise Levels
Source(s)
Sound
Power
Rating(A)
Distance to
Closest
Receiving
Land Use
Estimated Hourly Noise Level (dBA Leq)
1 Heat Pump(A) 20 Heat Pumps(B)
Building
Heat Pump 79 dBA 120 Feet 36.5 49.5
Commercial Nighttime Noise Standard(C) 60 60
Standard Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG (see Attachment 05)
(A) Each Carrier 50GCQ WeatherMaster heat pump unit is rated according to the American Hearing and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 270. Sound power rating is a measure of how much sound power is emitted from a source. For typical point source propagation, sound pressure levels are equal to sound power levels at approximately 1-foot from the source. (B) All units are assumed to be in operation, and no shielding is assumed for the heat pump units. (C) See Table 4.10-5.

The 3,600 square-foot ground level retail space included in Building 5 would primarily be a project-serving retail establishment that would not involve substantial commercial operations, including loading or unloading activities, and would not be a substantial source of noise. The project’s recreational spaces and amenities would provide residents areas to recreate and socialize.

Amenity spaces such as the fitness center would be indoor spaces that would not generate substantial noise levels. Exterior residential use and amenity areas such as courtyards and pools would generally be located on the interior of the site and would not have the potential to generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the immediate area. The proposed public open space and neighborhood park areas would provide passive recreation facilities that would primarily serve the SCP project and other development in the Future Focus Area Plan area and, therefore, would be limited in their use. These facilities would not have the potential to generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the immediate area.

Refuse collection services would occur via the private road that would bisects the SCP project site and parking garage access roads. Refuse collection activities are not subject to the receiving land use noise standards in City Code Section 9.10.040; however, City Code Section 8.25.110 a) limits that refuse collection to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM at or adjacent to properties zoned for residential use and City Code Section 8.25.110 b) specifies that all collections shall be made as quietly as possible and all unnecessarily noisy trucks or equipment for refuse collection services are prohibited. For these reasons, the SCP project waste collection services would not exceed any receiving land use noise standard contained in City Code Section 9.10.040 and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SCP project. No new significant or substantially more severe significant on-site noise impact would occur.

SCH Number #2020060425 138 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Permanent Traffic Noise Levels
As described under the “Permanent On-Site Noise Levels” analysis above, the SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall population and trip generation growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan. Since the SCP project is consistent with the growth assumptions associated with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, it would not have the potential to result in a new or potentially more severe traffic noise impact than that identified in the certified 2022 EIR Impact 13-7. Furthermore, as described in section 4.10.2, the SCP project is subject to, and would comply with, the applicable programmatic mitigation measure from the certified 2022 EIR that reduce vehicle trips and traffic-related noise levels, including Mitigation Measure 5-3D (Implement TDM Program).

Operational Vibrations
The SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan, and does not include any operational activities that would generate vibrations that were not evaluated in the certified 2022 EIR. Since the SCP project is consistent with the growth and equipment assumptions associated with Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, it would not have the potential to result in a new or potentially more severe operational vibration impact than that identified in the certified 2022 EIR Impact 13-9.

Airport-Related Noise Levels
The part of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan north of Mission College Boulevard and east of Great America Parkway lies within the San Jose International Airport influence area; however, the plan area borders, but is not located within, the 65 CNEL contour associated with San Jose International Airport. Therefore, the SCP project site is not located within the San Jose International Airport influence area or 65-CNEL noise contour, would not expose people living or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noise levels, and would not have the potential to result in a new or potentially more severe airport-related noise impact than that identified in 2022 EIR Impact 13-11.

Other Planning Disclosures
As described under “Permanent On-Site Noise Levels” above, the SCP project would be consistent with the land use plan, development policies, and overall growth envisioned in the Focus Area Plan and, therefore, would be consistent with what was analyzed in the certified 2022 EIR. The SCP project would consist of new residential dwelling units and other noise-sensitive land uses that would be exposed to existing ambient noise levels that may be incompatible with City planning policies and State noise regulations. Although not a CEQA impact, the 2022 EIR incorporated Condition of Approval NOI-1 (Prepare Final Acoustical Analysis) into the Focus Area Plan to ensure future development in the plan area is designed and constructed in a manner compatible with the ambient noise environment and consistent with State and City noise SCH Number #2020060425 139 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
requirements. Pursuant to Condition of Approval NOI-1, MIG has prepared a project-specific noise and land use compatibility analysis for the SCP project.

Noise exposure levels at the SCP project site vary from north (near Mission College Boulevard) to south (closer to U.S. 101), as follows:
• In the north, traffic noise levels on Mission College Boulevard are estimated to be between

72.6 dBA CNEL and 72.7 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline of Mission College Boulevard and would attenuate to less than 70 dBA CNEL at 155 feet. Based on the current site plan, the public open space areas along Mission College Boulevard, the northeastern facing façade of Building 1, and the northeastern and north facing façades of Building northern façade of Building 3 would be within 155 feet of the center of Mission College Boulevard.

The city’s General Plan establishes 75 dBA CNEL as the normally acceptable noise limit for recreational land uses such as public open space lands (see Table 4.10-4). Therefore, the public open space lands along Mission College Boulevard would be compatible with the existing and future noise environment.

Building 1 northeast façades would be located approximately 60 to 85 feet from the centerline of Mission College Bouvard. At this distance, noise levels at the façade would range between

73.8 dBA CNEL to 76 dBA CNEL and require between 28.8 dBA to 31 dBA of exterior-tointerior noise attenuation to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard established by the State building code.

Building 3 northeast and north façades would be located approximately 75 to 105 feet from the centerline of Mission College Bouvard. At this distance, noise levels at the façade would range between 72.4 dBA CNEL to 74.6 dBA CNEL and require between 27.4 to 29.6 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard established by the State building code.
• In the south, U.S. 101 traffic noise levels were measured to be 78.6 dBA CNEL at 120 feet from the centerline of U.S. 101 and would attenuate to 75 dBA CNEL at 275 feet and 70 dBA CNEL at 875 feet. Based on the current site plan, the public open space areas along Freedom Circle would be at least 630 feet from the U.S. 101 centerline and exposed to noise levels below 75 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the public open space lands along Freedom Circle would be compatible with the existing and future noise environment. The southwest facing façade of Building 4 would be located 700 to 870 feet from the U.S. 101 centerline. At this distance, noise levels at the façade would range between 70.9 dBA CNEL and 70.0 dBA CNEL and require between 25.9 dBA and 25 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard established by the State building code.

As described above, certain Building 1, Building 3, and Building 4 façades would require the incorporation of specific building noise attenuation measures (e.g., specific exterior wall SCH Number #2020060425 140 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
assemblies, windows and doors with high sound transmission class (STC) ratings) to ensure interior noise levels meet applicable building code standards with windows closed. The estimated amount of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation required to comply with State building code requirements (between 25 dBA and 31 dBA) is feasible, however, the SCP project does not have final wall assemblies designed at this time and compliance with these noise level reductions cannot be verified.

The SCP project remains subject to, and would comply with, 2022 EIR Condition of Approval NOI-1, Section 4, requiring the project to submit to the City for review and approval, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, a list of project-specific, building exterior noise reduction design measures that reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL or less. In general, standard construction techniques for new residential buildings in California provide a minimum of 12 dBA of exterior to interior noise attenuation with windows open and between 20 dBA to 30 dBA of exterior to interior noise attenuation with windows closed. For example, a standard exterior wall consisting of 5/8-inch siding, wall sheathing, fiberglass insulation, two by four wall studs on 16-inch centers, and 1/2-inch gypsum wall board with single strength windows provides approximately 32 dB to 35 dB of attenuation between exterior and interior noise levels, provided there are no doors in the assembly and windows do not occupy more than 30% of the exterior wall space (HUD, 2009a, and 2009b). Other combinations of exterior covering, sheathing, insulation, stud size and spacing would also be able to achieve between 25 dBA and 31 dBA of exterior to interior noise insulation with enhanced door and window systems that include acoustic caulking, dual pane windows or treatments with higher STC ratings, etc.

4.10.3 References
Carrier 2023. Product Data WeatherMaster High Efficiency Single Packaged Heat Pump Rooftop 3 to 5 Nominal Tons. 2023.

City of Santa Clara 2010. 2010 – 2035 General Plan. November 2010. ______2024. City of Santa Clara City Code. Current through July 16, 2024. Accessed online at:
<https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/>
Continental Dynamics 2024. Continental Dynamics Direct Drive 30” Exhaust Gan with Shutter, 2 Speed, 8,000 CFM, ¼ horsepower specifications. 2024.

Fehr and Peers 2024. Santa Clara Park Redevelopment Transportation Operations Analysis. May 2024.

Firetube Boilers 2019. Model CB Boilers Sound Level. 2019.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2009a. HUD Noise Guidebook. Prepared by the Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy. March 2009.

SCH Number #2020060425 141 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
______2009b. HUD Noise Guidebook, Chapter 4 Supplement: Sound Transmission Class Guidance. Prepared by the Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy. March 2009.

U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Washington, DC. September 2018.

4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.11.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR and the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Population
In 2018, the population in Santa Clara was approximately 7 percent of the total population in the County, making it the third largest jurisdiction by population after San Jose and Sunnyvale. The population increased from 116,468 to 129,604 between 2010 and 2018, an increase of 11.3 percent, or 1.3 percent per year. In comparison, the County grew by 9.8 percent, or 1.2 percent per year.

According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Santa Clara’s population is expected to grow to 159,500 by 2040, a 37.7 percent increase over the 30-year period from 2010 to 2040.

Housing
The City of Santa Clara updated its Housing Element in 2024. The 2023-2031 Housing Element covers the 2023 to 2031 planning period outlined in the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan. The Housing Element focuses on promoting residential infill development and addressing the City’s housing needs while meeting State housing requirements.

According to the 2023-2031 Housing Element, in 2022, the State Department of Finance estimated that in 2020 there were 47,004 occupied housing units in the City. Compared to 2010, the City’s housing stock has increased by 3,983 units. According to ABAG, the number of housing units in the City is expected to increase by about 29.5 percent between 2010 and 2040, reaching a projected total of 58,190 housing units by 2040. Currently, in the Future Focus Area Plan Area as a whole, there is no housing nor are there any residents (except for short-term hotel guests).

SCH Number #2020060425 142 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.11.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
Effects on Population Growth
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to population growth because Plan implementation would facilitate residential, commercial, and community growth within a mixeduse Plan Area identified as being desirable for adding a mix of residential and commercial due to access to existing and future transit, and for redeveloping existing sites from lower to higher intensity uses, as provided for in the Santa Clara General Plan.

Population and Housing Displacement Effects
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to population and housing displacement because the Future Focus Area Plan Area does not contain housing.

Temporary Employment Impacts
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to temporary employment because projectgenerated employment opportunities would represent a beneficial temporary economic effect of future development in the Plan Area, and in itself, any population growth associated with construction activity ultimately resulting from the Focus Area Plan and comprehensive planning study would be less than significant.

The 2022 EIR did not identify any potentially significant population and housing impacts, and no mitigation was required.

4.11.3 Impact Analysis
Effects on Population Growth
As described in section 3.0 (Project Description), the SCP project proposes 1,792 multi-family residential units on an approximately 26-acre site. Based on the average persons per household (pph) rate used in the 2022 EIR (2.27 pph), the project can be expected to add approximately 4,067 new residents to the Future Focus Area Plan Area.

The Freedom Circle Focus Plan allows for development of up to 3,600 dwelling units, which translates to an increase of approximately 8,172 new residents, in the Future Focus Area Plan Area by the year 2040 (the estimated Plan build-out horizon). While there is no existing residential development in the Future Focus Area Plan Area, the Greystar project (located adjacent to the SCP project site) has been approved for the construction of 1,075 housing units, which would result in the addition of approximately 2,440 new residents in the Future Focus Area Plan Area.

SCH Number #2020060425 143 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan planned for the transition of the existing 12-building business park that comprises the SCP project site to a “Very High-Density Residential” land use (see Figure

3.6: Land Use Plan on page 3-9 of the 2022 EIR). Consistent with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan analyzed in the 2022 EIR, the SCP project proposes development of a high-density, multifamily residential development. The project would include 5% of units designated as Very Low (50% AMI) and 10% of units designated as moderate deed restricted (100% AMI). The SCP project’s potential addition of 4,067 residents to the Future Focus Area Plan Area falls within the anticipated increase in Plan Area population considered in the 2022 EIR (i.e., 8,172 new residents), both individually and in combination with the Greystar project.

As discussed in the 2022 EIR, the addition of residential units to the City of Santa Clara will help improve the City’s jobs/housing balance. Plan implementation would facilitate residential, commercial, and community growth within a mixed-use Plan Area identified as being desirable for adding a mix of residential and commercial due to access to existing and future transit, and for redeveloping existing sites from lower to higher intensity uses, as provided for in the Santa Clara General Plan. The 2022 EIR concluded the Focus Area Plan would not induce substantial population growth beyond the Plan Area boundaries. The population growth generated by the SCP project would be fully contained on the project site and would not induce substantial population growth beyond project site boundaries.

Population and Housing Displacement Effects
The 2022 EIR noted that, because the Future Focus Area Plan Area does not currently contain housing, the Plan Area would not displace any residents or housing. As the SCP project site is located entirely within the Future Focus Area Plan Area, the site does not contain housing. The proposed SCP project would not displace residents or housing.

Temporary Employment Impacts
The 2022 EIR determined that employment opportunities from construction jobs generated by future development projects in the Future Focus Area Plan Area would represent a beneficial temporary economic effect of the Focus Area Plan, and any population growth associated with construction activity resulting from the Focus Area Plan would be a less-than-significant impact.

The proposed SCP project constitutes a future development in the Plan Area and, therefore, would result in a temporary beneficial economic effect due to the generation of construction jobs, consistent with the conclusions of the 2022 EIR.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to population and housing would be similar to those analyzed in the 2022 EIR. Similar to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, the SCP project would still have less-than-significant population and housing impacts that do not require mitigation. Implementation of the SCP project would not result in new significant impacts on SCH Number #2020060425 144 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
population and housing or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts.

No mitigation is required.

4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES

4.12.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR, with some updates.

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service: The Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) has ten fire stations (one of which temporarily closed in March 2020 and is scheduled for replacement and relocation), with eight fire engines, two ladder trucks, one rescue unit, two ambulances, one hazardous materials unit, and one command vehicle. The Plan Area would be served by Station 8, which is located at 2400 Agnew Road. Secondary responding stations to the area would be Station 6, located at 888 Agnew Road; Station 9, located at 3011 Corvin Drive; and Station 5, located at 1912 Bowers Avenue. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded fire protection/EMS facilities.

The Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site is located in the southern portion of the Plan Area and also would be served by Station 8, which is about 285 feet northeast of the project site, across Mission College Boulevard on Agnew Road. Station 6 is less than one mile from the project site, and Station 9 is slightly more than one mile from the project site, depending on the route taken.

Police Protection: The Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) is located at 601 El Camino Real.

The Northside Substation, at 3992 Rivermark Parkway, is a satellite facility with limited hours.

SCPD operations are broken into six beats; Beats 1 through 5 are south of U.S. 101, and Beat 6 covers the entire city area north of U.S. 101 plus the area between the Central Expressway and U.S. 101. The Plan Area is in Beat 6, and the project site is also in Beat 6. The Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded police facilities.

Public Schools: The Plan Area, including the proposed SCP project, is in the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD). The SCUSD is comprised of 27 schools, seven of which are located north of U.S. 101, including five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school.

The Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded school facilities.

Parks: City park and recreational facilities are comprised of approximately 268 improved acres and 85 unimproved acres. There are no public parks or recreational facilities currently in the Future Focus Area Plan Area, including the project site which contains 12 existing on-site buildings but no parks or recreational facilities. The Focus Area Plan calls for providing public parkland and privately-owned public open space, consistent with the General Plan requirements and other City regulations, and provision of open space or payment of in‐lieu fees for parks and open space for residential development, consistent with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance.

SCH Number #2020060425 145 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Other Public Facilities: The City has three libraries: (1) Central Park Library; (2) the Northside Branch Library; and (3) the Mission Branch Library. The City also operates four community centers. The Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded public facilities.

4.12.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that future development facilitated by the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in no significant impacts, as discussed below. 2022 EIR Mitigation Measures:

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) the Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded fire protection/EMS facilities; (2) the City ensures that projects meet uniformly applied fire protection/EMS standards and regulations; (3) existing fire stations are in proximity to serve the Plan Area; and (4) the City is committed to ensuring adequate capacity for providing fire service/EMS through its policy to reassess SCFD resources in the vicinity of the Plan Area and City monitoring of new development approvals to ensure the adequate timing of funding for fire service/EMS.

Police Protection:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) the Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded police facilities; (2) the City ensures that projects meet uniformly applied police services standards and regulations, including SCPD determination of the ability of the SCPD to provide services and maintain acceptable levels of service; (3) the SCPD has determined that while new or reconfigured space will be needed as SCPD staff grows, projected SCPD staffing and equipment needs would be accommodated through reconfiguration of existing facility space over the course of the projected 20-year Focus Area Plan build-out period; and (4) demand for additional SCPD personnel or equipment resulting from Focus Area Plan implementation would be funded by the City’s established annual General Fund budget review and allocation process.

Public Schools:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) the Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded school facilities; (2) residential and commercial development in the Plan Area would be required to pay the State-authorized school impact fees approved by the SCUSD; and (3) pursuant to section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory school impact fees “…is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization….” SCH Number #2020060425 146 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Parks:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) the City ensures that projects in the Focus Plan Area will meet park/recreation dedication requirements by including dedicated parkland, public open spaces, private open spaces, and amenities, subject to City review and approval, through the development review process; (2) the City’s parkland dedication requirement includes payment of park in-lieu fees for any necessary parkland not provided by an individual project; and (3) any project that does not comply with parkland dedication requirements would not be approved.

Other Public Facilities:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) the Focus Area Plan does not propose new or expanded public facilities; and (2) any future public facility proposal resulting from Focus Area Plan-facilitated development would be subject to its own evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when a specific proposal was brought forward.

Construction-Period Impacts:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because the City ensures that construction of expanded or new public facilities (e.g., fire protection/EMS facilities, police protection services facilities, parks, public schools, other public facilities) would be reduced through mandatory, uniformly applied City construction standards and regulations, and by the mitigations identified in the 2022 EIR. These standards, regulations, and EIR mitigation measures (e.g., EIR chapters 5--Air Quality, 6--Biological Resources, 7--Cultural and Historical Resources, 8--Geology and Soils, 9--Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy, 10--Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 11--Hydrology and Water Quality, 13--Noise) would be required as applicable during the CEQA review of an individual public facility project.

4.12.3 Impact Analysis
The relationship of the proposed SCP project to the previously certified 2022 Focus Area Plan EIR public services impact and mitigation conclusions is described below.

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service:

The SCP project would result in the construction of 1,792 dwelling units. This total is less than the 3,600 dwelling units evaluated in the 2022 EIR (which also includes the 1,075 units approved for the adjoining Greystar project) and would require fewer additional fire service/EMS staff than projected in the 2022 EIR. As discussed above, the 2022 EIR concluded that no significant impact was identified related to fire protection/EMS, no new or expanded fire protection/EMS facilities were needed, and no mitigation would be required. Because the total number of units proposed for the SCP project is less than the number of units evaluated for the Focus Area Plan, the SCH Number #2020060425 147 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
environmental effects related to fire protection/EMS resulting from the SCP project would be reduced in scale. The SCP project’s impact related to fire protection/EMS would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Police Protection:

The SCP project would result in the construction of 1,792 dwelling units. This total is less than the 3,600 dwelling units evaluated in the 2022 EIR (which also includes the 1,075 units approved for the adjoining Greystar project) and would require fewer additional police staff than projected in the 2022 EIR. As discussed above, the 2022 EIR concluded that no significant impact was identified related to police services, no new or expanded police facilities were needed, and no mitigation would be required. Because the total number of units proposed for the SCP project is less than the number of units evaluated for the Focus Area Plan, environmental effects related to police services resulting from the SCP project would be reduced in scale. The SCP project’s impact related to police services would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Public Schools:

The SCP project would result in the construction of 1,792 dwelling units. This total is less than the 3,600 dwelling units evaluated in the 2022 EIR (which also includes the 1,075 units approved for the adjoining Greystar project) and generate fewer new students than projected in the 2022 EIR. As discussed above, the 2022 EIR concluded that no significant impact was identified related to schools, no new or expanded schools were being proposed by the City, and implementation of the School District’s developer impact fee would be considered full and adequate mitigation, per the State Government Code. Because the total number of units proposed for the Santa Clara Park project is less than the number of units evaluated for the Focus Area Plan, effects related to school services resulting from the SCP project would be reduced compared to the 2022 EIR. The project applicant would pay in-lieu school fees to help mitigate impacts to the school district and provide funding for new facilities. Payment of school fees would ensure the project’s impact related to schools would remain less than significant. The SCP project’s impact related to school services would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Parks:

The project would result in the construction of 1,792 dwelling units. This total is less than the 3,600 dwelling units evaluated in the 2022 EIR (which also includes the 1,075 units approved for the adjoining Greystar project) and would result in fewer new residents using City parks than projected in the 2022 EIR. As discussed above, the 2022 EIR concluded that no significant impact was identified related to parks, new parkland and/or payment of in-lieu park dedication fees would be required of all new development in the Future Focus Area Plan Area, and the City’s park improvements ordinance would provide adequate mitigation. Because the total number of units proposed for the SCP project is less than the number of units evaluated for the Focus Area Plan, SCH Number #2020060425 148 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
environmental effects related to parks resulting from the SCP project would be reduced in scale.

The SCP project proposes approximately 4.225 acres of public park and open space, including a

3.48-acre neighborhood park (to be dedicated to the City), plus an additional 2.1 acres of private open space and building amenities space. The project would pay additional in-lieu park improvement fees as determined in consultation with the City’s Parks and Recreation Department (the parkland dedication requirement) to help mitigate future parks impacts. The SCP project’s impact related to parks would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Other Public Facilities:

The project would result in the construction of 1,792 dwelling units. This total is less than the 3,600 dwelling units evaluated in the 2022 EIR (which also includes the 1,075 units approved for the adjoining Greystar project) and would generate fewer new residents than projected in the 2022 EIR. As discussed above, the 2022 EIR concluded that no significant impact was identified related to other public facilities, and no new or expanded public facilities were being proposed by the City.

Because the total number of units proposed for the SCP project is less than the number of units evaluated for the Focus Area Plan, the environmental effects related to other public facilities resulting from the SCP project would be reduced in scale. The SCP project’s impact related to other public facilities would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Construction-Period Impacts:

As discussed above, no significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR related to construction of any new or expanded fire protection/EMS facilities, police protections services facilities, parks, public schools, and other public facilities because any such project would be required to comply with mandatory, uniformly applied City construction standards and regulations and the mitigations identified in the 2022 EIR (e.g., EIR chapters 5--Air Quality, 6--Biological Resources, 7--Cultural and Historical Resources, 8--Geology and Soils, 9--Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy, 10--Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 11--Hydrology and Water Quality, 13— Noise), which would be required as applicable during the CEQA review of an individual public facility project. No additional significant environmental impact is anticipated beyond those impacts and mitigations already identified in the 2022 EIR, and construction-period impacts would be less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR. The SCP project’s impact’s related to construction would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to public services would be reduced compared to those analyzed for the 2022 Focus Area Plan. For reasons stated above, implementation of the SCP project would not result in new significant impacts related to public services or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant public services impacts. No new mitigation is required.

SCH Number #2020060425 149 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.13 RECREATION

4.13.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR, with some updates.

Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities: City parks and recreational facilities are comprised of approximately 268 improved acres and 85 unimproved acres. There are no public parks or recreational facilities currently in the Future Focus Area Plan Area. The SCP project site contains 12 buildings but does not contain parks or recreational facilities.

Regional Park and Recreational Facilities: Regional recreational facilities located near the Future Focus Area Plan Area include Baylands Park and the Baylands Park Trail, about 1.25 miles northwest of the Plan Area and adjacent to SR 237. There are no other regional facilities in the Focus Plan Area or in the immediate vicinity. No regional facilities are located on the SCP project site.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: The City’s bicycle network includes approximately 70 miles of Class I, Class II, and Class III bike facilities. There are no Class IV bikeways (i.e., physically separated from vehicle traffic) in Santa Clara but the City of Santa Clara Bicycle Plan Update 2018 recommends future Class IV bicycle facility development. The City’s pedestrian facilities include over 550 miles of sidewalks, though pedestrian linkages in the Plan Area are limited, with the exception of the nearby San Tomas Aquino Creek bike path and pedestrian trail. The Focus Area Plan calls for new bicycle and pedestrian networks and connections to encourage walking and bicycling, including as part of the approved Greystar project in the Plan Area.

The SCP project site does not contain bicycle facilities, though the site is bordered on the north by Mission College Boulevard, which has a Class II striped bike lane. The San Tomas Aquino Creek bike path and pedestrian trail, which connects to the San Francisco Bay Trail in the north, is about 260 feet to the east. The project site does not contain pedestrian facilities beyond a perimeter sidewalk along Freedom Circle and a portion along Mission College Boulevard.

4.13.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in no significant impacts, as discussed below.

Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because (1) the City ensures that projects in the Future Focus Area Plan Area will meet park/recreation dedication requirements by including dedicated parkland, public open spaces, private open spaces, and amenities, subject to City review and approval, through the development review process; (2) SCH Number #2020060425 150 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
the City’s parkland dedication requirement includes payment of park in-lieu fees for any necessary parkland not provided by an individual project; and (3) any project that does not comply with parkland dedication requirements would not be approved.

Construction-Period Impacts:

No significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR; no mitigation is required because parks and recreational facilities construction impacts would be reduced through mandatory, uniformly applied City construction standards and regulations, and the mitigations identified in the 2022 EIR (e.g., EIR chapters 5--Air Quality, 6--Biological Resources, 7--Cultural and Historical Resources, 8--Geology and Soils, 9--Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy, 10--Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 11--Hydrology and Water Quality, and 13--Noise).

4.13.3 Impact Analysis
The relationship of the proposed SCP project to the previously certified 2022 Focus Area Plan EIR recreation impact and mitigation conclusions is described below.

Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities:

The SCP project proposes approximately 4.225 acres of public park and open space, comprised of a 3.48-acre neighborhood park (to be dedicated to the City). and approximately 0.75 acres of public park/open space area located between each building and Freedom Circle plus the north-south pedestrian/bike path (see Figure 3.11, Overall Illustrative Landscape Plan, in the Project Description). In addition to providing 4.225 acres of public space, the project would include 2.01 acres of private open space and building amenities space provided for SCP project residents. The project would pay additional in-lieu park improvement fees as determined in consultation with the City’s Parks and Recreation Department (the parkland dedication requirement) to help mitigate future parks impacts.

The project would include improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities (see Figure 3.6, Site Circulation Diagram, in the Project Description), including:
 a new 28-foot-wide two-way private street roughly dividing the project site into a northern half (Buildings 1, 2, and 3) and a southern half (Buildings 4 and 5); this street would include a Class II shared-use path;
 a public pedestrian path between Buildings 1/2 and Building 3 from Mission College Boulevard to the private street; between Building 4 and Building 5 from the private street to the park in the southeastern part of the project site; and generally from west to east and adjacent to Building 4 and Building 5 along the northern boundary of the park;  a Class II bike lane around project site perimeter (“Freedom Circle Bike Lane”); and  a Class IV bike lane proposed for Mission College Boulevard.

SCH Number #2020060425 151 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
The project proposes to install new sidewalk around the perimeter of the project site in a “meandering” configuration that provides variation and allows for access to perimeter pedestrian amenities such as bench and lounge seating, with family and group picnic and gathering areas; park space with multi-use turf area; fitness areas and fitness stations; and outdoor game areas.

The project proposes three new crosswalks, two of which were already proposed in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan (see Figure 3.6, Site Circulation Diagram, in the Project Description):
 (as included in the Focus Area Plan) on the eastern portion of Freedom Circle connecting the east-west private project road with the adjacent property (Greystar);  (as included in the Focus Area Plan) on the southern end of Freedom Circle mid-block near the western part of the proposed project public park; and
 on the eastern portion of Freedom Circle mid-block to connect the proposed project public park with the adjacent property’s (Greystar) public park.

Because the project would meet City parkland/open space requirements by on-site park space and paying park in-lieu fees, project impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less-thansignificant.

With the proposed project, this impact would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Construction Period Impacts:

As discussed above, no significant impact was identified in the certified 2022 EIR related to construction of any new or expanded parks and recreational facilities because the proposed project park and recreational improvements would be required to comply with mandatory, uniformly applied City construction standards and regulations, and the mitigations identified in the 2022 EIR (e.g., EIR chapters 5--Air Quality, 6--Biological Resources, 7--Cultural and Historical Resources, 8--Geology and Soils, 9--Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy, 10--Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 11--Hydrology and Water Quality, and 13—Noise), which, as described in more detail in the 2022 EIR, would ensure that construction-period impacts would be less than significant.

With the proposed SCP project, the impact on recreation would remain less than significant as identified in the 2022 EIR.

Finding: The potential impacts of the SCP project related to recreation are similar to those analyzed for the 2022 Focus Area Plan project. For reasons stated above, implementation of the SCP project would not result in new impacts related to recreation or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified recreation impacts. No new mitigation is required.

SCH Number #2020060425 152 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025

4.14 TRANSPORTATION

4.14.1 Existing Setting
The following environmental setting information is summarized from the certified 2022 EIR.

Roadway Network
Regional access to the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, including the Santa Clara Park (SCP) project site, is provided by U.S. 101, an eight-lane freeway, and SR 237, a four-lane to six-lane freeway. Major roadways that serve the Future Focus Area, including the project site, are Lawrence Expressway, Montague Expressway, Central Expressway, Great America Parkway, Bowers Avenue, Tasman Drive, Mission College Boulevard, Patrick Henry Drive, Freedom Circle, Hichborn Drive, and Agnew Road.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Focus Plan Area include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Sidewalks and separated pedestrian walkways in the SCP project site vicinity are provided on both sides of Freedom Circle, both sides of Mission College Boulevard, and the south side of Hichborn Drive. Crosswalks are provided at the intersections of Mission College Boulevard and Freedom Circle, Mission College Boulevard and Agnew Road/Freedom Circle, and Freedom Circle and Hichborn Drive. All crosswalks at signalized intersections include pedestrian signal heads and push buttons. The Mission College Boulevard/Freedom Circle and Mission College Boulevard/Agnew Road/Freedom Circle intersections are signalized.

Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the Focus Plan Area include multiuse trails/paths (Class I bikeway), striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway), and shared bike routes (Class III bikeway). Class I bikeways in the SCP project site vicinity include the paved San Tomas Aquino Creek trail bike path. Class II bikeways in the project site vicinity are located within ¼ mile along Mission College Boulevard and Great America Parkway. The nearest Class III bikeway in the vicinity is located approximately 0.38 miles to the northeast along Lakeshore Drive.

Transit Facilities
Transit services serving the Plan Area are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), and the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority. The following paragraphs provide a summary of transit service serving the Plan Area.

The VTA provides scheduled bus and light rail transit (LRT) routes through Santa Clara County.

In the vicinity of the Plan Area, VTA provides rapid (limited stop) and local bus services as well SCH Number #2020060425 153 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
as LRT service. VTA bus service near the Plan Area is provided along Tasman Drive, Great America Parkway, Lawrence Expressway, Mission College Boulevard, and Agnew Road. The closest VTA bus stops are located on Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard.

The SCP project site is located in the immediate vicinity of local and rapid (limited stop) bus routes, and an express bus route is located within ¼ mile to the west along Great America Parkway.

Bus service closest to the SCP project site is provided by bus stops at the western intersection of Mission College Boulevard and Freedom Circle, plus three bus stops near the eastern intersection of Mission College Boulevard, all within ¼ mile of the project site.

The SJRRC manages the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter rail service between the Central Valley and Silicon Valley, with a shuttle that connects the Plan Area to the Great America Transit Station. There are several bus stops served by an ACE shuttle along Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area and SCP project site.

The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority also operates passenger train service (Amtrak) between San José and Sacramento and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, with stops at the Great America Transit Station.

Although not within walking distance of the Plan Area, commuters to the Plan Area also use Caltrain, which provides commuter rail service from San Francisco in the north through San Mateo County to Santa Clara County in the south. Commuters to the Plan Area can access the Sunnyvale Caltrain Station, which is located approximately four miles from the Plan Area, via VTA bus route

20. 4.14.2 Findings of Previously Certified EIR
The certified 2022 EIR concluded that implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to (1) conflicts with adopted policies, plans, and programs for roadways, transit, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities; (2) vehicle miles traveled (VMT); (3) hazards due to design features or incompatible uses; and (4) emergency access, as described below.

Conflict With Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs
The Focus Area Plan would have less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, and programs for roadways, transit, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities because the Focus Area Plan provides the direction for the transportation standards and guidelines to be incorporated in the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan).The Focus Area Plan is considered substantially consistent with the applicable City of Santa Clara General Plan goals and policies related to transportation.

SCH Number #2020060425 154 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Impacts Related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The Focus Area Plan would have less-than-significant VMT impacts because the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan qualifies as a transit supportive project (per State guidance and City VMT Policy).

Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses
The Focus Area Plan would have less-than-significant impacts related to hazards because projectrelated roadway designs would be subject to City review, which would ensure adequacy of circulation patterns and safety standards; reduce potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses; and remove potential hazards due to design features (i.e., insufficient sightlines or distances) or incompatible uses.

Emergency Access
The Focus Area Plan would have less-than-significant impact related to emergency access because City review of future driveway and drive aisle design would ensure compliance with City emergency vehicle access requirements.

4.14.3 Impact Analysis
Fehr & Peers prepared a Transportation Operations Analysis for the proposed SCP project, titled “Santa Clara Park Redevelopment Transportation Operations Analysis” and dated June 2024 (henceforth referred to as the “Transportation Operations Analysis”). Fehr & Peers also prepared proposed TDM Programs for the SCP project, dated June 2024.

Conflict With Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs
Impacts on Roadways
The 2022 EIR concluded that because the Focus Area Plan provides the direction for the transportation standards and guidelines to be incorporated in the future, required comprehensive planning study (e.g., specific plan), the Focus Area Plan is considered substantially consistent with the applicable City of Santa Clara General Plan goals and policies related to transportation, including those pertaining to roadways, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

In the absence of a comprehensive planning study, the SCP project’s proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) text, development standards, and plans submitted for the project constitute the comprehensive rezoning plan to be filed with the project, consistent with the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and City of Santa Clara General Plan. The proposed text amendment would establish the framework for development, development assumptions, and related performance standards to implement this site-specific, individual development proposal.

The SCP would not remove any existing roadways or transportation networks. Rather, the project would improve existing roadways and transportation networks per the direction provided in the SCH Number #2020060425 155 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan policies, as described further below under the following sections related to transit, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. The SCP project would not conflict with any City of Santa Clara General goals or policies related to roadways and transportation networks, including goals and policies listed in the 2022 EIR (under Impact 17-1). City review of the SCP project’s proposed development standards, roadway design for the new private street, and design of improvements to existing transportation facilities along Mission College Boulevard and Freedom Circle would ensure the SCP project would be substantially consistent with General Plan policies regarding transportation. For these reasons, the SCP project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for roadways and transportation networks.

Impacts on Transit
The 2022 EIR determined the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with VTA transit facilities and would be consistent with VTA Transit Service Guidelines, which guide VTA service planning, including route determination, service levels, and capacity. In addition, the required 10 percent TDM trip reduction and the recommended roadway and multimodal improvements would serve to reduce transit vehicle delay. The 2022 EIR concluded that because transit support is included in Focus Area Plan Policy FC-19 (“Maintain VTA bus transit service on Mission College Boulevard and improve transit stops and shelters”) and Policy FC-P20 (“Design pedestrian and bicycle networks and infrastructure to facilitate access to transit stops on Great America Parkway, Mission College and Tasman Drive”), the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing or planned transit facilities, and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The SCP project would not interfere or conflict with VTA, or any other, transit facilities. The project would not remove any existing transit facilities. Per the Transportation Operations Analysis, the City is requiring a TDM plan that will achieve a 20 percent reduction for the SCP project, which will exceed the more conservative 10 percent TDM reduction from the 2022 EIR (Fehr & Peers, p. 9). The SCP project’s currently proposed TDM reduction measures, per the TDM Plan prepared by Fehr & Peers (October 2024), include project design features (i.e., housing density, destination accessibility, short-term and long-term bicycle parking, on-site bike repair facilities, a pedestrian network, and multimodal signage and amenities), unbundled parking, a carshare program/carshare parking, a transportation coordinator/commute trip reduction marketing, a trip reduction information package for residents, rideshare/ridematching services, an emergency/guaranteed ride home program, and a one-time free monthly transit fare subsidy on move-in (VTA and/or Caltrain).

Because the project would not remove existing transit facilities, would add/design pedestrian and bicycle networks that facilitate access to transit stops (e.g., the new street that would bisect the project site), and would implement TDM programs per City requirements, the project would not interfere or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for transit facilities.

SCH Number #2020060425 156 Addendum No. 1 to the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/ Greystar Project General Plan Amendment EIR
February 2025
Impacts on Bicycle Facilities
The 2022 EIR concluded that because (1) the Focus Area Plan would not interfere or conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities, (2) the Plan anticipates future improvements related to bicycle facilities, and (3) the Plan includes policies that support the creation of new bicycle networks and better balance space for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians along certain roadways, then the Focus Area Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on bicycle facilities.

The SCP project proposes to add new bicycle facilities and improve existing bicycle facilities (see figures in the Project Description [section 3.0] of this Addendum). Specifically, the project proposes new/improved bicycle facilities in the form of:
• A new 28-foot-wide, two-way private street roughly dividing the project site into a northern half (Buildings 1, 2, and 3) and a southern half (Buildings 4 and 5); this street would include a Class II shared-use path.
• A public pedestrian path between Buildings 1/2 and Building 3 from Mission College Boulevard to the private street; between Building 4 and Building 5 from the private street to the park in the southeastern part of the project site; and generally from west to east and adjacent to Building 4 and Building 5 along the northern boundary of the park. • A Class II bike lane around project site perimeter (“Freedom Circle Bike Lane”). • A Class IV bike lane for Mission College Boulevard.