concerned that Buildings 2 and 3 of the Project may include balconies that would overlook the residential homes directly next to the Project.
While our clients recognize that the City may ultimately approve the Project they respectfully suggest that it would be prudent for the City Council to first require the applicant to provide actual substantial evidence supporting the Project’s alleged compliance with the Planning and Zoning Law/Density Bonus Law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as explained below, and to revise the design with input from the community to ensure consistency and the ability of the City to defensibly rely on the proposed exemption from having to conduct environmental review under CEQA.
Our clients therefore request that the City Council grant the appeal and direct staff and the applicant to work with residents in good faith and, specifically, to revise the Project design to:
• Reflect architectural features that are consistent with the Spanish Colonial Revival era or, at the very least, truly consistent with modern Spanish architecture;
• Consider height reductions (or at least explain why, with economic evidence, that the height exceedances are necessary to ensure the Project’s fiscal viability);
• Expressly prohibit the inclusion of balconies that would overlook existing residential homes in the conditions of approval; and
• Incorporate Multi-Story Step-backs (minimum six feet) on all elevations of the structure and on no less than 60 percent of the first story structure wall length as required by Zoning Code, § 18.14.040(F), among other “asks” previously made but dismissed by the applicant.
I. Substantial Evidence does not support a finding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan or Zoning Code as required by CEQA (AB 130).
The Project applicant proposes two four story (44’) buildings with 16 total market rate townhomes and 2 affordable housing units - proposed as very small 521 square foot accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Project proposes to reduce the front and rear setbacks to 2’-9” and 4’-11” respectfully and exceed the height limitations without providing any step-backs for multi-story buildings.
A. Relevant General Plan Goals and Policies.
A prerequisite to reliance on the statutory exemption from CEQA provided by Public Resources Code section 21080.66 (AB 130) requires a public agency to ensure that substantial evidence supports a finding that a project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance. (§ 21080.66, subd. (a)(1)(4)(A) [a housing Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026
development project shall be deemed consistent “if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent”], emphasis added.) 3 The record for the Project falls short of this mandate.
Specifically, to date, there is no discussion, analysis or other “substantial evidence” in the record explaining how the Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies or zoning. There are, merely, conclusory statements offered by staff and the applicant that the Project is consistent with the General Plan or does not need to be consistent because of the Density Bonus Law provisions. CEQA requires more. As proposed, a reasonable person may not conclude that the Project is consistent with the following relevant General Plan goals and policies as required by the exemption, including:
El Camino Real Focus Area Goals
5.4.1‐G2 High quality design that respects the scale and character of adjacent residential neighborhoods and historic resources and creates a walkable environment.
El Camino Real Focus Area Policies
5.4.1‐P5 Provide appropriate transition between new development in the Focus Area and adjacent uses consistent with General Plan Transition Policies.
5.4.1‐P6 Encourage lower profile development, in areas designated for Community Mixed Use in order to minimize land use conflicts with existing neighborhoods.
5.4.1‐P12 Highly encourage the development of affordable housing and senior housing that is well designed and compatible with adjacent uses in the El Camino Real Focus Area.
5.5.2 Transition Goals and Policies
Transition policies are applicable to sites where new development is of a different land use classification and/or intensity to that of adjacent neighborhoods. Transition Policies are intended to address compatibility between existing and new development and may be applied in order to . . . :
Adjust building height, scale and massing along the site perimeter abutting lower‐intensity uses. For example, a multi‐story commercial building could be taller 3 / “Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b).) Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026
along the street frontage, and shorter near the portion of the site that abuts a residential parcel, as illustrated in Figure 5.5‐1 of the General Plan. (See GP, p. 5-73)
Transition Goals
5.5.2‐G1 High quality, enjoyable and livable neighborhoods.
5.5.2‐G2 Preservation of the character of individual neighborhoods.
5.5.2‐G3 New development that is compatible with adjacent existing and planned residential neighborhoods.
Transition Policies
5.5.2‐P1 Require that new development incorporate building articulation and architectural features, including front doors, windows, stoops, porches or bay windows along street frontages, to integrate new development into existing neighborhoods.
5.5.2‐P5 Require that new development provide an appropriate transition to surrounding Neighborhoods.
5.5.2‐P6 Adjust new building height, scale and massing along the site perimeter abutting planned lower‐ intensity uses.
5.5.2‐P7 For buildings of three stories or greater, increase the setback of upper stories where they abut lower‐intensity residential uses.
Due to seismic and liquefaction risks within the City, the General Plan also requires a geotechnical investigation before a development permit can be granted in the liquefaction zone (which this Project appears located). Specifically, the General Plan requires that a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted and appropriate measures, such as edge containment structures, driving piles or treatment of soils, incorporated into the project design. (GP, p. 5-128.) It does not appear that the Project applicant has completed a geotechnical investigation and, if not, it must do so before finding the Project consistent with the mandatory and specific language within the General Plan.
The CEQA exemption (AB 130) also requires the City to include, as a condition of approval for the Project, that the applicant complete a phase I environmental assessment per Health and Safety Code section 78090 and take the specific steps enumerated in the statue if a recognized environmental condition is found and before a certificate of occupancy may issue. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66, subd. (c)(1)(A)- Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026
(D).) The conditions of approval adopted by the Design Review Officer omit this requirement, despite the Project site being used as an autobody repair shop. The conditions must be revised and substantial evidence provided before the City may legally rely on the proposed CEQA exemption.
B. Relevant Zoning Code provisions.
To find consistency with the zoning code as required by AB 130 (CEQA), the applicant must also incorporate a minimum step-back of six feet for all structures greater than three stories. (Zoning Code, § 18.14.040, subd. (F); see also, Figures 2-3 and 2-4.) This requirement is to break up the vertical, flat wall of a multi-story building, adding visual texture and separating different levels of a façade. The Project design must therefore be revised to reflect this mandatory requirement and to incorporate design features that are to scale and complementary with the existing adjacent residential uses.
Absent such effort, the Project remains inconsistent with the Zoning Code and ineligible for the CEQA exemption.
II. The Project is inconsistent with the April 2026 El Camino Real Specific Plan.
As noted above, the Project site, as well as our clients’ property, is located within the north side of the El Camino Real Focus Area identified in the General Plan and the Draft (April 2026) El Camino Real Specific Plan as shown below. (See Figure 5.4-2 [General Plan]; Figure 1-2 [Specific Plan].)
Figure 1- 2 . Specific Plan Area
L e g end
City Boundary
Plan Boundary
Parcels
4 I El Camino Real Specific Plan
Plan Parcels - Community Centers
Parks CiVIC Center
0 ------------➔ ,J;. 5 mffil.Jte walk
Creeks * Landmarks
Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026
As a policy matter, the City’s updated Adoption Draft (April 2026) El Camino Real Specific Plan also does not support the proposed Project as currently designed. As demonstrated by Table 4-3, below, the City proposes to be more fully protective of existing single family homes, where no portion of the building volume shall encroach into daylight plane starting six feet above grade at the property line and sloping upward at a 30 degree angle toward the interior of the lot.
In the past, when the sigle family homes were constructed, design standards would not allow the proposed Project. And in the future it looks like it will be the case per the Adopted Draft – April 2026 El Camino Real Specific Plan. Specifically, that this Project would not be allowed under the Specific Plan. So, why would the City approve a Project that would substantially hurt the character of the neighborhood and Santa Clara in the interim between these two standards? It is not right and the Council should not approve as currently proposed and our “asks” should be genuinly considered by the developer.
III. The applicant has not shown that the requested waivers and concessions are necessary to make the housing development economically feasible.
The Project as designed requires at least five waivers and two concessions from the City’s development standards as set forth in Table 2-12 of the zoning code. (Development Review Staff Report, Attachment 2.) The waivers include those needed to reduce the front and rear setbacks of Buildings 1 and 2, to increase the 40-foot height limitation to 44 feet for Buildings 1 and 2, and concessions to reduce the required commercial square footage and commercial floor area ratio (FAR) for Building 3. (See Table 4-3. Regional Commercial Mixed Use Height, Density, & Intens ity Standards Standards Regional Mixed Use
Height, Density, & Intensity u
Maximum Stories/Height to Top of Wall 70 ft (6 stories)2.3,4 .5 Minimum Commercial Floor Area Ratio 0.2
Maximum Dwelling Units per Acre 100 du/acre•
Minimum Dwelling Units per Acre 55du/acre
Minimum Commercial Ground Floor Area 50% of the ground floor along ECR parcel frontage. See Table 4-13.
Ground Floor Commercial Overlay Requirements.
Transitions Adjacent to Single-Fa.D1ily/ Duplex Res idential Maximum Height Adjacent to Single-Family and Duplex Residential Zoning District
Maximum Height Across the Street from Single-Family and Duplex Residential Zoning District6
Parcels on the Northe rn Side ofECR: No portion of the building volume shall encroach into a daylight plane starting six feet above grade at t h e property line and sloping upward at a 30-degree angle toward the interior of the lot.
Parcels on the Southern Side ofECR: No portion of the building volume shall encroach into a daylight plane starting six feet above grade at the property line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward the interior of the lot. (see Figure 4-19).
See also Neighborhood Transitions in Section 4.4.
At the setback line, the height of the roof plate· may be no taller than one story above the maximum height allowed in the opposing residential zone.
Behind the setback line, building heights may step up away from the street following a 45-degree angle measured from the roof plate (see Figure 4-22). See also Neighborhood Transitions in Section 4.4.
Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026
Development Review Staff Report Attachment 2: Project Data/Compliance (MixedUse).) Although unexplained in a staff report or other document made publicly available before the Development Review hearing, the waivers and concessions requested by the applicant are pursuant to Chapter 18.64 (Density Bonus and Affordable Housing) of the zoning code and the State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65915.) Those provisions, however, require substantial evidence that the:
waiver or reduction is necessary to make the housing development economically feasible, and that without the waiver the development standards would physically preclude the construction of the development that meets all other legal requirements . . .
(Zoning Code 18.64.120, subds. (A), emphasis added.)
In other words, the concessions and incentives sought by an applicant must corollate to actual cost reductions that result in the ability to provide for affordable housing and the costs associate with the affordable housing units included in a project. (See also, Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(1)(A) [City may deny a requested concession or incentive if the city makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that the concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs]; see also, Zoning Code, § 18.64.040, subd. (A)(1)(a) [“The Council shall grant an incentive or concession request . . . unless the Council . . . finds . . . [t]he incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs[]”].) The City Council therefore has discretion to grant the appeal and require the applicant to provide the actual cost of the 1 bedroom/1 bath ADUs and how the waivers and concessions requested are needed to cover the ADU costs.
When asked what substantial evidence exists in the record to support the requested concessions and waivers, staff provided only a two-page conclusory “Density Bonus Supplemental Form” (Form) that was submitted to the Community Development Department by the applicant with the Project application. There is no explanation or economic information provided by the applicant in response to the questions as required to support the requested waivers and concessions.
The only statements offered by the applicant in the Form are conclusory and lack any supporting evidence. (See Exhibit B, [Density Bonus Supplemental Form], p. 2 [asking for description of how each requested concession or incentive would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions for the project] and, for waivers, [describe how each requested waiver is necessary to allow the proposed project to accommodate the additional permitted density].) The Form alone is legally insufficient.
Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026
Because there is no such explanation or evidence included with the Form or elsewhere in the record (that we are aware), our client requests that the appeal be granted and the applicant be required to prove the need for the waivers and (commercial) concessions to provide for the affordable ADUs with substantial evidence.
IV. The Findings required to approve the Project are also not supported by substantial evidence.
Staff claims that the required Architectural Review findings can be made for the Project as designed. (See Agenda Report (June 17, 2026), pp. 3-4 (Staff Report); see also Zoning Code, § 18.120.020, subd. (F)(1)-(5).) Our clients respectfully disagree.
Specifically, finding 2 (that the development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments) and Finding 3 (that the design is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and not detrimental to the harmonious development contemplated by the Zoning Code and General Plan) - are not supported by evidence. The Project will, in fact, unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the existing residences (finding 2) by blocking sunlight and reducing buffer/setback areas. The Project design (finding 3) is also not at all in keeping with the scale and character of the existing Spanish Colonial Revival homes and harmonious neighborhood motif as previously required by staff of our client’s project and as required by the General Plan policies noted above.4
V. The Appeal should be granted and the Project revised.
Because substantial evidence does not support the Development Review Hearing Officer’s approval, our clients request that the City Council grant the appeal and require the applicant and staff to meet and confer with our clients on the following revisions to the Project and/or project conditions of approval:
(i) Reductions in the height and scale of Buildings 1 and 2 to three stories or, at the very least, requiring six foot step-backs if they remain four stories as required by section 18.14.040, subd. F of the zoning code. (See also, Figures 2-3 and 2-4.) Our clients propose that 2 to 3 stories is sufficient to accommodate the Project and ensure its fiscal viability; 4 The Staff Report (p. 4) claims the project reflects “contemporary Spanish architectural design” without any explanation or support. In our brief search, contemporary Spanish attached townhomes are generally three stories and look more like Melia Homes project in Anaheim: https://meliahomes.com/new-homes/ca/anaheim/townes-at-orange/#photogallery or the West Beach townhomes in Santa Barbara at:
https://www.cearnal.com/multi-family-housing/west-beach-townhomes Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026
(ii) Revisions to the multi-family building design to reflect the characteristics of the existing neighboring residences and buildings, including the use of wood trim windows and arches, including arched doors and windows rather than the modernistic glass box apartment style buildings proposed; (iii) Clarifying the conditions of approval to prohibit balconies that could be directly adjacent to existing residential uses on Civic Center Drive and Alviso Street, including residential uses that would be divided by masonry fences;
(iv) Require all setbacks of the Project to comply with existing MUCC zone requirements in Table 2-12 of the zoning code to buffer existing residential uses, rather than granting waivers; and
(v) Clarify the conditions of approval to restrict use of the commercial space to specific types of meetings by the public and HOA only, consistent with the applicant’s development plans.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our clients’ comments and concerns. Please provide me with email notice of all future public hearing notices and notices issued for the Project, including any notices of exemption (NOE) filed pursuant to CEQA and public hearing agenda notices under the Brown Act.
Very truly yours,
Andrea K. Leisy
Encl. Exhibit A – June 17, 2026 Comment Letter
Exhibit B – Density Bonus Supplemental Form
Cc: Michael Fisher
ATTACHMENT A
June 17, 2026
Via Email Only
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sheldon Ah Sing
Development Review Officer
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: Development Review Hearing - Agenda Item 4 (June 17, 2026) (PLN24-00533) 860/858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Dear Mr. Ah Sing,
We submit this letter on behalf of our clients, Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, who reside near the above-referenced proposed project and who worked for years with City of Santa Clara (City) staff to restore their existing two story Spanish Colonial Revival home, originally built in 1935, and to develop the adjoining property in a complementary style at the City’s request. 1
Now, ten years later, the City appears poised to approve the above referenced project at 860/858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street (the Project) despite it being devoid of any complementary architectural style or scale with the existing developing neighborhood. Our clients therefore request that, after considering these comments, you decline to approve the Project and instead direct staff and the applicant to work in good faith with our client and neighbors to address their concerns.
I. Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), the hearing must be postponed and the agenda revised to include the City’s proposed CEQA exemption as an “item of business.”
In addition to approving the architectural review, the meeting agenda recommends that the Project be found exempt from any environmental review otherwise required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and pursuant to AB 130. The characterization of AB 130 as the exemption, however, does not notify the public of the specific statutory or categorical 1 / More about their home may be found at: https://www.svvoice.com/spanish-colonialrevival-featured-home-in-santa-claras-historic-home-tour/ Andrea K. Leisy
[email protected]
RMM
REMY MOO SE MANLEY LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Sacramento CA 95814 I Phone: (916) 443-2745 I Fax: (916) 443-90 17 I www.rmmenvirolaw.com Sheldon Ah Sing
Development Review Officer
June 17, 2026
exemption the City proposes to rely on under CEQA for the Project approval. The Meeting Agenda therefore makes it impossible for a layperson to identify whether the proposed CEQA exemption is, in fact, appropriate for the proposed Project to exhaust all administrative remedies that might otherwise be required under CEQA and for the City to comply with the Brown Act. 2
The Brown Act requires a public agency’s posted agenda to include a description of each item of business to be considered at a legislative body’s meeting at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. (Gov. Code, § 54954.2, subd. (a)(1).) This requirement applies unless the legislative body makes certain determinations, none of which exist here. (See Id., § 54954.2, subd. (b).) The Brown Act states that “[n]o action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda....” (See § 54954.2, subd. (a)(2).) In adopting the Brown Act, the Legislature declared that:
[T]he public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
(Gov. Code, § 54950.) 3
The City’s Meeting Agenda for June 17th does not meet the Brown Act’s requirements. It must be revised to include the specific CEQA exemption the City proposes to rely on in approving the Project and the record must reflect substantial evidence supporting reliance on the exemption prior to considering approval of the Project.
If, for example, the City intends to rely on the statutory exemption provided by Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which the reference to AB 130 presumably refers to, substantial evidence must be provided in the record that all the requirements of 2 See Attachment A, Court of Appeal opinion in the matter of G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks finding the city violated the Brown Act by omitting, from the public hearing agenda, the specific CEQA exemptions proposed to be relied on by the city council for a project.
3 See also San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167 [finding county violated the Brown Act by considering and adopting a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a project subject to CEQA without first expressly including the item in the posted agenda for the Planning Commission as an individual item of business].
Sheldon Ah Sing
Development Review Officer
June 17, 2026
that exemption have been met. This includes ensuring that formal notice has been provided to all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, among other requirements. The materials provided for the meeting on Wednesday fall short of these mandates if, in fact, that is the exemption the City proposes. Again, the Meeting Agenda must be clarified to specify the precise exemption.
For private projects, as here, a public agency must comply with CEQA for the “whole of the action,” or Project, at the earliest discretionary approval. The proposed approval of the architectural review and adoption of a proposed Notice of Exemption (NOE), as here, triggers the need for the City to ensure compliance with CEQA for all of the proposed Project entitlements and approvals, including the tentative map, and tree removal permit. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21065, 21159.27; CEQA Guidelines, § 15352.)
II. The Project is inconsistent with the City’s zoning code.
A. Substantial evidence supporting waiver of development standards is lacking.
The Project applicant proposes two four story (44’ tall) buildings with 14 market rate townhomes and one three story building (Building 3) consisting of 2 affordable units and proposed as accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Project applicant requests several waivers from applicable development standards set forth in Table 2-12 of the zoning code. The waivers include those needed to reduce the front and rear setbacks of Buildings 1 and 2, to increase the 40-foot height limitation to 44 feet for Buildings 1 and 2, and to reduce the required commercial square footage and commercial floor area ratio (FAR) for Building 3. (See Attachment 2: Project Data/Compliance (Mixed-Use) prepared by staff.)
Although unexplained in a staff report or other document made publicly available for the hearing, it appears the waivers requested by the applicant may be pursuant to Chapter 18.64 (Density Bonus and Affordable Housing) of the zoning code. That section, however, requires substantial evidence that the:
waiver or reduction is necessary to make the housing development economically feasible, and that without the waiver the development standards would physically preclude the construction of the development that meets all other legal requirements . . .
(Zoning Code 18.64.120, subds. (A), emphasis added.)
What substantial evidence has been provided by the applicant to support the requested waivers? Where is the explanation of how/why this Project is eligible for the Density Bonus Law, if it is? Our client requests answers to these questions and that a Sheldon Ah Sing
Development Review Officer
June 17, 2026
copy of any substantial evidence supporting the waiver requests be made publicly available.
If there is no such explanation or evidence, our client requests that the Project as proposed be denied. (See § 18.64.040, subd. (A)(1)(a) [“The Council shall grant an incentive or concession request . . . unless the Council . . . finds . . . [t]he incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs[]”].)
B. The Project design is inconsistent with the zoning code and adjacent residential uses.
The zoning code requires a minimum step-back of six feet for all structures greater than three stories. (§ 18.14.040, subd. (F); see also, Figures 2-3 and 2-4.) This requirement is to break up the vertical, flat wall of a multi-story building, adding visual texture and separating different levels of a façade. As requested below, the Project design should be revised to reflect this mandatory requirement and to incorporate design features that are to scale and complementary with the existing adjacent residential uses.
III. The Project should be revised.
Our clients request a good-faith meeting with the applicant to discuss the following revisions to the Project and/or project conditions of approval:
(i) Reductions in the height and scale of Buildings 1 and 2 to three stories or, at the very least, requiring six foot step-backs if they remain four stories as required by section 18.14.040, subd. F of the zoning code. (See also, Figures 2-3 and 2-4.) Our clients propose that 2 to 3 stories is sufficient to accommodate the Project and ensure its fiscal viability; (ii) Revisions to the multi-family building design to reflect the characteristics of the existing neighboring residences and buildings, including the use of wood trim windows and arches, including arched doors and windows rather than the modernistic glass box buildings proposed. The proposed buildings appear more suited for downtown Los Angeles rather than the City of Santa Clara;
(iii) Clarifying the conditions of approval to prohibit balconies that could be directly adjacent to existing residential uses on Civic Center Drive and Alviso Street, including residential uses that would be divided by masonry fences;
(iv) Require all setbacks of the Project to comply with existing MUCC zone requirements in Table 2-12 of the zoning code to buffer existing residential uses, rather than granting waivers; and
Sheldon Ah Sing
Development Review Officer
June 17, 2026
(v) Clarify the conditions of approval to restrict use of the commercial space for meetings by the public and HOA only, consistent with the applicant’s development plans.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our clients’ comments and concerns. Please provide me with email notice of all future public hearing notices and notices issued for the Project, including any notices of exemption (NOE) or notices of determination (NOD) filed pursuant to CEQA and notices under the Brown Act.
Very truly yours,
Andrea K. Leisy
Encl. Attachment A
Cc: Michael Fisher
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
G.I. INDUSTRIES,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
et al.,
Defendant and Respondent;
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES,
INC.,
Real Party in Interest.
2d Civ. No. B337103
(Super. Ct. No. 56-2021-
00554581-CU-WM-VTA)
(Ventura County)
A city violated the Brown Act (Gov. Code,1 § 54950 et seq.).
It found that a franchise agreement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et 1 All statutory references are to the Government Code
unless stated otherwise.
&28572)$33($/²6(&21'',67
(9$0F&/,172&., Clerk
Deputy Clerk
Aug 05, 2025
S. Claborn
FIL JED
2 seq.). But it did not give adequate public notice. The trial court found that under an exception in the Brown Act, the city’s action is not null and void, and that the Brown Act violation was not prejudicial. We reverse on both grounds and conclude the city’s action, finding the franchise agreement exempt from CEQA, is null and void.
FACTS
G.I. Industries, doing business as Waste Management
(WM), provided solid waste management for the City of Thousand Oaks (City).
The City was considering entering into a new exclusive
solid waste franchise agreement with ArakelianEnterprises, Inc., doing business as Athens Services (Athens). The franchise agreement was for a 15-year term beginning January 1, 2022, and ending December 31, 2036 (the franchise agreement).
On March 4, 2021, the City posted an agenda for a regular meeting of the City council to be held on March 9, 2021. An item on the agenda stated that the City would consider awarding the franchise agreement to Athens, along with a note that the City’s staff recommended approval. One item that was not listed on the City’s agenda was that the City would also consider whether the franchise agreement is exempt from CEQA. Nor did the agenda include the City staff’s recommendation that the City find the franchise agreement to be categorically exempt.
On March 5, 2021, WM submitted a comment letter to the
City raising WM’s concern that the City had not considered potentially adverse environmental impacts if the new franchise agreement were approved.
It was not until 3:30 p.m. on March 9, 2021, the day of the City council meeting, that a supplemental item was posted giving 3 notice of the staff’s recommendation that the City find the franchise agreement to be exempt from CEQA. The posting included a supplemental information packet with the City staff’s recommendation for the exemptions. The staff found the
franchise award to be categorically exempt pursuant to the Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq. under the “existing facilities” and “actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment” exemptions. (Id., §§ 15301, 15308.) The staff also found the franchise agreement exempt under the so-called “common sense” exemption. (Id., § 15061, subd. (b)(3).) At the March 9, 2021, City council meeting, the City
approved the franchise agreement and found it was exempt from CEQA. On April 8, 2021, WM sent the City a “cure or correct” letter pursuant to section 54960.1, subdivision (b), objecting to the CEQA exemption decision without 72 hours’ notice as required by section 54954.2 of the Brown Act. The City elected not to cure or correct the challenged action.
Petition for Writ of Mandate
WM petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate
directing the City to vacate both its approval of the franchise agreement and its finding that it is exempt from CEQA. Athens was joined as the real party in interest. The petition alleged that the City violated section 54954.2 of the Brown Act by voting to adopt the CEQA exemptions as an agenda item at least 72 hours prior to the City council meeting.
The City and Athens demurred to the complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court agreed with WM that the CEQA exemption is an item of business separate from approval of the franchise agreement. The court however, also concluded, that because CEQA does not require a 4 public hearing for an exemption determination, the Brown Act does not apply.
First Appeal
On WM’s first appeal, we reversed the judgment. We held that WM’s petition alleged facts sufficient to show the City violated the Brown Act, section 54954.2, subdivision (a)(1) by considering a CEQA exemption without a 72-hour agenda notice.
We also held that WM’s “cure and correct” letter substantially complied with section 54960.1, subdivision (b), requiring a demand that a legislative body cure and correct an alleged violation, prior to commencing an action. (G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks et al. (Oct. 26, 2022, B317201) opn. ordered nonpub. Feb. 15, 2023.)
Trial Court Ruling on Remand
The trial court again denied WM’s petition. The court
found that the City violated the Brown Act, but section 54960.1, subdivision (d)(3) provides an exception to nullification for actions that give rise to contracts on which a party detrimentally relied; and WM failed to show prejudice because WM and others were permitted to submit comments about the CEQA exemption and those comments were understood and considered by the City.
DISCUSSION
I. The Brown Act
The Brown Act begins with a declaration of purpose: “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the People’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.” (§ 54950.)
5 To effectuate this purpose, section 54954.2, subdivision (a)(1) provides in part: “At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.” The public has the right to address the local agency.
Section 54954.3, subdivision (a) provides in part: “Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda. . . .” Any interested person may petition the trial court for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an act taken in violation of section 54954.2 is null and void. (§ 54960.1, subd. (a).)
The Brown Act is supported by the California Constitution.
Article I, section 3, subdivision (b), paragraphs (1) and (2) of the California Constitution provide in part:
“(1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and writing of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
“(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.”
6 II. Exception to Null and Void Declaration
The trial court found the City violated section 54954.2, subdivision (a) of the Brown Act by failing to post an agenda item at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at which the CEQA exemption was found.
Ordinarily such a violation would require the trial court to declare the City’s action null and void. (§ 54960.1, subd. (a).) But the court cited an exception to the null and void requirement.
Section 54960.1, subdivision (d)(3) provides that an action of a local agency shall not be declared null and void if: “The action taken gave rise to a contractual obligation, including a contract let by competitive bid . . . upon which a party has, in good faith and without notice of a challenge to the validity of the action, detrimentally relied.”
The trial court found that the exception applied, stating:
“Athens and City were contractually obliged to undertake significant tasks in order to transition waste hauling services performed by WM under the prior contract to the same services to be performed by Athens under the [franchise agreement]. A significant number of these substantial efforts occurred before April 8, 2021 [date of cure or correct letter].”
But at the March 9, 2021, City council meeting at which the CEQA exemption was passed, at least one speaker gave notice of the Brown Act violation, complete with citation to appropriate authority. The speaker said: “The City [council] should not take action to award the [franchise] agreement tonight. The Brown Act requires the City to include in its agenda the City’s proposed CEQA action prior to approving the award. [¶] In a 2013 published case entitled San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, available at 216 Cal.App.4th 1167 7 [Merced County] was found to have violated the Brown Act for failing to include consideration of a mitigated, negative declaration as part of its public agenda. [¶] The [council’s] poised to make the same unfortunate mistake here tonight if it takes action rather than vote to continue the item.”
The City and Athens had ample notice of the precise Brown Act violation at issue here before any work had been performed in reliance on the franchise agreement. The speaker’s statement gave “notice of a challenge to the validity of the action.” (§ 54960.1, subd. (d)(3).) In fact, the speaker’s statement was itself a challenge to the validity of the action.
Moreover, WM points out that section 54960.1, subdivision (c)(1) gives a challenger 30 days in which to make a written cure and correct demand, but the trial court’s ruling rendered the statutory period for challenging the City’s action meaningless.
Athens knew or should have known a challenge could have been made at any time during the 30-day period. Athens cannot reasonably rely on any work performed prior to the expiration of that period. Accordingly, the exception under section 54960.1 does not apply.
III. Prejudice
WM contends the trial court erred in finding the City’s Brown Act violation was not prejudicial.
Here the City placed the CEQA exemption on its meeting
agenda two and one-half hours before the meeting. For all practical purposes, that is no notice. The trial court
acknowledged that one speaker requested the CEQA matter be continued. The obvious purpose for the continuance was to give speakers an opportunity to respond to the staff’s CEQA
exemption recommendation. WM was also denied the
8 opportunity to speak at the meeting. WM claims it has additional information relevant to the CEQA exemption that it was prevented from presenting because of lack of notice. WM is likely the party most knowledgeable about solid waste operations within the City. What information other potential speakers might have presented had they been given notice is unknown. The problem with basing an analysis of prejudice on information the City had is that it is impossible to tell what opposing information the City might have had if notice had been given.
The Brown Act is intended to promote the important
policies of transparency in government and public participation.
Lack of prejudice should not be easily found.
In Fowler v. City of Lafayette (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 360 (Fowler), property owners applied to the city for a permit to construct what they described as a “tennis cabaña” on their property. (Id. at p. 364.) Neighbors objected. The city’s planning commission considered the matter at four meetings prior to approving the project. The neighbors appealed to the city council.
The city council considered the matter at four additional meetings. While the appeal was pending before the city council the applicants’ attorney threatened the city with litigation if it did not approve the project. The city considered the threat of litigation in closed sessions without proper agenda notice. The neighbors were unaware of the closed session meetings until after the project was approved. The neighbors brought an action to nullify the approval on the ground that the closed sessions were not on the city council’s agenda. The Court of Appeal held the Brown Act violations harmless. The court pointed out that the action the neighbors sought to nullify was the approval, not the closed sessions. The project application was considered at four 9 open meetings at which it was extensively discussed. The court concluded there was no reasonable argument that the neighbors lacked a fair opportunity to present their case. (Id. at p. 372.) Fowler states the proper standard for determining
prejudice: whether members of the public had a fair opportunity to present their case. (Fowler, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 372.) The standard reflects the purposes of the Brown Act. WM and other members of the public did not have an opportunity to present their case due to lack of notice. Unlike Fowler, there was no other public meeting at which the CEQA exemption was discussed. In focusing on the information the City had, instead of whether members of the public had a fair opportunity to present their case, the trial court applied the wrong standard.
The trial court placed much emphasis on a letter WM sent to the City council prior to the meeting anticipating that the City would rely on one or more CEQA exemptions. But the Brown Act requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, not only by the City council, but by the public. A letter sent to the City council is not an adequate substitute. The Brown Act requires the opportunity to speak at a public meeting.
The City points out that CEQA does not require a public hearing for a determination that a project is exempt. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139
Cal.App.4th 1356, 1385.) But the Brown Act as applied to a CEQA exemption decision does not require a formal public hearing where the findings must be supported by substantial evidence. All the Brown Act requires is, before formal action is taken on it, the exemption be placed on the meeting agenda and an opportunity for the public to comment.
10 Here the City’s violation of the Brown Act is not harmless.
Accordingly, the City’s action in finding the franchise agreement exempt from CEQA is null and void.
IV. Attorney Fees
WM contends it is entitled to attorney fees as the
prevailing party.
Section 54960.5 provides in part: “A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to Section . . . 54960.1 . . . where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency has violated this chapter.”
WM acknowledges that section 54960.5 provides the court “may” award attorney fees. It cites Los Angeles Times
Communications v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1327, for the proposition that attorney fees and costs can be denied “only if the defendant shows that special circumstances exist that would make such an award unjust.” Nevertheless, the most appropriate resolution is to remand the matter to the trial court so that it can decide the issue of attorney fees.
DISPOSITION
The Brown Act requires notice and an opportunity for the public to speak on issues before the City council. The City council shall place the CEQA exemption on its agenda with proper notice and allow the public to voice its opinion.
Whatever action the City council takes thereafter, we leave to its discretion. We trust it will not result in further Brown Act issues.
11 The judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court to decide whether attorney fees are appropriate.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:
BALTODANO, J.
CODY, J.
Matthew P. Guasco, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Remy Moose Manley, James G. Moose, Andrea K. Leisy and
Nathan O. George; Law Offices of Joel Franklin, Joel Franklin, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Holly O. Whatley and
Carmen A. Brock, for Defendants and Respondents.
Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, Benjamin G. Shatz, Viral
Mehta, Sigrid R. Waggener, and Jennifer Lynch, for Real Party in Interest.
ATTACHMENT B
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Density Bonus Supplemental Form
When using density bonus law (Chapter 18.64 of the Santa Clara City Code and/or California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918), you shall submit this supplemental form in conjunction with your development application.
I. Project Information
Project Address:
Project Description:
Question Number
Baseline Density. Maximum allowed number of units at the subject property:
Proposed number of restricted affordable units for very-low-income (up to 50% AMI) households:
Proposed number of restricted affordable units for lower-income (51 – 80% AMI) households:
Proposed number of restricted affordable units for moderate income (81 – 120% AMI) households:
Proposed number of senior citizen housing units:
Proposed number of moderate-income households in a common interest development:
Proposed number of restricted affordable units for Transitional Foster Youth, Disabled Veterans, or Homeless Persons:
Proposed number of restricted affordable units for Lower Income Students in a student housing development:
Proposed number or condominium conversions where at least 33% of the proposed condominiums are affordable to low or moderate income, or 15% will be affordable to lower-income households:
Proposed number of housing with childcare facilities:
Proposed land donation acreage?
Explain:
Rev. (01/26) Page 1
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Density Bonus Supplemental Form
Question Number
Total number of Inclusionary Units proposed:
Percentage of restricted affordable units in the proposed project:
Total number of residential units in the proposed project:
II. Requested Concessions/Waivers/Reductions
Concessions & Incentives
Please list the concessions and incentives (the project is eligible for) the project is seeking and describe how each requested concession or incentive would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions for the project.
Waivers
Please list any waivers the project is seeking and describe how each requested waiver is necessary to allow the proposed project to accommodate the additional permitted density.
Reduced Parking
If you are seeking a reduction in parking pursuant to Government Code 65915(p), indicate the number of spaces proposed per bedroom and the criteria proposed for the reduction. Provide the walking distance from the project site to the nearest transit stop on the vicinity map of your planning application plans.
Rev. (01/26) Page 2
Density Bonus Supplemental Form
Contact Information
Planning Division: 408-615-2450 | Email: [email protected] Rev. (01/26) Page 3
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone 408-615-2450 ● Fax: 408-247-9857 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Community Development
Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
The appellants’ attorney prepared an appeal letter provided as Attachment 4. Staff has prepared responses to the main points below.
I. Appellants challenge the City’s use of the statutory exemption to CEQA under AB 130 (2025), alleging that the Project is not consistent with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, and therefore is not eligible to utilize the exemption.
AB 130, enacted in 2025, added a statutory CEQA exemption for qualifying multifamily development projects. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, the exemption applies if a proposed project meets the following criteria:
a) The project site must be not be more than 20 acres. Here, the project site is 0.61 acres. b) The project site must be located within an incorporated municipality. Here, it is within the incorporated municipality of the City of Santa Clara. c) The project site must have been previously developed with an urban use, and adjoin other urban uses. The project site meets these requirements. d) The project must be consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan. Here, the use is authorized by both the MU-CC zoning and CMU General Plan designation, and meets all objective development standards not subject to a waiver or concession. e) The project density must meet the minimum density requirement set forth in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), which is 15 du/ac. Here, the density is 26.2 du/ac. f) The project cannot be located in various sensitive habitats listed in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), meaning the project site must not be located in a coastal zone, on farmland or wetlands, on a hazmat site, within an earthquake fault zone, within a special flood hazard area or regulatory floodway, on lands subject to a conservation plan, within habitat for special species, or on lands under a conservation easement.
Here, the project site is not in any of those sensitive locations. g) The project must not demolish historic structures on the national, state, or local register.
No historic structures are proposed to be demolished.
h) The project cannot be a hotel, motel, or transient lodging. No such use is proposed. i) As a condition of approval, the project must prepare a Phase I Environmental Assessment. The Project has been conditioned to require the Assessment. j) The City must provide notice to traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes and, if consultation is requested, conduct the consultation process required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(b). This process was completed on July 31, 2025. The City met with the Tamien Nation and Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.
The Appellants disagree with the City’s determination for criterion c) above: that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning District.
A. Relevant General Plan Goals and Policies.
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
The appeal letter states that a prerequisite of AB 130 is that public agency is required to ensure that substantial evidence supports the finding that a project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development is consistent. The letter argues that the project falls short in that it does not analyze or discuss “substantial evidence” in the record explaining how the project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies or zoning so that “a reasonable person may not conclude that the project is consistent based on the conclusory statements.” Staff response: Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(4)(A) supplies the governing consistency standard. A housing development project is deemed consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the project is consistent. The question, therefore, is whether the record contains evidence sufficient to satisfy that statutory reasonable-person standard.
The project was reviewed against the Zoning Code and General Plan. The June 17, 2026, Development Review Hearing staff report includes the following sections that analyze the project against the Zoning Code to include the facts of the project, provide reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert Planning opinion supported by facts: Project Data, Points for Consideration, and Findings Supporting Staff’s Recommendation. The Project Data section includes the Project Data and Compliance Table as an Attachment that analyzes the project against the zoning code development standards such as setbacks and heights. The Points of Consideration section includes the project’s background, site layout and design, building architecture, circulation and parking, and landscaping and open space analysis. The Findings section provides staff’s evaluation of the project’s consistency with the findings in Code Section 18.120.020(F). Furthermore, the staff report provides information on how the project is subject to the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, which allows the applicant to use State density bonus law to seek waivers and concessions. The requested waivers and concessions are listed in the staff report and in the project data and compliance table, as well as stated in staff presentation. A staff presentation was also provided at DRH to assess the project against the Zoning Code and General Plan. Taken together, the staff report, attachments, plans, and hearing presentation constitute record evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that the Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning provisions, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(4)(A).
Despite this evidence, the Appellants argue that a reasonable person “could not” conclude that there is “substantial” evidence in support of General Plan consistency, based on a series of qualitative policies in the General Plan, including 5.4.1 – G2 (“High quality design that respects the scale and character of adjacent residential neighborhoods and historic resources and creates a walkable environment”), 5.4.1-P5 (“Provide appropriate transition between new development in the [El Camino Real] Focus Area and adjacent uses consistent with General Plan Transition Policies.”); and 5.4.1-P6 (“Encourage lower profile development, in areas designated for Community Mixed Use in order to minimize land use conflicts with existing neighborhoods.”).
Public Resource Code Section 21080.66(a)(4)(A) does state that the project shall be consistent with applicable portions of the general plan and zoning ordinance. But significantly, under ----
Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
subparagraph (C), it clarifies that the approval of concessions and/or density bonus waivers or reduction of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance. Accordingly, to the extent the Appellants rely on the Project’s requested waivers for height, upper-story stepbacks, or setbacks as evidence of inconsistency, those departures cannot serve as the basis for an inconsistency determination.
The remaining qualitative policy concerns must be evaluated against the record as a whole, including the evidence regarding site layout, building articulation, transitions, landscaping and open space, and the division of the Project among three buildings.
In their appeal, the Appellants also state that page 5-128 of the General Plan requires a geotechnical investigation before a development permit can be granted, due to seismic and liquefaction risks.
Staff response: Page 5-128 does reference the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which requires a geotechnical analysis for many types of development projects. The City does not have the discretion to waive the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act; nor is it doing so for this project. Condition BD4 of the architectural review also required the Applicant to provide the mandatory geotechnical data, and the Applicant will be expected to comply with its obligations under Condition BD4 and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.
The appeal letter also states that the CEQA exemption under AB 130 requires the City to include, as a condition of approval for the Project, that the applicant complete a Phase I environmental assessment per Health and Safety Code section 78090.
Staff response: Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(1)(A) requires the local government, as a condition of approval, to require the development proponent to complete a Phase I environmental assessment as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 78090. The Conditions of Approval include Fire Department Condition F2.b addressing the Phase I Environmental Assessment. The final condition should expressly satisfy the requirement in Section 21080.66(c)(1)(A).
B. Relevant Zoning Code provisions.
The appeal letter goes on to argue that the project is inconsistent with the zoning code, because it does not comply with the minimum step-back of six feet for all structures greater than three stories.
Staff response: As explained above, Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(4)(C) provides that approval of a density bonus, incentive or concession, waiver or reduction of development standards, or reduced parking ratio pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 is not a ground for determining that a project is inconsistent with the Zoning Code. The Project requests a waiver of the multistory stepback requirement. Approval of that waiver therefore does not, by itself, make the Project inconsistent with the Zoning Code for purposes of Section 21080.66.
Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
II. The Appellants argue that the project is inconsistent with the El Camino Real Specific Plan.
On pages 5 and 6 of their appeal letter, the Appellants cite to alleged inconsistencies with the recently adopted El Camino Real Specific Plan.
Staff Response: The El Camino Real Specific Plan had not been adopted when the proposed project’s application was deemed complete and cleared by the Project Clearance Committee.
The application was deemed complete and cleared on April 14, 2026 by the Project Clearance Committee. The El Camino Real Specific Plan was adopted by City Council on May 19, 2026.
Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”), Government Code Section 65589.5(o), a multifamily residential project must be against the applicable objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design-review standards in effect when the application was deemed complete.
Accordingly, development standards first adopted through the May 2026 Specific Plan do not apply and cannot be used as the standards against which the City may evaluate this Project for purposes of HAA disapproval or reduced-density review.
III. The Appellants argue that the City should have required additional evidence before granting the requested waivers and concessions.
The appellants’ letter challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the use of waivers and a concession.
Concession/incentive: The project is utilizing one concession to reduce the amount of commercial square footage for the project. The appellants argue that there needs to be additional evidence that the concession will result in “actual” cost reductions. The appellant is asking the City Council to require the “actual cost of the 1 bedroom/1bath ADUs and how the waivers and concessions requested are needed to cover the ADU costs.” The appeal letter also states that no explanation or economic information is provided by the applicant or requested by the City.
Staff response: The requested concession concerns a reduction in the otherwise-required commercial Floor Area Ratio; it is not a concession for the ADUs. The relevant inquiry is therefore whether the commercial-FAR concession qualifies under Government Code Section 65915, not the actual cost of the individual ADUs.
A reduction in a square-footage requirement or other zoning requirement may qualify as an incentive or concession under Government Code Section 65915, subdivision (k), when it results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents for the targeted units.
With respect to the commercial square footage, the concession will reduce the cost of developing the Project, including the cost attributable to providing the Project's affordable units, by avoiding the construction of additional commercial floor area that is not necessary to accommodate the residential component of the Project and that the Applicant's market analysis indicates is not reasonably supportable at this location. The Project Site has an unusual and Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
constrained configuration, with a narrow northern leg extending to Alviso Street and the larger portion of the Site situated behind that frontage. Consequently, only a limited portion of the Site has the street exposure, visibility, and direct pedestrian access ordinarily associated with viable commercial space.
The Project responds to these conditions by locating approximately 795 square feet of commercial/meeting space in Building 3 at the Alviso Street frontage, where such space has the greatest public visibility and accessibility. Requiring the full amount of otherwise-required commercial floor area would require additional nonresidential construction in portions of the Site with substantially less commercial exposure and would increase construction and development costs that could otherwise be devoted to the residential development, including the affordable units.
The City must grant a requested concession or incentive unless it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that one of the grounds in Government Code Section 65915(d)(1) applies. Those grounds include that the concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions consistent with subdivision (k); that it would cause a specific adverse impact on public health and safety or on property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households; or that the concession would be contrary to state or federal law. Here, the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting a statutory finding that would permit denial of the requested concession.
State law does not require the Applicant to prove that a requested concession is necessary to make the overall Project economically feasible. Nor may the City condition review or approval on an additional report or study not otherwise required by law. If the City Council decides to approve the appeal to reject the concession, the City Council will need to make a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k) of the Density Bonus Law.
Waivers. The applicant requested waivers to reduce the front and rear setbacks, reduce the multistory stepback requirements, and to increase the building height. The appellants argue that there is insufficient evidence justifying the need for these waivers.
With respect to the setback reductions, the Project Site has an unusual and constrained configuration consisting of a relatively narrow northern portion extending to Alviso Street and a larger, irregularly configured southern development area. The available building envelopes are further constrained by the physical space required for internal vehicular circulation and garage access, pedestrian and emergency access, parking, landscaping, stormwater facilities, utility access, and common and private open space. Imposing the full otherwise-required front and rear setbacks would further contract those already-constrained building envelopes and remove floor area necessary to accommodate the residential units proposed as part of the Density Bonus Project.
Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
The plans demonstrate that the requested setback reductions are necessary to fit the Project's residential buildings within the available portions of the Site while maintaining required circulation and other site functions. Requiring compliance with the otherwise-applicable setbacks would require the residential buildings to be shifted or reduced in a manner that would physically eliminate residential floor area and units and thereby preclude construction of the Project as proposed at the density permitted under Government Code section 65915.
With respect to the multistory stepback reductions, the Project utilizes relatively narrow townhouse floor plates. Because the units are vertically organized, requiring the upper levels to step back from the floors below would remove a substantial portion of the usable floor area of those upper levels. The resulting loss cannot reasonably be replaced by enlarging the building footprints because the available ground-level building envelopes are constrained by the irregular shape of the Site, property-line setbacks, internal vehicular and emergency circulation, parking, pedestrian access, landscaping, stormwater facilities, utilities, and open-space requirements.
Application of the stepback requirement would therefore require significant reductions in the size of individual dwelling units and, in portions of the Project, elimination or reconfiguration of dwelling units. The standard would consequently physically preclude construction of the Project as proposed at the density permitted pursuant to the Density Bonus Law.
The Project also incorporates architectural features that reduce the apparent mass of the buildings notwithstanding the requested stepback waiver, including variations in wall planes and materials, fenestration, balconies and roof terraces, and articulated roof and cornice elements.
These design features are not the legal basis for the waiver, but they demonstrate that waiver of the stepback standard does not result in an unarticulated building form.
Finally, with respect to the increased height, the irregular configuration of the Project Site materially limits the amount of residential floor area that can be accommodated horizontally. The building footprints are also constrained by the need to provide internal access and circulation, garages and parking, pedestrian and emergency access, landscaping, stormwater facilities, utilities, and common open space. The Project therefore accommodates a portion of its residential floor area vertically.
Reducing the buildings to the otherwise-applicable maximum height would eliminate upper-level residential floor area that cannot be relocated within the constrained building footprints.
Compliance with the height limitation would consequently require the reduction or elimination of dwelling units or residential floor area and would physically preclude construction of the Project as proposed at the density permitted under Government Code section 65915.
The requested waiver is limited to the additional height necessary to accommodate the proposed residential development. The Project is divided among three separate buildings rather than a single continuous building mass, and the elevations incorporate architectural articulation, variations in materials and wall planes, roof elements, balconies, and terraces that reduce the apparent scale of the structures.
Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
The requested waivers would not result in a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety for which there is no feasible method of mitigation or avoidance, would not adversely impact property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and would not be contrary to state or federal law. A waiver is required where application of a development standard would physically preclude construction of the qualifying project at the density or with the incentives or concessions permitted under the Density Bonus Law. The City cannot require the developer to remove amenities or redesign the project merely to eliminate the need for the waiver.
Accordingly, these development standards must be waived or reduced to the extent necessary to permit construction of the Project pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(e).
IV. The Appellants Also Argue that the findings required to approve the Architectural Review are also not supported by substantial evidence.
The appeal letter argues that the Findings 2 and 3 of the Architectural Review cannot be made because, in the Appellants’ view, the Project would “unreasonable interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring development” and is not “in keeping with the character of neighborhood” and “detrimental to the harmonious development.” Staff response: The staff report for June 17, 2026, DRH included staff’s analysis of each finding for the Architectural approval. Staff has expanded its discussion of Findings 2 and 3 in the Appeal staff report to respond to the appellant’s concerns. Findings 2 and 3 use qualitative terms such as “use and enjoyment,” “in keeping with the character,” and “harmonious development.”
However, under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code § 65589.5, if a housing development project complies with the applicable objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design-review standards and criteria in effect when the application was deemed complete, after application of waivers and concessions, the City can disapprove the project only if it makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, establishing both of the following:
Specific adverse public-health or safety impact. The project would cause a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” unless it is denied or reduced in density. The statute defines that as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public-health or safety standards, policies, or conditions that existed when the application was deemed complete. No feasible mitigation. There is no feasible way to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that impact other than denying the project or requiring it to be built at a lower density.
Although the Appellants may disagree with the City’s conclusions about the subjective criteria in the architectural review findings, the HAA does not permit subjective compatibility criteria to operate as additional development standards for disapproving or reducing the density of an otherwise objectively compliant housing development project. The City may nevertheless make the locally required Architectural Review findings where the record supports them, and the evidence supporting those findings is identified in the agenda report.
Staff Response to Appeal Letter (PLN26-00318)
V. The Appellants ask that the Project be Revised.
The appellants request that the City Council overturn the DRO’s approval and require the applicant to redesign the project as requested by the appellant.
Staff response: The appellants ask that the Project be redesigned to reduce height and increase setbacks, which are development standards for which the applicant has requested waivers under the Density Bonus Law. As described above, strict application of those standards would physically preclude construction of the project at the allowable density, and the City cannot require redesign merely to avoid an otherwise-required waiver.
In addition, the appellants requested changes to specific architectural details, including woodtrim windows and arches, and modification of the balcony condition. Staff concludes that the current architectural design is of high quality and compatible with surrounding developments, for the reasons identified in the Architectural Review findings and supporting record.
Finally, the appellants wanted to constrain the uses allowed in the commercial space. The range of permitted commercial uses is not within the scope of this Architectural Review appeal.
From: Meha Patel
To: "michael fisher"
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sheldon Ah Sing; Mayor and Council; Greg Wayland; Steve Le
Subject: RE: PLN24-00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 4:39:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Michael,
We understand your frustrations. I am happy to meet with you in-person or virtually, if that works better with your schedule, on Tuesday to explain the Development Review Process, State housing laws, and the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Thank you,
Meha Patel | Associate Planner
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
D: 408.615.2454 | E: [email protected]
From: michael fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 10:26 AM
To: Meha Patel <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sheldon Ah Sing <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council <[email protected]>; Greg Wayland <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PLN24-00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Meha - I can try to meet remotely at 3:00 today. I am driving down to LA and should arrive by then. If not I will pull over for a brief conversation.
Another thought is I can drive home early Tuesday and we can meet Tuesday afternoon.
Thoughts:
1) I’m very angry.
2) the city mistreated me to the magnitude of hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional expense under the premise that historically eligible properties have the same legal standing as historical properties.
1'1-C dWhal'a~
3) then after my project, the city passed an ordinance that basically says they will not treat anybody the same way ever again. In fact they won’t even try to build nice neighborhoods.
4) this is of course after the fact that we spent a good deal of investment to start a world class neighborhood. Look around. The developments I created, and across the street the inspired development are beautiful. The city wants to change direction and build crap (I.e. incorrect massing, lack of privacy, inconsistent zoning usage. With misplaced commercial, lack of parking accommodations, inconsistent architectural standards, etc.).
These items raise so many questions:
A) is this legal? Of course I will need to review this ordinance.
B) if it is legal, what’s the point? Why hold me to a standard that city staff was literally working to abolish with this new ordinance that was obviously in the works at the time? C) why was I not informed of this new ordinance that it was up and coming? D) why waste my time at all? City staff was vicious.
E) who on city staff made the call to pull my project from the development review that was set to approve my project, only to allow another developer a parks fee exemption and subject my project to a parks fee - when apparently “it’s not in the city’s character” to make development difficult around historically eligible properties and there was an actual ordinance in the works to allow crappy and fast development right next to eligible historically significant properties?
F) At the city’s direction, and as a dedicated life long Santa Claran (since I was 4 or 5) I dedicated my life to lifting up this blighted neighborhood. For what? So I can be mistreated by vicious and inconsistent staff?
G) if the city’s clear intention wasn’t to consider historically eligible properties (which, again, I dedicated my life to, at the city’s request) then the city should at a minimum return my $150,000 in parks fees. This $150,000 was brought on by the city’s continuing insistence that historically eligible properties were legally the same as historical properties. AT THE EXACT SAME TIME THE CITY WAS WORKING ON AN ORDINANCE TO IGNORE HISTORICALLY ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES!!! This fee was brought on by a viciousness and inconsistency that is unprecedented, unfounded and unacceptable.
G) if the city’s clear intention to pass this ordinance would have been made aware to us (this would be reasonable- since again, I dedicated my life to historically eligible property preservation). We would have continued to list our eligible structure. Why was this not shared and discussed? If anyone in the entire community should be made aware of this ordinance, it should be the Fishers.
Again, I am very angry. And I should be.
Michael Fisher
Cell: 408 410-5922
On Jun 11, 2026, at 8:50 AM, Meha Patel <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michael – We are available today at 11:45 am to 1pm or 2:30 to 3:30 to meet inperson. We are also available to meet virtually if that works better for your schedule. Please see below for additional information on the entitlement process.
1. When your townhome project went through the entitlement process in 2014, the City did not have a Historic Preservation Ordinance.
2. The Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted in 2017 and codified process and standards for historic preservation. It established the process for treating properties within 200 feet of a property on the Historic Resource Inventory.
3. 820 Civic Center was not approved to be on the Historic Resource Inventory since you withdrew the application before it went to City Council. Therefore, it is not on the Historic Resource Inventory. Hence, the subject project, 860 Civic Center, does not meet the 200-feet criteria under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and does not require additional hearings, except for Development Review Hearing for the Architecture Review and Planning Commission and City Council approval for the Tentative Map.
4. Additionally, this project is only subject to meet the objective development standards in the zoning code, some of which they have requested to waive through the Density Bonus Law. Based on state law, the City cannot review the project on a subjective design criteria. At the time of submittal, the City did not have objective development standards applicable, other aspects about architecture would be considered subjective review.
Again, we are happy to meet with you to explain this process in-person or virtually.
Thank you,
Meha Patel | Associate Planner
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
D: 408.615.2454 | E: [email protected]
<image001.png>
ALERT: An active Phishing Scam is targeting residents and business owners with fraudulent payment requests and invoices. Please be aware the City of Santa Clara will never ask you to provide payment information via email, text, phone, direct transfer, or third-party links. If you receive a suspicious payment request, do not click links or send money. Instead, contact the City using the phone or email on our Permit Center website (SantaClaraCA.gov/PermitCenter) to verify the request, and learn more from our Fee Payments page.
From: michael fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 8:50 PM
To: Meha Patel <[email protected]>; michael fisher <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sheldon Ah Sing <[email protected]>; Mayor and Council <[email protected]>; Greg Wayland <greg@corsautwayland.com> Subject: RE: PLN24-00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Meha, thank you – but what I was told by City staff is that being eligible for historical significance, is the exact same legal standing as being listed as historically significant. They are the same, is what my Santa Clar staff planner said. So, if it has changed, I need to know about it. And I think we need to go higher than the Development Review Officer here.
Did a major shift in legal precedence occur in the last several years? I have personally spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this concept of trying to make appeasements to historically significant property (my property and home) – so yes I am personally vested. And staff was incredibly difficult, to the point where my project was artificially postponed at the time allowing other projects to be approved so I could be the first trial project with a new $50,000+/- parks fee assigned to it – which I should have been exempted from based on my project application date – but staff was sure to use the historically significant nature of the project to delay – and specifically approve other projects that were not historically significant (for some mysterious reason other projects got my calander appointed project review meeting time slot allowing other projects to be approved prior to and exempt from the $50,000 parks fee).
If you have the community development director’s contact that would be helpful.
I am scheduled to be out of town all of those days (Vacation starting tomorrow through next Monday and traveling on Tuesday). I suppose I could postpone my departure for a vacation tomorrow AM if we can meet tomorrow first thing?
Do you have time to meet tomorrow, Thursday AM June 11th? As early as possible?
I have cc’d the Mayor and Council members here.
Michael Fisher
Cell: 408 410-5922
From: Meha Patel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 4:22 PM
To: michael fisher <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sheldon Ah Sing <[email protected]> Subject: RE: PLN24-00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Hi Michael,
Thank you for your email and providing your concerns. Sheldon Ah Sing, the Development Review Officer, who is the decision-maker at the hearing for this project, is copied in this email. We are happy to meet with you sometime this week, Monday, or Tuesday next week to discuss your comments. Please let me know and I can provide some times for you.
820 Civic Center Drive is not listed in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. We have records of applications submitted by you in 2017 and 2018 to list the property on the HRI, but it was never approved by the City Council. Properties have to be approved by City Council to be on the Historic Resource Inventory.
Both applications were withdrawn upon your request. I have attached the correspondence to this email. While we understand your home may meet some of the criteria for historic significance, it was not approved by City Council to be on the Historic Resource Inventory.
As mentioned in my previous email, this project is only subject to meet the objective development standards in the zoning code, some of which they have requested to waive through the Density Bonus Law. Based on state law, the City cannot review the project on a subjective design criteria; however, we are happy to discuss your design concerns with you.
Thank you,
Meha Patel | Associate Planner
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
D: 408.615.2454 | E: [email protected]
<image001.png>
From: michael fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 2:07 PM
To: Meha Patel <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: PLN24-00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Meha – my home at 820 Civic Center Drive Meets the requirement for Historically significant, and thus it is my understanding that it should be treated as such. I am not aware of a significant change in historical structures law in the past few years?
I would like to discuss this more with planning, and the community development director.
My historically significant home is within 200 feet. The city does not have the right to play it both ways based on convenience.
This was the number one driving force of the development in live in (Mission Estates) and also the driving force behind the townhomes across Alviso Street. Now the City “feels like ” changing their mind? The development should be tasteful, complimentary, and well thought out.
This is a big issue. We should sit down with the community development director and discuss – can you please provide their contact info? Michael Fisher
Cell: 408 410-5922
From: Meha Patel <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 9:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: PLN24-00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Hi Michael,
Thank you for your email . It has been received by the Planning Division. Please note, this correspondence will be part of the public record on this item.
See below for my responses:
1. We have added you to the interested party list.
2. There weren’t any updates since the community meeting last year as the applicant had been working to resolve technical comments. The residents are welcome to provide comments at any time.
3. Height Concerns: The City has undergone a Zoning Code and Zoning Map update since the construction of your townhomes. The proposed project meets the required for this zoning district. The maximum four-stories are allowed in this zoning district. The proposed project meets this requirement.
4. Historical Significance: This project is not within 200 feet of any historical structures.
5. Density Bonus Law: The proposed project is utilizing Density Bonus Law to provide affordable housing and requesting waivers to waive some objective standards. Based on state law, the City can only review this project on objective development standards.
6. The project also proposes a 6-foot masonry wall and trees along the side property line for additional privacy.
This project is scheduled for Development Review hearing on June 17th. You can find the agenda and meeting details on the City’s website when they are available.
They are usually available 72-hours before the meeting date.
Thank you,
Meha Patel | Associate Planner
Community Development Department | Planning Division
1500 Warburton Avenue | Santa Clara, CA 95050
D: 408.615.2454 | E: [email protected]
<image001.png>
From: michael fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 9:41 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>; HistoricalLandmarksCommission <[email protected]>
Cc: CHERYL FISHER <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Hongbo Zhai <[email protected]> Subject: PLN24-00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Meha Patel – greetings. I am a neighbor to the proposed development PLN24- 00533: 860, 868 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street.
My address is 820 Civic Center Drive.
I have also included neighbors from 1530 Alviso Street
([email protected] ) and 830 Civic Center Drive here (Hongbo Zhai <[email protected]) cc’d here.
Some thoughts:
1. We would like to be included in any updates and current plans for this development
2. I have not heard of any new updates since a volunteer meeting (n ot official City meeting – so the neighborhood really did not take action to 1----
mobilize) that was very preliminary late last year (2025).
3. I would like to see a tasteful development built. I do have a few concerns.
4. City planning did not allow 4 stories when the neighborhood began to build out in 2014-2019 with the Alviso Street Townhouses (Between Civic Center and ECR) and the Mission Estates development (the development surrounding 820 Civic Center Drive).
5. City planning demanded back then that the developments were tastefully respectful of the historically significant house (my current residence at 820 Civic Center Drive).
6. The development referenced above proposed in late 2025 was not respectful of this historical aesthetic.
7. Also, there were balconies that were “looking over” some of these neighbors in an awkward and privacy violating manner.
8. When I spoke to some neighbors, they were concerned they might have to move away.
9. The following elements should be addressed:
1. The massing mismatch to the neighborhood
2. privacy violating elements should be addressed,
3. along with encouraging a respectful nod to the historically significant elements of the neighborhood that we worked hard to contribute to 2014-2018.
I look forward to engaging with the planning and design process.
Looking forward to taking to City staff.
Regards,
Michael Fisher
Cell: 408 410-5922
Rev. 4/26 Page 1
Attachment 2: Project Data/Compliance (Mixed-Use)
Project Address: 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive
and 1526 Alviso Street
Project Number: PLN24-00533
Zoning: MU-CC – Mixed-Use Community
Commercial
Standard Existing Proposed Requirement Complies?
(Y/N)
Waiver?
Parcel Area (SF) (min): -- 0.16-acre -- Y --
Building Square Footage (SF)
Building 1 and 2
Townhomes:
-- 2,048 -- Y --
Building 1 and 2 End
TH:
-- 2,100 -- Y --
Building 1 and 2 EndCivic Center TH:
-- 2,130 -- Y --
Duplex Units: -- 2,118 -- Y --
Accessory Dwelling
Units:
-- 521 -- Y --
Commercial Space: -- 795 -- N Y
Total (enclosed): -- 42,007 -- Y --
Commercial Floor Area
Ratio (FAR):
-- 0.02 0.10 N Y
Building Coverage (%)
Building Coverage
(All):
9,422 13,579 -- -- --
Townhome (Building 1 and 2) Setbacks (FT)
Front: -- 2’ 9” Min. 0’ or 5’;
Max. 10’
N Y
Side (left):
(right):
--
--
10’ 7”
10’ 7”
None
None
Y
Y
--
--
Rear: -- 4’ 11” 10’ N Y
Building 2 Setbacks (FT)
Front: -- 24’ 8” Min. 0’ or 5’;
Max. 10
Y --
Side (left):
(right):
--
--
4’ 9”
4’ 9”
None
None
Y
Y
--
Rear: -- 180’ 10’ Y --
Height (FT)
Building 1 and 2: -- 44’ 40’ N Y
Accessory building: -- 35’ 40’ Y --
Maximum Number of
Stories:
-- 4 4 Y --
Parking:
Is the site Gov. Code 65863.2 (AB 2097) eligible? Yes
Project Data & Compliance Table
Rev. 4/26 Page 2
Standard Existing Proposed Requirement Complies?
(Y/N)
Waiver?
Off-Street: -- 36 0 Y --
Class 1 Bicycle: -- 1 per unit
1 Bike
Locker
1 per unit
Office: 1 per
4,000 SF
Y --
Class 2 Bicycle: -- 4 total 1 per 20 units Y --
Landscaping
Common Recreation
Space:
2,097 SF None Y
Private Recreation
Space:
254 – 368
SF
None Y
Consistent with City’s Complete Street Policy? Yes, provide a 6-foot sidewalk and 4-foot landscape strip.
Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026
Conditions of Architectural Review Approval
PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Architectural Review for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit 20,672 square-foot building, a six-unit 15,323 square-foot building, and a two-unit 6,012 square-foot building with 795 square-foot commercial space.
GENERAL / PERFORMANCE
G1. Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically be revoked and terminated if not used within two years of original grant or within the period of any authorized extensions thereof.
The date of granting of this Permit is the date this Permit is approved by the decisionmaking body and the appeal period has been exhausted. The expiration date is June 25, 2028.
G2. Conformance with Plans. Prior to the issuance of Building Permit, the development of the site and all associate improvements shall substantially conform to the approved plans on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. No change to the plans will be made without prior review by the Planning Division through approval of a Minor Amendment or through an Architectural Review, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development or designee. Each change shall be identified and justified in writing.
G3. Conditions on Plans. All conditions of approval for this Permit shall be reprinted and included within the first three sheets of the building permit plan sets submitted for review and approval. At all times these conditions of approval shall be on all grading and construction plans kept on the project site.
G4. Necessary Relocation of Public Facility. If relocation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the owner or designee’s new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the owner.
G5. Indemnify and Hold Harmless. The owner or designee agrees to defend and indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees, officials and representatives free and harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, attorney’s fees, injuries, costs, and liabilities from any suit for damages or for equitable or injunctive relief which is filed by a third party against the City by reason of its approval of owner or designee’s project.
G6. Code Compliance. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include an overall California Building Code analysis; proposed use and occupancy of all spaces (CBC Ch. 3), all building heights and areas (CBC Ch. 5), all proposed types of construction (CBC Ch. 6), all proposed fire and smoke protection features, including all types of all fire rated penetrations proposed (CBC Ch. 7), all proposed interior finishes fire resistance (CBC Ch. 8), all fire protection systems proposed (CBC Ch. 9), and all means of egress proposed (CBC Ch. 10). Noncombustable exterior wall, floor, and roof finishes are strongly encouraged.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 2
a. During construction retaining a single company to install all fire related penetrations is highly recommended.
b. The grade level lobbies shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above. c. All stair shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
d. All elevator shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
e. All trash chute shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated. f. Recommendation: provide minimum two trash chutes; one for recyclables, one for trash, each trash chute to be routed down to a grade level trash collection room. g. Any trash rooms shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above.
G7. Building Codes as Amended. See Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code for any amendments to the California Building Codes.
G8. Reach Codes. This project is subject to the provisions of the City of Santa Clara 2025 Reach Code, effective January 2025. See Ordinance No. 2034 and/or Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code.
a. Chapter 15.36 – Energy Code for “all electric” provisions for new construction. b. Chapter 15.38 – Green Building Code for additional Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for new construction.
G9. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.
G10. Signage. The submitted plans only reference signage for the new buildings to show the relationship between the buildings design and possible new signage. This approval does not include an approval for signage. Signage will require a separate approval from the Planning Division. Signage will be reviewed through a separate approval process.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE P1. Roof Mounted Mechanical Equipment. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be placed within a screened roof top enclosure depicted on the elevation drawings or located below the parapet level and shall not be visible from the ground at any distance from the building. Cross section roof drawings shall be provided at the building permit stage indicating the relative height of the screen wall or parapet. Minimum screen height or parapet depth shall be five feet or greater to match the height of any proposed equipment.
P2. Tree Replacement (on-site). Trees permitted by the City for removal shall be replaced on-site at a ratio of 2:1. (SCC 12.35.090)
P3. Construction Management Plan. The owner or designee shall submit a construction management plan addressing impacts to the public during construction activities including:
showing work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer location, contractor parking, parking enforcement, truck hauling routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee for approval prior to issuance of demolition and building permits.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 3
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
P4. Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays for projects within 300 feet of a residential use and shall not be allowed on recognized State and Federal holidays.
P5. Construction Trash/Debris. During construction activities, the owner or designee is responsible for collection and pick-up of all trash and debris on-site and adjacent public right-of-way.
P6. Construction Parking. Off street parking is required to be available from the time of issuance of building permits until the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Off-street construction parking lots are required to be maintained mud-free and dustless. If the offstreet construction parking lot is located on an unpaved surface, daily street sweeping of surrounding streets is required. (SCC 18.38.030)
P7. Landscape Water Conservation. The owner or designee shall ensure that landscaping installation meets City water conservation criteria in a manner acceptable to the Director of Community Development.
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
P8. Use of Garage. The owner or designee shall ensure that the garage always be maintained free and clear for vehicle parking use. It shall not be used only for storage.
P9. Landscaping Installation & Maintenance. The owner or designee shall ensure that the landscaping installed and accepted with this project shall be maintained on the site as per the approved plans. Any alteration or modification to the landscaping shall not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development.
P10. Landscaping. The owner or designee shall maintain the front yard landscaping between the house and sidewalk. New landscape areas of 500 square feet or more or rehabilitated landscape areas of 2,500 square feet or more shall conform to the California Department of Water Resources Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING DIVISION
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BD1. Addressing. Prior to overall construction permit application, submit to the Santa Clara Building Division, 2 copies of an addressing diagram request, to be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. The addressing diagram(s) shall include all proposed streets and all building floor plans. The addressing diagram(s) shall conform to Santa Clara City Manager Directive #5; Street Name and Building Number Changes, and Santa Clara Building Division Address Policy For Residential and Commercial Developments. The addressing diagram(s) shall indicate all unit numbers to be based off established streets, not alleys nor access-ways to garages. Allow a minimum of 10 working days for initial staff review.
Please note city staff policy that existing site addresses typically are retired. Provide digital pdf printed from design software, not scanned from printed paper sheet.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 4
a. Any building or structure that is demolished shall have its address retired and a new address/s shall be issued for the project.
BD2. Flood Zone. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a copy of the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Map: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. The project drawings shall indicate how the project complies with the Santa Clara Flood Damage Prevention Code.
a. FEMA Flood Zone map designations and requirements are based on the map in effect at date of Building Permit issuance.
BD3. Water Pollution Control. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Low Impact Development (LID) practices http://www.scvurpppw2k.com/nd_wp.shtml. All projects that disturb more than one acre, or projects that are part of a larger development that in total disturbs more than one acre, shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMP): http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/construction_bmp.shtml, and shall provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). All site drainage and grading permit applications submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a city of Santa Clara "C3" data form, available on this web page:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/publicworks/environmental-programs/stormwater-pollution-prevention and will be routed to a contract consultant for review.
BD4. Submittal Requirements. The overall project construction permit application shall include the geotechnical, architectural, structural, energy, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing drawings and calculations. Prior to the issuance of the overall project construction permit, a conditions of approval review meeting must be held in city hall, which meeting must be attended by the on-site field superintendent(s). The meeting will not be held without the attendance of the on-site field superintendent(s). The on-site grading permit shall be a separate permit application to the Building Division.
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
BD5. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy (TCO) will not be routinely issued and will be considered on a very limited basis only when there is a clear and compelling reason for city staff to consider a TCO. A TCO will be approved only after all applicable City staff have approved in writing; Planning, P.W./ Engineering, Fire Prev., Santa Clara Water, Silicon Valley Power, and any other applicable agencies such as the Santa Clara County Health Dept., with the Building Division being the final approval of all TCO.'s.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – HOUSING DIVISION
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE H1. Affordable Housing Agreement. In accordance with the Santa Clara City Code Chapter
17.40, this project is subject to the affordable housing requirements and impact fee for the Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 5
proposed 16 units for-sale residential development. The Applicant must provide at least fifteen percent (15%) of the units (or 2.4 units) as affordable housing available at affordable sales prices to extremely low, very low, low and/or moderate-income households, ensuring the distribution of the affordable units averages to a maximum of one-hundred percent (100%) of Area Median Income. All prices shall be set in accordance with the City’s Below Market Purchase (BMP) Program Policies and Procedures Manual (subject to updates and changes). The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with complying with the California Building Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) for the each affordable for- sale residential unit. Affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and shall on average contain the same number of bedrooms and shall be comparable to the design of the market-rate units in terms of appearance, material and finished quality of the market rate units in the project.
Affordable units shall have the same access to the project amenities and recreational facilities as market-rate units. Additionally, the Applicant will cover the cost of the BMP Program to process each BMP homebuyer, at a rate of 2.5% of the Affordable Sales Price per unit.
H2. The applicant proposes to provide two units and pay the 0.40 fractional unit fee, with one unit in Building 1 and the other in Building 3. All in-lieu fees due to the City must be paid prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
H3. Affordable Housing Agreement. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) and Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) with the City. These agreements will establish the Affordable Sales Price, and include all terms and covenants to ensure compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (Chapter 17.40) and Density Bonus Law (CA Gov’t Code section 65915-65918 et seq.). A fee of $4,352 for the preparation of the AHA will be due prior to execution of the AHA. Please note that all fees are based on the current Municipal Fee Schedule in effect at the time the project is approved.
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
H4. Impact Fee. In accordance with Santa Clara City Code Chapter 17.40, this project is subject to the requirements of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. The applicant may satisfy the requirement by providing two affordable units and paying the 0.40 fractional unit fee. The exact fractional fee amount will be determined during the preparation of the Affordable Housing Agreement. All fractional in-lieu fees owed to the City must be paid prior to the issuance of the building’s certificate of occupancy, in accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule in effect at the time of project approval.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE F1. Hazmat Clearance. Prior to any Building Permit issuance, Hazardous Materials Closure (HMCP) is required as applicable: This is a permit is issued by the Santa Clara Fire Department, Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division. Hazardous materials closure plans are required for businesses that used, handled or stored hazardous Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 6
materials. While required prior to closing a business this is not always done by the business owner, and therefore should be part of the developer’s due diligence. The hazardous materials closure plans demonstrate that hazardous materials which were stored, dispensed, handled or used in the facility/business are safely transported, disposed of or reused in a manner that eliminates any threat to public health and environment.
F2. Hazmat Clearance. Prior to any Building Permit Issuance, a Phase II environmental assessment is required to be submitted to CRRD for review. If hazards are present that require site mitigation, cleanup, or management of chemical contaminants in soil, soil vapor, or groundwater a separate permit from one of the regulatory agencies below will be required. The type and extent of contamination on site(s) will govern which of the regulatory agencies noted below can supervise the cleanup: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); State Water Resources Control Board; or Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health.
a. If the project intends to contract with a State or County Agency for onsite/offsite environmental remediation activities the following documentation shall be provided to the Fire Prevention & Hazardous Materials Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit for demolition or grading: Oversight agency case number; and Oversight mangers contact name, phone number.
b. For smaller projects that are not moving soil at all, a Phase I environmental assessment may be adequate. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal Fred Chun at [email protected] for more information.
F3. Fire Flow Requirement. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, provide documentation from the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Department that the minimum required fire-flow can be met. Fire Department fire-flow will be based on the current California Fire Code.
The most restrictive departments requirement shall apply.
F4. Fire Hydrants. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, building plans shall show the required number, location and distribution of fire hydrants for the buildings will be based on the current California Fire Code, Appendix C as amended. The required number of fire hydrants will be based on the fire-flow before the reduction for fire sprinklers. Both public and private fire hydrants may be required.
F5. Fire Department Access. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a five-foot all-weather perimeter pathway around the entire perimeter of the buildings to facilitate firefighter access is required to be incorporated into the Building permit submittal.
F6. Fire Department Access. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, approval for fire department apparatus access roads is required. Roadways must be provided to comply with all the following requirements:
a. Fire apparatus access roadways shall be provided so that the exterior walls of the first story of the buildings are located not more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of each building. In addition, aerial apparatus roadways must be located so aerial apparatus will have clear access to the “entire” face/sides of the building. The minimum number of sides is project-specific and depends on the building configuration, building design, Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 7
occupancy, and construction type, etc. As part of Building Permit Issuance, an alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment permit application will need to be submitted for review and approval incorporating applicable mitigation measures as determined by the fire department for the lack of compliance. Please note acceptable mitigation methods may have been discussed during the planning stage. Those mitigations are not guaranteed until a formal alternate means permit is submitted concurrently with the Building Plans.
Conversely, an acceptable mitigation method may not have been discussed and will be evaluated under an alternate means permit at the building permit stage. b. For underpasses, garages, gates, or anything similar that a Fire apparatus is required to drive under as part of the emergency vehicle access, 16 feet vertical clearance will be required. For all other areas, the “minimum” unobstructed vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches.
or
c. For all other areas, the “minimum” unobstructed vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches.
d. The “minimum” width of aerial roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet. e. The minimum inside turning radius shall be 30 feet.
f. The “minimum” width of roadways for aerial apparatus is 26 feet. Aerial access roadways shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the protected building. This requirement is only applicable when Appendix D of the Fire Code is enforceable.
g. Overhead utility and power lines easements shall not be located over fire apparatus access roads or between the aerial fire apparatus roads and the buildings to avoid the possibility of injury and equipment damage from electrical hazards.
h. Fire apparatus access roadways shall be all-weather surface(s) designed to support a gross vehicle weight of 75,000-pounds.
i. Trees at full development must not exceed 30 feet in height and not impair aerials apparatus operations to sweep opposing sides of a building. Other obstructions such as site lighting, bio-retention, and architectural features are reviewed caseby-case to ensure they do not obstruct aerial and ground ladder access. j. Traffic control/calming devices are not permitted on any designated fire access roadway unless approved. A separate Fire Department permit is required for any barrier devices installed alone fire department apparatus access roads.
F7. Prior to any Building Department Issuance, all fire department apparatus access roadways on private property are required to “be recorded” with the County of Santa Clara as Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE’s) and reviewed by the Fire Department.
No other instruments will be considered as substitutions such as P.U.E, Ingress/Egress easements and/or City Right-of-Ways.
F8. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, provisions shall be made for Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) equipment, including but not limited to pathway survivability in accordance with Santa Clara Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System Standard.
F9. Fire Department Access. Prior to the start of construction, roadways and water supplies for fire protection are required to be installed and made serviceable and maintained throughout the course of construction.
-
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 8
F10. Fire Department Access. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, a gate permit is required to obtained. Openings for access gates located across fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet of clear width. Gates shall also be provided with a minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 16-feet. All gates installed on designated fire department access roads must be electrically automatic powered gates. Gates shall be provided with an emergency power or be of a fail-safe design, allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment. A Tomar Strobe Switch or 3M Opticom detector shall be installed to control the automatic gate(s) to allow emergency vehicles (e.g., fire, police, ems). Said device shall be mounted at a minimum height of eight to ten feet (8’ - 10’) above grade.
F11. Alternative Means and Methods. Prior to any Building Permit issuance, an alternate means or methods permits to mitigate any code deficiency must be submitted and approved. Please submit this permit concurrently with the building plans. Please note specific mitigations may have been discussed during the planning process. None of these discussions are binding and can only be formally approved through submitting an AMMR permit. The AMMR permit is formally documenting that and still needs to be submitted.
F12. Hazmat Information. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement including refrigerants is required to be submitted and reviewed with the Building Permit if applicable.
F13. Fire Safety During Construction. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a permit for Construction Safety & Demolition shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval in compliance with our Construction Safety & Demolition standard.
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
F14. Shared Fire Protection Features that Cross Property Lines. Prior to Building Permit Final, any EVAEs or fire protection equipment (including but not limited to fire service undergrounds, sprinkler piping, fire alarm equipment, fire pumps, ERRCS) that cross property lines or is not located on the parcel of the building it serves shall have a CC&R legally recorded detailing who is responsible for maintenance and repair of the EVAE or fire protection equipment.
F15. Fire Protection Systems Before Occupancy. Prior to any Certificate of Occupancy Issuance (temporary or permanent), fire-life safety systems installations must be fully installed, functional, and approved.
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE PR1. Park Impact Fees. This memo assumes the Project is a subdivision and the Quimby Act provisions will apply. The project will generate an estimated 31 new residents (1.92 persons/household x 16 units).
PR2. Based on the Quimby Act standard of 3.0 acres/1000 residents, the amount of public parkland required for this Project to mitigate the impact of the new resident demand is approximately 0.0922 acres. The equivalent fee due in lieu of parkland dedication is $620,832 ($38,802 x 16 units).
PR3. The City will accept a fee ($620,832) for this 16-unit development.
PR4. Building Permit - Payment of In-Lieu Fees. In-lieu fees imposed under City Code shall be due and payable to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 9
Final calculations will depend upon the actual number and type of units and the mix of parkland dedicated and remaining fee due, at the discretion of the City. Calculations may change if the number of units change, if any areas do not conform to City Code Chapter
17.35, and/or if the fee schedule for new residential development fees due in lieu of parkland dedication changes before this Project is deemed complete by Planning.
PR5. Building Permit - Dwelling Unit Tax. A dwelling unit tax (DUT) is also due based on the number of units and additional bedrooms per City Code Chapter 3.15. The Project mix includes 16 four-bedroom units [$15 x 16 bedrooms) + ($5 x 48 additional bedrooms)] for a total DUT of $480.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE E1. Site Clearance. Obtain site clearance through Public Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit. Site clearance will require payment of applicable development fees.
Other requirements may be identified for compliance during the site clearance process.
Contact Public Works Department at (408) 615-3000 for further information.
E2. Easement. Obtain Council approval of a resolution ordering vacation of existing public easement(s) proposed to be abandoned, if any, through Public Works Department, and pay all appropriate fees, prior to start of construction.
E3. Easement. Dedicate 10’ street and utility easement along Alviso Street to City to match neighboring properties.
E4. Subdivision Map. After City Council approval of the Tentative Map, submit the Subdivision Map, prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or a Registered Civil Engineer with Land Surveyor privileges to the Engineering Department. The submittal shall include a title report, closure calculations, and all appropriate fees.
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
E5. Encroachment Permit. All work within the public right-of-way and/or public easement, which is to be performed by the Developer/Owner, the general contractor, and all subcontractors shall be submitted within a Single Encroachment Permit to be reviewed and issued by the City Public Works Department. Issuance of the Encroachment Permit and payment of all appropriate fees shall be completed prior to commencement of work, and all work under the permit shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.
E6. Encroachment Permit. Submit public improvement/encroachment permit plans prepared in accordance with City Public Works Department procedures which provide for the installation of public improvements directly to the Public Works Department. Plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval and recordation of final map and/or issuance of building permits.
E7. Encroachment Permit. All work within State right-of-way shall require a Caltrans encroachment permit.
E8. Encroachment Permit. Existing non-standard or non-ADA compliant frontage improvements shall be replaced with current City standard frontage improvements as directed by the City Engineer or his designee.
E9. Encroachment Permit. Damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk within the public right-of-way along property’s frontage shall be repaired or replaced (to the nearest score mark) in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer or his designee. The extents of said repair or Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 10
replacement within the property frontage shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer or his designee.
E10. Encroachment Permit. Owner or designee shall provide a complete storm drain study for the 10-year and 100-year storm events. The grading plans shall include the overland release for the 100-year storm event and any localized flooding areas. System improvements, if needed, will be at developer’s expense.
E11. Encroachment Permit. Sanitary sewer and storm drain mains and laterals shall be outside the drip line of mature trees or ten (10) feet clear of the tree trunk, whichever is greater, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
E12. Encroachment Permit. Provide root barriers when the drip line of the mature trees covers the sidewalk. Root barriers for sidewalk protection shall be 16' long or extend to drip line of the mature tree, whichever is greater, and be 1.5' deep, and centered on trees. Root barriers for curb and gutter protection shall be 16' long or extend to drip line of the mature tree, whichever is greater, and be 2’ deep, and centered on trees.
E13. Encroachment Permit. 6” sanitary sewer laterals shall connect to City sanitary sewer main using existing manhole located on Civic Center Drive. Do not construct new manhole.
E14. Encroachment Permit. Existing streetlights shall be clear of proposed sidewalk, developer shall relocate as necessary.
E15. Encroachment Permit. Construct curb/gutter/sidewalk/driveway to match neighboring properties right-of-way line.
E16. Encroachment Permit. Pavement treatment shall be 2” grind and overlay with digouts for the entire street width of Alviso Street along the project frontage.
E17. Encroachment Permit. Pavement treatment shall be 2” grind and overlay with digouts for the entire street width of Civic Center Drive along the project frontage.
E18. Easement. Dedicate required on-site easements for any new public utilities, and/or emergency vehicle access by means of subdivision map or approved instrument at time of development.
E19. Easement. Dedicate sidewalk easements along the project frontage where public sidewalks extend into private property. Sidewalk easements are to be 1’ behind proposed back of walk where there is landscaping behind sidewalk. Sidewalk easement where hardscape is behind sidewalk is to be at back-of-walk. Cold joint is required between public sidewalk and private hardscape.
E20. Agreement. If requested, owner or designee shall prepare and submit for City approval a maintenance plan for all sidewalk, curb and gutter, landscaping and irrigation system improvements installed within the public right-of-way prior to encroachment permit issuance. Such plan shall include at a minimum, maintenance requirements for trees and shrubs, in acknowledgement of developer’s/property owner’s obligation under Chapter
12.30 and 17.15.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - STORMWATER
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
ST1. Final Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall develop a Final Stormwater Management Plan, update the C.3 Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 11
Data Form, the Special Project Narratives and Worksheet (as appropriate), and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
ST2. 3
rd Party Review of Final Stormwater Management Plan. The Final Stormwater Management Plan and all associated calculations shall be reviewed and certified by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants, and a 3rd party review letter (on design) shall be submitted with the Plan.
ST3. Notice of Intent. For project that disturbs a land area of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) with WDID number for coverage under the State Construction General Permit. Active projects with NOI will be inspected by the City once per month during the wet season (October – April).
ST4. Best Management Practices. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into construction plans and incorporate post-construction water runoff measures into project plans. Include the SCVURPPP Countywide Construction BMPs Plan Sheet with the plans. Applicant to add Source control measures with designations from C.3 stormwater handbook, Appendix H.
ST5. C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes. Include the C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes on the Improvement Plans and/or Stormwater Control Plans.
ST6. Decorative & Recreational Water Features. Decorative and recreational water features such as fountains, pools, and ponds shall be designed and constructed to drain to the sanitary sewer system only.
ST7. Small Projects. For single-family homes and other small projects that create and/or replace 2,500 – 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area, the applicant shall implement at least one of the following site design measures:
a. Direction of roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels b. Direction of roof, sidewalk, walkway, patio, driveway, or parking lot runoff onto vegetated areas
c. Construction of sidewalks, walkways, patios, bike lanes, driveways, and parking lots with permeable surfaces
Plans shall specify which site design measures are selected for the project and show the direction of flow from impervious surfaces to the selected site design measures. All measures shall meet the design criteria in the 2016 C.3. Stormwater Handbook, Appendix K: Standard Specifications for Lot-Scale Measures for Small Projects.
ST8. Interior Floor Drains. Interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.
ST9. Trash Enclosure Floor Drains. Floor drains within trash enclosures shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.
ST10. Architectural Copper. The use of architectural copper is prohibited.
DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
ST11. Biotreatment Soil Media. Applicant shall install biotreatment soil media that meets the minimum specifications as set forth in the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. If percolation rate test of the biotreatment soil mix is not performed on-site, a certification letter from the supplier verifying that the soil meets the specified mix (the date of such document shall not be older than 3 months).
ST12. Stormwater Control Measure Inspection. At critical construction phases, all stormwater control measures shall be inspected for conformance to approved plans by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 12
ST13. Inspections. Permeable Pavement, Media Filter vaults, and Trash Full Capture Devices shall be inspected by a 3rd party reviewer and/or manufacturer representative for conformance with the details and specifications of the approved plans. All new pervious concrete and porous asphalt pavements should have a minimum surface infiltration rate of 100 in./hr. as described in the SCVURPPP C.3 Handbook. A map displaying the number, location and details of full trash capture devices shall be prepared as an attachment to the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City.
ST14. Stormwater Treatment Facilities. Stormwater treatment facilities must be designed, installed, and maintained to achieve the site design measures throughout their life in accordance to the SCVRUPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook (Chapter 6 and Appendix C).
ST15. Amendments to Operation & Maintenance Agreement. Any site design measures used to reduce the size of stormwater treatment measures shall not be installed for the project without the written approval from the City, installing the corresponding resizing of other stormwater treatment measures and an amendment of the property’s O&M Agreement.
ST16. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Messaging. Developer shall install an appropriate stormwater pollution prevention message such as “No Dumping – Flows to Bay” on any storm drains located on private property.
ST17. Outdoor Storage Areas. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or otherwise designed to limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants.
PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
ST18. As-Built Drawings. As-Built drawing shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
ST19. 3
rd Party Concurrence Letter. 3rd Party concurrence letter on the C.3 facilities construction shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. The letter shall be prepared by a 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants. The City reserves the right to review the 3rd party inspection report on the C.3 stormwater facility installation.
ST20. Final C.3 Inspection. Applicant shall schedule and City shall conduct a final C.3 inspection.
ST21. Operation & Maintenance Agreement. The property owner shall enter into an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for all installed stormwater treatment measures and full trash capture devices in perpetuity. Applicants should contact Public Works Dept. - Environmental Services at (408) 615-3080 or [email protected] for assistance completing the Agreement. For more information and to download the most recent version of the O&M Agreement, visit the City’s stormwater resources website at http://santaclaraca.gov/stormwater. Inspection of permeable pavement, media filter vaults and full trash capture devices is to be done annually by December 31 of each year.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - TRANSPORTATION
DESIGN—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
TR1. Site Clearance. Project shall pay fair share traffic fees, if any, identified in the LTA.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
TR2. Encroachment Permit. Project shall be responsible for implementing the improvements, if any, identified from the LTA analysis.
TR3. Encroachment Permit. Traffic improvements must comply with the City of Santa Clara Standard Details and Specifications for Public Works Construction.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 13
TR4. Encroachment Permit. Landscape improvements within 10 feet of a driveway must be less than 3 feet or greater than 10 feet per City Standard Detail TR-9.
TR5. Encroachment Permit. Design and construct minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk.
TR6. Encroachment Permit. Design and construct driveway in accordance with City Standard Detail ST-4 for driveway on Alviso Sreet.
TR7. Encroachment Permit. Design and construct driveway in accordance with City Standard Detail ST-8 for driveway on Civic Center Drive
TR8. Encroachment Permit. Project shall install curb, gutter and sidewalk to match conditions north and south of the site on Alviso Street.
TR9. Encroachment Permit. Project shall install roadway improvements on Alviso Street adjacent to project frontage to prepare pavement for vehicle traffic, including removal of existing centerline stripe and installing new centerline in the middle of the roadway.
TR10. Encroachment Permit. Project shall install 15 feet of red curb adjacent to project driveway on Civic Center Drive for sight visibility.
TR11. Encroachment Permit. Project shall install R26(CA) “No Parking Any Time” signs along Civic Center Drive project frontage west of project driveway due to road narrowing west of the project site. On-street parking shall be allowed along project frontage east of the project driveway (red curb).
TR12. Building Permit. All on-site structures must be clear of Driveway and Corner Visibility Clearance Areas per City Standard Detail TR-9.
TR13. Building Permit. Residential bicycle parking shall comply with applicable zoning code requirements for Class I and Class II bicycle parking spaces.
TR14. Building Permit. Class I and Class II bicycle parking, as defined in SCMC 18.74.075, shall be conveniently accessible from the street, within 200 feet of a building entrance and/or highly visible areas.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT – STREETS DIVISION
Right of Way Landscape
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE L1. Tree Preservations Specifications. Include City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation/City Arborist specifications on all improvement plans.
L2. Mature Trees. Identify existing mature trees to be maintained. Prepare a tree protection plans for review and approval by the City prior to any demolition, grading or other earthwork in the vicinity of existing trees on the site.
L3. Tree Replacement. 2:1 tree replacement ratio required for all trees removed from the right-of-way.
DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
L4. No Public Root Cutting. No cutting of any part of public, including roots, shall be done without securing prior approval of the City Arborist. Tree trimming/removal shall be done in accordance to the City of Santa Clara Tree Preservation/City Arborist specifications and with direct supervision of a certified arborist (Certification of International Society of Arboriculture).
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 14
PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
L5. In Lieu Fee. If 2:1 replacement ratio cannot be met for removal of right of way landscape trees, tree planting fee must be paid prior to building permit final Solid Waste
SW1. Post-Construction Solid Waste Generation Estimation and Collection Form. The applicant shall complete and provide the Post-Construction Solid Waste Generation Estimation and Collection Form, which includes the estimation of trash and recycling materials generated from the project. Use the City’s Solid Waste Guidelines for New and Redevelopment Projects as specified by the development type. Contact the Public Works Department at [email protected] or (408) 615-3080 for more information.
SW2. Site Plan. The applicant shall provide a site plan showing all proposed locations of solid waste containers, chutes, compactors, trash enclosures and trash staging areas. The site plan shall show the route or access for trash and recycling collectors (trucks) including vertical clearance, turning radius and street/alley widths. All plans shall comply with the City’s Solid Waste Guidelines. Solid metal roof, gates and a trench drain shall be installed within the trash enclosure and connected to the on-site sewer system.
SW3. Construction Waste Diversion. For projects that involve construction, demolition or renovation of 5,000 square feet or more, the applicant shall comply with City Code Section
8.25.285 and recycle or divert at least sixty five percent (65%) of materials generated for discard by the project during demolition and construction activities. No building, demolition, or site development permit shall be issued unless and until applicant has submitted a construction and demolition debris materials check-off list. Applicant shall create a Waste Management Plan and submit, for approval, a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Report through the City’s online tracking tool at http://santaclara.wastetracking.com/.
SW4. Authorized Service Haulers. This project is subject to the City’s Accumulation, Transportation and Disposal of Solid Waste Ordinance (Chapter 8.25 of the Municipal Codes), which requires the handling and disposal of waste by authorized service haulers.
Insert the General Notes for the Construction & Demolition (C&D) Waste Management into construction plans in accordance with the City’s municipal codes prior to the issuance of a Building or Grading permit. Provide the Green Halo waste online tracking number to Building staff prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit.
SW5. Exclusive Franchise Hauling Area. Project applicant shall contact the Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division at (408) 615-3080 to verify if the property falls within the City’s exclusive franchise hauling area. If so, the applicant is required to use the City’s exclusive franchise hauler and rate structure for any hired debris boxes. Prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance, the project applicant shall complete and sign the Construction and Demolition (C&D) / Waste Management Rules and Regulations Form.
DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
SW6. Waste Generation Tracking. Applicant to track all waste generated and upload debris tags to GreenHalo for City staff review.
PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
SW7. Weight Tickets. Prior to obtaining a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy, individual weight tickets for all materials generated for discard or reuse by the project Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 15
during demolition and construction activities shall be uploaded to Green Halo and submitted for review and approval by Environmental Services. At a minimum two (2) weeks review time is required.
SILICON VALLEY POWER
SVP1. Interconnection Study. This study would need to be completed prior to PCC Deemed Cleared. This study will assess the following:
a. System capacity of SVP’s electric transmission and distribution systems to serve customer load.
b. System capacity of PG&E’s electric transmission system to serve customer load. c. This is determined by studies performed by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in its yearly Transmission Planning Process (TPP). d. Any mitigation measures identified, and/or construction schedules required by PG&E to serve customer load ramp will be communicated by SVP to the customer. Any PG&E identified mitigations and/or construction schedules are not controlled by SVP nor is SVP responsible for any delays caused by these project schedules.
e. Determine when to include customer load ramp in SVP’s load forecast to the California Energy Commission (CEC), provided that SVP determines, in sole discretion, that there is capacity available for the project. f. Determine when the customer will be allowed to energize facilities, and allowed ramp schedule; provided that SVP determines, in sole discretion, that there is capacity available for the project.
g. Please see System Limitation Letter attached to SVP markups dated Nov. 10, 2022
h. These conditions of approval do not commit the City to (1) serve Developer’s electric load or (2) allocate any capacity to Developer. Further, any approval which this Project may receive from the City Council, Planning, or another City Department, shall not commit the city to (1) serve Developer’s electric load or (2) allocate any capacity to Developer.
SVP2. Applicant Design Process: available to Applicants to expedite distribution electric substructure design.
SVP3. SVP Rules and Regulations: Applicant shall comply with all applicable SVP rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, and requirements, as may be amended from time to time.
SVP4. SVP Equipment Clearances:
a. Access Doors: Ten (10) foot minimum clearance in front of equipment access doors.
b. Pad Sides: Five (5) foot minimum clearance from pad on sides without access doors.
c. Truck Access: Eighteen (18) foot minimum width on one side of the equipment pad for truck access.
d. Barrier pipes: (on sides accessible to vehicles)
i. Thirty (30) inches from equipment sides.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 16
ii. Forty-Eight (48) inches in front of access doors. (use removable bollards) SVP5. SVP Conduit Clearances:
a. Longitudinal: Five (5) foot minimum between new conduits/piping and existing/proposed SVP conduits.
b. Vertical: Twelve (12) inch minimum between new conduit/pipes perpendicular to existing SVP conduits.
c. Poles/Posts: Three (3) foot six (6) inches clearance required from poles (electrolier, guy stub, service clearance, self-supporting steel, and light poles), except for riser conduits. This is reduced to a three (3) foot minimum for posts (signposts, barrier pipes, bollards, fence posts, and other similar posts). d. Structures: Five (5) foot minimum is required from walls, footings, retaining walls, landscape planter, or similar permanent structures.
e. Subsurface Facilities: Five (5) foot minimum from new splice boxes, pull boxes, manholes, vaults, or similar subsurface facilities.
f. Fire Hydrant: Five (5) foot minimum from fire hydrant thrust block. (Extends 5 feet on either side of the hydrant in line with the radial water pipe connected to the hydrant).
SVP6. SVP Vault/Manhole Clearances:
a. Ten (10) foot minimum between adjacent Vaults or Manholes. b. Three (3) foot minimum from face of curb. (bollards required for vaults).
SVP7. SVP Guy Anchor Clearances: Five (5) foot minimum clearance is required between the center of anchor line and any excavation area.
SVP8. Tree Clearances:
a. Conduits: Five (5) foot minimum to tree root barrier or other subsurface wall or structure.
b. Equipment: Five (5) foot minimum to tree root barrier. The tree canopy drip line cannot be over the SVP equipment.
c. Subsurface Facilities: Five (5) foot minimum to any electric department facilities.
Any existing trees in conflict will have to be removed. d. Easements: No trees shall be planted in SVP’s U.G.E.E or P.U.E’s. e. Transformer & Switch Placement: these devices and pads may only be located outdoors. Clearances to buildings are defined in UG1225. All projects are to assume mineral oil fluid, unless otherwise approved by SVP.
SVP9. SVP Standards. Applicant shall comply with the following SVP standards (as may be amended or supplemented).
a. UG1000 - Installation of Underground Substructures by Developers b. UG1250 – Encroachment Permit Clearances from Electric Facilities c. UG0339 – Remote Switch Pad
d. OH1230 – Tree Clearances from Overhead Electric Lines e. SD1235 – Tree Planting Requirements Near Underground Electric Facilities f. UG1225 – Pad mounted Equipment Clearances and Protection g. UG0250 – High Density Residential Metering Requirements h. FO-1901 – Fiber Optic Splicing and Testing Methods
i. SVP Rules and Regulations – Latest Edition
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 17
SVP10. SVP Standards, Miscellaneous:
a. In the case of podium-style construction, all SVP facilities and conduit systems must be located on solid ground (aka “real dirt”) and cannot be supported on parking garage ceilings or placed on top of structures. b. No splice boxes are allowed between the SVP utility connection point and the applicants main switch board.
c. SVP does not utilize any sub-surface (below grade) devices in its system. This includes transformers, switches, etc.
SVP11. Meter Locations:
a. For condominium or apartment, all electric meters and service disconnects shall be grouped at one location, outside of the building or in a accessible utility room.
If they are townhomes or single-family residences, then each unit shall have its own meter, located on the structure. A double hasp locking arrangement shall be provided on the main switchboard door(s). Utility room door(s) shall have a double hasp locking arrangement or a lock box shall be provided. Utility room door(s) shall not be alarmed.
b. All interior meter rooms at ground level are to have direct, outside access through only ONE door. Interior electric rooms must be enclosed in a dedicated electric room and cannot be in an open warehouse or office space.
SVP12. Underground Service Entrance
a. (277/480V Service or Lower) Underground service entrance conduits and conductors shall be “privately” owned, maintained, and installed per City Building Inspection Division Codes to the SVP defined utility connection point. b. (12KV Service) SVP terminates cable on the applicant owned switchgear. c. No cross-parcel distribution is allowed. SVP service points must be within the parcels that they serve.
SVP13. Code Sections:
a. The Applicant shall provide and install electric facilities per Santa Clara City Code chapter 17.15.210.
b. Installation of underground facilities shall be in accordance with City of Santa Clara Electric Department standard UG-1000, latest version, and Santa Clara City Code chapter 17.15.050.
c. The applicant shall perform, in accordance with current City standards and specifications, all trenching, backfill, resurfacing, landscaping, conduit, junction boxes, vaults, street light foundations, equipment pads and subsurface housings required for power distribution, street lighting, and signal communication systems, as required by the City in the development of frontage and on-site property. Upon completion of improvements satisfactory to the City, the Applicant will dedicate the improvement to the City subject to City’s acceptance the work. The applicant shall further install at his cost the service facilities, consisting of service wires, cables, conductors, and associated equipment necessary to connect a applicant to the electrical supply system of and by the City. After completion of the facilities installed by the Applicant, the City shall furnish and install all cable, switches, street lighting poles, luminaries, transformers, meters, and other equipment that it deems Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 18
necessary for the betterment of the system per Santa Clara City Code chapter
17.15.210 (2).
SVP14. Existing Facilities:
a. All existing SVP facilities, onsite or offsite, are to remain unless specifically addressed by SVP personnel in a separate document. It is the Applicants responsibility to maintain all clearances from equipment and easements. The Applicant may contact SVP outside of the PCC process for clear definitions of these clearance requirements. Applicant should not assume that SVP will be removing any existing facilities without detailed design drawings from SVP indicating potential removals. Simply indicating that SVP facilities are to be removed or relocated on conceptual plans does not imply that this action has been approved by SVP.
b. Any relocation of existing electric facilities shall be at Applicants expense.
SVP15. Generators: Non-Utility Generator equipment shall not operate in parallel with the electric utility, unless approved and reviewed by the Electric Engineering Division. All switching operations shall be “Open-Transition-Mode”, unless specifically authorized by SVP Electric Engineering Division. A Generating Facility Interconnection Application must be submitted with building permit plans. Review process may take several months depending on size and type of generator. No interconnection of a generation facility with SVP is allowed without written authorization from SVP Electric Engineering Division.
SVP16. Utility Plan. Per “C3.0_UTILITY SVP Comments 03.27.2026.pdf”, JT configuration on western frontage is non-standard (e.g. does not meet UG1000), SVP Engineering may request JT modifications as necessary in consideration for reliability/safety/maintenance/etc. This will be stated as a Condition of Approval due to JT in violation of UG1000.
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT SVP1. Initial Information: Applicant shall provide a site plan showing all existing utilities, structures, easements, and trees. The applicant shall also include a detailed panel schedule showing all current and proposed electric loads.
SVP2. SVP Developers Work Drawing: Applicant shall have a developers work drawing created for the site by either an SVP estimator or through the applicant design process. All SVP standards and clearance requirements as defined in the General Section of the COA’s must be met, or variance approvals must be granted by SVP. The developers’ work drawing shall include but is not limited to: SVP substructure for primary, low voltage, streetlight, and fiber facilities. SVP facilities may extend off-site to the nearest utility connection point to tie-in with existing infrastructure as deemed necessary by SVP.
SVP3. Encroachment Permit: Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit an encroachment permit application with an approved SVP Developers Work Drawing for construction of electric utilities that comply with the latest edition of SVP Standards and Rules and Regulations, Electric Notes, and Electric Standard Details and Specifications.
SVP4. Applicants Switchgear: All applicant main switchgear with SVP meters must meet EUSERC standards and be approved by SVP’s meter shop prior to ordering. Switchgear for 12KV gear must have batteries sized for 4 hours of operation, no capacitive tripping, and 2 sets of relays, CTs, & PTs for each main. All double ended switchgear with a tie Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 19
breaker, must include a kirk-key interlock scheme and an SVP provided warning label for the operation of the main tiebreaker.
SVP5. AMI/Fiber Building Requirements: All projects implementing high rise metering and multi-floor infrastructure requirements shall meet the requirements outlined in UG 0250 & FO1901.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 20
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
SVP6. Easements: Prior to the City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall provide a dedicated underground electric utility easement (U.G.E.E) around the electric onsite facilities (Not a P.U.E). The electric utility easement shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide around conduit and 5’ minimum around equipment and vault/manhole pads.
Additionally, the applicant shall submit plans defining existing easements so Electric Division can verify if there are any conflicts with new proposed easements or improvements. The Applicant shall grant to the City, without cost, all easements and/or right of way necessary for serving the property of the Applicant and for the installation of utilities (Santa Clara City Code chapter 17.15.110).
SVP7. Coordination Study: For any services taken at 12KV, a coordination study will need to be conducted by the applicant prior to energizing the service.
SVP8. Applicants Switchgear: Applicants’ switchgear will be inspected on site by SVP to ensure compliance with approved switchgear drawings. Electric meters and main disconnects shall be installed per Silicon Valley Power Standard MS-G7, Rev. 2.
SVP9. Electric Facilities: Prior to the City's issuance of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct all electric utilities per the approved SVP Developers Work Drawing. SVP will inspect all electric utility installations and all other improvements encroaching on electric facilities.
SVP10. Municipal Fees: Prior to electric service energization, all applicable fees per the City of Santa Clara’s Municipal Fee Schedule shall be paid by the applicant.
SVP11. Costs & Expenses: Unless expressly stated otherwise or covered by a fee to be paid by the applicant, applicant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated with fulfilling these conditions of approval.
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS – AFTER OCCUPANCY
SVP12. Access: SVP will require 24-hour unobstructed access to all SVP equipment which includes: manholes, transformers, vaults, switches, meters, indoor electrical rooms with SVP owned equipment etc.
WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
DESIGN/ PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE W1. Encroachment Permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit an encroachment permit application and design plans for construction of water utilities that comply with the latest edition of the Water & Sewer Utilities Water Service and Use Rules and Regulations, Water System Notes, and Water Standard Details and Specifications. In addition, prior to the City's issuance of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct all public water utilities per the approved plans. The Water & Sewer Utilities will inspect all public water utility installations and all other improvements encroaching public water utilities.
W2. Utility Design Plans. Utility Design Plans shall indicate the pipe material and the size of existing water, recycled water and sewer main(s). The plans shall show the nearest existing fire hydrant and the two nearest existing water main line gate valves near the project area. The plans shall show meter and backflow configurations to scale and per City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Standard Details. Note that all new water meters and backflow prevention devices shall be located behind the sidewalk in a landscape area. Fire hydrants should be located two feet behind monolithic sidewalk if sidewalk is present; two feet behind face of curb if no sidewalk is present, per City Std Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 21
Detail 18. The plans shall provide the profile section details for utilities crossing water, sewer, or recycled water mains to ensure a 12” minimum vertical clearance is maintained.
W3. Utility Separations. Applicant shall adhere to and provide a note indicating that all horizontal and vertical clearances comply with State and local regulations. The applicant shall maintain a minimum 12” of vertical clearance at water service crossing with other utilities, and all required minimum horizontal clearances from water services: 10' from sanitary sewer utilities, 10’ from recycled water utilities, 8' from storm drain utilities, 5' from fire and other water utilities, 3' from abandoned water services, 5' from gas and electric utilities, and 5’ from the edge of the propose or existing driveway. For sanitary sewer, water, and recycled water utilities, the applicant shall maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 10' from existing and proposed trees. If applicant installs tree root barriers, clearance from tree reduces to 5' (clearance must be from the edge of tree root barrier to edge of water facilities). No structures (fencing, foundation, biofiltration swales, etc.) allowed over sanitary sewer, potable water and/or recycled water utilities and easements.
W4. Separate Services. Applicant shall submit plans showing proposed water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and fire services connected to a public main in the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Director of Water & Sewer Utilities. Different types of water and recycled water use (domestic, irrigation, fire) shall be served by separate water services, each separately tapped at the water main. Tapping on existing fire service line(s) is prohibited. Approved backflow prevention device(s) are required on all potable water services.
W5. City Standard Meters and Backflows. All proposed meters and backflows for all water services shall meet the current City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities Standard Details. Plans shall show meter and backflow configurations to scale.
W6. Existing Services. The applicant must indicate the disposition of all existing water and sewer services and mains on the plans. If the existing services will not be used, then the applicant shall properly abandon these services to the main per Water & Sewer Utilities standards and install a new service to accommodate the water needs of the project. The applicant shall bear the cost of any relocation or abandonment of existing Water Department facilities required for project construction to the satisfaction of the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.
W7. On-Site Storm Drain Treatment. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit plans showing any onsite storm water treatment system. The plan shall include a section detail of the treatment system. No water, sewer, or recycled water facilities shall be located within 5-feet of any storm water treatment system.
W8. Water Usage. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide documentation of water usage so the Water Division can verify the appropriate size of all proposed water meters. Please note that if the existing water services are incapable of supplying the water needs to the site, the existing services shall be abandoned, and new separate dedicated water services shall be provided for each use (domestic and irrigation).
W9. Landscaping. All the landscaping for the project shall comply with the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Government Code Section 65591 et. seq. All plants shall be either California native or non-invasive, low water-using or moderate water-using plants. High water-using plants and nonfunctional turf are prohibited.
W10. Water Features. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit plan details for all water features (including but not limited to fountains and ponds) designed to include provisions for operating the system without City potable water supply and capable Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 22
of being physically disconnected from source of potable water supply during City declared water conservation periods, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Water & Sewer Utilities. Decorative water features may be permanently connected to the City’s recycled water supply.
W11. Easements. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall provide a dedicated water utility easement around the backflow prevention device onsite.
The water utility easement for the water services and all other public water appurtenances shall be a minimum 15 feet wide and be adjacent to the public right-of-way without overlapping any public utility easement. Additionally, the applicant shall submit plans defining existing easements so Water Division can verify if there are any conflicts with proposed easements and water utilities.
W12. Underground Fire Permit. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall submit an underground fire permit unless otherwise waived by the Fire Department. If fire flow information is needed, applicant shall coordinate with Water and Sewer Utilities Department, for fire flow information at (408)615-2000. A dedicated fire service line, with an approved backflow prevention device, shall be used for on-site fire hydrants. Fire service lines required for commercial and industrial use shall be sized appropriately per fire flow demand and code requirements.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
W13. City Standard Meters and Backflow Installation. No meters or backflows shall be installed prior to establishment of water service account with the Municipal Services Division of the Finance Department. The applicant shall provide a copy of the account information to the Water and Sewer Utilities Department Inspector and Meter Shop prior to installation of any meter or backflow. All meters and backflows approved for installation shall be tested prior to use. Water service connections shall not be used prior to authorization by the Water and Sewer Utilities inspector.
W14. Construction Water. This project shall use recycled water for all construction water needs for onsite and offsite construction.
W15. Water Shortage Response Actions. Pursuant to the City of Santa Clara’s Urban Water Management Plan, during times of drought or water shortage, the City implements water shortage response actions in accordance with the level of water shortage declared. All construction activities and all new irrigation connections are subject to the Water Shortage Response Actions in effect at the time of construction and connection of the irrigation service.
Water Shortage Response Actions for Stage 2 and higher include water use restrictions that limit the use of potable water such as:
a. prohibiting the installation of new potable water irrigation services. new irrigation connections, construction, and dust control.
b. restrict the use of potable water used for construction and dust control if recycled water is available.
W16. This project is subject to all the requirements and restrictions of the Water Shortage Response Actions in place or adopted during the duration of the project. For more information, visit the City of Santa Clara Water & Sewer Utilities website at www.santaclaraca.gov/waterconservation.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 23
PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
W17. Record Drawings. Upon completion of construction and prior to the City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide "as-built" drawings of the public water utility infrastructure prepared by a registered civil engineer to the satisfaction of the Director of Water & Sewer Utilities Department.
W18. Conditional Releases. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of any building permit conditional release requirements.
_____________________________________
KEY:
G = General
P = Planning Division
BD = Building Division
H = Housing & Community Services Division
F = Fire Department
PR = Parks & Recreation Department
PD = Police Department
E = Engineering Division
Streets Division (Landscape, Solid Waste, and Stormwater) L = Landscape
SW = Solid Waste
SVP = Silicon Valley Power
W = Water & Sewer Department
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Permittee/Property Owner
The undersigned agrees to each condition of approval and acknowledges and hereby agrees to use the project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this permit.
Signature: _________________________________________________ Printed Name: _________________________________________________ Relationship to Property: _________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________ ---
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00533 / 860 and 858 Civic Cener Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Development Review Hearing
Meeting Date: 6/17/2026 Page 24
Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code 18.128.100, the applicant shall return this document to the Department, properly signed and dated, within 30-days following the date of the Acknowledgement.
SHEET INDEX AO.O COVERSHEET, PROJECT SUMMARY
A0.1 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
ARCHITECTURE
A1.0 SITE PLAN
A1.0.1 ACCESSIBLE ACCESS & FIRE DEPARTMENT
ACCESS
A1.1 GPAPI-IC llllJSTRATION OF AREA
CALCULATION
A2.1.1 BlJILDING FLOOR PLANS- BUILDING 1
A2.1.2 BIJLDING FLOOR PLANS- BUILDING 1
A2.2 BUILDING FLOOR PLANS- BUILDING 2
A2.3 BULDING FLOOR PLANS- BUILDING 3
Al 1 UNIT FLOOR PL.ANS- TO'M-IHOUSE (TH)
AJ.2 UNIT FLOOR PL.ANS- TO'M'll-lOUSE ENO UNIT
{TH-Ena)
AJ.3 UNIT FLOOR PLAN- TO'M'lHOUSE END
FACING CMC CENTER-.-6DAPTABLE UI\ITS
A4.1 BlJILDING ELEVATIONS- BULDING 1
A4.2 BlJILDING ELEVATIONS- BULDING 2
A4.3 BUILDINGELEVATIONS-BULDINGJ
A4.l 30 VIEWS, CCX.ORS AND MATERIALS
A4.5 STREETELEVATIONS
A5.1 ROOFPLA~AllBUILDINGS
A6.1 BlJILDING SECTIONS- BlJL.l)NG 1, TYP. W.AJ..L
SECTION
A6.2 BULDING SECTIONS- BlAL.l)NG 2 & 3
A7.0 CARPORT FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATIOOS
~
L-1 SCHEMATICLANDSCAPEF't..,6N
L-2 IRRIGATION HYDROZOf>E PLAN
L-3 SANTA CLARA TREE PROTECTION
SITE LIGHTING
E1.10 SITEUGHTINGPLAN
E1.20 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
E1.l'J LUMINAIRE Sa-lEDULE N'lD FIXTURE
DETAILS
CML:
C-1.0 TOPOGRAPHYMAP
C-2.0 GRAllNGPLAN
C-3.0 UTIUTYPLAN
C-4.0 STORM WATER CONTROL Pl.AN
C-4.1 STORM WATERCAL.Cu.ATIONS & DET.-6JL
C-4.2 STORM WATER DETAILS
DEN SITY UNITS/ACRE)
COMMfRCIAl (SF)
CIVIC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
860,858 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE & 1526 ALVISO STREET, SANTA CLARA, CA
SCOPE OF WORKS
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THREE BUILDINGS (BOOY SHOP AN) CAR Rs>AIR), TOTPUNG9. 22 SF. THESE BULDINGS Wl.L BEOEMCllSHED At{) REMOVEDFROMTHESITE.
WEAREPROPOSINGAt.U.Tl.fMI...YPROJECTTI-IATCONSISTOFTHREE SEPARATEBULDINGS:AN8G-IT.UNITBULDING(BULDING#1)'MTH20,672 TOTM.. SF. A SIX-UNIT BULDING (BULDING #'1) WITH 15.5323 SF At{) A TWO-UNIT BUILDING (BUILDING 113) WITH 6,073 SF WHla-1 INQ.lDES AN ACCESSORY OWELUNGUNITSASPARTOFEAQiUNIT.
BUILDING 113 (A DUA.EX NlD 2 MJU.) WILL IE DESIGNATBJ AS AFFORJABLE.
ACOM,ERl'.VlMEETINGSPACE OF 795SFISPROVIOED INBUn..DINGll3FAQNG AVISO STREET THAT IS AVAlAll.ETO THE PUBI.JC AND THE HOA.
WE ARE PROWllNG TWO GARAGE PARKING FOR EAQ-1 TOWNHOUSE. 1 CARPORTFOREAa-lDUPI..EXUffT, 1 UNCDVEREDGUESTPARKINGFORTHE DUA.EX AND 1 UNASSIGNED UNCOVERED PARKING(ACCESSlll.E).
THEPRIVATEOPENSPACEFOREAa-lUNIT ISPROVIDEDVIAAROOFDEQ(
THATVARIES INSIZEFRCN254SFT0368SF.
THE COt.t.lDN OPEN AREA IS PROVOED INTHE CENTER OFTHEOEVROPM3 ff N-0 ISAPPROXUMTB.Y 2.097 SF IN AREA.
THECONSTRUCTIONTYPE ISTYPE II-A(FlUYSPRINKLERED)ANOTHE
OCCUPANCYTYPEISR-2.
CONSULTANTS
ARCHITECT: ANDERSOO AACHITECTS INC.
KURT B. ANDERSON, .-6JA
120 W CAMPBELL AI/E
CAMPB8.L,CA95008
TEL: (408)371-12Sl
FAX: (408)371-1276
EMAll:[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER: NTERRAGROUP
DAVE VOORHIES
1295EDUNNEAI/E, SLITE230
MORGAN HILL, CA 95112
TEL: (408)472-5222
EMAll:dVoorties@n1erragfOl4).com
LANDSCAPE:
TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
1013 SOUTH CLAREMONT ST, SUITE 1
SAN MATEO, CA9«01
TEL: (650)636-9985
FAX: (650)636-9986
EMAIL:[email protected]
2'-9 1/2"
LEFTSIDE(R1/R2) 10"- 7"
--~ = - =w MIN. S'-MAX. 10" 24"-8 1/ 2"
-- • -w RIGHTSIOE (Rl/R21 4'-9 1/2"
M IN. l lm FAR• 4,278
TOWNHOUSE/DUPLEX UNIT l /UNIT
0.5 /UNIT
10'-7"
30COYERED + 2
UNCOYERED(l
FOR THE
DUPLEX ANO I
UNASSIGNED)
PROJECT SUMMARY 860CIVICCENTERORIVE, SANTACLARA,CA
LOT SIZE{SF)·
FLOOD ZONE:
224-29-CI09,010,023
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
MU-CC-Mi xed-Use<1
Community Commercial
COMMUNITY MIXED USE
USE INOUSTRICALWAREHOUSES
NUMBER OF BUIOINGS 3 (TO BE DEMOLISHED)
16" 1-STORY)
NUMBER OF TOWNHOUSE/ DUPLEX UNITS N/A
DENSITY(DU/ACREI
UNITjSF BREAKDOWNS
GARAGE/DETACHED CARPORT
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS/ UNIT
BUILDING (SI') BREAKDOWNS
TOTAL(INCLCARPORn
OPEN SPACE
,4_ IDD ouAT PENSPACET0TAL 7 COMMERCIAL SPACE 1ST FLR. BUILDING 3 SEE CML DRAWINGS FORIMPER'v10US
CALCULATIONS
9,422
9.422
26,537 26,078
MU-CC-M ixe<l-Used Community Commercial
COMNUNITY MIXEDUSE~
TOWNHOUSES a; COMMERCIAL SPACE 6
(EXCL. 2 ACCESSORY OW"ELL~G UNITS)
Du lex Unit Towhouse-End Tov,house-End-Cil'ic Townhouse OupleK TH-End Tii-End-CMc
4 bedrm/42~:~: 14 bedrm/2~:c: 4 bedrm/4b;,t:3-0 4bedrm/:,:t (INCL.521SFADU)
"' "'
2,639
BUILDING3
2,626
MIXED USE) BUILDING 2
6,073 15,558
2,286 4,516
2,652 2,570
20,698
42,329
42,6S3
'·" 5,982
13,108
S0.26~
2,326
3,794
Tho UO<<>f lbo0<pilRlvtdope<ili«<ti<lllt oblllbe roslri ctO<l 1<> 1bo ,pea.fioaitefur ..tiich!heyw'" p,eporodondpublioalior, 1horeofthall bo oxp,.,.slylirniledtosuct,UO<. R..,...roprodu<tim01pllblicatimby u,ymotb<>d.in..-b<olo01 inpo,t, is i;utiib;tod. Tol• tolhoplans and """"'licali<0 romaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC. withoul ~ judiM. Viaual ""'11ffl with thuo p amandopooill.tlti°"' thall «lllltinae ptimafaci•evidonceo(1be ~ ofther"'1ri<1i.a11.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CM CCENTER TOWNHOUSES
Issued For
~ plion
DttWIIBy:
C"hod<edBy:
Cover Sheet
AO.O Pile: P.:I.Projecu',Ci-.i cCont.,- T"'""""'-1 Joh Civic C<rtoTll VIEW1 VIEW1 VIEW1
VIEW4 VIEW 5 VIEW6
VIEW/ VIEWS VIEW9
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplms and """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CMCCENTER
TOWNHOUSES
Issued For
~plion
C'hod<e<!By:
Site Photos
AO.I Pilc: P.:1.Projecu',Ci.;cc...i.,-T"'""""'- I Job:Civicc,l(oTII 3-STORY TO'M-lHOOSES
/ D 40
_,/- SCA LE: 20'
-- --- ------------------------ --------------------- I 1" 1= ---- 2 0 BO
,/
/
(
\,
\ _______________________ _&\lli,ll_S.l _
1 RESTRICTED,.,";l"-+====,=cr
\
\
\
'\
\,
\
\
\
\
\
'1,
\
\
\
\
\
\
SE \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
---.. .. _
'--,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'----~-----'----~.
ST1f1{, MASOORY •1, FENCE \
"148SF, \ ___ __, \
SEE Al 1 FOR FLOOR PLAN~ 2-STORY ,
\ COMMERCIAL \
\ \
CAR WASH
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1io aitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodond~•aliot1~ihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicabmby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoor inpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• to lhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Villlll""'11ffl1'ith!huepmlandopooill.tltiom_thall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof 1he~ofthor•sttu:1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENJ'ER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
Description
0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
I ARCllrrECTURALREVIEWREV\
2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REV 2
, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REV '
6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REV 6
Dnwnlly.
Chod<odBy:
Site Plan
Al.O
Filo: P.:Af>roje<uleiYioCentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
--------------------------------
I
I
I
\
\
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
(ACCESSIBLE)
32 GALLON TRASH BIN
\
AND 64 GALLON RECYCLE /
BIN PER TOWNHOUSE /
ELEC.METE
ACCESS
ELEC.METER-';----,,------.1,1
ACCESS
\ C>
11:£
I;;\
',!ii "'
\
PEDESTPJAN ACCESS
(ACCESSIBLE)
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20 I
' / ' ' ,, /
/
I
I \
'
I
I
I
I
\
\
40 \ I scA\.E:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
BO
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
20'
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l 1<> 1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Villlll""'11ffl with!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
Dnwnlly.
Chod<odBy:
Accessible & Utility Access
Fire Department Access
Al.0.1
Filo: P.:Af>roje<uleiYio CentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll 576*
202*
DUPLEX
56 TOWNHOUSE-END- CIVIC
(TH-End- Civic)
51 TOWNHOUSE-END
(TH-End)
1 TOWNHOUSE (TH)
SITE AREA CALCULATION
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplms and """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Villlll""'11fflwith!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
Dnwnlly.
Chod<odBy:
Area Calculations
Graphic Illustrations
Al.I
Filo: P.:Af>roje<uleiYioCentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll I
I
-----i----
1 lli
BUILDING 1- 2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0'
5 I · •
lli lli lli lli lli
- - - - - ---jj,+--'l-.,_cc',c1-
,,
,,
II
11 I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
I \ I I
I \/ I
__ ,._ __ , 11=1'=!1'---+.:ml\ /I
I\ /I
I\ JI
llli-',--r+il°""--"411'-+'ltf.+-,~i-r--'.--i'-ii'=,.,--'fllL-7""h --i--illlH --i-lil=,,_-'llfc_,,9;+;---i-.j.11i: \ / :
lli lli
13T.V
BUILDING 1- FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0'
lli
/II\ / I
/ I I \ / I
/ I I \ / I
\ I I I \ / I
\ I I I \ / I
_"i"j_ ~ _.J L_-:rr_-:.J
lli
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l 1<> 1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoor inpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11ffl with!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy:
Building Floor Plans
Building 1
A2.1.1
File: P.:Af>roje<uleiYic Centor T"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c1 1ll BUILDING 1- 4TH FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8': 1'-0'
I
----i----
1 I!! I!! I!! I!! I!!
BUILDING 1- 3RD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8': 1'-0'
I!!
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l 1<> 1h< ,pe<i1io aitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiled to sucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;tim or pllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorin po,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith !huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy:
Building Floor Plans
Building 1
A2.1.2
File: P.:Af>roje<uleiYicCentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll !l! !l! !l! !l!
BUILDING 2- 4TH FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1 /8'= 1 '-0'
I TH-Eed !l! !l! !l! !l!
BUILDING 2- 3RD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0'
I
I
-1------
1 !l!
BUILDING 2- 2ND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0'
11 I\
" " " I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
II I I
="'11...=--,- -=-~
!l!
,_, 14'-9"
!l! !l!
11 I\
I I " " 11 I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
~-=-
I I II
r--=~
!l!
,.,. ,.,.
101'-2'
BUILDING 2- FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0'
1NI'
!l!
11 I " 11
I
I
I I
I I I
!l!
I I I
II I
'L_-= I
,.,
I\
" "
I!:!:sm!
¥' /
.,,\,,,,, I
"'(" I
I I
I I I I I I
I II
t"""'-.=,!/_
ThoUO< <>f lbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<lllt oblllbe roslri cti:<l 1<> 1h< ,pe<i1io aitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall bo o,cpr<osly limiledto sucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;tim or pllblicatimby lll)' motb<>d.in wholoorin po,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith !huepmlandopooill.tltiono thall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy:
Building Floor Plans
Building 2
A2.2
File: P.:Af>roje<uleiYicCentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll cp fr i i UNIT I I
I
C
[!] ,=~ "'"
9 UNIT2
00 3RD FLOOR PLAN
862SF
i i i ©-
®-
cp fr i i !lli!!.... I
i i DUPLEX
2639SF/ UNIT, TOTAL 5,278SF
9 UNIT2
I BMR UNIT 1 I
FLOOR2&3
3 BEDROOMS 3 BATHROOMS
2ND FLOOR PLAN
1131SF
i i
i ©--
D
UNIT2
9 i
E]1'!'------t--~~'7v""'7"vv~_,._____,.~, --,.
El
ThoUO<<>flbo0< pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslri cti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1io aitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<. R..,... roprodu,;tim or pllblicatim by lll)'motb<>d.inwholoor inpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Villlll""'11fflwith!hue pml andopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci• evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
Dnwnlly.
Chod<odBy:
Building Floor Plans
Building3
A2.3
Filo: P.:Af>roje<uleiYioCentor T"""""""- I Job: CMcC.n1c1 1ll 16'-6'
2'-9112' 13'-9"
BEDROOM4
GAM ROOM
b
1'-0'
00 00 RO~TERRACE (PRIVATE OPEN SPACE)
SCUPPER&
DOV!NSPOUT
16'-6'
4TH FLOOR PLAN
0 00 00
RO~TERRACE
(PRIVATE OPEN SPACE)
PLANTER
16'-6'
s
,. ...
2-91,Z 13'-9'
BEDRoc:».4 2 s
;
!l PRIMARY BEDROOM
15'-61'2'
,. ...
3RD FLOOR PLAN
ROOF TERRACE W/ PLANTER
(SEE ELEVATION &ROOF PLAN FOR LOCATIONS)
18-6"
•-T 10'-4112'
DINING
FAMILY
, ....
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
16'-6"
H'-1'
DRIVEWAY
·~·
\ ,, ,, I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ 12-0'
TANDE,GM>AGef
I I
I I
I I
I I
\ I
\I
[---------"----
I
,,
,,
I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1~
\ I
\I
5'-51'2'
____ J_ __
ENTRY
5'-51'2' 1'-11 ' 9'-11'2'
?-4 1'2'
16'-6"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
I I I I I I I I
---j
,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b
_ _J
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllbero:-tri.c1i:<lwlbo ,pe<i1io aitefur..tiich!heyw'"p,eporodond~oa11or,~ihall boo,cpr<oslylirniledtosucliUO<._R..,..,r_oprodu,;timorpllblicabmby u,ymotb<>d.inwholoormpo,t,,s i;utiib;tod. Tol• to thoplmsand """"licotior11rcmainowithANDERSONARCHIT£CTSINCw,dloul
~judica. Viaual""'11fflwiththuepmlandopooill.tlti°"'.thall 1'0llltirutepntlllfaci•evidmceofthe~<>fther•sttu:1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REV I
2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REV 2
Dnwn By.
Chod<edBy.
Townhouse
Floor Plans
A3.l
File: P.:Af>rc,jeou\CiYioCentorT"""""""- I Job: CiYioC.nterlll 00 16'-9'
13'-9'
BEDROON4
GAW. ROOM
12'-0"
ROOF TERAACE
(PRIVATE OPEN SPACE)
16'-9"
4TH FLOOR PLAN
16'-9' 16'-9'
13'-9' 6'-41'2' 1(1-41/2'
BEDROOM2
DINING
PRIMARY BEDROOM FAMILY
16'-9' 16'-9'
3RD FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN
\
16'-9'
14'-1"
DRIVEWAY
,,
,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ 12'·0'
I
I
I
"""';"""'"',' \ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\I Cj' I
'----l---l,l~r-----'-- L-j
r \ /1
1\ 151 11
U-l---+---,1~,1 1\ l1
I\ I 1
r=t=J.E:'=;'1 I \ ;
5'-81'2'
ENTRY
4'-31'2' ·-11·
5'-81'2'
8'-11'2'
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
I
I
\ I
\ 1(1-0112"
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\I
____ J__
11'-01'2'
16'-9'
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllbero:-tri.c1i:<lwlbo ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw'"p,eporodond~oa11or,~ihall
boo,cpr<oslylirniledtosucliUO<._R..,..,r_oprodu,;timorpllblicabmby u,ymotb<>d.inwholoormpo,t,,si;utiib;tod. Tol•tothoplmsand """"licotior11rcmainowithANDERSONARCHIT£CTSINCw,dloul
~judica. Viaua1""'11ffl1'iththuepmlandopooill.tlti°"'.thall 1'0llltirutepntlllfaci•evidmceofthe~<>fther•sttu:1i.or,a.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REV I
2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REV 2
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy.
Townhouse- End Unit
Floor Plans
A3.2
File: P.:Af>rc,jeoulCiYioCentorT"""""""- I Job: CiYioC.nterlll 8'-31/2'
10-11112"
16'-9'
14'-1'
I
I
I
TNfflBI~ /
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\I t;, I [---------"---- "----j
1\ /1
1\ l5l /1
1\ /1
I \ ,' I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
I
1 --OH2'CL
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\I
____ J__
9'-9112"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
Upper floor plans similar to
Townhouse End Unit Plans
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1bo ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw'"p,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylirniledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby u,ymotb<>d.inwholoor inpo,t, is i;utiib;tod- Tol• to thoplmsand """"licalior11rcmainowithAND£RSONARCHIT£CTSINCwidloul
~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwiththuepmlandopooill.tlti°"'thall <>Ollltiruteptimafaci•evidmceofthe~<>fther"'1ri<'li.a11.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy.
Townhouse- End-Civic
Floor Plans
A3.3
File: P.:Af>rc,jeouleiYioCentorT"""""""- I Job: CiYioC.ntor lll SCALE: 118'= 1'--0"
SCALE: 118"= 1'--0"
2. BUILDING 1- REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 118"= 1'--0'
SCALE: 118"= 1 '--0'
ELEVATION KEYNOTES: SEE COLOR.BOARD A-4.4 FOR COLOR CODE
1. PAINTEDSTUCCOFINISH
2 STUCCO OVER FOAM WINOOWTRJM
3. STUCCO OVER FOAM CORNICE/ TRIM
4. ACCENT STUCCO FINISH
5. MANUFACTURER'S FINISHED GARAGE DOOR
6. STONE VENEER
7. SCUPPER AND DOWNSPOUT P.-6JNTED TO MATCH WAl.l COI.CRS
8. 42' HIGH PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL
= F------, F----, F----,
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l 1<> 1h< ,pe<i1io aitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplms and """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CMC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
Issued For
~plion
C'hod<e<! By:
Building 1
Exterior Elevations
A4.1 Pilc: P.:1.Projecu',Ci.;cc...i.,-T"'""""'- I Job:Civicc,l(oTII SCALE: 118"= 1'-0"
SCALE: 118"= 1'-0"
SCALE: 118"= 1'-0"
1. BUILDING 2- FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 118"= 1'-0"
ELEVATION KEYNOTES: SEE COLOR.BOARD A-4.4 FOR COLOR CODE
1. PAINTEDSTUCCOFINISH
2 STUCCO OVER FOAM WINOOWTRJM
3. STUCCO OVER FOAM CORNICE/ TRIM
4. ACCENT STUCCO FINISH
5. MANUFACTURER'S FINISHED GARAGE DOOR
6. STONE VENEER
7. SCUPPER AND DOWNSPOUT P.-6JNTED TO MATCH WAl.l COI.CRS
8. 42' HIGH PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11ffl with!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CMC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
~plion
DttWllily.
C'hod<e<!By:
Building 2
Exterior Elevations
A4.2 Pilc: P.:1.Projecu',Ci.;cc...i.,-T"'""""'- I Job:Civicc,l(oTII
3. BUILDING 3- LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8": 1'-0"
4. BUILDING 3- RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8": 1'-0"
2. BUILDING 3- REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8": 1'-0"
1. BUILDING 3- FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8": 1'-0"
ELEVATION KEYNOTES: SEE COLOR.BOARD A-4.4 FOR COLOR CODE
1. PAINTEDSTUCCOFINISH
2 STUCCO OVER FOAM WINOOWTRJM
3. STUCCO OVER FOAM CORNICE/ TRIM
4. ACCENT STUCCO FINISH
5. MANUFACTURER'S FINISHED GARAGE DOOR
6. STONE VENEER
7. SCUPPER AND DOWNSPOUT P.-6JNTED TO MATCH WAl.l COI.CRS
8. 42' HIGH PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11ffl with!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CMCCENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
~plion
DttWllily.
C'hod<e<!By:
Building 3
Exterior Elevations
A4.3 Pilc: P.:1.Projecu',Ci.;cc...i.,-T"'""""'- I Job:Civicc,l(oTII
VIEW FROM WEST/ CIVIC CENTER DRIVE VIEW FROM SOUTH
VIEW FROM NORTH/ ALVISO STREET
,----=----.. ----I, -------1,··--..... -=----1
i I 1· i
■ i ■ 1· I i ..... ..--- ...... Ll.1.0. .1 .. .1. .0.1.l.J
ELEMENTS OF RHYTHM VIEW FROM EAST
COLOR BOARD
C
1.StuccoWall/rrim/Com!ce
Sherwin-Williams
SnowboundSW7004
Sandfinish
2. Stucto Window Trim/ Wood Railing
Wlndowmanuracturered color to match
Sherwin-WIii/ams
SW 2927 Weatherwne
Sandfinish
3.AccentStucco Wall
Sherwin-Williams
HarTrT1eredSilver SW 284D
Sandfinish
4.GarageOoor:
MissionOilk
Obscure Glass
5. WallAccentStone
EldoritdoStooe
Cut Coarse-Seashell
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,p,<i.fkaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,wreofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplmsand ""°"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Villlll""'11fflwith!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CMCCENTER
TOWNHOUSES
Issued For
~plion
C'hod<e<!By:
3D Views, Colors,
&Materials
Design Elements
A4.4 Pilc: P.:1.Projecu',Ci.;cc...i.,-T"'""""'- I Job:Civicc,l(oTII !1!! !l!! '!!!1
CIVIC CENTER DRIVE ELEVATION
!1!!
ALVISO STREET ELEVATION
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplms and """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy:
Street Elevations
A4.5
File: P.:Af>roje<uleiYicCentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0'
@----4.-...lb:=l===-====:!ib:=====!!l!!!,====:!ib:=====!!l!!!,====:!lb:===='====::=!i BUILDING 1- ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0'
BUILDING 2- ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0"
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t,isi;utiib;tocl Tol•tolhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith!hue pmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy:
Roof Plan
Building 1,2,3
AS.I
File: P.:Af>roje<uleiYicCentorT"""""""- I Job: CMcC.n1c11ll """' SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0"
TH-Eoo
SECTION 8-8
SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0"
!!! !!!
!!! !!!
!!! !!!
!!! !!!
!!!
!!! !!! TH-Eoo
SECTION C-C
SCALE: 1/8'= 1'-0"
ft ~e:
.,
---
'1HR.OOARDOFOECII
- n
J RlR.Oa\u
---
F\=
f-
,.J!.
t - -·-
--
!STR.OOA
L__J
WALL SECTION
THROUGHT TYP. PORCH
SCALE: 1 /2"= 1'-0"
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l 1<> 1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tolhoplms and """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
o.-iption
Dnwn By.
Chod<edBy:
Building 1 Sections
Issued For
A6.l
File: P.:Af>roje<uleiYic CentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll ------~ ----t
-1:====::===:::==:::=====:===i==t-----T
SECTION F-F
SCALE: 1/8': 1'-0'
' ---7----4:========~
SECTION C-C
SCALE: 1/8': 1'-0'
SECTION D-D
SCALE: 1/8': 1'-0'
SECTION B-B
SCALE: 1/8': 1'-0'
SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1 /8': 1'-0'
SECTION E-E
SCALE: 1/8': 1'-0'
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1h< ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw,up,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylimiledtosucliUO<.R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblicatimby lll)'motb<>d.inwholoorinpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• to lhoplmsand """"licoti<0 rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judiM. Viaual""'11fflwith!huepmlandopooill.tltionothall <>Olllti1111eptimafaci•evidmceof1he~ofthor"'1ri<1i.ma.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy:
Building 2 & 3 Sections
A6.2
File: P.:Af>roje<uleiYicCentorT"""""""- I Job:CMcC.n1c11ll i-----PAINTED METAL POSTS AND BEAMS
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
I - I I 12' OVERHANG .----------C -~-- - - - - - - -7
I I 4'4METALPOST I I I I
: I 1""9 PARKING £1]~
I I I
~ f---------------;
I I I
I I I
I I , ... PARKING
: I I§
I L
____________ J
FLOOR PLAN
SOUTH ELEVATION
l ,,, .... ,,,,,,,.,. ....... ,, .... ,,, ... rJ
EAST ELEVATION
" I
I
I I
I
CORRUGATED METAL ROOF f'PERFTSLDPE
ROOF PLAN
ThoUO<<>flbo0<pilRlondope<ili«<ti<llltoblllberoslricti:<l1<>1bo ,pe<i1ioaitefur..tiich!heyw'"p,eporodondputiioalior,1horeofihall boo,cpr<oslylirniledtosucliUO<. R..,...roprodu,;timorpllblioatimby u,ymotb<>d.inwholoor inpo,t, is i;utiib;tocl Tol• tothoplms and """"licali<0rcmaino with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC widloul ~judioa. Viaual""'11fflwiththuepmlandopooill.tlti°"'thall <>Ollltiruteptimafaci•evidmceofthe~<>fther"'1ri<'li.a11.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
-
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
-
Issued For
o.-iption
DnwnBy.
Chod<edBy.
Carport Floor Plans
& Elevations
A7.0
File: P.:Af>rc,jeouleiYioCentorT"""""""- I Job: CiYioC.ntor lll I
I
\
I
I
\
W'.-
'------------------------------------
ALVISO ST
,.,,.---,\. EXISTING TREES
{ )( ) TO BE REMOVED
/
SCALE: 1":20'~' \,, __ ~,/ ~ TREE NUMBER IN TABLE BELCMI
KEY NOTES
G) PROPOSED SIDEWALK
CITY STD.
® g~"'!.~~~"i"ERMEABLE PAVERS (SEE CIVIL ENGINEERING
@ CONCRETE WALK/PAVING
© SITE FURNITURE
BBQ
PROPOSED MASONRY WALL AT PROPERTY LINE, 6 FT HIGH
STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA
SEE CIVIL ENGINEER'S STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN
TRANSFORMER
EXISTING MASONRY WALL AT PROPERTY LINE
@ PERMEABLE PAVERS-PEOESTRIAN
EXISTING TREE SUMMARY
Acacia m<,/anQJiy/m Blackv.oodAcacia 24.0
Ailanthu51t/tiuim8 Tree oll-le.wen
Ai/antJtusltlti5sima Treeo!Hea\en
Ailanl~al/i$Sima Treeoll-lea\erl
Ai/anl/1usltltissirM TreeofHea\e:l
Sch/nu$mo/ltlC;ilifomi;i Peoo,r
Number TrH U>KiH C nNama
1 Ac;,clameJano><y/c;! I Blaci\...oo::1 1-::ac,a
Ai/anrtius afhsima I Treed Hea_,
Ai/1111rtiusalUs1ma 1Tree <1Hea"'"
M11nmus a1nnim1 I Tree <I I-leaSd>inusmolle I CalifomiaPepp,,r Ail1111tllus alus,ma Treed~-
Tatal tr- r.rnovt>d• 7
TrunkOiamat ... OBH Obposition
0 @ :'~: ~~~R (1 BIKE CAPACITY)
MODEL: 01 , PADLOCK
COLOR: RAL 6005, HUNTER GREEN
@ :~: Rt~: (2 BIKE CAPACITY)
MODEL: ARC, SURFACE MOUNT
COLOR: RAL 6005, HUNTER GREEN
@ 1;~~~e:ui::nNG STRIP
NOTES
1. REFER TO BOTH CIVIL ENGINEER'S UTILITY PLAN.
2. CLEARANCES FROM UTILITY LINES (SEE CIVIL PLANS)
10' SEWERS
5' ELECTRICITY/GAS
5' DOMESTIC WATER/RECYCLED WATER (V\11TH ROOT
BARRIER)
10' DOMESTIC WATER/RECYCLED WATER (V\11THOUT ROOT
BARRIER)
3. ROOT BARRIERS PER CITY OF SANTA CLARA WILL BE USED W
HEN THE DRIP LINE OF THE CANOPY AT MATURITY COVERS
HE SIDEWALK. ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE 18 FEET LONG OR
EXTEND TO THE DRIP LINE OF THE MATURE TREE, WHATEVER
IS GREATER, AND BE 1.5 FEET DEPT, AND CENTERED ON
TREES. ROOT BARRIERS FOR CURB AND GUTTER
PROTECTION SHALL BE 16 FEET LONG OR EXTEND TO DRIP
LINE OF THE MATURE TREE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, AND BE
2 FEET DEEP, AND CENTERED ON TREES.
4. TREE SETBACKS AND ROOT BARRIERS PER SILICON VAU.EY
POWER, 'TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS NEAR
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES", 5~1235.
"'""" EXISTING WALL ON ALVISO FRONTAGE. EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED 6 FT HIGH MASONRY WALL. COATED ""1TH STUCCO
Lil~troem1ai. xlsur/f,jTusca1llra·1 c rapel,tyM1e
Uuru!x'Sar8~' Sa,- brid la<xel
Totalll'HS,pt
SHRUBS
(:J
• $
0 0
0 0
0 * 0
8 0
~
ce,occ
""""
""''""
-~,
ANIBRO
8"MOE
IRICOA
~
GROUND COVERS
~LANPUR
SOD/SEED fffiA TUR SOD
CD PROJECT MASONRY WALL
BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
u.g-,troemia lndlca>:faurloolT""'8f<n"/T""'8f<nCl'$paMynlrl, LauNax'Saratoga'/SaratogaHybridlaurel
Ac:hilea,,._alium/Con-fnmYarrow 1gal.
Anigara-x'BigRed'/BigRedKangarooPaw 5gaL
Anigozerttio.x'YelowGam'/YelowGamKlwlgaiooPaw 5gaL
Arbutusunado'Elinl<ing'/EllinKinpStra-rryTrw 5gaL
Chondr0pnllumekof,haotinum/Lar119~Rush
Erigeronkarvi,akiaius'MDerhernir/PinkSantaBarbanoOaiay
IM douglniana 'Pacific Cont Hybrids' / PCH Iris
1gal.
1gal.
1gal.
.AJnoua,-ten•!CallomiaGrayRuah 1gal.
PNnusoaroliniana'Canpacta' /Con.,.ctCarolinaLauralCh•ry 5gaL Rharmuscailornioa'Mcn.,d SanBNnd /Mound San BNnoCdleeberry 5gaL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME ~ ~ ~ ~ .9!l
LantanamarrtevidellW/PurpleTrailingLantan•
TurlSod/DfwghtTDl!'ffntF....,,,,eBler,d
Stcnrr.morspec;..scw.oliat
~rspadft.SCV'I\Olist
CANah~Speci•
~
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
Civic Center Dr.
Santa Clara, CA
95050
SCHEMATIC
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L-1
@Copyright 2024 TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
,/
~--------------------------
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
HYDR
I
\
I
\
I
I
HYO
0 10 20'
5 I
I
\
.,. - SCALE: -1": 20'-0'
I
I
\\
HYDROZONE LEGEND
illlllllllllllli
i!m
LOW WATER USE
(SUBSURFACE DRIP ANO/OR DRIP EMITTERS)
4,404 SF OR 88% OF IRRIGATED AREA
MEDIUM WATER USE
(SUBSURFACE DRIP ANDfOR DRIP EMITTERS AND/OR TURF
ROTORS)
616 SF OR 12% OF IRRIGATED AREA
HIGH WATER USE
(TURF ROTORS ANO/OR POP-UP SPRAY HEADS)
0 SF OR 0% OF IRRIGATED AREA
WaterEffk!entl.andscapeWorl<sheet: 858CIYlcCente~2/30/20ZS) J ReferenuEvaPotranspiratlan(ETo) requirement requirement requirement requirement requlremenl req uirement Hdrornne#/PlantingOescri Ion
RqularlindsuopeArus
1130penSp;,ce Turf
#SCivi<:CenterFrontae
19NorthRe1idence,s
lllONorthStormwater
n10oe11Sace
il4CisicC~merStrip
0.20riD
0.SO~rhu dSDra
0.2Drip
0.2DriD
0.2Drio
0.2Dri
0.2Dri
0.2Drip
Irrigation Landsca...,Area
Efficiencv(IE} ETAFJPF/IEI lA) s.h.)
0.81 0.81
'" "'
46.91 48,89
Ml •lmum Allowed Wl t er Allow;,nce (MAWA)
Ive r low
drip I 0.81I
MAWAjannual pllon$ a lowed)• (Etol (0.621 [(ETAF x lA) • ((l·ETAF) x SI.Al] 1~here0.62 isl co nversonfactortha1conve,1, acre•inchesperacre/veartogallons per sq. ft./vea,. lA i< I 1:~:,~:::i:~:~;::::~e;_!~ ;~; fn~!~e~~~:~1 '.:::1,:~ia l landscape area in sq. ft .. and ITAF ;, .SS for ~
Reularl.andsca eAreas ,,,, --~----+--~'·~02'0AverageETAFforregul~rland>Cape ~reasmustbe0.SSorbelow
0.30forre,idemial areas,and0.45or ~low fornon ·residentiala,ea,.
All La ndscape Areas
1,498
5,020
Estimated Total
WaterUse(ETWU
2,201
11,585
4, 709
2,138
''"
S,893
,,.,
1,323
1,379
CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION STATEMENT
1 lnigationdesignshanbezonedfot1)turfandannualsandOlhermoderata tohlgher'Mlteruse•ntmaterlal8;2)groundcovers, and3)nattwand water conserving plant materials.
2 lnig.rtlondasignshaAalsobezonedformicroclimatasincludingCODI, ahadad&11dproteC1edareaa,as'Mlnashot,sunnyand'Mndyareas. 3 Part,hadaar uinckidamcidar81ewataruiaarauhavingmominga nd'clr aftemoonahada.
4 Coolandfulshalfya(1lllsineludalow-•ru..,araHfllfplantsra"'iring lilllaornollTigationwaterand/orlocationa thatv.ilpro\1damcilstconations, 5 Layoutshall bedeslgnadlormlnlmumrunoffandoveraprayonto non~and,;capedaraas
6 LowvolJITlflsprinklersshanbeusedv.herewrposslblev.lthhndtohaad coveraga.
7 Dr13eminerorbubblerlnigationshdbeut1Zed attreestopromotedaep waterlngY,1mewrpoulble.
8 Dr13irriglltionshall beut1Zedatnon--trafficorlsolilwdpklntinga-sto dacraase tha PDQibilrty of YWtdabm to tha mic~tubing.
9 ThallTigationcontrollarshall hawamplacapacltylntenn1olprogramsand cycle1that...-matchthacorn~lyolthalandscapepklnformoraerr1C1ent Witaring. For a:uimpla, the controller sheN heva tha ebility to hava multiple cycles to penn~ • number al short dur8tion waterings that wil dow water to so9l<.intothasolr8tharthanrunalf.
10lndMdual bubbleraordlipemilters ahdbeutiiZadtolsolatawaterfotplant materiatsandalimlnate watelingol"beraground."
STANDARDS FOR IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT
1 Mainllnes shdbe1120pvo--6ChedJle401orplpesiza 11/2"andsmaler, 1120 pvo--dasl315fotplpeaizes'Z'and21/2", bell andringp,o--class1601orplpe sizas3"endlargar.
2 LateralWness11anbe1120p.,e-c1au200.
3 Dllptholmalnlina: 24"olcovar
Dllpthofhteral lina: 18"ofcovar
Dllpthofpipeundllt'peving:24"ofoovar anc.5'dine51-
4 S.ekflaw praYllt'ttershall b8 • ~ •pprowd by •nd installed per local ,;odes. 5 :::~,. shaN haw matdled precipitation rates v.ithln each control vaMI 8 P~pitatianratnforsprinkhrsahdmatchsoil b,orptionrate. 7 Sprinkler. shaN haw pranura cornpen1atingfeatura v.hanavar possllH to prewnlloggingandmlllingandtoprawntv.111ddrlft.
B Sprinkler circu~ shd hava a ch11Ck valw ins:tahd v.flara n,ocnqry to minimiz:a orprewntlowheaddralnage,
g Rein 5ansing ovemda dsvioas ahd be in$bllled --.th conl!ullar.
CIVIC CENTER
TOWNHOUSES
Civic Center Dr.
Santa Clara, CA
95050
IRRIGATION
HYDROZONE
PLAN
L-2
@Copyright 2024 TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
~NO:O,VA]ljt W)lllO,:;IINC
00.W:OOl0 Ol!fl.lOC,,/f'fW,'11..
Of ~ISREQUR!'D
I. Cl.Il l,$ fEl' ROOTS l,$POSS8..E A.'<I Cl/T™[\ICUHI.
2. PAim CUT ROOTS JITH -,,w ~
3. EIO():.f\_J_ ,S S001i l,$ POSS8..[
10 /MllD RIX>ISf'ROlilOR'rlN(;
1. l'IICMC( l«00"1E li£l,;lfflG WA1..1. - IIO CUURllW< DRP lK. IJIICC....:uits or ru..,-i. ... 811 COX,..TC £w .. ,,cc OCIYIW< ROOrs mo soo.. :1. Av::M'JIHrPCtllNGl!YDAANNG LCM' POMS.
3. PIIIORIOl;Rl,Ol'(:. INSIAU. FUfCESMID~ AAOONO IJl[C
•. wm.m:OOBIC~IO-E: Sl()0( 16CIRECIEDB"l" CiOA!Jf[l) -'ROORIST.
C.QUANZ
G. GOMEZ
TREE PROTECTION LS-6
OCTOBER2013 CITY OF SANTA CLARA
I. lllililllillJ.,
CITY OF SANT A CLARA
ARBORIST NOTES
t. Nocuttingofanypartofcityt.rees.includingroots.shallbedonewithoutse.:uring approvalanddirectsupervisionrromthacilyarboristor11.rborlllt employedbycity (408-615-3080).
2. Nocuttingoranypartof privatetrees,includingroot.s,shallbedonewithout direct supervisionofaninternational&00ietyofarboriculture(ISA)certifiedarborisl a When oonstructionooourswithinthedriplineofexistingtrees,oontractorshallpile the11.oilontheHide11.w11.yfrom the1:ne. "1henthi.~isnotpos.sible,placesoilon plywood, Ull'p, or 4" .. 5• thick bed of mulch. This is to help provcnt cutting into the soil surfscewbenthebackhoeortractor bladerefill,;tbetrench.
4. RefiUopcntrencbesquicklywit.hinhoursofexcavation wbentbeyooourwithintbe driplineofexistingtrees. Ifthisisnotpossibleandtbeweatherishot,dry,or windy, contractor ml.Ult keep rooteml~ moist bycoveringthomwith wet burlap. Iflhe tempe ratureisSO"forgreater,tbeburlapmustbe inspectedeveryhour and re-wetas noc,:s:snryto maintain aoonstantcool moist condition. Ifthc temperature is below 80°,theburlapmwnbelnspectedeveryfour hoursandre-wet a,;necessaryto m11int11 in a OOMtllnt cool moist condition Small roots can dry out Md die in 10-15 minutes. Larger roots can succumb in an hour or leSII under unfavorable weather condition,;
5 "1hen roots2-orl.arger arereqniredtobecut,shovelby handnearthcrootsand prunetheroot.swithanindl.l-'ltry-approvedpruningtool. Rootsthata~accidontally broken should be pruned two inches from the damaged end. Crushed or torn roots are more likelytoallowdecay to begin. Sharply cut roobs produce 11.flush of new roots helpingthetreetorecoverfromitsinjury
6. Contractorshallnotifytbecityarborisrtor arboristemployedbycity72boursin advanceofanyworkrequiring diggingaroundorwithinthedriplineofexistingtreea
7. Aclearl!yl!t.cmof flaggingmusthc providcdaroundtreeswithin20'ofthc proposed grading.Contractorshallsccureapprovalofsuchsystemfromthecityarhoristor arboristemployedbycity.
8 Materials,equipment.temporarybuildings,fucls.paiol3andothcroonstruction ite11111shall notbeplacedwithinlhedrip line ofexistingtrees.
CITY OF SANT A CLARA
ARBORIST NOTES
Pagel of4
oontrw:tor. Thedtyarbol"Ultorarbol"Ultemployed bydtyahalldetenninetbe replacementspecie,size,quantity,andspaci.ng.
Ill Placc 1"-5~ thick mulcharoundallCJr.isting1.roe~(oultothcirdripline)thal aroto bo retainedprior toanyL-oil!ltruction.Thiswillhelpmaintain moisture underthetrae within Uiefcncingarea
17.Borepitl!arenot allowed withintbedriplineofany tree.
Il.fililllfili
"1herethereisinsufficientspacetobypassthc driplinebytrenchingadjacenttoall existing trees in excessof5• DBH, the iru;tallation must be made byborin,i. The beginning andendingdistanceoftheborefromthe faceofthetreeinanydirectionis determined by the diameter of the tree as specified by the accompanying table:
Trenchingwillbereplacedbyboring at
When the tree diameter at 4½feet i~: this minimum distance from tho face of thc trec inany direct.ion:
Inches l foot
3-4 inches 2 feet
6-9 inches 5 feet
inches 10 feet
15·19 lnches 12 feet
overl9 inches 15 feet
Tree diamcter (minimu de th ofbore
9inchesorleS11 2.5 feet
10-14 inches 3.0 feet
15-19 inches
20inchei ormore
III-TRER PROTRCTJON
3.5 feet
4.0 feet
I Contractorshalltagandidentifyexistingtreeswhichareto remainwithinthe projectlimitsandonthepublicright-of-waypriortostartof work. Protect alltagged trees at all times from damage by the work. Treatment of all minor damage to tagged trees shall be performed by an ISA certified arborist or other peraonnel approved by the city arboristor arborist employed by city. If a tagged tree is permanently Pagc3of4
CITY OF SANT A CLARA
ARBORIST NOTES
9 Fenceslltreestoberetainedtooompletelyenclosethetret ProtPClion zonrnriorto demolition, (frubbingor grading. Fencingshall be placedatthedriplineofexisting t.reesor, ifl)088ible, l.5timestheradiusofthedrip lineoutfromthelronkofthet.ree.
A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on each fence. The sign shall be a minimumof8.5"xll" andclearlystate "warning - tree nrotectionzone this fence shallnotbe rcmovcdwithoutapproval fro m thecityarborisVproJect arborisr.
Fencesshall be6-foottallchain linkor
equiwtlent, a.oapprovedbythecityarboristorarboristemployedbycity.Fencessball remain until all gnu:lingandoonstruction work illoomplet.ed In addition. wrap all tree>! with !ltraw waddle up to the first main branch, and then wrap snow fencing aroundthowaddloonalltrocsinthoconstructionzonctoprotootthomfrom bark darnagecausedbythework.
10.Notrenchingsballbedonewithinthedriplineofexistingtroeswithouttheapproval ofthecityarbori.storarboristemployed bycity.Opentrenching intberootwneofa publictreei<lprohibited exceptincAAel!where tho trenchingfall~outside lhe drip lineofthetree involved.Exceptionsmaybeallowed if.intheopinionofthe city arboristor arboristcmpfoycdbycity,thc impactoftronchingonthctrocwillbe negligible.
11. Anycuttingofeiistingrootsofcitytreesshallbedonewitbapproved ligbtequipment undertbcdirectsupcrvi.~ionofthccitynrboristor arborisrtemployedbycity. Any cuttingof existing root.sof privatctroosshallbedonowithopprovedcquipmcnt undertbe directsupervision ofanISAcertifiedarborisL
12.Gradingshouldnotcreatedra.inageproblemsfortroesbychannelingwaterinto them,orcreating sunkenareas.
13. Allgradingwithin the dripline ofcitytreesshallbedonewitbappro,·ed light equipment under the direct supervi~ion ofthecityarhoristor arbori,rtemployed by dty. All gradingwit.hinthedriplineofprivatetrooashallbedonewithapproved equipmentunderthe d ircctsupervisionofanlSAcertifiedarborist. Tbe originsl gradc nt tbc baseofeiistingtroosshallnotbcmodified Ifagradcincrelll<Cis necessary.drywellsshouldbeuscd.
11. When trenching is allowed, thccontractormust fir.rtcut roots with a vcnneerroot cutterpriortoftDYtrenchingtoavoidtuggingorpullingofroots
15.Treesthataredetenninedtoberemovedbyt.hecitynrboristorarboristemployed by cityduetoanunforeseencircu11111tanceduringconstructionshallbereplaccdbythe
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
ARBORIST NOTES
Page2of4
dillfiguredorkiUedW111resultoftbework,oontractorshall removelhetree,including itsroots,fromlhesiteand replaceeachremovedtreewithan equal-sizedtree.If such replacement is not l)OISlliblc, the contractor shall reimburoo to the tree owner the amounl listed in the t.able below. The cily arborist or arborist employed by city shall bethesolejudgeoflheconditionofanytree. Contractorshallprovideregular wateringofcxisting]andscapingwitllintheconstroctionareathroughthe oonstructionpcriod.
2. Contractorshallpaythetreeownerthevalueofexistinglreestoremainthatdiedor were damagedbecauseofthecontractor'sfalluretoprovide adequateprotoction and maintenance. The payment amowlt shall be in accordance with the following schedulcofvalues.using~trcecalipcr" mcthodestablishedinthe moslrccentissueof the •guideforestablishingvaluesoftroosandot.herplants".preparedbytbecouncil oftreeandlandscapcarchitects.
7 inche~
B inches
9 inches
10 inches
11 inches
12 inches
13 inches
14 inches
15 inches
16 inches
17 inches
lB inch,:,snndovcr:
Mdforeachcaliperinch
$ 2.400
$ 3,400
$ 4,400
$ 5,200
$ 6,200
$7,200
$ 8,200
$ 0,200
$ 10,000
$ 11,000
$ 12,000
' 1.200
Pag,:4of4
CIVIC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
Civic Center Dr.
Santa Clara, CA
95050
SANTA CLARA
TREE
PROTECTION
L-3
@Copyright 2024 TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
.--------------------------------------------------------~---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_----------------~------ /
II
NEW 6' HIGH MASONRY FENCE
3 TRASH- & 3 RECYCLE BINS
:::., SEEA1.0.1
BMRUNIT1
FLOOR.2,J
JBEOROOMS, JBATHS,
2118SF,
SEE A23 FOR FLOOR PLANS
EXISTlt-fGMASOt-RY
3-ST0RY FENCE\
"BEDROOMS, 4BATHS, l ___ __,
"48SF,
SE:E:A3.1 f-ORFLOORPLAN ;i.STORY
\ COMMERCI.AJ...
SHEET INDEX
DRAW/NC I DESCR/PfJON
[ 1.1 0 I SITE PLAN - LIGHTING
E1.20 I SITE PLAN - PHOTOMETRIC
E1 .30 I LUMINIARE SCHEDULE & FIXTURE DETAILS
\
\
\
PLAN TRUE
NORTH NORTH
SITE PLAN - LIGHTING ~n\
~sc,c,=-o;--c, ,._ ~,,,~'-"'-=---N D~~
GENERAL NOTES
1 MOUNTING HEIGHT (MH) LISTED IN LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE
SHALL BE FROM ABO\IE GRADE TO BOTTOM OF COMPLETE
EXPOSED flXTURE
2. ALL EXTERIOR MOUNTED LIGHTING SHALL BE CONTROLLED 8\'
PHOTOCONTROL OR ASTRONOMIC TI ME- CLOCK SCHEDULING PER CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CENC) REQUIREMEN TS 160.5(c)2. PROV1DE MOTION SENSING CONTROLS FOR
LUMINAIRES OVER 40 WAITS MOUNTED LESS TH AN 24'
ABOVE GRADE AND WALL MOUNTED LUMINAIRES MORE TH AN
24' ABOVE GRADE.
3. ALL E)(TERIOR MOUN TED LUMINAIRES SHALL FOLLOW
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BACKLIGHT, UPLIGHT AND GLARE
(BUG) RATINGS FOUND IN CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING
STANDARDS CODE TABLE 5.106.8
4 ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE DIMMABL£. PRO VlDE
LIGHTING CONTROLS FOR HIGH END TRIM TO DIM LIGHT
FIXTURES TO 8D% OUTPUT AT INITIAL INSTALLATION. FUTURE
MAINTENANCE SHALL INCREASE OUTPUT POWER TO MAINTAIN
INITIAL LIGHT LEVEL
Mfp
Roa1SON
SITE PLAN -
UGH TING
SHEET NO.
El.10
/ i --------------~ .sr_
I
I
NEW 6' HIGH MASONRY FENCE
EXISTlt-fGMASOt-RY
3-ST0RY FENCE\
4BATHS, -----,
"BEDROOMS, l
"48SF,
SE:E:A3.1 f-ORFLOORPLAN ;i.STORY \ COMMERCI.AJ...
\
\
\
PLAN TRUE NOR TH NORTH
PHOTOMETRIC NOTES
1 PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS BASED ON AVAILABLE IES FILE
~G~~TI~tii"b~Es ~~NYU~~~ri:J~1s~0~lo0?1i:~~~)-L£Fl~I¼~E
2. PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS MEASURED AT GRADE LEVEL
FROM CEILING HEIGHT OR MOUNTING HEIGHT (MH) NOTED IN
LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE.
J. SHE PHOTOMETRIC BASED ON PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING FOR
PROJECT ONLY.
Drive Aisle
Photorrietric S chedule
AVERAGE
FOOT- CANDLES
MAXIMUM
FOOT- CANDLES MINIMUM
FOOT- CANDLES
MAXIMUM TO MINIMUl,I FC RATIO
AVERAGE TO MINll,Md
FC RATIO
Walkway Photorrietric
Schedule
AVERAGE
FOOT- CANDLES
MAXIMUM
FOOT- CANDLES MINIMUM FOOT- CANDLES MAXIMUM TO MINIMUl,I
FCRATIO
AVERAGE TO MINIMUl,I
FCRATIO
SITE PLAN -
PHOTOMETRIC
SHEET NO.
El.20
Spe,:ifoaotiono
- ""' -·
= ""- 1H b
WDGE2 LED Architectural Wall Sconce
Precision Refractive Optic
a~ @e rnru :;;;;: r-~- ~ ~ --
~ ~==::~-.... --......... ,, ............ --- ... - 1
W&M&
:-;.~---- ~, .... , __ ..... _ ~ ;;..-;_ .... _ .:. :::::::::
,.,_.,,. _ .. ·:-:-t.=,~ _,._ ,.,. .,:..,_
,..., ... ..:.:::--,.--
"""""""'"""""" 0.-.-W., • - ., . ..... , _ .. ,,..,.,. . = -•b
.,,._, ___ ....
___ ._..,_,_. .. ,., ... __.
WDGE1 LED = Architectural Wall S<:once .---------
Thov.«iELIDf....ty•~oo.-..,-, -:::~-?'"'9:::'%_,."'_,
---y,,-~w.-munon
=~':?"'9-=:,25.0Cll..._
WOOEl-."'"2.IDJ........,.w<h•ooll.,.,..._
i"-5!1<-.-•""-""Y-
::;:.:"~-~:....~~.
..,._,,.,.....,,OC<>"_<g,t,ngooie,on.
Ql(l;lll'r,\M-,:ONCOD-'IC'ITl,m-UO'OCIJlf9T--.o - S'"a.~c,.v,,r:v.o,t9~ UIJll'IC.Oll:lf-«l-- 1~•
EXTERIOR LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE
CA LI/JUT S YJIBOL JIOUNTINC DESCRIPTION JIODEL VOLT.ACE PROTOCOL CRJ;«T LAMPING ,r,ATT.ACE S81 BOLLARD BOUARO - BO UO G1 - MH J 'O" LANDSCAPE FORMS: AJ100 ◄ :30K UV1 MULTIPL£ PHASE 80 / JOOOK (1) 10.9W 10.9 LED
SCI SURFACE WALL SCOOCE - UP /DO'M-1 - MH 8'0" DMF: OC4WMW M 007WF007SP30 MULTIPLE 0-lOV 9.3 / JOOOK (2) 19W LEO 9,5 [FINISH] 0 00 R R DIMMING
SC2 SURFACE OO'M'ILIGHT - CARPORT DMF: OC4SM W S007GAOOOOOJO MULTIPLE 0-lOV 9.3 / JOOOK (1) 9.5W LEO 9,5 [FINISH] 0 00 R DIMMING
SW1 SURFACE WALL SCOOCE - BO UO GO - MH 9'0" LITHONIA: WDGE1 PO JOK 60CRI WI MULTIPLE 0-10V 80 / JOOOK (1) 7W LED ,VOL, DIMMING
SW2 SURFACE WALL SCOOCE - AREA LIGHT - '" LITHONIA: WDGE2 LEO Pl 30K 60 CRI VF MULTIPLE 0-lOV 80 / :3000K (1) 10W LEO 10 11' - 80 UO GO MVOLT SRM DIMMING
NOTES:
1. LUMINAIRE SCHEOUL£ IS BOO ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT FIXTURE MODEL OR EQUIVALENT. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE FIXTURE FINISl-,ES 'MTH ARCHITECT/ O'MIIER
2. FIXTURE CATALOG NUMBERS 00 NOT NECESSARILY DENOTE SPECIFIC MOUNTING ACCESSORIES. CONTRACTOR TO PROv10E ALL NECESSARY ACCESSORIES TO SUCCESSFULLY C(»,IPL£TE THE INSTALLATION.
J . 'BUG' RATING ON EXTERIOR FIXTURES INDICATES 'BACKLIGHr. 'UPLIGHr . ANO 'GLARE' AS STANDARDS CLASSIFYING OUTDOOR LIGHT FIXTURES.
M Series Cylinder
I
o.---..... ~. LEOP._,.,."°"'"'""''°'°-
"Surface Mount
• '"'°9'>' .. o,+,o,s-torOQ,mto0.11,dinvM>\l o""°'4
h-
""""" "'"-"'"'""""""'""'""""'"'"'11-
• C-,.,..--,.;,n"'-oOO ___ _
-""-•----00-.... __,.,.,..,. • ,.,lact>K<lio'.c!~IO •-o,--,moun, .. j,'!CtlootMl._ 1ooa11o, ..... ..,hli<M«l<Oling ,,.~t&-m~,. ... ~,-
• [);o-<>0010...,,._ , __ ro,,~bio-tor•-·
.,._,._go
U UHtOUTOUT & UIOTRltUTIOH
1001mto.5Yl\•0001ml'20W).!>601m
11uw1.,ooo,,.11oow,,"""''"'l><'Wl
,ooo .. 1'7>W):IOOO""l>"Wl
! :::;,'.., ! _,.,
Is,_"" t;,,-•-,~
lfll II Ill Declan,, 4!l ®='"" Ill OMfUQttl_,, ,., ..... _,,___c,,..,,., ,., .... ,,,. ---- ·- ____ ,. __ -- -..----.. 0 - --- M Series Cylinder
I
°'" __ _....,.__..,
,wt>,_.,,...,,.,...,,..,,...._.
Wall Mount
· --""---""-"'"'"""""ng""'-
"""""""'-
, euo""""',.,..._"'"'"""'"""m"'°"rontill'X•- .-4.,._,"' .,.,.,,,...,..,.,, • Wotlocltlon ~ otlono-loro,t--..
, o;,,_,,..,_,,,,...,......,.,.,_ ... """"'""""-· .,...,,..,., .. ~ UGHTCUTPUT&UIOTRl&UT>CH
"'"·~·"""'"""""i''-'Wl-> ...... c,UW) 1,oo,.,c,0,w,,ooo,.,1><.,w, ,_..,(:>f.OW). ...... (><W)
® ----
® ""'-" ...
®"""""•-
ll ll lll -· C?l ®ccc>: OMl'UOffl- 111H,.,.._""'-.C,,I014' »>.0>4.mO ----·- o , __ ,. __ - ·- ·--.. · -· --- Ill
Motive Path Light Spe<S>ioot l A.1100
--~ ____ ......... _,,,,_ -·- ________ · .. '<:, .... _______ ..., __ _ -·-
"""_.,,, ___ ..,._lfiOo __ .,, ________ _ -~·---- __, .. ___ .. ~ ... -,.,-,_ ., _____ ............ ... , -~•-·-""""'·""'-,.""'-..
nn
_ _____ ., ___ , ....... __ ____ .. ._ ....... __,,_ _"'_"'-___ .,._,., __________ ... .., ____ ..,""'~---.. '"' ---------- ___ , __ __
Conillc>liofi "',._ .. _, __ ""-__ .. ,_ ..,,_,""'-_ _, SHEET TITI.E:
WMIINAIRE
SCHEDUL£ ,k
AXllJRE
OETAILS
SHEET NO.
El.30
• I
q
I I
I
'ii
I
i i , 11 ~I
\
\
. .
GENERAL NOTES
VICINITY
MAP NOT TO SCALE
~OM~DISTANCES'MTHINTHE DRA\\!NGAR Tl£REOfANOAREGROIJNOOISTAN~~DIA'ONIBE US SVRVEY
FOOTAND
(2) AflO\IE GROJNDE\-1DENCE
~~F:=c~~~o::o~fOR~;n~gr :e~~DL: L~F~n": ii ~~~NF~Mrn, S SHECT , OR DESI GN PURPOSES. TION
_
-IRR _ ,. __ -m --
------- - - -
i
I
;
1'
®
"
~~
' COL
cc
EL
ELEC
" rn
GM "
CV LP
LG
PB
"" ss
SD TC
TO
TG
WM
"'
CONCRETE SURFACE
CENTERLINE
RIGHT Of WAY
PARCEL LINE BUILDING
I SPENO ENTERPRI
SES
73KEEBLE
SAN JOSE, CA 9,126
Project: CIVIC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
APN: 224-29-(19.l0.1)
8'8CMCCENTERDRIVE
l'16ALVJSOSTREET
SAITTA CLARA.CA
~\l H ~ I flrtJeNa1NEERING LLP
I 11/COPORATE:CITYCOAl>IEIITS
l !HCOPOR,1T£ CITYCCN/JEIHS
: !HCOPOR,UECITYca./lJEIITS
/HCOPORATECITYCCNMEIITS
Dra9/n.By.
ChocbdBy.
ShoetTitl•
City Revisions
1/29/25 12/.Jl/23
TOPOGRAPHIC AND
BOUNDARY SURVEY
ui----------------------------- ,,,,,,. . .
.a111
•-• 1i!
[1
' ' \
I
\
0 20 -40
•••••w---
GENERAL PROJECT NOTES
1. TI-E CONTRACTOR SI-W.L SET HS STRING OR 'MRE T~OJGH AT LEAST THREE GRADE STAKES TO VERIFY Tl-E GRPDE. IF THE STAKES DO NOT PRODUCE A UNIFORM GRADE, NOTIFY Tl-E ENGINEER IMMECtATEL Y AND HAVE Tl-E GRACeS Q-IEO<ED PRIOR TO TRENa-llNG.
2. Al.LAREASTOBEGRADEDAT 1%MINIMI...N FORCRAINAGE EXCEPT Al.ONG FLOWI.INE OF a.JRB Pl'ID GUTTER OR VALLEY GUTTER, M Sl-fCYMII. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE EVEN..Y BETWEEN SPOT ELEVATIONS SHO'NN. PROPOSED SPOT GRADES (ELEVATIONS) 51-!0W\1 HEREON ARE Flf'ISHEDPAVEMENTGRACES, NOT TOP OFOJRB GRAO::S, lJNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. THE COOTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE CONTENTS At-0 THCKNESSES OF THE BUWNG Sl.J>B SECTION OE CONCRETE, SAN), ROO<) 'MTHTHE STRUCTURAL PLANS ANO THE ELEVATIONS SI-IOW\I HEREON PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS. 3, ESTIMATED EARTt-MORK a..JANTITIES; EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SI-IC)V'.N OF ANY).
OR OTHERWISE SUPPLIED BY THE ENGlt-EER, ARE APPROXIMATE ott.. Y Al-0 SI-IOW\I FOR Tl-E ~POSES OF CALCULATING GRADING PERMIT FEES. THE ENOlrEER ASSUMES NO UPBIUTY FOR THE PCOJRACf OF THESE OUANTITIES.
4. v.+IEN A GRADING PERMT IS ISSUED ON Tl-IS PROJECT Tl-E AGENCY APPRCNAL APPUES ott.. Y TO GRADING. TI-E CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING All OTHER NECESSIIRY PERMITS TO ACCOMPLISH PROPOSED SITE ',\ORK IT IS
STRONOL Y RECWMENJEDTHATTHE CCNTRACTOR OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY LJNCERGROUNO PERt.'ITS BEFORE ROUGH GRADING THE SITE, AS RE\1SIONS TO UNCERGROUND FACILITIES MANDATED BY PLAN a-lEO<ING AGENCIES MAY SUSSTANTlALLY EFFECT GRAaNG INCLUllNG ANISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS. 5, ALL v.oRK SI-W.L BE PERFCRMEDINAOCORDANCE'MTHPPPUCABLE O.S.HA REGULATIONS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE 'MTH GENERALLY ACCE.PTEDOONSTRUCTION PRAC11CES, OONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CR ,...,LL BE REQUIRED TO ASSU\1E SOLE AND COMPLETE
RESPONSIBILITY FCR JOB SITE OONOOIONS DURING TI-E COLRSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRQ.ECT, INCI.UDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AAO PROPERTY; THAT Tl-IS REQUIREMENT SI-W.L BE MP£!: TO PPPL Y CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE UMITEDTO N~ ~ KING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTCR FURTI-ER AGREES TO CEFB'O, INDEMr-lFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIO'IAL HARMLESS FROM ANY ANDAI.L Ul'BIUTY, REAL CR ALLEGED, IN
CONNECTION 'MTH THE PERFCRMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM Tl-E SOLE r£GLIGENCE OF CESIGN l'Ra"ESSIONAL
6. MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE ON AN'f WALK IS2%.
7. MAXIMUMSLOPEOFTI-ECURBRAMPSISB.33%,
8, REPLACE FRONT DOOR THRESHCt..D SO HBGHT DCES NOT EXCEED t HIGH 'MTH !"BEVEL,
A CITY OF SANRA CLARA ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK
WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
ABBREVIATIONS
AC AD
BC BLDG COR
C/CONC
CB CLF CMU EC EL
EP
FC
FF
FL
FNC
FOO
ASPHALT CONCRETE GROUND
AREA DRAIN GB GRADE BREAK
BEGIN CURVE HO
BO HEADERBOARD
BUILDING CORNER INV INVER T ELEVATION
CONCRETE IEI INVERT ELEVATION IN
CATCH BASIN IEO INVERT ELEVATION OUT
CHAIN LINK FENCE IET INVERT ELEVATION THRU
CONCRETE MASONRY WALL LG LIP OF GUTTER
EDGE OF CONCRETE LS LANDSCAPING
ELECTRIC MH MAINTENANCE HOLE
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
POC
POINT ON CURVE
FACE OF CURB
RTWL RE
TAINING WALL
FINISH FLOOR TC TOP OF CURB
FLOW LI NE TEL TEL
EPHONE
FENCE TOP TOP OF SLOPE
FULL OF DEBRIS TYP TYPICAL
WO WOOD
NEW ASPHAl. T STRUCT\.RAI. SECTION
REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING BY GRINDING ANO SLURRY SE.6J..
SOUAREINLET/OVERFLCIWCRAIN
'MTH FULL TRASHCAPT\.RE DEVICES
Th<\IHoflhoHpj..,.om:lSJ>OQ.lico1i<Ushalll>o1os1ri<lod tQtlu, opeoillclite f«whid:ilhey waeP"P"'odom:lpfili .. tionlhoreofthall l>o_...tylimitedtom<h\lH. Rouoo,~<01«p.lblicoti<01by IIJl)'mothod.inwldc«inpart,isJn&bitod. Titletotbopj..,.om:l opeo:ili..tiont ""1IUl>I with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC. withwt prejudice. Vuual0<1111K1wi1b1i>neP,Ul6Uldopecifi .. timaoboll cotdliuepima&o:ioevidenceoltheocc,ptm:•oflhorelttiC0:0111
SPENO ENTERPRISES
CIVIC CENTER TOWNHOUSES APN: 224-2'Ml9.l0,23
8'8CMCCENTERDRIVE Client Revisions
City Revisions
DnwnBy:
CheckedBy:
1/29/25
08j0e/25
10/24/25
12/JJ/25
GRADING PLAN
C-2.0
A CITY OF SANRA CLARA ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK
WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
O 20 40
•••••w---
STANDARD UTILTIY NOTES
1) ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE Of BUILDING PERMITS, 11,E APPLICANT SH ALL SUBMIT AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLJ CA TION AND DESIGN PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION Of WATER UTILI TIES THAT COMPLY 'MTI-1 THE LATEST EDITION OF Tl-IE WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS. WATER SYSTEM NOTES AND STANDARD DETAILS ANO SPECIFICATIONS 2) UTILJTY SEPARATIONS·
12" MINIMUM VERTICAL 0.EARANCE OF WATER MAIN AND SERVICE CROSSINGS 'MTI-1 011,ER UILITIES. ALWAYS CROSS WATER MAINS ABOVE OTI,ER UTILITIES PROVlDE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEARANCES FROM WATER SERVlCfS:
10'FROMSANITARYSEl',£R
10' FROM RECYCLED WATER
8' FROf.4 STORM DRAIN
5' FROl.4 FIRE AND OTHER WATER UTI LI TIES
3' FROf.t ABANDONED WATER SER VICES
5' FROf.4 THE EDGE OF PROPOSED OR EXISTING DRIVEWAYS
FOR SANITARY 5E\'IER, WATER, AND RECYCLED WATER UTILITIES, MAINTAIN A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE OF 10' FROM EXISTINGANDPROPOSED1REES. IF USINGlREE ROOT BARRIERS,CLEARANCE FROM "TREES REDUCE TO 5' (CLEARANCE MUST BE FROM EDGE OF TREE ROOT BARRIER TO EDGE OF
WATER FACILITIES)
NO SlRUCTURES OR "TREATMEN T FACILI TIES (E,G,fENCING, FOUNDATIONS, BIOFlLlRATION SWALES. ETC)
SHALL BE PLACED OVER SANITAR Y SEWER, POTABLE WATER AND OR RECYCLED WATER UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS.
3) SEPARATE SER\r1CES: All PROPOSED WATER, RECYCLED WATER, SANITARY SEWER SER\r1CES SHALL BE SEPARATELY CONNECTED TO A PUBLIC MAIN IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WA. DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WATER AND REC YCLED WATER USE (DOMESTIC, IRRIGATION, FIRE) SHALL BE SERVED BY SEPARATE WATER SER\r1CES, EACH SEPARATELY TAPPED AT THE WATER MAIN. TAPPING ON EXISTING FIRE SER\r1CE LINE IS PROHIBITED. APPROVED BACKFLOW PREVENTION DE\r1CES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL POTABLE WATER SERVICES.
4) CITY STANDARD METERS AND BACKFLOWS: All METERS AND BACKFLOWS FOR ALL WATER SER VI CES (NEW AND EXISTING) SHALL BE UPGRADED TO MEET TI,E CURRENT CITY OF SANTA CLARA WATER AND SE'n£R UTILITY STANDARD DETAILS. PLANS SHALL SHOW METER AND BACKFlOW CONFIGURATIONS TO SCALI
5) All WATER SER\r1CES .,..,ll BA A MINll.lUM OF 1' .
6) ON - SITE STORM DRAIN "TREATMENT: NO WATER, SE'n£R, OR RECYCLED WATER FACI LITIES SHALL BE LOCATED WI THIN 5' OF ANY STORM WATER "TREATMENT SYSTEM. 7) LANDSCAPING: All rnE LANDSCAPING FOR rnE PRO,£CT SH ALL COMPLY WI TH rnE CALIFORNIA WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65591 ET. SEQ. All PLANTS SHALL BE EITHER CALIFORNIA NATIVE OR NON-INVASIVE, LOW WATER - USING OR 1-lODERA TE WATER - USING PLANTS. HIGH WATER - USING PLANTS AND NONFUNCTIONAL TURF ARE PROHIBITED 8) UNDERGROUNDFlRE PERMIT: ANYCHANGES TOTHEFIRE SER VI CES TOTI,ESITESHAllBEAPPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS INCLUDING UPGRADING TI,[ BACKFLOW PREVEN TION DEV1CE ON ANY SERV1CE, THE RELOCATION OF, UPSIZING, DO'hNSIZING OR DISCONNECTION OFANYFlRESERVICE.
EXISTING AND PROPOPSED WATER SERVICES
858 0"1C CENTrR DRI VE EXISTING OOLIES11C I 1' I TO BE ABANDONED 860 0"1C CENTrR ORl'IE EXISTING OOMES11C I 1' I TO BE ABANOOtlD£0 OVIC CENTER DRIVE PROPOSED OOMESTIC 1 4" I RPBPO
OVIC CENTER DRIVE PROPOSED DOMESTIC 1 4. I RPBPD
OVIC CENTER DlllVE PROPOSED FIRE 1 4" I llPDA
AL.-,SOSTRITT PROPOS£D FlRE l 4.I RPDA
AL.-,SOSTRITT PfiOPOS£D FIRE l 4" I RPDA
o.-,c CENTER DRIVE PROPOSED IRR. 11 1/2• I RPll'D
AL.-,SO STRITT PROPOS£D SE'WER l 4. I
o.-,c CENTER DRIVE PROPOSED SE'IIER I 6. I
Tb<UJ<of0....pl1Nand"""'6Clli<nollllllbor<ffimtotbo
apociliolit<f<OCwhidith<y ...... _odandp.,bli~tho:r«Jfoball bo«xp1"0MlylimitodtoJUclt11H. Roule,...,.tuotion<OCpt,li<1tion 1111Ymethod.inwhal<uinpct. il !ffllihlod. Titl•totbopl ... lllll aptcificatiaia NIIWIII .,;th ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC. M pajudiot. Vuualc<Ela<lffld!tlleMplanaand,p,,c,illcali..,. .i.an c<Otitutoprimat.c:ionid<n«oftboe«optv,c,oflhereotric:ti""'
SPENO ENTERPRISES
CIVIC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
APN: 224-29-09,10,23
8511CIYICCENTER DR£VE
l~2~ALVISOSTRE£T
SANTACI.ARA,CA
City Revisioru1
DrawnBy.
UTILITY PLAN
C-3.0
t/29/25
08/06/25
J0/24/25
TREATMENT CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY TABLE
T ,..,IuuJwmCmI •mTmV!rr
PERMEABLE PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
Cl£CIC FORSEDIMEIIT Nl>DEBRJSACCINAATl)N. PRE\ENT Q.FAOM WASfl'IG DR l!t.O't,fi(IONTO 11£PAVEMElil.DOltal"ST"ORESNfD,D.,Mll.atDROTl£R~fllATEIVLSONPERWXIS PA\9Etl'ISUll'/ICES.
CXNl~PREVEIITATM:SIR'.ICECl.£NING,USINGC<NilE!a/ll.LY/4V1Vlll~EIERAffiEMI. 0RYACUUNSWEEl'ERS,T0"81CM:SEDt,100Nl)DEBl'tS.
fCSPECTF(lR #jV91QNSOFPAVEliEN'TFALUIE.IEP-"lNIYSt.RF,aDEFQRMA110NSOREROl(EN PA\et!.-...a:~XINTFLL.ERIIPICP.
CHCKFORSl~GWATERONTIEPA't'El,IEIITSIJIF1'CE~30111MJTESNTERASTill\lll = · ~NOllll.rn"NOa.ENO.ml,PREFEAABtYBEFIJl!EllteWET~. l'E!IJ\IE l'ERFOll,IRESTORATM,9'-'lf..cEru,fj~G\IIITHAVACWMSWEEPER.ll.'lll:RRE<XlfiSTRI..CI & OFPMTOFTl£PERWJI.ISSI..WACETORESTORESUll'ACEPEPJEABUIYASIEEDED.liflllftlSH ~TEIIPICPJ'JlmlORGRllSASIEECl3lAFIER~TM:Slff"IICEQ.EAI\ING.
BIOTREATMENT MAINTENANCE
~~~SlR:J~~~~l'HJT!WiHFRCNBIORETENOON1f/V..NfDITSIIL.ETSAND ~~1$NEEOEDAFTER CIECKUN~FORa.oGGIIG. USETHECLENIOUT RISERTOCLENIANYC.OOGED U~DEROO.'JNS.
OUARlERLY.ORASNEEDEDAFTER
:i~~R1:==~ANOENSLREMTPL>HTSMERECEl'lflCJTIECORRECTMIOLffl "'"""""" CUAATERLY ENSURETHATTHEVEGETATlONISIEALTHYANDDENSEENOUGHTOPROVDEFlTEl'l'IGANO PROTECTSOCSFROMEROSIOO. PRUNEAl()WEEOTIEBK>RETEtm:lNAAEA.REMOVEA.~OOR REPLACEANYDEIDPLANTS.
USECOM'OSTANDOTIIERNATURALSOLAIIENDNENTSANDFERTUZERSNSTEADOFSYNllETIC FERTlJZERS.ESPEW,LLYFTltESYSTEMUSESANIJN)ERl)RAII.
INSPECTTHEENERGYDISSIP,1,.TION,1,.TTIE llt.ETTOENSLREITISPJNC'lkltiJIG,t.JJEQUATELY.AND THAT TtEREISNOSCOUROFTIESURFM:EMULCH REMOVE...CCUKUTEDSEOl\lENT.
ANl'f.J...U.Y,BEFORETIEWET
BEGINS
Nitf.J-'l.LY.BEFOREnEWETS
BEGINS
ANNJMlY.BEFORETIEWET
BEGINS
INSPECT OVERflOWl'f>E TO ENSIJ'tETHATITCANSAfEI.YCOIVEYEXCESSROWS TO-'STO™ f----!=DRH~•~RE~" ~I\OR= """" = ~-=~"' = '"~----------lNINJMlY,BEFORETIEWET REPLACEBklT!EATMENTSOl.ANOM.JLCH. IF NEEOED.QfECKFCRSTNOINGW-'TER.STRUCTURAL BEGINS FAl..\ftAN0C.OGGEDOVER'LO\'/S.REMOVETAASHANDOEBRIS.REPIJCEDEIDPLANTS.
MAINTENA.NCE N OTES: PROPERTY O W NER IS RESPONSIBlE FOR B10-TIIEATM&-IT MAINTE~CE AFTER CONSTIIUCTION
NINJMlY,BEFORE TIE WETS
TABLE1
ROUTINE JIIAICTENANCE ACTMTES FOR FLOW-THROUGH PLANTERS MAlfTENANCETASK FREQUEHCYOFTASK
1 =~~;E~1:ys~:~'!i~:a:i~~-FOROBSTROCT10NS QJARTERLY
NSPECT PLANTERFORSTANDINGWATER. IFST~DING WATEROOES NOT~ 2 :::~~E:=oBs~~~r:~~:~::~~oor OUAATERLY RISERTOQ.EARANYUN0ERDRAtlSOF06SlRUCTIONSORa.oGGING'4'TERIAL. 3 ~:~===:f:~~:~~MEDIALEVELSOI.YnlliRAKE OOAATERLY
,t =~=~~N:.~=--~~~~DMEDTOKEEP OOARTERLY
S :~e:JeHo~~~ ~~~~E=~:~~~~~ ANNUAlLY,BEFORElHE
CLOSE TOGETHER. RAtlYSEASON BEGtlS
6 ~S~~~~:~~\~~~=~:e!~N~~~ :1~~::E NSPECTTHEOVERFLOWPIPETO IMKESURETHAT ITCAN SAFELY CONVEY EXCESS T ~=-~:!~~~!\:~~=~:=~ ~UAU~~~:E
CLOGGING MATERIAi...
8 :5~~s~~:~~~~~~~~~~ANY ~UAL1~~::E
9 ~i,~~~~=M~~E= 0~~Ari::COM',4ENOEOTHAT2' T0 3' ~lW.l.~~::E 1 tlSPECT SYSTEM FOR EROSION OFBIOTREATMENT SOL t.EIAA, LOSS OF MU.CH, 0 STANDtlGWATER, 0.0GGED OVERFLOWS, V<'EEDS, 'IRA.SH AND DEAD PLANTS. IF USN3 ROCK MULCH, CHECK FOR J' OF CO\oaW,E.
OVERALL SITE SURFACES
ANNUAl.lYATTIEEND
OFTHE~S~
AND.QlAFTERLAAGE
STORM EVENTS,
ANNUAl.lYATTIEEHO
OFTHEIW'-IYS~
AND.QlAFTERLAAGE
STORM EVENTS,
... ..--,.....,_,..,,.,.,...,.ia .. ,-,.. A, IAM....;..,-,__(, .1-...-,_,-.,.......,. --..... 1"""""""'""""- 11,~--... ...,. .. .,,. __ _
n.,.....--,..._-,A,,,bwom<><-.J • ,..._,,_._,lie'°"'' , ~CC-.....IA "'' • ...,.,_""'"""''"""""'"""""-'' ' "'-·-,4'"tA,A,..,.,., • ;1 --"lA ""~ i'""'"""'"""'·""""lAos<_,i,, __ ,..,_,_....,...,,.. _.,.. ,,.._lA• N,..lA) OCf ____ __ .........,_._...,.o( ... _rip,.-Of-,,·')' (<.1 .. """'·""''---..... -· -----.. ,.., ..... ,..,_,_,__,...., .... .,..,.~;,",.. ....... ...,.,.._-._ ,,..,....,..,, . _ ........ __ .....,,_ ... ,,.... "'·- · "-- NOTES:
1: SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR Pl.ANT SCHEDULE
FOR BIORETENTION PLANT MATERIALS.
PROPOSED Pl.ANT MATERIALS HAVE BEEN
CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE \/WITH STORM
WATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
PLAN LEGEND
UNETYPE
-
•
~
PERME,t,BLEPAIJERS
BELGRADEACllJNE.VICTORWiCOLOR
SECTIONTOSUPPORTBO.OOOLBVElfQ.E
BIORETENTIONAREASDETML1SHEETc-t1
SOUMEl'ILET.cNERFLOW~N
VIITHFU.LTRI\SHCN'TUREDBACES
-□
STANDARD STO RMWATER CONTROL NOTES:
L.I.D. ACRONYMS
ORIJIIAlilE ~,.,,,
TfltATIIOOCOlffllOl.lcltAS!a
"ctodtolhe
OMiaidwoofllllll
O<b.lia10fp,,bli0Mia1b)-
1..!!.':n~~D~=~ci/~;~~~~
iM -withl!IOKplonoml~fiOMicnlllwl
ftci• evidtnceof1he1oupW1<tofthe1atti<lia11
SA?<IJOSE,CAUl26
CIVIC CENfER TOWNHOUSES
Al'N: 224-19-0ll.l0.23
858CIVlCCENTERDRlVE
SA!'ll"ACLARA,.CA
I .NCCIPCRAIE etrrCQllWOnS
2 .NCCIPCRAIE etrrCQllWOnS
City Revisions
Daoripti<ll
,,,,.,,,.
STORMWATER
CONTROL PLAN
C-4.0
I Job:J.066
,. --,,··-------~ ·---·-~--- - --~---·--·---·--~- . --·----- ·---------~- --------·--·-------~- ::.~ EtJ - .. i:=:.=i-.-
-
c&;;:::: __
Bi 1
The...eoldte&epl11>1andopecillaticnihlllbomttictedto1he ,peci601i1efor,.l:i<htho)o"a•~dmdpublicationthefeofllholl l><~limitodu,ol!Ch11><,R....,.repr"411di<morpublieuiwby lll)'melhod,inwhalc«inpan,iapobibittd.Tidet<>theplammd
,peci6ooti<n1 lfflUIUII with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS !?'IC. wiOu>.11 pojudico. Visual """1Utwiththooepl0NondlJ>OQ6<0li<n11h111 C01111itu111pimafMi~fVidenceof1heooc,ptonNoftbe1..ai<liona,
SPENO ENTERPRISES
CIVIC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
APN: 224-29-0ll,l0 .. 23
85SCIVICCENI"ERDRJVE
1526ALVISOSIB.EET
SANTACLARA,.CA
Dnaiptim
1 ~JI:CITYCOlolM£HTS
3~JI:CITYCOlolM£HTS
City Revts1ons
Dnaiptim
,;,,;,,
10/24/25
12/Jl/25
STORMWATER
CALCULATIONS
&DETAILS
C-4.1
l lob:J..066
0 1
03 CURB OPENING N.T.S.
02 04
j
FlAT BOTTOM
TOS EUVATIOO
NOTE:
I. PfR\IJOUS PAVEMENT
NUMBER 57 STONE TO
8 £ 23• THICK FOR OMA I
2. PfR\IJOUS PAVEMENT
NUMBER 57 STONE TO
8£ 11• THICK FOR OMA 8
J. UNER DRAIN ONLY FOR
OMA 8. NO UNDER
DRAIN FOR OMA 1
PERVIOUS PAVEMENT (SELF RETAINING)
BIORETENTION BASIN W / LINER
' lffW Cf'W,'J.1.JOBOTTCM CJ" FOOTINGISGREATERlHIIN
WATERPROOf llEM!lRANEPER SlllUCl\JRALPIANS.
m
"""
-
SIZING METH ODS:
FLOW/VOLUM E
COMBO
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
SIZING METHODS:
FLOW- COMBO
FLOW- THROUGH PLANTER (BELOW GRADE) N.T.S.
The...eoldte&epl11>1mdopecillaticnihlllbomtticted to1he ,peci60 1i1efor,.l:i<htho)o"a•~dmdpublicationthefeofllhall l><~limitodu, ol!ChuaR....,.repr"411<1i<m <lfp,,blieuiw by lll)'melhod, in whalc« in pan,iapobibittd.Tidet<>theplammd ,peci6<oti<n1 lfflUIUII with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS !?'IC. willu>.lt p ojudico. Visuel"""1Utwiththooe pl1NondlJ>OQ6<1lionolhl1I C01111itu111111"1"fMi~fVidenceof1he1oc,ptanNof1he 1..ai<liona.
SPENO ENTERPRISES
CIVIC CENTER TOWNHOUSES
APN: 224-29-0ll,l0 .. 23
85SCIVICCENIBRDRJVE
1526ALVISOSIB.EET
SANTACLARA,CA
DeaaiptiCII
City Revts1ons
Dea<ription
STORMWATER
DETAILS
C-4.2
l lob:J..066
08/ 06/25
10/24/25
12/Jl/25
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-808 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN24-00665) for 147 Units and One Commercial Building Located at 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road, Subject to Senate Bill (SB) 330 (2019). CEQA: Determine that the Vesting Tentative Map Application is Within the Scope of the Adopted MND
BACKGROUND
The application proposes the reconfiguration of existing adjacent parcels and subdivision for condominium purposes to accommodate a project with 147 townhouses, a 4,991 square-foot commercial building, vehicular driveways, parking, and common and private open spaces. The Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) will allow for a 147-unit residential mixed-use project including 90 fourstory stacked condos, 57 three-story townhome units, and a 4,991 square-foot commercial building, with 22 affordable units at the moderate level of affordability. The subject site is currently developed with surface parking and three one-story commercial buildings. The project is an SB 330 application which includes the following:
· Architectural Approval through a Development Review Hearing · Vesting Tentative Map with a final approval by the City Council On December 11, 2024, William Sadler, on behalf of Pulte Home Company LLC (“Applicant”), filed a formal Architectural Review application requesting approval for demolition of the existing commercial buildings and development of the proposed townhome units and commercial building (File No.
PLN24-00633) (“Architectural Review Application”). The application also included concessions and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. The Development Review Officer approved the architectural review application at a Development Review Hearing on June 17, 2026.
On December 19, 2024, the Applicant filed an application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (File No. PLN24-00665) proposing the reconfiguration of existing adjacent parcels comprising 5.5 acres, the subject site (APNs: 290-23-053 and 290-23-049). City Council review and final approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTM) is required under (SCCC) Section 17.05.300 - Tentative Maps for Subdivision Map applications, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
On March 7, 2025, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application under SB 330 (2016) which was deemed complete on October 7, 2025. The applicant submitted the SB 330 application after the initial VTM and Architectural Review submittals, however, the SB 330 application incorporates those two earlier filed applications. Senate Bill (SB) 330 (2019) allows for a streamlined review if the project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that a complete preliminary application was City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 7 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-808 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
filed.
At a publicly noticed meeting on August 12, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the reconfiguration of adjacent parcels and subdivision for condominium purposes to accommodate the development project and recommended approval (6-0) to the City Council.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Hearing Summary
At the August 12, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented an analysis of the project’s conformance with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Commission Staff Report with detailed analysis of the project is included as Attachment 5.
Following staff and applicant presentations, Planning Commission discussed the project timeline for demolition and emphasized that the applicant should work with the City to prevent vandalization and dilapidation of the existing lot and buildings by obtaining a Demolition Building permit. Additionally, the Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to work with VTA to increase service at the Homestead and Bing bus stop. No members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution to recommend approval with a vote of 6-0.
Summary of Community Meetings and Concerns
As required by the City’s adopted Public Outreach Policy for Planning Applications, the project applicant conducted community outreach through two community meetings.
At the first community meeting held on November 13, 2025, 38 community members attended inperson and 11 attended online. Notice of the meeting was mailed to property owners and tenants within ¼-mile radius of the project site. Community concerns were related to the loss of existing commercial space, displacement of small business and neighborhood services, the project timeline, and questions regarding the entity that initiated the redevelopment process. In response, the applicant addressed some of these comments at the meeting by explaining the role of the State housing laws, and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, the General Plan land use designation that allows residential development, and that the property owner initiated the sale of the site, which Pulte and Waymark are proposing to redevelop.
Following the first community meeting, the applicant worked with the property owner and management company to address tenant concerns regarding relocation assistance (i.e. free rent, extension of leases, broker assistance in finding new spaces to lease). Most tenants have vacated and relocated, with the last tenant staying through June 2026.
On February 25, 2026, a second Community Meeting was held in-person at the project site, with 30 community members attending. Notice of the meeting was mailed to property owners and tenants within 1/4 -mile radius of the project site. Community concerns were related to the loss of existing retail, traffic, and the project timeline.
Subdivision
Subdivision Map applications are reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code (Title 18), Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 17.05), and conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, pursuant to Gov’t Code § 66474(a). In accordance with Chapter 17.05 of the City Code, the project City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 7 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-808 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
requires a tentative subdivision map because there are five or more lots proposed. The application includes the reconfiguration of adjacent parcels and subdivision for condominium purposes to accommodate a project with 147 townhouses, vehicular driveways, parking, common and private open spaces, and one commercial building. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map was reviewed by the City’s Project Clearance Committee/Subdivision Committee and deemed complete and cleared on October 7, 2025. Staff confirmed that the proposed subdivision will not result in any inconsistencies with the General Plan and zoning designations for the property, Building Code, or other applicable requirements.
Architectural Review and Development Review Hearing Summary Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code Section 18.120.020. D.3, the development proposal requires approval for Architectural Review at the DRH. Throughout the review process, the applicant worked closely with the Planning Division and revised the project several times to develop a design plan that is consistent with applicable design standards. The Architectural Review permit was approved at a DRH on June 17, 2026. At the publicly noticed DRH meeting, seven community members were present and commented on privacy impacts due to the height, balcony placement, lack of multi-story step-backs, offsite parking concerns and lack of transitional development.
After listening to the neighbors’ concerns, the Development Review Officer (DRO) approved the project subject to findings and conditions of approval, with additional landscaping between the subject property and adjacent property, garages area to only be used for parking, and adding windows to all garage doors to address privacy and off-site parking concerns. The DRH staff report is available as Attachment 4.
Affordable Housing and State Density Bonus Law
The project provides 15% affordable housing units and is consistent under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, Chapter 17.40. The units will be affordable at moderate income level. The 15% affordable allows the applicant to apply for certain waivers and concessions which are in the DRH review.
The Architectural Review Application applied the State Density Bonus law for the following waivers:
1. Waive multi-story step-backs;
2. Waive 45-degree daylight plane requirement;
3. Increase in number of stories; and
4. A height increase;
The project included one concession to reduce the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement by 80%.
The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement meets the applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Code utilizing the waivers and concession under the State Density Bonus Law.
As part of the Architectural Review Permit, the waivers and concession were reviewed and approved at DRH on June 17, 2026 (Staff report provided in Attachment 4).
Senate Bill (SB) 330 Review
The project is subject to streamlining under SB 330 (2019). Enacted in 2019 to accelerate housing City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 7 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-808 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
production in urban areas, SB 330 limits the number of public hearings for a project to five, if the project complies with the applicable General Plan and zoning standards in effect at the time of application. Community meetings and other applicant-led meetings do not count towards the five hearings allowed. The project has gone through the two public hearings: the Development Review Hearing, on June 17, 2026, and the Planning Commission meeting on August 12, 2026. Any subsequent hearings will be counted towards the five hearings allowed. Consistent with SB 330, the project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was deemed submitted (October 7, 2025).
Public Meetings
For the purposes of SB330, staff anticipates the five public hearings to include the DRH, the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings. Additionally, if there is a continuance, such that a hearing spans multiple meetings, then each meeting counts as a separate hearing. Overall, by the time full entitlements are granted, no more than five public meetings on the project will have been held.
Consistent with the City’s adopted Public Outreach Policy for Planning Applications, the project was subject to community outreach. The project applicant conducted two community meetings. As stated previously, community meetings do not count towards the five hearings.
Summary
The proposed project is compatible with adjacent land uses and is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning designation. The 147 residential condominium units and commercial building is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Neighborhood Mixed-Use’s density standards, creates additional residential development in proximity to jobs, incrementally advancing the City’s goals to produce new housing, provides affordable housing units which forwards Mixed-Use Land Use Goal 5.3.4-G1 to provide mixed-use to support high quality uses and the City’s economic development; and encourages residential neighborhoods throughout the City (Policy 5.3.4-P2), and subject to conditions set forth in the Conditions of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Approval for Vesting Tentative Map. Findings can be made to support the approval of the vesting tentative subdivision map, see Attachment 2.
Proposed City Council Actions
The project is presented to the City Council for consideration and action. The following specific actions are required:
1. Tentative Subdivision Map: Adopt a resolution to approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN24-00665). The Tentative Subdivision Map is a quasi-judicial decision with a list of required findings, including that the site is suitable for the density and design of development and that the project is consistent with the General Plan. a. General Plan Consistency: The proposed subdivision, together with the design and proposed improvements, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Mixed-Use. The proposed subdivision creates additional residential development in proximity to jobs, incrementally advancing the City’s goals to produce new housing; provides a deed-restricted affordable housing unit, which forwards MixedUse Land Use Goal 5.3.4-G1 to provide mixed-use to support high quality uses and the City’s economic development; and encourages residential neighborhoods throughout the City (Policy 5.3.4-P2). Proposed improvements include landscaping and replacing City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 7 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-808 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
removed trees at a 2:1 ratio (Policy 5.3.1-P10), and adding sidewalks (Policies 5.8.4-P7 and 5.8.4-P8), all of which further the broader goals of improving pedestrian connections throughout the City (5.8.4-G1).
b. Site Suitability: The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is suitable for the site because much of the surrounding area includes multi-family residential and commercial development, and it is consistent with the density requirements under the General Plan and Zoning for the site (26.7 du/ac where the allowable range is 20-36 du/ac). See Attachment 1 for a vicinity map. c. Zoning Code Compatibility: The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, meets the development standards of the Zoning Code, utilizing concessions, incentives and waivers under State density bonus law. The previously approved Architectural Review Application included the following waivers:
waive multi-story step-backs; waive 45-degree daylight plane requirement; increase in number of stories; and a height increase; and one concession: reduce the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement by 80%. The project, after utilizing the waivers and concession under the State Density Bonus Law, meets the applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Code.
d. No Adverse Effects: The design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, as the project is a small-scale residential development with one commercial building that will comply with current Building Code requirements, including health effects as it will be subject to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for operation and maintenance of the buildings and site improvements and does not propose the use of hazardous materials.
e. Conflicts with Easements: As designed, the project would not conflict with any recorded public easements for access through or use the proposed subdivision. The VTM application was reviewed for potential conflicts with public easements by the Project Clearance Committee/Subdivision Committee which includes Public Works, Silicon Valley Power, and Water and Sewer departments.
f. Natural/Passive Heating and Cooling: The project will adhere to CALGreen energy efficiency measures to conserve energy through building design and site planning.
Approval of the requested VTM application will facilitate the development of a project consistent with the City’s Zoning Code and General Plan, thereby incrementally advancing the City’s goals to produce new housing and providing commercial space.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map includes the conditions of approval in the form drafted by staff (Attachment 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the Architectural Review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address the potential City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 7 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-808 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study did not find any substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment after implementation of required mitigation measures. The MND and Notice of Intent were posted on the City’s website and were circulated for 20-day public review on May 8, 2026, and was approved at the DRH on June 17, 2026, at a publicly noticed meeting.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the approved MND and would not result in a new impact on the environment or significantly increase the severity of any previously identified impact.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Planning Commission 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.
On July 30, 2026, the notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to 1,331 property owners and tenants within ¼-mile of the project site for the August 12, 2026, Planning Commission meeting and August 25, 2026, City Council hearing. At the time of this staff report, no comments have been received by the Planning Division in support or opposition to the Tentative Map.
A notice of the public hearing was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2025. Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.146.020, on July 30, 2026, notices of the public hearing of August 12, 2026, were posted at City Hall, the Central Park Library, the Mission Branch Library, the Northside Branch Library, and on the City’s website.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Determine that the proposed subdivision is within the scope of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project and no further analysis is required; and
2. Adopt a resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the reconfiguration of adjacent parcels and subdivision for condominium purposes for 147 units and for one commercial building located at 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
Prepared by: Meha Patel, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Reviewed by: Afshan Hamid, Director of Community Development Department Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 7 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-808 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
1. Vicinity Map
2. Resolution to Approve a Vesting Tentative Map
3. Conditions of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Approval
4. Web Link to June 17, 2026, DRH
5. Web Link to August 12, 2026, Planning Commission
6. Vesting Tentative Map
City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 7 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
Vicinity Map (Zoning) - 3521 and 3591 Homestead
Road
Legend
Zoning
Land Parcels
MUNC - Mixed Use-Neighborhood
Commercial
PD - Planned Development
PQP - Public/Quasi Public
R1 - Single-Family Residential
R2 - Low-Density Residential
R3 - Medium Density Residential
Base Layers
Site Addresses
Multiple
Single
Transit
Utility
Air Parcels
Land Parcels
Land Parcels
Common Areas
Streets
Notes
created on 05/28/2026 15:29:01
0 350 700
ft
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
NAD_1983_2011_StatePanel_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US ©City of Santa Clara THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION ■
■
□
■
■
Resolution/ 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 1 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR THE PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 3521
AND 3591 HOMESTEAD ROAD, SANTA CLARA
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2024, William Sadler of Pulte Home Company LCC (“Applicant”) on behalf of SBH Homestead Properties LLC (“Owner”) filed an Architectural Review application (PLN24-00633) to redevelop a 5.5-acre parcel, located at 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road (“Project Site”) with 147 residential townhome units and a 4,991 square-foot commercial building (the “Architectural Review Application”);
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2024, the Applicant filed an application (PLN24-00665) for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the subject property for condominium purposes (the “VTSM Application”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.05.210 of the Code of the City of Santa Clara (“SCCC”), a Vesting Tentative Map shall be required for all subdivisions of land into five or more parcels, including condominium developments;
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2025, the Applicant submitted a preliminary application under Senate Bill (SB) 330 (2019), which incorporated both the Architectural Review Application and the VTSM Application;
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2025, the Project Clearance Committee/Subdivision Committee determined that the VTSM Application was complete and that the proposed Vesting Tentative Map should proceed to the Planning Commission in conformance with Section 17.05.300 of the SCCC;
WHEREAS, SCCC Section 17.05.300(g) requires that the Planning Commission make recommendations of denial, approval or conditional approval to the City Council on the Vesting Tentative Map;
Resolution/ 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 2 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, the proposal is to create 147 residential units and one commercial building with common areas to serve the development (“Project”) as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, the City, as Lead Agency, in tandem with Consultant ‘David J. Powers’ prepared an Initial Study (“IS”) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and was circulated for 20-day review to public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies beginning on May 8, 2026 and concluding on May 28, 2026 (“Comment Period”); WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for implementation with Project development to reduce potentially significant impacts identified in the Initial Study to less than significant;
WHEREAS, the City through consultant ‘David J. Powers’ prepared written responses to the comments received during the Comment Period and included these responses on the project’s CEQA page;
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the 147-unit residential mixed-use project that includes 90 fourstory stacked condos and 57 three-story townhome units and 4,991 square-foot commercial building, with 22 affordable units at the moderate level of affordability was approved at the Development Review Hearing (DRH);
WHEREAS, the proposed vesting tentative map is consistent with the approved site plan and improvements on the Project Site for the development of the mixed-use project approved on June 17, 2026;
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the VTSM Application, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; WHEREAS, on July 30, 2026, notices of the August 25, 2026 public hearing on the Vesting Resolution/ 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 3 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
Tentative Map were mailed to all property owners within ¼-mile of the Project Site boundaries; WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 18.146.020, on July 30, 2026, notices of the August 25, 2026 public hearing were posted at City Hall, the Central Park Library, the Mission Branch Library, the Northside Branch Library, and on the City’s website; WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing was published in the Santa Clara Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 25, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to provide testimony and the Council considered the information presented in the Staff Report, and all verbal and written evidence.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.
2. Vesting Tentative Map Findings. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66426 and 66428 and SCCC Section 17.05.300(h), the City Council finds and determines that:
A. The Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City’s General Plan in that the Vesting Tentative Map, and adjoining development proposal, proposes 147 residential condominium units and commercial building that is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Neighborhood Mixed-Use’s density standards, creates additional residential development in proximity to jobs, incrementally advancing the City’s goals to produce new housing, provides affordable housing units which forwards Mixed-Use Land Use Goal 5.3.4-G1 to provide mixed-use to support high quality uses and the City’s economic development; and encourage residential neighborhoods throughout the City (Policy 5.3.4-P2), and subject to conditions set forth in the Conditions of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Approval for Vesting Tentative Map, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
B. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the City’s General Plan, in that the Vesting Tentative Map facilitates development of housing stock Resolution/ 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 4 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
and construction of ownership housing opportunities for the community (Policy 5.3.4‐P4); and furthermore complies with General Plan Land Use and Transitional Goals and Polices of the General Plan by encouraging mixed-use development and residential neighborhoods throughout the City by proposing to develop 147-units, provide adequate landscaping and replace trees at 2:! Ratio (Policy 5.3.1-P10), and include sidewalks (Policies 5.8.4-P7 and 5.8.4-P8), all of which further the broader goals of improving pedestrian connections throughout the City (5.8.4-G1).
C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, in that the Project is compatible with the adjacent uses and the zoning code.
D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity of development, in that the Project Site is in an urbanized area and is served by existing utilities and infrastructure, and at
26.7 du/ac, the project falls within the allowable density range of 20-36 du/ac set forth by the General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, meet the development standards of the Zoning Code, utilizing concessions, incentives, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law. The previously approved Architectural Review Application included the following waivers: waive multi-story step-backs; waiver 45-degree daylight plane requirement; increase in number of stories; and a height increase; and included on concession: reduce the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement by 80%. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, meets the applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Code utilizing the waivers and concession under the State Density Bonus Law
E. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, in that the proposed residential map will implement Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for operation and maintenance of the site improvements and does not propose the use of hazardous materials.
F. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and will not substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife Resolution/ 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 5 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
or their habitat in that the Project Site is located in an urbanized setting, on a previously developed site, and includes mitigation measures, as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and MMRP, that reduce impacts to wildlife and their habitat to less than significant levels.
G. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that, the Project is designed to avoid encroachments and conflicts with public easements in the site design. The VTM application was reviewed for potential conflicts with public easements by the Project Clearance Committee/Subdivision Committee which includes Public Works, Silicon Valley Power, and Water and Sewer departments.
H. The vesting tentative map provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities, in that it will adhere to CALGreen energy efficiency measures to conserve energy through building design and site planning.
3. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the evidence set forth in the record, including in the Staff Report, the MND, and the MMRP, and such other evidence as received at the public hearings on this matter before the City Council, the City Council hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, substantially in the form on file as shown on the attached Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditions of Vesting Tentative Map Approval, hereby incorporated by this reference
//
//
//
//
Resolution/ 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Page 6 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
4. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST: ______________________________
NORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Vesting Tentative Map
City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026
Conditions of Approval: Subdivision
PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road
A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN24-00665) for 147 Units and One Commercial Building Located at 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road, Subject to Senate Bill (SB) 330 (2019)
GENERAL / PERFORMANCE
G1. Subdivision Expiration. This subdivision shall automatically be revoked and terminated if not used within two years of original grant or within the period of any authorized extensions thereof. The date of granting of this subdivision is the date this subdivision is approved by the decision-making body and the appeal period has been exhausted. The expiration date is August 25, 2028.
G2. Conformance with Plans. The lot design on the subdivision map shall be designed in substantial conformance with the subdivision map, as approved by the decision-making body.
G3. Compliance with Architectural Review Conditions. The project shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for the associated Architectural Review (PLN24- 00633).
G4. Conditions on Plans. All conditions of approval for this subdivision shall be reprinted and included within the first three sheets of the subdivision map sets submitted for review and approval. At all times these conditions of approval shall be on all grading and construction plans kept on the project site.
G5. Necessary Relocation of Public Facility. If relocation of an existing public facility becomes necessary due to a conflict with the owner or designee’s new improvements, then the cost of said relocation shall be borne by the owner.
G6. Indemnify and Hold Harmless. The owner or designee agrees to defend and indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, employees, officials and representatives free and harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, attorney’s fees, injuries, costs, and liabilities from any suit for damages or for equitable or injunctive relief which is filed by a third party against the City by reason of its approval of owner or designee’s project.
G7. Code Compliance. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include an overall California Building Code analysis; proposed use and occupancy of all spaces (CBC Ch. 3), all building heights and areas (CBC Ch. 5), all proposed types of construction (CBC Ch. 6), all proposed fire and smoke protection features, including all types of all fire rated penetrations proposed (CBC Ch. 7), all proposed interior finishes fire resistance (CBC Ch. 8), all fire protection systems proposed (CBC Ch. 9), and all means of egress proposed (CBC Ch. 10). Noncombustible exterior wall, floor, and roof finishes are strongly encouraged.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 2
a. During construction retaining a single company to install all fire related penetrations is highly recommended.
b. The grade level lobbies shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above. c. All stair shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
d. All elevator shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated.
e. All trash chute shafts shall be minimum 1-hour rated. f. Recommendation: provide minimum two trash chutes; one for recyclables, one for trash, each trash chute to be routed down to a grade level trash collection room.
g. Any trash rooms shall be minimum 1-hour rated all sides and above.
G8. Building Codes as Amended. See Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code for any amendments to the California Building Codes.
G9. Reach Codes. This project is subject to the provisions of the City of Santa Clara 2025 Reach Code, effective January 2025. See Ordinance No. 2034 and/or Title 15 of the Santa Clara City Code.
a. Chapter 15.36 – Energy Code for “all electric” provisions for new construction.
b. Chapter 15.38 – Green Building Code for additional Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for new construction.
G10. Code Compliance. Comply with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and resolutions.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
P1. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Submit Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Planning Review.
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
P2. Landscaping Installation & Maintenance. The owner or designee shall ensure that the landscaping installed and accepted with this project shall be maintained on the site as per the approved plans. Any alteration or modification to the landscaping shall not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development.
P3. Landscape Water Conservation. The owner or designee shall ensure that landscaping installation meets City water conservation criteria in a manner acceptable to the Director of Community Development.
P4. Landscaping. The owner or designee shall maintain the front yard landscaping between the house and sidewalk. New landscape areas of 500 square feet or more or rehabilitated landscape of 2,500 square feet or more shall conform to the California Department of Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING DIVISION
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE – PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BD1. Addressing. Prior to overall construction permit application, submit to the Santa Clara Building Division, 2 copies of an addressing diagram request, to be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. The addressing diagram(s) shall include all proposed streets and all building floor plans. The addressing diagram(s) shall conform to Santa Clara City Manager Directive #5; Street Name and Building Number Changes, and Santa Clara Building Division Address Policy For Residential and Commercial Developments. The addressing diagram(s) shall indicate all unit numbers to be based off established streets, not alleys nor accessways to garages. Allow a minimum of 10 working days for initial staff review. Please note city staff policy that existing site addresses typically are retired. Provide digital pdf printed from design software, not scanned from printed paper sheet. a. Any building or structure that is demolished shall have its address retired and a new address/s shall be issued for the project.
BD2. Flood Zone. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a copy of the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Map: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
The project drawings shall indicate how the project complies with the Santa Clara Flood Damage Prevention Code.
a. FEMA Flood Zone map designations and requirements are based on the map in effect at date of Building Permit issuance.
BD3. Water Pollution Control. The construction permit application drawings submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Low Impact Development (LID) practices http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml. All projects that disturb more than one acre, or projects that are part of a larger development that in total disturbs more than one acre, shall comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMP):
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/construction_bmp.shtml, and shall provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). All site drainage and grading permit applications submitted to the Santa Clara Building Division shall include a city of Santa Clara "C3" data form, available on this web page:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/publicworks/environmental-programs/stormwater-pollution-prevention and will be routed to a contract consultant for review.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 4
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
BD4. Exterior walls: The wall rating, opening protections and projection of the existing and new structures shall comply with the requirement of Building Codes based on the fire separation distance measured from the building’s exterior to new lot lines.
BD5. Access and circulation: each new parcel created by the subdivision shall have legal access to a public way, either directly or through a recorded easement.
BD6. Underground utility: all existing and proposed utility shall not cross the new lot lines
FIRE DEPARTMENT
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
F1. Prior to any Building Department Issuance, all fire department apparatus access roadways on private property are required to “be recorded” with the County of Santa Clara as Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE’s) and reviewed by the Fire Department. No other instruments will be considered as substitutions such as P.U.E, Ingress/Egress easements and/or City Right-of-Ways.
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
F2. Shared Fire Protection Features that Cross Property Lines. Prior to Building Permit Final, any EVAEs or fire protection equipment (including but not limited to fire service undergrounds, sprinkler piping, fire alarm equipment, fire pumps, ERRCS) that cross property lines or is not located on the parcel of the building it serves shall have a CC&R legally recorded detailing who is responsible for maintenance and repair of the EVAE or fire protection equipment.
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
PR1. For residential projects, park in-lieu fees imposed pursuant to City Code Chapter
17.35 and the Quimby Act, shall be due and payable to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. Final calculations shall be based on the actual number and type of units, as well as the mix of eligible private recreational amenities, dedicated parkland, and any remaining fee due, as determined at the City's discretion.
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP
PR2. Provide a covenant, such as the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s), to the City Attorney for review and approval, ensuring the ongoing maintenance of private recreational amenity spaces for which parkland dedication credit is received. The covenant shall be submitted to the City Attorney prior to approval of the final subdivision map, and once approved, shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 5
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING
DESIGN—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
E1. Site Clearance. Obtain site clearance through Public Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit. Site clearance will require payment of applicable development fees. Other requirements may be identified for compliance during the site clearance process. Contact Public Works Department at (408) 615-3000 for further information.
E2. Subdivision Map. After City Council approval of the Tentative Map, submit the Subdivision Map, prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or a Registered Civil Engineer with Land Surveyor privileges to the Engineering Department. The submittal shall include a title report, closure calculations, and all appropriate fees.
E3. Easement. Obtain Council approval of a resolution ordering vacation of existing public easement(s) proposed to be abandoned, if any, through Public Works Department, and pay all appropriate fees, prior to start of construction. Doc No. 15166952 (SC17527), Doc No. 15253296 (SC17576)
DURING CONSTRUCTION
E4. Encroachment Permit. All work within the public right-of-way and/or public easement, which is to be performed by the Developer/Owner, the general contractor, and all subcontractors shall be submitted within a Single Encroachment Permit to be reviewed and issued by the City Public Works Department. Issuance of the Encroachment Permit and payment of all appropriate fees shall be completed prior to commencement of work, and all work under the permit shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permit.
E5. Encroachment Permit. Submit public improvement/encroachment permit plans prepared in accordance with City Public Works Department procedures which provide for the installation of public improvements directly to the Public Works Department. Plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval and recordation of final map and/or issuance of building permits.
E6. Encroachment Permit. Existing non-standard or non-ADA compliant frontage improvements shall be replaced with current City standard frontage improvements as directed by the City Engineer or his designee.
E7. Encroachment Permit. All work within Santa Clara County right-of-way shall require a Santa Clara County encroachment permit.
E8. Encroachment Permit. Damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk within the public right-of-way along property’s frontage shall be repaired or replaced (to the nearest score mark) in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer or his designee. The extents of said repair or replacement within the property frontage shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer or his designee.
E9. Encroachment Permit. Existing streetlights shall be clear of proposed sidewalk, developer shall relocate as necessary.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 6
E10. Easement. Dedicate required on-site easements for any new public utilities, and/or emergency vehicle access by means of subdivision map or approved instrument at time of development.
E11. Easement. Dedicate sidewalk easements along the project frontage where public sidewalks extend into private property. Sidewalk easements are to be 1’ behind proposed back of walk where there is landscaping behind sidewalk. Sidewalk easement where hardscape is behind sidewalk is to be at back-of-walk. Cold joint is required between public sidewalk and private hardscape.
E12. Agreement. If requested, owner or designee shall prepare and submit for City approval a maintenance plan for all sidewalk, curb and gutter, landscaping and irrigation system improvements installed within the public right-of-way prior to encroachment permit issuance. Such plan shall include at a minimum, maintenance requirements for trees and shrubs, in acknowledgement of developer’s/property owner’s obligation under Chapter 12.30 and 17.15.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - STORMWATER
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE—PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
ST1. Final Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall develop a Final Stormwater Management Plan, update the C.3 Data Form, the Special Project Narratives and Worksheet (as appropriate), and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
ST2. 3
rd Party Review of Final Stormwater Management Plan. The Final Stormwater Management Plan and all associated calculations shall be reviewed and certified by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants, and a 3rd party review letter (on design) shall be submitted with the Plan.
ST3. Notice of Intent. For project that disturbs a land area of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) with WDID number for coverage under the State Construction General Permit. Active projects with NOI will be inspected by the City once per month during the wet season (October – April).
ST4. Best Management Practices. The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into construction plans and incorporate post-construction water runoff measures into project plans. Include the SCVURPPP Countywide Construction BMPs Plan Sheet with the plans. Applicant to add Source control measures with designations from C.3 stormwater handbook, Appendix H.
ST5. C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes. Include the C.3 Treatment Facilities Construction Notes on the Improvement Plans and/or Stormwater Control Plans.
ST6. Decorative & Recreational Water Features. Decorative and recreational water features such as fountains, pools, and ponds shall be designed and constructed to drain to the sanitary sewer system only.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 7
ST7. Small Projects. For single-family homes and other small projects that create and/or replace 2,500 – 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area, the applicant shall implement at least one of the following site design measures:
a. Direction of roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels b. Direction of roof, sidewalk, walkway, patio, driveway, or parking lot runoff onto vegetated areas
c. Construction of sidewalks, walkways, patios, bike lanes, driveways, and parking lots with permeable surfaces
Plans shall specify which site design measures are selected for the project and show the direction of flow from impervious surfaces to the selected site design measures. All measures shall meet the design criteria in the 2016 C.3. Stormwater Handbook, Appendix K: Standard Specifications for Lot-Scale Measures for Small Projects.
ST8. Interior Floor Drains. Interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.
ST9. Trash Enclosure Floor Drains. Floor drains within trash enclosures shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and not connected to the City’s storm drain system.
ST10. Architectural Copper. The use of architectural copper is prohibited.
DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
ST11. Biotreatment Soil Media. Applicant shall install biotreatment soil media that meets the minimum specifications as set forth in the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. If percolation rate test of the biotreatment soil mix is not performed onsite, a certification letter from the supplier verifying that the soil meets the specified mix (the date of such document shall not be older than 3 months).
ST12. Stormwater Control Measure Inspection. At critical construction phases, all stormwater control measures shall be inspected for conformance to approved plans by a qualified 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants.
ST13. Inspections. Permeable Pavement, Media Filter vaults, and Trash Full Capture Devices shall be inspected by a 3rd party reviewer and/or manufacturer representative for conformance with the details and specifications of the approved plans. All new pervious concrete and porous asphalt pavements should have a minimum surface infiltration rate of 100 in./hr. as described in the SCVURPPP C.3 Handbook. A map displaying the number, location and details of full trash capture devices shall be prepared as an attachment to the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City.
ST14. Stormwater Treatment Facilities. Stormwater treatment facilities must be designed, installed, and maintained to achieve the site design measures throughout their life in accordance to the SCVRUPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook (Chapter 6 and Appendix C).
ST15. Amendments to Operation & Maintenance Agreement. Any site design measures used to reduce the size of stormwater treatment measures shall not be installed for the project without the written approval from the City, installing the Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 8
corresponding resizing of other stormwater treatment measures and an amendment of the property’s O&M Agreement.
ST16. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Messaging. Developer shall install an appropriate stormwater pollution prevention message such as “No Dumping – Flows to Bay” on any storm drains located on private property.
ST17. Outdoor Storage Areas. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or otherwise designed to limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants.
PRIOR TO FINAL OF BUILDING PERMIT
ST18. As-Built Drawings. As-Built drawing shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
ST19. 3
rd Party Concurrence Letter. 3rd Party concurrence letter on the C.3 facilities construction shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. The letter shall be prepared by a 3rd party consultant from the SCVURPPP List of Qualified Consultants. The City reserves the right to review the 3rd party inspection report on the C.3 stormwater facility installation.
ST20. Final C.3 Inspection. Applicant shall schedule and City shall conduct a final C.3 inspection.
ST21. Operation & Maintenance Agreement. The property owner shall enter into an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement with the City for all installed stormwater treatment measures and full trash capture devices in perpetuity.
Applicants should contact Public Works Dept. - Environmental Services at (408) 615-3080 or [email protected] for assistance completing the Agreement.
For more information and to download the most recent version of the O&M Agreement, visit the City’s stormwater resources website at http://santaclaraca.gov/stormwater. Inspection of permeable pavement, media filter vaults and full trash capture devices is to be done annually by December 31 of each year.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - TRANSPORTATION
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
TR1. Encroachment Permit. Santa Clara County encroachment permit will be required for all work within the right-of-way along Lawrence Expressway TR2. Encroachment Permit. Design and construct minimum 5-foot sidewalk on Lochinvar Avenue, Lawrence Expressway, and Homestead Road.
STREETS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE
L1. Submit copy of complete landscape plans for review and comment by City staff.
Plans are to include a site plan showing location of all existing trees with 4” or larger diameter (measured 30” above ground) on development property and adjacent property if they may be impacted (include size and species), proposed trees (including location, size and species. Provide a table of trees removed and trees Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 9
proposed – include sizing and species. For trees that are preserved, prepare a tree protection plan for review and approval by the City prior to any demolition, grading or other earthwork in the vicinity of existing trees on the site.
L2. Include City of Santa Clara Tree Protection Standards and City of Santa Clara Arborist Notes on all improvement plans.
L3. No cutting of any part of public right-of-way trees, including roots, shall be done without securing approval from the City Streets Division. If approved, applicant shall follow all specifications outlined in the permit. Refer to City of Santa Clara Arborist Notes and implement all City of Santa Clara Tree Protection Standards.
L4. If removal of public right-of-way trees is approved by the City Streets Division, a 2:1 tree replacement ratio is required. If replacement ratio cannot be met, developer must pay city tree planting fees set by the Department of Public Works.
Minimum tree replacement size will be a 36-inch box for all tree plantings within the right-of-way. Street tree selection and spacing shall be reviewed and approved by the City Streets Division.
L5. All public right-of-way trees, existing and proposed, must maintain minimum of ten (10) feet from any existing or proposed Water Department facilities or five (5) feet with root barrier. Existing trees that conflict with utilities must be removed by developer at developer’s expense. Trees shall not be planted in water easements or public utility easements.
L6. Include City of Santa Clara Tree Protection Standards and City of Santa Clara Arborist Notes on all improvement plans.
L7. No cutting of any part of public right-of-way trees, including roots, shall be done without securing approval from the City Streets Division. If approved, applicant shall follow all specifications outlined in the permit. Refer to City of Santa Clara Arborist Notes and implement all City of Santa Clara Tree Protection Standards.
L8. Identified existing mature trees to be maintained. Prepare a tree protection plans for review and approval by the City of Santa Clara prior to any demolition, grading or other earthwork in the vicinity of existing trees on the site.
L9. Tree replacement ratio shall be 2:1 with minimum box size replacements. If project can’t meet the 2:1 replacement ratio, in-lieu fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permit.
SILICON VALLEY POWER
DURING CONSTRUCTION – PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
SVP1. Costs & Expenses. Unless expressly stated otherwise or covered by a fee to be paid by the applicant, applicant shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated with fulfilling these conditions of approval.
SVP2. Applicant Design Process. Available to Applicants to expedite distribution electric substructure design.
SVP3.SVP Rules and Regulations. Applicant shall comply with all applicable SVP rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, and requirements, as may be amended from time to time.
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 10
SVP4.SVP Standards. Applicant shall comply with the following SVP standards (as may be amended or supplemented).
a. UG1000 - Installation of Underground Substructures by Developers b. UG1250 – Encroachment Permit Clearances from Electric Facilities c. UG0339 – Remote Switch Pad
d. OH1230 – Tree Clearances from Overhead Electric Lines e. SD1235 – Tree Planting Requirements Near Underground Electric Facilities f. UG1225 – Pad mounted Equipment Clearances and Protection g. UG0250 – High Density Residential Metering Requirements h. FO-1901 – Fiber Optic Splicing and Testing Methods
i. SVP Rules and Regulations – Latest Edition
SVP5.SVP Standards, Miscellaneous:
a. In the case of podium-style construction, all SVP facilities and conduit systems must be located on solid ground (aka “real dirt”) and cannot be supported on parking garage ceilings or placed on top of structures. b. No splice boxes are allowed between the SVP utility connection point and the applicants main switch board.
c. SVP does not utilize any sub-surface (below grade) devices in its system. This includes transformers, switches, etc.
SVP6. Meter Locations:
a. For condominium or apartment, all electric meters and service disconnects shall be grouped at one location, outside of the building or in a accessible utility room. If they are townhomes or single-family residences, then each unit shall have its own meter, located on the structure. A double hasp locking arrangement shall be provided on the main switchboard door(s). Utility room door(s) shall have a double hasp locking arrangement or a lock box shall be provided. Utility room door(s) shall not be alarmed.
b. All interior meter rooms at ground level are to have direct, outside access through only ONE door. Interior electric rooms must be enclosed in a dedicated electric room and cannot be in an open warehouse or office space.
SVP7. Underground Service Entrance
a. (277/480V Service or Lower) Underground service entrance conduits and conductors shall be “privately” owned, maintained, and installed per City Building Inspection Division Codes to the SVP defined utility connection point. b. (12KV Service) SVP terminates cable on the applicant owned switchgear. c. No cross-parcel distribution is allowed. SVP service points must be within the parcels that they serve.
SVP8.Existing Facilities:
a. All existing SVP facilities, onsite or offsite, are to remain unless specifically addressed by SVP personnel in a separate document. It is the Applicants responsibility to maintain all clearances from equipment and easements. The Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 11
Applicant may contact SVP outside of the PCC process for clear definitions of these clearance requirements. Applicant should not assume that SVP will be removing any existing facilities without detailed design drawings from SVP indicating potential removals. Simply indicating that SVP facilities are to be removed or relocated on conceptual plans does not imply that this action has been approved by SVP.
b. Any relocation of existing electric facilities shall be at Applicants expense.
WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
DESIGN / PERFORMANCE -- PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT W1. Previous Approvals. Permittee shall abide by and continue to comply with all previous City approvals, permits, or requirements relating to the subject property, unless explicitly superseded or revised by the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.
W2. Related Approvals. Applicant shall comply with all related City approvals, entitlements, permits, or requirements associated with the subject property, unless explicitly superseded or revised by the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.
W3. Separate Services. Applicant shall provide separate water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and fire services connected to a public main in the public right-ofway services for each parcel to the satisfaction of the Director of Water & Sewer Utilities. Different types of water and recycled water use (domestic, irrigation, fire) shall be served by separate water services, each separately tapped at the water main. Services cannot cross a different parcel than the one it serves. No parcel shall be created that requires an easement from an adjacent parcel in order to be served unless explicitly authorized by the Director of Water and Sewer Utilities.
Tapping on existing fire service line(s) is prohibited. Approved backflow prevention device(s) are required on all potable water services.
W4. Easements. Prior to City’s issuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall provide a dedicated water utility easement around the backflow prevention device onsite. The water utility easement for the water services and all other public water appurtenances shall be a minimum 15 feet wide and be adjacent to the public right-of-way without overlapping any public utility easement. Additionally, the applicant shall submit plans defining existing easements so Water Division can verify if there are any conflicts with proposed easements and water utilities.
W5. Conditional Releases. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of any building permit conditional release requirements.
_____________________________________
KEY:
G = General
P = Planning Division
BD = Building Division
H = Housing & Community Services Division
F = Fire Department
Conditions of Approval PLN24-00665 / 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road City Council
Meeting Date: 8/25/2026 Page 12
PR = Parks & Recreation Department
PD = Police Department
E = Engineering Division
Streets Division (Landscape, Solid Waste, and Stormwater) L = Landscape
SW = Solid Waste
SVP = Silicon Valley Power
W = Water & Sewer Department
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Permittee/Property Owner
The undersigned agrees to each condition of approval and acknowledges and hereby agrees to use the project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this permit.
Signature:
_________________________________________________
Printed Name:
_________________________________________________
Relationship to Property:
_________________________________________________
Date:
_________________________________________________
Pursuant to Santa Clara City Code 18.128.100, the applicant shall return this document to the Department, properly signed and dated, within 30-days following the date of the Acknowledgement.
Web Links to June 17, 2026 DRH
Name of Document: June 17, 2026, DRH Staff Report
DRH Meeting (June 17, 2026):
Here you will find documents related to the Development Review Hearing such as the staff report and attachments.
https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8070798&GUID=769E3EBF-D311-4410-B443- 2368D269FBAE&Options=&Search=
These documents are available for viewing in the Community Development Department Web Link to August 12, 2026 Planning Commission
Name of Document: August 12, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission (August 12, 2026):
Here you will find documents related to the Planning Commission meeting such as the staff report and attachments.
https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8165633&GUID=E4750258-0020-45C2-93FD085FC41F99A1&Options=&Search= These documents are available for viewing in the Community Development Department A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
CONTACTS:
1. 01\NER/l)E\IELOPER
4-511 WILLOWROAD,SUITE8
PLEASANTON, CA94588
(925)363- 5425
BU SADLER
2. ENGINEER CARLSON,BAABEE&CIBSON, INC.
GENERAL NOTES
7. EXISTING ZONING·
PROPOSEDZOtllNG
15, UTUTIES·
WA TER(Off- SITE):
~::R(ON - SITE)
SEWER(Off- SITI)
SEl'{R(ON- SITE)·
STO'lMDRAIN((H - SITE)
STORWDRAIN(ON-SITE)·
ELECTRIC:
TELEPHONE
CABLETV:
26~CAMINOR,'J,10N,SUITE350
SANRAAION,CMCfiNIA94583
(925)866- 0322
JJSTIN JOSEPH,RCE87572
26.70U/AC
MU- NC MIXED US£ NEIGHBO'lHOOO COMMERCIAL
MU -NC MIXED US£ NEIGHBORHOOO COMMERCIAL
THE BENOlMARK FCF THIS SURVEY IS HOMESTEAfl ROAD & LA'IIRENC£EXPRESSWAY,NECCfiNER ISLAND, D-IISE1.EDCROSS ONTOPOF SW B(U INllUFFICSl(llALPCU:BASE.(RESH
1997)
AUEXISTING0UlDINGS, PAIOIENT,ANDTREES'IIITHIN THE
PRO-CCTBOUNOARY TOB£ REr.lOVEO
EXISllNGUTIUTIES'MTl-llNBOONDAR Y TOBE REI.IOVED.-.S
NOml
AU DRIVE AISLES WITHIN THE PROJ:CT 'MLL BE PRIVATE AND
\\U BEPRIVATELYI.VJN TAINED.(MINIMUM LONGITUDINAL
SLOPE=0.5%)
STREETTREES'MLLBE INST.IUEDPERll-lECITY OFSMITA
Cl.ARA STANDARDS.
STREET LJ GHTSWILL BE INSTIJJ.fDPERIBECITYOFSANTA
CLARA STANDARDS(ORAPPROVEDEOUAL)
ZONEX:AREASDETERl,HNEOTOBEOUTSIDETHE 0.21'
ANNUAL OIANCEfLOOOPI.AIN
SOORCE;F"EOCRALEWERi:DlCYWANAGDIENTAGENCY(F"ElilA),
FLOOO INSIJRANCE RATEMA.P,r.lAPNUMBER06085C0229H
DATE: MAY IB.2009
CITYCF SANTAa..ARA
PRIVATE
PRI VATE
CITY !l' SANTACLI.RA
SI.ICON VALLE Y POWER
AT&T
COMCAST
~OIMENSIONSAREPRELIMINARY ANOSIJB.l:CTTOFlNAL
A CONOOM INllilil r.lAP WLL BE RECORDED fOll TI-JE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THESUBDIVISION ISACONDOMINIUMPRo.ECTAS
DEF1NEDINSECllONS4125 AND4285 CJ"THED\IILCOOECJ"
THESTATE!l'CALlfalNIAANDFlLEOPURSIJANTTOTHE
SUBDIVISION WA.P ACT.
I
_,. I
'\ ""'°"'~ coo,;f;_/] r.lAIN~ANCE LIMIT
.,.
.,.
ESTATES ,-----r 3520 J ~
M t-T C DOJ\U\LDS
SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. SHEETffiLE
™°' SHW<
""' EXISTINCCONOIOONS
1'03 LOTTINGPLAN
™" STREITSECTIONS
1'05 CRADINCANOOR-'JNAG[Pl.AN
™"' UllUTY PLAN
™"' STOOlilWATERCONTRCLPLAN
1'08 rnE: ACCl:SSPI..AN
1'09 TRASI-IPl(l(lPPLAN
™" ALTERNATETRASl-lf'l(l(UPPLAN
™" AFFOODAa..EHOUSINGPI..AN
PARKING SUMMARY P
~
ARKING REQUIRED
OFf-STREET COVERED Sf'ACESPERUNIT(1.5PERUNIT) • (147X1.5) • -
0N - STREETSPACES (4PER1000S0.FT.) • (4,991/ 1000) ' 4 • TOTALPAIICINGREOJIRED •
PARKING PROVIDED l!W.lC£IMl.l
COVEREOGARAGESPACESSf'ACES (2PER UNIT) • (147X2) •
= ON - STREET STANDAROSf'ACES(IN- TRACT)•
COMPACT STALL (IN- TRACT) •
ACC1SSl9L£STAL.L (IN- TRACT)•
EVa-lAAGlNGSTALL (IN- TRACT) •
EVREADYSTAL.L(IN-TRACT)•
TOTALPAIICINGPROWIED •
""""--""" 1. P£RPENDKU..ARSTANOARDSPACfSM-NllilUMDIMENSIONS:9fE£T BY 18FE:ET 2 M TO TAL PARKING COUNT 'ML19ESI-IAREOFROMEACHOF"Tl-lE REOOIRElilENTS FROIJ lilllTl-fAMILY AND COMMERCIAL
VICINITY MAP (NOTTOSCAI.I)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (MU-NC) REQUIRED PROPOSED
FRONTYAROSETBAO.: MIN. 0-fEET <Hen
SIOEYAROSETBACK(INTERIOR) MIN. 0-fEET IHSH
SIOEYAROSETBACK(CO'lNER) MIN. 0-fEET 0-CEH
MAXIMUMBUI LDINC HElCHT J2-FUT 51- FEET'
NUMBERfSSTORIES MAX. J ,. BUlDINGCOITTAG[ r.lAX.60,:
DENSITY(UNITS/ACRE) 20- 36 "' 27.3
PRIVATERECSPACE (AVG/UNIT) 60SF" 127'§
COt.lMON RECSf'ACE(AVG/UNIT) "'"' 200SF
"""' 1. PRIVATERECSPACf lNQUDESGRl)JND- Lf'vfLF"ENCfDPAllOAREAS& B~YAREAS
2. • DENOTESREQl£STEDWAIVER
SPAC!S
241 """
LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY
IJ SPAC!S 1/////////, RELINQUISHED ABUTTERS RIGHTS 7 SPAC!S J SPAC!S ~ ACCESSIBLE UNIT 5 SPAC!S
19 SPAC!S EV ELECTRIC VEHICLE READY PARKING STALL
"41 """ EVCS ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STALL
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
SITE PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: I • a 40' DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
\,\,v1
WAYMARK
• (925) 866-0322
ROSEVILLE • (916) 788-4456
SHEET NO.
TMOl
OFIISHEET'S
JOB NO.: 3455-01 5
OHW OHW OHW
OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
OHW
OHW OHW X X X OHW
SANITARY SEWER a.H ,NOUT TO BE
REMOVED
---.EXISTINGPUBLJCU ~ TIUTYEASDilENT- ~ " TOBEQUITCLAI\IEOBYSEP.o.R ATEINSTRUMENT - . MASONRY WALL TOBE R£MOVE:D
APN ~
LEGEND
□
A
0 ---[Ix:::SO:::::::,---
--- OX3D---
---[1::{::W:J---
---[l] Ail---
CJ
EASEMENT
4DJACENTLOTUNE
EXISTlNGC\.IRB,GUTTERtSIOEWAL.l(
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING SPOT EL£VATION S
EXISTINGCATI)j8ASIN
EXISTING flREHYDRAN T
EXISTING STORM CRAIN
EXISTINGSANITARYSE\\Ol
EXISTINGG>.S
EXISTINGO\£RHEl,llUNE
EXISTINGTREE TOBEREMOVEO (TOTALc16)
DEMOLITION NOTES
NOTE DESCRIPTION
[I] R£MOVE:EXISTINGBUl.OINGSTRUCTUREANDFOUNDATION
[I] ~~OciIR~Xl;N~N~~~ALT CONC!lETE, BCUARDS, f£NCE AN D PARKING
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1"" 40' DATE: MAY29,2026
r, II I ~ SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322 I LJ L......J ~ . (916)78~~56 0 40 80 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
JOB NO.: 3455-01 5
SHEET NO.
TM02 OF II SHEIITS
I
I
I
I I ~ I
,,_,,'7"<---¼-><--'i["'-:t~_: l l) ~ I Ji~~:t~ ~~ j ,___,,, ~ cLOCHINV AR A VENUE ~ .,. ~
' .,. .,. Q_ - ;
/ w
LOCHINVAR A VENUE
( vv---;=/ -1=-- ------N89'57'00"E 19.18'------ ~
:~ *: 1a:! - 1
! Jc l l I~ ~ I
:: ;: l z I
I I Lc::--____ T N89"Jl '02"E 19.16' - - -----~
I I
WLEDETAIL I SCM.£: 1"•5'
UGEE DETAIL I SCALE, 1"• 10'
NO BEARING LDIGTH NO BEARING LDIGTH
L1 N00'29'00"W 26.00' N89"31'00"E
L2 N89'3f 00"E 16.38' N00'29'00"W U. 72'
LJ N89"J1'00"E 15. 50' l2J N89"31'00"E 7.17'
L4 N00'29'00"W 14.17' N00'29'01"W 26.20'
42.66'
38.0J'
17.52'
10.72'
17.63'
19.24'
11.74'
19.24'
14.55'
11.74'
10.77'
11.74'
13.21'
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROPOSED EASEMENT
PROPERTY LOT LINE
"°
LOCHINVAR A VENUE
WLEDETAIL2 SCM.£: 1"•5'
TY
UGEE DETAIL 2
BEARING LENGT!i NO '""" OEUA
N00'29'00"W C, 30.oir 104'06'12·
N89'31'00"E 15.6f C, 49.50' 1011'20·
N89'J1'02"E 14.13' CJ 49.50' 3'54'50"
N00'29'00"W " sso· 901)0'02"
NOOUJ'OO"W 2.59' C5 sso· 901)()'00"
N89'57'00"E " 15.50' 89'59°59°
N53'4J'17"W 0.06' C, 15.50' 90ll0'00"
ca 29.50' 90'00'()()"
C, 27.50' 901)()'()()"
27.50' 90'00'()()"
9T21'32"
1.50' 90'00'()()"
15.50' 901)()'()()"
15.50' 90'()()'()()"
15.50' 24'47'38"
15.50' 24'47'38"
15.50' 90'00'()()"
PARCEL2
i N90'00'oo"E 11.00' 7 0.13 AC±
I. . I I~ ~ I 1::- ::: 1
I~ .w l
:1 i: 18 8 1 lz z l
I I
I : N89'5700"E 1000 7 ll_/"-,/1
I I I _ _ J : 1 : 1 MC DONALDS
1 :1 1 1 ""T'" I 1z ""1 I
: : : I
~d~ - ~ "E:_ 10.21~~- -=d__ _ _ _
- ==·!i!.O~
~ 0
LENGTH
5-1.Sf
8.80'
24.35'
24.35'
46,34'
43,20'
43.20'
236'
24.35'
24.35'
6.71 '
24.35'
~
f '\. b'-i
HOMESTEAD ROAD ~
WLEDETAIL3 SCAl..£: 1"•5'
HOMESTEAD ROAD C)
WLEDETAIL4 SCALE: 1"• 5'
UGEE DETAIL 3 SCMI: 1"=10'
UGEE DETAIL 4 SCALI: 1"• 10'
-,~ .... ~L~~"lv_rJ.:.~
~
••1\< ,~,
' -
UGEE DETAIL 5 SCAl..£: 1"• 10'
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
LOTTING PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1"= 4(1 DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
- r, r, I ~ SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322
I LJ L......J ~ . (916) 788-56
SHEET NO.
TM03 0 40 60 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS OF I\SHEEJ'S JOB NO.: 3455-015 -
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/CA/C A/C A/C
\
:iv .....
' I
.,.
.,.
LOCHINVAR A VENUE
'~
APN I n
l
.,.
HOMESTEAD ROAD
re-re (PUE,EVAf:)
,,.
IBC- TBC
(PIJf,EVAE)
TRA\fl LmE J
2.0% ! 20% VARIES
~ ~
1.:DARDCURBAND
GUTTER P£R aTY OF
SANTACI..ARAST- 11
BEYE LEOCURB&GtlTTERJ tBE\/EllDaJRB&: GUTTER
TYPICAL 26' PRIVATE STREET WITH PARKING ON RIGHT SIDE (CROSS SLOPED) TYPICAL 26' PRIVATE STREET SECTION (CROWNED} BE\IELEOCURB&:GUTTER J
A.PPt.JES TO:ASTREET
NOT TOSCAL.E
TBC - TBC
1S (PUE,EVAE)
TRA\fl LANE ~ ffiA...O. LANE
2.~ !
\_BE\IELIDCUR:8&:GlJTT[R
TYPICAL 26' PRIVATE STREET SECTION (CROSS SLOPED} APPLES TOc CCllRT 3, COURT ~. COURT 7
NOTTOSCALE
FC-fC
1J' (PUE. EV.I.£) 13'
TRAYEL LANE I TRA\IE LLANE
' 2.0% I
5' 4.5'
~STMIDARDCURBMID
GUTTER PER OTY Of
SAN TAO..AAAST-11
APPLIESTO:COURT1,COURT5,COORT6
NOTTOSCALE
L STANDARDCUR:8AND
GUTTER PER aTYOF
SAN TACLARA ST-11
TBC-FC
(PUE,EV.o.E)
,,.
I
IRA\U LANE ~
2.0% I
COURT 2 PARKING
M I,,, I
PROPOSE:O aJRB &
GOTTIR
YARIES
COURT2
N0TTOSO.U: LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY FRONTAGE (EXISTING ROAD} NOTTOSCALE R/W6, 6, R/W
~
PROPOSEDSEPAAA~\' • •
SID£WALXAND
LANDSCAPE STRIP EXISTI NGCURB&GtlTTER
TOREUAIN
d
., y !f·~ OPOSEDSE:PAR ~TED
SlOEWALKANO
EXISTI NCCURB&GUTTER LANDSCAPE STRIP
TORElolAJN
HOMESTEAD ROAD FRONTAGE (EXISTING ROAD) LOCHINVAR A VENUE FRONT AGE (EXISTING ROAD} LEGEND
~
"
NOTE:
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE
COURTS l,2,3,0,6JAND A STRITTAREDESIGNATID ASEVAEACCESS.
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
STREET SECTIONS
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: I • a 40' DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
• (925)866-0322
ROSEVILLE • (916) 788-4456
JOB NO.: 3455-01 5
SHEET NO.
TM04
OF II SHEET'S
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
II
I
II
I !\ I .
t 6"CONNECTINGPIP£
II I
I
11 1
~'1' ,
\
II
I
i
:i I 6"CONNECTINGPIP£
I
II
II
i
i'.:1\
"' II
I
~ II
I~ 1 I
/.!'~
I
II
I
II
'i
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
LOCHINVAR
TRACT ')_ - ~
LOCHINVAR A VENUE.
.,.
HOMESTEAD R.OAD
I
I
I
I I
y - 1.~~ ) ) ~ \ iJ-O,/
*
APN
290-23-092
EARTHWORK SUMMARY DESCRIPTION CUT(CY)
FILL(CY)
ROIJGHGRfJ)ING(NOUNDERClJT.'.SSUMED)
4,036 3,871
UllLITYSPOO.S(ASSUMETI) 1,000
HOOS£ SPOLS(ASSUMES15CY/UNIT, 1UUNITS) 2205
BI0R£1ENllOO(ASSUMES2.5'SECTI0N)
SILVACEllS(ASSUMESJ.5' SECTION)
SHRIN KAGE:!TCUTMATERIALS(IO~ "' SUBTOTAL 7,999 4,258
NET 3,741(CUT)
BUILDING HJ.JNDATION BACKflLL (ASSUMES8") 1,766
PAAKINGL0TBACKflLL (ASSUMES8") 3,786
SUBTOTAL 7.999 9,8
12 NET
l,813(fll)
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
, 1320 SPOT
ELEVATION
2,...
SLOPE
---u=- PRO
POSED STORM DRAIN
-ffi;.J:C~:::>- EX
ISTING STORM DRAIN
c=J PROPOSED
BIORETENTION
[Il]J SILVA CE
LL
0 CURB CUT
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1"" 40' DATE: MAY29,2026
r, II I ~ SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322 I LJ L......J ~ . (916)78~~56 SHEET NO.
TM05 0 40 80 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS OFIISHEIITS JOB NO.: 3455•01 5
OHW OHW OHW
OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
OHW
OHW OHW
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
OHW s'~ CONNEC TING
11 11
~ ~ \CJ
II
i
12 DUCTILIIROOWATERMAIN
TOBEINSTALLEDFO'lABANDONMEN T
I
I
I
I
1 !IL---, 1 r ~ I LocH1~ smt s Lr----, j "- T£;ACT 3520 I ' t / .._, A 7 Slf'Pll..E •
LOCHINVAR A VENUE ~ ' ------------------ ---{Ex:::B_sD --- I
I
I
I :~c ---
I
APN 290-23-092
l
NO.
[I]
rn
[JJ
m
[_j]
[6J
[TI
[I]
[I]
WATER SERVICE UTILITY TABLE
JE)OR
IN) (,1
(,1 (,1
{El {E)
{E)
(,1 (,1 (,1
UTILITY SIZE MATERIAL DISPOSITION OUANITITY
DOMESTIC ,,.
.,
INSTAUNEW 99
5 Lr WAID>
DOMESTIC W ,· e.c
INSTAU NEW rn AID>
DOMESTIC
WAID> a· p,c
INSTAU NEW "' (FIRE)
DOMESTIC ,o•
p,c TOBE
W 925
Lr "1:R ABANDONED
DOMESTIC
,· p,c TOBE WATER(IRR.) w ABANDON ED
DOMESTIC ,· p,c TOBE wm rn ABANDONED
DOMESTIC ,· WATER(IRR.)
p,c
INSTAU NEW
'" DOMESTIC ,· p,c INSTAUNEW ""' "' DOMESTIC WAID> ,. p,c INSTAU NEW (FIRE)
'"
LEGEND
~
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
~
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
~
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED WATER
------a::ID----PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE
- CJ!:::::r -PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH
- -IDGC
&)--EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
----0::J:S:::s])-- EXISTING STOR~ DRAIN
--[XJILID---EXISTING WATER
EXISTING OVERHEAD WIRES
c=J PROPOSED
BIORETENTION
PROPOSED CURB CUT
[ill] SILVA CELL
~ 8" FIRE REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOWPREVENTER
8" DOMESTIC WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTER
□ • PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
-:+-PROPOSED STREET LIGHT
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
UTILITY PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1"" 40' DATE: MAY29,2026
r, II I ~ SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322 I LJ L......J ~ ROSEVILLE • (916)788-4 .. 56 0 40 60 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
JOB NO.: 3455-01 5
SHEET NO.
TM06
OF IISHEIITS
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
II
I
II
I
l\
II
!
,.1
i
II
I
t
6 1
; CONNECTI NCPIPE I , II
II
1 f;,,.1 1
~ II
t \ II
I II
l
II
-L ~~·
{)y<:(:P
A
I
I
I
:I ~ , , 1 • LOCHIN AR ESTA1ES
I
I
I
I
I
). ) i \
. / - -- - - '""' .'- -- ..... ,...
LOCHINVAR A VENUE
;;r- -- -- -- -- -.. - - - -- - M8AC
-~~=-{E:[1]"][)::::>-==- = ~ = =- = ~-=·= -=r--= = =- = -~-=-9'.D:}8= HOMESTEAD ROAD ~ ♦ If~
11(1
-1~
APN 290-23-07 I
APN
PVCO..EANOOT 'IIIIH
PLUG (rn>)
12"QASS I
P£Rt.lEABL£
ORAIN ROCk
/ f'I NISHEO GRADE
- ::._AB_m JR:i' -=-- STORMWATER TREATMENT SUMMARY
LEGEND
[ill
TYPICAL SILVA CELL SECTION NOT TOSCALE
COMBINATION FLOW PONDING
AREAID DRAINAGE AREA TOTM.IMPERVIOUS TOTAL PERVIOUS ANO VOLUt.l: METI-100 DEPTH (Sf( AREA(SF) AREA(SF) TREATt.ENTAREA
PROPOSEO(SF) (INCHES)
"" ' 25,396 19,032 6,364 688
OM ,1,.2 22,706 18.073 4,633
Dt.Ud 32,214 27,128 5,086
32,855 27,4!IO 5,375
OMA 5 4,542 3,702
DI.IA 6 13,033 12,003 1,030
OM,1,7 22,740 20,746 1.994 628 '" DMA8 12,978 12,126 852 DlilA 9 24,136 21,619 2,517
2J,387 17,7J9 5,648
DlilA11 32,899 29,029 3.870
OlilA12 3,939 2,425 1,514
"" ' OlilA 13 3,516 2,22.7 1,289 SR'2
254,~ 1 21J,J29 41,01 2 6,761
"""
PE:RPLANS
OVERFLOW INLET
THE COMBINATION FLOW ANO VClUldE METHOO WAS US£D TO CALCLUJ[ THE TR£ATMEN T AREA F\.U TRASHCAPTURE DE'<1Cf:S (CONN£CTOO PPE SCRE£N OOAPPROV£D EOIJAL) CfRTflEOBYS'/IRCB ARE APPIJCABLE TO ALL DRAIN INL.£TS LOCATID OO TSIDE!l' BIORElENT100AREASANDSLVA CELLS, IN ACCORDANCE V,rn-l C.3REOO IREl,IENTS.
a..EANOIJT 'IIITHCAP
AT FlNISHEOGRAOE(TYP.)
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
OMA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED BIORETENTION
100-YEAR STORM EVEN T OVERLAND RELEASE
PROPOSED CURB CUT
SILVA CELL
12" CUSS I PERM EABLE ROCK
1B"STOOM ORAINWAINUNE
BIORETENTION TYPICAL SECTION
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
STORMW ATER CONTROL PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: I • a 40' DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
SHEET NO,
• (925) 866-0322
ROSEVILLE • (916) 788-4456 TM07
OFIISHEET'S
JOB NO.: 3455-01 5
I I
+
)
....
I
0 I __________ _J) __ _J
• I
I '
I
I
-l--
~~-
HOMESTEAD ROAD
_!___O'
i? "-- c DONALDS "
ORPORATED"
' "'
~
7--
1 I
I
I
I
, I
, I ,
I
a
---------- - - - - _ _l
NOTE:
FIRETRUCK
TURNINGTEMPLATE
w
120' HAMMERHEAD PER
APPENDIXD
LEGEND
-----a::m------ PRCPOSEOF1RESER\r1CE
----IIxJo=&- EXISTI NG WATTR
~ FlRE,&,ERIAL.t.f'PARATUS ACCESSROAO
■ - - - ■ FlRE Af:RI.I.L APPARATUS ACCESS
- - - - - FIRE DEPARTMENT HOS£ REAOI FROM FIRE
H'r'DRMH TO f lRE TRUCK (150' f.l AX)
• - - - • FlRE OEP,JHf.lENT HOSE REACH FROM FlRETRUCK TOBUILDING{150' MAX) .... flRE H'rORANT
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES COURTS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 .o.ND A STREET AREOESICNATED J,SEW.E ACCESS FIRE ACCESS PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: I"• 40' DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
~ r-, II I ~ SANRAMON • (925)866-0322
'1.,,7 I LJ L......J ~ ROSEV,CLE • " '"" .... "'
0 40 80 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
JOB NO.: 3455-01 5
SHEET NO.
TM08
OF II SHEETS
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
Ir
I
I
~~-~
I L0CHI VAR ESTATES~
'I TRACT 3520
I
" - .:,: • ·"°'·: ,- '"-"" ---~
.,.
HOMESTEAD ROAD
~
fl --; APN I
290-23-092 I
I
I
I
I
{
GARBAGE BIN TEMPLATE
'°'"'""'
GARBAGE TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATE
'°'"'""'
LEGEND
■
• RECYQINGCART
(10- 5)
BU lDINCNUMBER/~ Ut.lT MIJMBER
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
TRASH PICKUP PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: I • a 40' DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
r, II I ~ SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322 I LJ L......J ~ ROSEVILLE • (916)788-4456 0 40 80 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
JOB NO.: 3455-015
SHEET NO .
TM09
OFIISHEET'S
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
Ir
I
I
~~-~
'I TRACT 3520
I
I L0CHI VAR ESTATES~
'-:c +' • • - - ----
LOCHINVAR A VENUE
.,.
HOMESTEAD ROAD
fl --; APN I
290-23-092 I
I
I
I
I
-c.1
I
{
GARBAGE BIN TEMPLATE
'°'"'""'
GARBAGE TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATE
'°'"'""'
LEGEND
■
• RECYQINGCART
- 100','Jl.E\' TRASH PIQ(Lf'ACCESS
(10- 5)
BU lDINCNUMBER/~ Ut.lT MIJMBER
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
ALTERNATE TRASH PICKUP PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: I • a 40' DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
r, 11 I ~ . (925)866-0322 I LJ L......J ~ ROSEVILLE • (916)788-4456 SHEET NO.
TMIO 0 40 80 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS OFIISHEET'S JOB NO.: 3455-015
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C
A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
LOCHINVAR A VENUE
,: ~ ;
: 8 J
• o:'™"= b=:lc==== =±--"'
·~
HOMESTEAD ROAD
=-o- •110.ie -.LlS'Ol.l ....,,. ,..,MDW110mooo,a="'°"'""""""'""" ""...._,,..."" '""' '"_""' __ ..,.,. ..., 00:,,0,... .. , _ • ..,""1 '"" >LNOLMl ""-LS -,'KtllO""""'- OJ.DOl<G OOO,>MOA,.a>""""-',roNS. _Cf.,._"'"-""'""""
ESTATES ,-----r I
3520 J- -W
J I \
Plan2AIADA)
PLAN TYPE
' ' J
4 5
.
7 8
,..._
GROSSFLOOR.IJIEA(S.F.)· DWELUNGUNIT(R·2)
RUBY(olSlotVI
2 13 1362
" "
GROSSFlOORAREA (S.f .J. QWELLINGUNIT (R·2)
JAOE(3story)
BMRSUMMARY MIX MIX(%) RUBY JADE
20 U.6 J 4
" 21.8 ' " 11.6 ' ' " 14.J J J
" 17.7 J
5 H
" 12.9 ' 7 48
,., ,., ,. 8
lOTAl.lllltlNl'S 22
LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY
BMR BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT
UNIT PLAN TYPE
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
1,412 9,1384
1,518 10 15,1&1
1,518 13.662
1,575
1,506 13,572
1,600 10 16.000
1,605 8,025
1,600 6,400
1,949 10 19,490
1,955 9.775
2,145 10,725
6 9,666
12 20,076
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
PARIVA CITY OF SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: I • a 40' DA TE: MAY 29, 2026
• (925)866-0322
ROSEVILLE • (916) 788-4456
SHEET NO.
TMll
OFIISHEET'S
JOB NO.: 3455-015
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-512 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Consideration of a Historic Resource Designation for the Tiburcio Vásquez Gravesite Located in Santa Clara Mission Cemetery
SUMMARY
The Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC) initiated the nomination of the gravesite of Tiburcio Vasquez, located within Santa Clara Mission Cemetery, for designation as a local landmark. The designation is consistent with the historical and cultural importance criteria established in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and HLC eligibility criteria.
At its April 2, 2026, meeting, the HLC conducted a public hearing to consider the nomination of the gravesite of Tiburcio Vasquez for designation as a local landmark and recommended that the City Council approve the designation. The City Council makes the final determination as to whether the subject property is eligible for inclusion on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI).
Once the City Council approves the designation, the HLC may consider opportunities for memorialization at the gravesite.
BACKGROUND
The gravesite of Tiburcio Vasquez is located within the Santa Clara Mission Cemetery. The HLC initiated the nomination of the gravesite of Tiburcio Vasquez for designation as a local landmark.
At its March 5, 2026, meeting, the HLC considered the designation of the gravesite of Tiburcio Vasquez as a local landmark pursuant to Chapter 18.130 - Historic Preservation of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation Ordinance). Following discussion, the HLC voted to move forward with nomination of the gravesite for local landmark designation at a subsequent meeting.
At its April 2, 2026, meeting, the HLC reviewed the nomination of the gravesite for designation as a local landmark under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. City Historian Lorie Garcia provided a detailed biographical account of Tiburcio Vasquez (Attachment 1) to inform the Commission's consideration. Following discussion and review of the applicable criteria, the HLC voted to recommend that the City Council approve the designation of the gravesite as a local landmark.
DISCUSSION
This section provides an overview of the designation criteria and requirements for a site to be eligible to be nominated and considered for inclusion in the City’s HRI and its applicability to the gravesite.
Designation Criteria and Eligibility
Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.130.040 - HRI Property Designation, the site must meet all of the City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-512 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
following criteria for inclusion in the HRI:
· Age: A building, structure, object, site, or district that is 50 years of age or older may qualify as an HRI property (the gravesite is over 50 years old and therefore meets the minimum age threshold for consideration).
· Retains Historic Integrity: A building, structure, object, site, or district must maintain integrity to be considered eligible for listing on the City’s inventory as an HRI property. Integrity refers to a resource’s ability to convey its significance by the retention of a property’s visual and physical characteristics and its surroundings. (The gravesite retains sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance, including its location within the cemetery, its physical characteristics, and its association with the individual interred.)
· Significance: The property proposed for inclusion falls within one or more of the following categories, as these terms are defined in Section 8.9.2 (Criteria for Local Significance) of Appendix 8.9 of the General Plan: Historical or cultural significance; Architectural significance; Geographic significance; or Archaeological significance. (The gravesite demonstrates historical and cultural significance through its direct association with Tiburcio Vasquez. As such, it meets the applicable significance criteria as defined in the General Plan, particularly with respect to historical and cultural importance.)
Applicability to the Gravesite
As a site-specific designation, the boundaries of the proposed HRI resource are limited to the gravesite itself rather than the entirety of the cemetery property. This approach is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for designation of a site, building, structure, or object that possesses independent historical significance.
In addition to meeting the designation criteria, the Zoning Ordinance establishes a formal process for designation. For HLC-initiated nominations, the property owner must be notified and provided with an opportunity to object to the designation. Given the unique circumstances of this request, staff coordinated with cemetery staff to contact next-of-kin, as this is a privately owned gravesite located within a private cemetery.
Based on the information provided, the gravesite meets the criteria for designation as a historic resource under Chapter 18.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the HLC has recommended that the City Council approve the designation of the gravesite as a local landmark.
Following designation, the HLC may consider opportunities for memorialization at the gravesite, such as the installation of a biographical plaque or other interpretive signage, subject to applicable approvals and coordination with the property owner.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. There are no physical changes to the site proposed.
FISCAL IMPACT
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-512 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
There is no fiscal impact to the City other than staff time and administrative expense.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
The Historical and Landmarks Commission recommends that the City Council approve the designation of the gravesite of Tiburcio Vasquez, located within the Santa Clara Mission Cemetery, as a local landmark and include it on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tiburcio Vasquez Biography
2. Historic Preservation Ordinance
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
1 Tiburcio Vasquez
Photo taken in 1874, by V. WOLFENSTEIN, of Los Angeles.
Background
Alta California was the last frontier and outpost of colonization established by the Spanish crown on the North American continent, when in 1769, in order to protect the Manila galleons and seeking a means to strengthen defenses against the Russians and British, Spain finally took steps to colonize the coast of Upper California. In 1775, the Viceroy instructed Juan Bautista de Anza to lead an Expedition in order to establish missions in the vicinity of what would come to be called the Port of San Francisco and to provide "in that port [of San Francisco] a certain sign of defense to indicate that it belongs to his Majesty." Anza gathered supplies and settlers from Sinaloa and Sonora, and in May 1775, took his flock northward from Mexico.
The Vasquez Family
Included among the 240 men, women and children who made the 1,200-mile trek from Mexico with the Anza Expedition of 1775-1776, was Tiburcio’s 40-year-old great grandfather, Juan Atanasio Vasquez and his family, which included his eldest son, 20-year-old, José Tiburcio Vasquez. The first man to sign Anza’s roster was Juan Atanasio and he enlisted as a soldier, as did his son José Tiburcio. Along the way, José Tiburcio married 16-year-old, María Antonia Bojorques. On March 10, 1776, The Anza party reached Monterey. Two weeks later a small party was sent to explore the San Francisco Bay area for a site to establish a pueblo. When they 2 returned to Monterey, Anza ordered Lieutenant Moraga to lead 20 soldiers and settlers, including the Vasquez family, to the chosen site on San Francisco Bay. Arriving June 27, 1776, they built huts and an altar and on June 29th celebrated mass at the site that would become Mission Dolores. This marked the founding of San Francisco, 6 days before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a continent away.
The Vasquez family did not remain long in San Francisco. The following year, 1777, Lieutenant Moraga was ordered to take a group of the newly arrive soldiers and settlers to found a mission and a pueblo below the south end of the bay. While Juan Atanasio remained at the San Francisco Presidio, nine families, one of which consisted of José Tiburcio Vasquez, his wife and baby daughter, were persuaded to go with Moraga. A site was chosen 8 miles below the south end of the Bay on the west side of the Guadalupe River. Named Mission Santa Clara de Thamien, here on January 23, 1777, Mass was celebrated for the first time and on September 29th, on the east side of the river, ground was broken for the pueblo of San José (the first pueblo in California). Sunday mass was obligatory and so acting as the parish church for the civilian settlers, Mission Santa Clara would become the religious, political, and social center for the inhabitants of the pueblo.
In 1784, María would give birth to her and José Tiburcio Vasquez’ 5 th son, José Hermenegildo
Vasquez y Bojorques in the pueblo of San José. The only one who could read and write, José Tiburcio Vasquez became a prominent citizen in San José holding the office of alcalde (a combination of mayor and judge) in 1794, and from 1802 to 1807. When he died in 1827, he left three sons, one of whom was José Hermenegildo.
Like his grandfather, José Hermenegildo Vasquez had become a Spanish soldier. In 1808, he was stationed in Monterey where he would serve for many years. Here he met María Guadalupe Cantúa, whose grandfather had also been a soldier at Monterey. They were married in the Royal Presidio Chapel on February 26, 1831. As he was a former soldier, Hermenegildo Vasquez was entitled to seek a grant of land from the Mexican government and in 1835, six months after his son Tiburcio’s birth, he did so and was awarded an approximately 40-acre parcel of land on the Pajaro River about 3 miles west of San Juan Bautista.
Tiburcio Vasquez
Born on April 7, 1835, in Monterey, the capital of Mexico’s District of Alta California, Tiburcio Vasquez was a direct descendent of the first settlers to arrive in Alta California and whose family was directly involved in the founding of both the mission and presidio of San Francisco and Mission Santa Clara and the pueblo of San Jose. And as a native born, Californian, he would grow up to consider himself a Californio.
Those born in California, and mainly descended from the first settlers, the Spanish speaking population considered themselves Californios, which stressed their local loyalties and distinguished them from the government in Mexico. Some were grantees of large land holdings and several, among California's wealthiest landowners, were literate, cultured members of the social elite. They formed a close-knit community, and visitors would be struck by the general 3 atmosphere of good will and the absence of class consciousness. Tiburcio Vasquez would later acknowledge much of his criminal acts, but claim they were justified because of the injustices perpetuated against the Californios in conjunction with the American takeover of California.
Growing up in an upper middle-class family, Tiburcio Vasquez not only participated in Monterey’s social life but also spent time on the family ranchos, where like most of the Californios he became an excellent horseman. Also, in 1842, Governor Alvarado had established a free public school in Monterey and as a result Tiburcio was well educated and became proficient in both Spanish and English. As a boy, he enjoyed reading Spanish novels and especially loved poetry and as he grew older, he continued to read books in Spanish and writing poems to his female admirers. Those who knew him when he was young, considered him be a gentle boy who didn’t like strife, hated fighting, and liked “music, dancing, serenades and señoritas.” It would be the latter, which would lead to his downfall.
Events that were happening during the time Tiburcio Vasquez was growing up, which would irrevocably alter California and the life of the Californio population, profoundly influenced his life. This resulted in his being called a “Desperado” and described as follows in an article that appeared in the May 15, 1874, issue of the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “Vasquez Captured At Last” … “A History of His Crimes from Early Boyhood to the Time of His Capture.” The Chronicle reporter went on to state:
“In his youth he attended the public school and showed indications of intelligence superior to that of most of his class. His parents were of the lowest class, and he was reared in idleness and became a lazy, good-for-nothing fellow, following no occupation, but spending most of his time around saloons and other loafing places. He spoke and wrote English and Spanish, and was looked upon rather as a spoiled, worthless fellow than as a desperado. However, he early developed a spirit of lawlessness. He divided his time between Los Angeles, Monterey, Petaluma and other places, and was engaged in several lawless transactions…"three cardinal vices," wine, cards and women, have made him what he is, after descending from a stock whose sole object in life appears to be to exist without work.”
Alta California in Upheaval 1840-1850
Seen as unwanted invaders by much of the native Californio population, during the midnineteenth century, Americans had been flowing into Alta California in growing numbers, many of whom believed that the conquest of California was part of their manifest destiny.
As early as 1840, when Tiburcio Vasquez was 5-years-old, a plot to capture Governor Alvarado, overthrow Mexican Rule in Alta California and seize the country, occurred in Monterey when, one of the numerous trappers who had found their way across the country into California, an American backwoodsman, named Isaac Graham, formed a sort of military company of 45 men (American and some English) comprised of riflemen, trappers and deserters from ships that had visited the coast, and plotted a revolution. But before it came to fruition, the plot was uncovered and Graham and his men arrested and sent to Mexico for prosecution. 4 However, both the United States and Great Britain took the situation as a provocation and an excuse to make a demonstration of military might. Soon American and British warships were anchored in Monterey Bay, seeking news about the well-being of their countrymen. Pressure was placed on Mexico to return them and the following year Graham and his men were returned to Monterey. Once back, they took every opportunity to taunt or otherwise publicly embarrass Governor Alvarado in retaliation for their arrest.
Two years later, when Tiburcio was 7, Commodore Thomas Catesby ap Jones, Commander of the United States Pacific Squadron, mistakenly thinking war between the United States and Mexico had begun, sailed into the port of Monterey, raised the American flag over the perplexed Californio community of Monterey and rechristened the fortress at Monterey, Fort Catesby in honor of the occasion, The following day, having found out his error and that there was no war, he withdrew his forces and returned control to Mexico. Afterwards, the Mexicans were loud in their protests, but none was as loud as those of General Micheltorena, newly appointed military governor of Monterey and Commodore Jones action almost precipitated the inevitable war, which would occur four years later.
When Tiburcio Vasquez was 11 years old he was witness to the illegal invasion of his country by Americans. In his May 1846 address to the state assembly Pio Pico, the Governor of California, had said:
“We find ourselves threatened by hordes of Yankee immigrants who have already begun to flock into our country and whose progress we cannot arrest. Already have the wagons of that perfidious people scaled the most inaccessible summits of the Sierra Nevade, crossed the entire continent and penetrated the fruitful valley of the Sacramento. What that astonishing people will next undertake I cannot say …” Then on June 14, 1846, the Bear Flag Revolt took place in Sonoma, an event that occurred when a group of American immigrants, who had arrived without official permission and were supported by “General” John C. Fremont, seized General Vallejo, jailed him and raised a flag in Sonoma with the name California Republic on it. Less than two months later, the United States declared war on Mexico. On July 1st, 1846, Commodore John Sloat captured Monterey and on July 9th the United States flag was raised at Sonoma and Sutter’s Fort. The Bear Flag Revolt and the “California Republic” ended as the Bear Flaggers joined with the American Military and reorganized as General Fremont’s California Battalion.
Up until October 1846, the war begun in July had not amounted to much beyond rumors and a few skirmishes and many of the Californios had decided not to oppose the American takeover.
However, by Fall, American immigrants had begun arriving overland in greater numbers and upon their arrival were informed, by Fremont at Sutter’s Fort and in the newspaper, Californian (first published on August 15, 1846, in Monterey), that they could shelter during the rainy season at a number of “mostly unoccupied” missions. Almost all the men in the immigrant parties were immediately enlisted in the newly formed California Battalion. As illustrated by 5 events at Santa Clara, conflict between the immigrants and Californio population was almost inevitable.
By 1846 a small Californio community, which included friends, relatives of Tiburcio’s family had developed on what had been mission land in close proximity to the Mission Santa Clara quadrangle and church. In the fall of 1846, their lives would forever change, when 175 American settlers - men, women and children – arrived at Mission Santa Clara, having been sent there by Fremont. In letter home, one settler described what they were told, writing, “We next found Fremont camped on the American River . . . He told us we had better push forward as fast as possible as the Spaniards were unfriendly toward the Americans.
He advised us to go to Santa Clara and take possession of the mission buildings . . . We then pushed on towards San Jose . . . we met a courier from San Jose, advising us to make all possible haste, fearing the Mexicans would give us trouble.” The immigrants were horrified by the living conditions which awaited them at the mission, and there were few other places available for shelter. To make matters worse, all the structures were constructed of adobe, and the Americans were appalled at “mud” houses. Distrustful of the society in which they were now placed, the immigrants reacted with dismay.
Father Real had followed the Franciscan tradition of welcoming visitors but was “baffled by the language barrier and perturbed by the invasion of aggressive Yankee Protestants.” For example, in December he sent neophyte Indians onto the steep roof of the granary, where many immigrants were staying, to try to stop the leaks. The immigrants misinterpreted the effort as an attempt to force them to leave and halted the helpful endeavor by brandishing their guns. Samuel Young, one of the immigrants, later stated that:
“the owner of the building ordered them out. . . everything was wet, and it was still raining, when the owner sent some Indians to take the tiles off the building, and by that means to force them out. He had commenced to take them off when Mr. Elam Brown came to see Mr. Young. Seeing his condition, and that of his sick children, he advised Mr. Young not to allow the roof to be taken off; so, calling for his old trusty gun, he sent word to the Indians that if they did not desist, he would kill the last one of them.” With few of the immigrants understanding Spanish or the customs and manners of the Californios, many sincere offers of assistance were refused by them. In fact, offers of hospitality by the earlier American immigrants were oft-times looked upon with suspicion by the newly arrived immigrants. One of them would later credit the survival of her husband and others to Maria Bernal, George Bellomy’s wife, who had daily brought fresh baked bread and wine to the mission, however, others questioned Bellomy’s loyalty, since he had married a Californio woman.
Their negative view of the Californians resulted in actions that angered the Californio population Feeling far from safe, the Americans began to believe that should the necessity for 6 defense arise, no time should be lost in preparing for an emergency and their negative view of the Californians resulted in actions that angered the Californio population, such as cutting down several of the willow trees (considered sacred) along the Alameda to use in barricading the mission compound while ignoring the pleas of the Californios. As described by the “Captain” Aram:
“After the menacing of the Spaniards became alarming . . . it soon became evident that some kind of barricade was necessary to prevent the enemy from charging immediately on the mission buildings. I set the men immediately to work . . .cutting and hauling logs about ten feet in length. They were placed in a ditch about three feet high forming a breastwork seven feet high.”
And of his militia men wrote, “All hands were now busy in fortifying the old Mission . . . preparing to give our foe a gallant reception; but the Spaniards, though boasting that they would soon appropriate the pretty Señoras blancas to their own use, failed to come near enough to measure arms with our mountain rifles.”
All of this culminated with the Battle of Santa Clara on January 2, 1847. This was the only campaign in the Northern District of California between Californios and United States forces during the Mexican- American war. After a 2-day battle a peaceful treaty was arranged. In his diary on February 5, 1847, Walter Colton, the first American Alcalde of Monterey, wrote:
“. . . Nor should it be forgotten that the Californians evinced . . . a disposition well suited to bring about a amicable treaty. They took up arms, not to make war on the American Flag, but in vindication of their rights as citizens of California, and in defense of their property. . . They were well mounted, and might, had they so listed, have prolonged the struggle. But this was not their object, and they sent in a flag of truce. The conditions of the treaty were, that they should lay down their arms, release their prisoners, and that their property should be restored, or such vouchers given as would enable them ultimately to recover its value. This was a reasonable requirement on their part, and the American officers had the good sense to appreciate its force.”
However, the American immigrants who viewed it from the tops of the mission buildings interpreted it as a tremendous defeat of the “enemy.”
In 1848, when Tiburcio Vasquez was 13, the war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Alta California became a territory of the United States and overnight thousands of Mexican citizens became citizens of a foreign government.
In January 1848 gold was discovered and the ensuing rush for gold would bring Americans by the hoard into California. Then in 1850, the Californio's world "turned upside down." When the mail steamer Oregon entered into San Francisco Bay on October 18, 1850, she brought the 7 news that on September 9th the Congress of the United States had admitted California into the Union as a free State. California's transition from being Spanish to Mexican to American was complete. While some people "danced and made merry, till daylight" that California was truly now the thirty-first State of the Union, there were others who mourned what had occurred and many members of California’s Californio community echoed the feelings of General Vallejo when he said,
"The language now spoken in our country, the laws which govern us, the faces which we encounter daily, are those of the masters of the land, and of course antagonistic to our interests and rights, but what does that matter to the conqueror? He wishes his own well-being and not ours! – a thing that I consider only natural in individuals, but which I condemn in a government which has promised to respect and make respected our rights, and to treat us as its own sons. But what does it avail us to complain? The thing has happened and there is no remedy."
Tiburcio Vasquez was 15 years old when California officially became part of the United States of America.
Growing up, Tiburcio Vasquez had surely witnessed much and absorbed the words and feeing of his parents, relatives and other adults incensed over the actions of the Anglo-Americans.
Tiburcio Vasquez Bandido or Hero?
In the annals of California history, there has rarely been a legacy as complex as that of Tiburcio Vasquez.
Under American control, by 1856 many Californios had lost portions of their land through legal and illegal means and as Americans seized the state's political affairs, Californios also lost their political influence. Along with the loss of political and economic power, many Californios felt they were mistreated and discriminated against by the newly arrived Americans. Lynchings became so common during the late 1840s and early 1850s that newspapers rarely reported them, and those Californios that resisted the Americans became outlaws. It has been written that Tiburcio Vasquez would later claim that “his (eventual) crimes were retribution for discrimination by the settlers and white norteamericanos (‘North Americans’), insisting that he was a defender of Mexican-American rights.”
By the time he was 17, he had become preoccupied watching over his two sisters, guarding them against the aggressive and seeming crude ways of the American sailors that swarmed over Monterey. And, like many other Californio men, Tiburcio Vasquez was upset and offended by the way these foreigners showed disrespect for “their” country, “their” women and “their” honor. In an interview he gave twenty-two years later to the editor of the Los Angeles Star, Tiburcio said, “A spirit of hatred and revenge took possession of me. I had numerous fights in defense of what I believed to be my rights and those of my country men.” 8 As a young man he loved horse racing and due to his small size and incredible skill in the saddle, he became a very popular rider in Monterey, San Juan and Santa Cruz. And as he grew up, he was in the habit of attending the balls and parties given by Californios and here, he had seen how the Americans in attendance would force themselves, shove the Californio men aside and monopolize the women. It was when he was 19 years old that attendance at a dance would forever change the life of Tiburcio Vasquez leading to his existence as a bandit for the next two decades.
In 1854, when he was at a dance with his friend Anastacio García, who was married to Tiburcio’s cousin María Guadalupe Vasquez, a fight ensued when one young sailor placed his hat on the Californio woman dancing the fandango, which was considered to be a personal affront to the Californios. A Monterey Constable, William Hardmount, was called to stop the disturbance and when he appeared on the scene and began to question those in attendance, someone turned off the lamps. By the time they were re-lit, the constable was dead.
José Guerra, Anastasio García and Tiburcio Vasquez were implicated in the fight. Anastasio and Tiburcio fled but José Guerra was arrested and lynched the morning after the murder. Note: A few months later, Anastasio García was apprehended in Los Angeles and returned to Monterey for trial. But the trial never took place, as when the vigilantes found out they raided the jail and immediately lynched him.
Although he denied any involvement in the murder, after the fight and Constable Hardmount’s death, Tiburcio went home to his mother and “told her that I intended to begin a different life; asked for and obtained her blessing and at once commenced the career of a robber.” Leaving Monterey, he began a life of stealing horses in Santa Clara, Merced and Fresno Counties. After leaving home, it’s unknown if Tiburcio Vasquez had any contact with his father, José Hermenegildo Vasquez, but by 1856, his elderly father, was ailing and impoverished. He had lost his fight to prove ownership of his small rancho on the Pajaro River, near San Juan and been taken in by his niece, who had married Segundo Robles, the prominent owner of Rancho Santa Rita, (today the city of Palo Alto). Here, he died on January 18, 1856, and was buried two days later in the Santa Clara Mission cemetery.
A year later, in 1857, Tiburcio Vasquez and two young California Indian compadres were arrested for horse thieving in northern Los Angeles County. One of his companions turned State’s evidence, was freed and the other received a one-year sentence. However, on August 26, 1857, Tiburcio was sentenced to San Quentin prison for five years, a sentence whose severity for a first-time offence was stunning, especially as at that time Tiburcio Vasquez was not a famous bandit but instead, an exceedingly obscure one.
Living in abysmal conditions, the Spanish speaking inmates tended to congregate together, connected by a common culture and language. However, being bilingual, Tiburcio was able to associate with both Hispanics and Anglos and became friendly with one in particular who would play an important role when, after overpowering the guard and obtaining the keys, on June 25, 9 1859, he escaped with several other prisoners and disappeared into the heavily wooded hills at the base of Mount Tamalpais.
Tiburcio Vasquez made his way to Jackson, Amador County, where he was arrested for stealing two horses, and on August 17th was once again in San Quentin, where an additional year was added to his sentence and he received the standard punishment for escaping, between 50 and hundred lashes. When he was well enough Tiburcio was returned to the brickyard to make bricks and when not worked was returned to a cell in the dungeon. Following another attempt to escape, he was flogged and put in heavy cross-chains. By now despondent and demoralized by his abortive attempts to get out of jail, Tiburcio turned to his mother for help and sent her an abject letter pleading for her help.
Determined to help him, in late November 1860, Guadalupe took a steamer to Los Angeles to meet with Juan Maria Sepulveda, a family friend and member of a prominent an highly respected Los Angeles family who also had previously been a Justice of the Peace and knew the Governor, John G. Downey. They then met with the former district attorney, who had prosecuted Tiburcio Vasquez and a petition was drawn up, which after pointing out the harshness of his sentence and testifying that up to the time he was convicted they, “knew him to be an industrious, sober an energetic young man,” asked for a full pardon for Tiburcio Vasquez. Signed by 34 prominent Hispanics and 10 Anglos, including several of the grand jurors who had indicted him, the petition was sent to Governor Downey. Public notice was published in the December 1, 1860, Los Angeles Times of Sepulveda’s notice to apply to the Governor, for the community to comment on it. But although no objection was made, Governor Downey failed to pardon Tiburcio.
After two more failed attempts to escape, Tiburcio settled down to serve out the rest of his sentence. Finally released on August 13, 1863, 28-year-old Tiburcio Vasquez was greatly changed from the boy he had been when he entered prison. He had learned safe-cracking, burglary and the harsh punishments he received had inflamed his hatred of “gringos.” And now, although still soft-spoken with a love of books, poetry, music and dance, some of the “toughest and most dangerous ruffians in California looked up to him as a leader” and as had been recounted about him, had developed a fierce appetite for “life and freedom.” Tiburcio Vasquez the “Bandido”
After his release, Tiburcio Vasquez was mainly in the North Bay, engaged in stock rustling and small acts of burglary. His exploits over the next few years, both alone or with a couple of men, resulted in Tiburcio Vasquez gaining statewide notoriety. But despite intense and costly searches across California, Tiburcio always eluded capture. One comment from that time explained this by saying:
“All of these people [Mexican] are his attached friends, offer him the shelter of their houses when he is pursued and tell the officers the most prodigious lies without any compunction.” Note: Among the numerous Californios who sheltered Tiburcio Vasques, was 10 Pio Pico, the last Mexican Governor of California. “He has no band or gang, unless the entire Mexican population of the mountain regions of Fresno, Kern, Tulare, Monterey and Los Angeles counties can be called such.”
In all of these counties Tiburcio Vasquez could count on the moral and physical support of his Californio countrymen – and, according to many, his countrywomen. Except for his attraction to women which sometimes landed him in costly indiscretions, Tiburcio Vasquez was intelligent and resourceful. Many times, while on the road, he would have one companion ride far ahead of him and another far behind, to be able to warn of any dangers. And, when camping, he normally chose to sleep away from the main campsite.
Taken in 1865 when he was 30 years old, by San Francisco photographer Wilbur F. Bagley, this is the earliest known photo of Tiburcio Vasquez.
On January 11, 1867, he was arrested for stealing a rifle, was found guilty and then sentenced to two years in prison on two charges of burglary, to run consecutively. Once again Tiburcio found himself in San Quentin. Here he was visited by his mother Guadalupe Vasquez, who it is said “was plunged into depression by seeing her son in chains.” Now sixty-three and frail, she returned to San Juan in a weakened state and then went to a friend’s home in Monterey, where 11 she passed away on May 19, 1969. When Tiburcio Vasquez was informed that his mother had died, it was the darkest day of his life. This time Tiburcio bided his time in prison exhibiting “good behavior” and was discharged on June 4, 1871.
Then a robbery in August 1873 would prove to be the catalyst for the end.
In January 1873, while Tiburcio Vasquez was the guest of Abdon Leiva and wife at their home at Cantua Creek, a new gang was organized consisting of Vasquez, Clodovea Chavez, Leiva, Moreno and Gonzalez. Staying mainly in Southern California, they were now constantly on the move, sheltering in hiding places well known to Tiburcio.
After committing several small holdups, on August 26, 1873, they planned and executed a raid on Snyder’s general merchandise store and saloon at Tres Pinos, San Benito County. When they left after looting the store, three people were dead.
Taking about eight horses, with provisions packed on the back of each, the gang departed, with Chavez, Vasquez and Leiva proceeding toward Los Angeles, joined by the latter’s wife.
By November 1873, the gang was in Fresno County, where on the 13th Vasquez and Chavez entered a store about two miles from Millerton, and after binding the occupants, obtained six hundred dollars and escaped.
On the night of December 26, 1873, these two bandits with several others, entered the town of Kingston, Fresno County, and dividing into gangs, after tying the inhabitants up, simultaneously robbed the two principal stores. On this occasion they obtained $2000.00 and a supply of clothing and provisions.
Governor Booth had become aroused, and the State Legislature passed a bill empowering the governor to expend any part of $15,000.00 in an effort to capture Vasquez. Subsequently, a reward of $8000.00 was offered for Vasquez if captured alive and $6000.00 for his dead body.
On the afternoon of February 26, 1874, Vasquez and Chavez proceeded to Coyote Hole station on the Los Angeles and Owens River stage road. They then approached the building, ordered everybody out and then waited for the stage. Several passengers were robbed, and several hundred dollars were taken from Wells Fargo’s box.
On the next day, they stopped the Los Angeles stage between Mill Station and Soledad and robbed the passengers of about $300.00.
As Vasquez and Chavez knew that Sheriff Morse from Alameda County had a posse in that neighborhood disguised as surveyors, they remained in seclusion during the month of April, but when Morse left, they resumed their activities.
12 On May 6, 1874, Tiburcio Vasquez and his men proceeded to the house of Alexander Repetto, in Los Angeles, and after tying him to a tree demanded $800.00 as a ransom. Repetto sent a boy to Los Angeles for the money, but the lad notified Sheriff Rowland instead. A posse was formed and arrived at the house in time to see the bandits make their escape.
Then on May 14, 1874, it was learned that Vasquez was at the home of a man named “Greek George,” near Los Angeles. A posse from Los Angeles, consisting of Sheriff Rowland, Undersheriff Johnson, Major H. M. Mitchell and George A. Beers, special correspondent for the San Francisco Chronicle, procured a wood wagon and instructed the driver to proceed to George’s house. The posse was concealed in the bed of the wagon and when they arrived at the house they jumped out and surrounded the building. A woman opened the door and then gave the alarm to Vasquez, who jumped through a window. Although confronted by several armed men, instead of surrendering he attempted to escape and was shot eight times. He then surrendered.
The posse took Tiburcio Vasquez to Los Angeles, where he was booked into jail. The City Council was meeting but they adjourned “in a very undignified manner and came piling in to Tiburcio Vasquez, his captors and the house where he was captured. 13 peer through the windows at the famous bandido.” It was thought that Tiburcio would die from his wounds, but he recovered and was indicted for the murders committed at Tres Pinos in San Benito County the previous August 26, 1873.
His capture created a public sensation and people flocked to the jail to see the famous outlaw.
San Francisco Chronicle reporter, George Beers, wrote that, “Among the callers were quite a number of first-class ladies, all of whom were evidently charmed with the prisoner’s excessive politeness.” Note: At his last trial nine out of every ten spectators would be women.
Bradley & Robinson of San Francisco, California’s leading photography firm, sent a telegram saying that if provided with a negative, they would have cabinet cards printed for the public and Tiburcio would receive 25% of the profit. Thus, on the afternoon of May 18th, L. A. photographer Valentin Wolfenstein went to the jail and set up his camera. Here seated in a chair, in a shady spot behind the jail, two photographs of Tiburcio Vasquez were taken and to this day, the bust view is the best-known image of him.
By May 24th, he was well enough to travel and was sent to San Francisco by the coastal steamer, Senator. The plan was that from there, Tiburcio would be sent by train to Salinas, where he would stand trial for the murders at Los Pinos.
After a rough voyage, finally on the morning of May 27th, the Senator docked at San Francisco, where several hundred people had gathered on the wharf to see the notorious bandit. After he was booked into the City jail, more photos of Tiburcio Vasquez were taken by Bradley & Robinson of San Francisco. The following morning, he was taken by train to Salinas and lodged in the jail under heavy guard, where three thousand people, many of them Hispanic, thronged to see him. A San Francisco reporter described the scene, saying “Many sit down by the side of the jail and put up piteous appeals for the fiend, and it is safe to say that nine-tenths of the Californians sympathize with the noted cut-throat.”
While Tiburcio Vasquez was busy with his lawyers and preparations were underway for the trial, the District Attorney requested that the trial be transferred to the county where the crimes had occurred. After rejecting San Benito County, due to feeling the jails there were not secure enough, Judge Beldon of the District Court ordered that Tiburcio be moved to the Santa Clara County jail. Thus, on July 20th, in heavy irons Tiburcio Vasquez arrived by train in San Jose, the town his grandfather, José Tiburcio Vasquez, had helped found 97 years before.
Tiburcio was placed in a cell, in the recently built new jail behind the courthouse, which was considered to be the strongest county jail in California. Reporters visited him, attempting to get him to answer questions about what had happened at Tres that Pinos, but he steadfastly refused, saying, “I am to be tried for that, and I shall say nothing until I speak in court.” When informed that he had told the editor of the Los Angeles Times that Leiva and Gonzáles were the murders and he and Chavez didn’t arrive until after the shooting, he adamantly denied it. After one such interview, a reporter described Tiburcio as “cunning, audacious, vain, and egotistical, and has none of Leiva’s frankness and apparent honesty.” 14 Once again, people flocked to the jail to see him. On July 21, he had 470 visitors (including 20 to 30 women), three days later there were 673 and within a week there were more than 1,700, forcing Sheriff Adams to set aside Tuesdays and Fridays as visiting days to meet the public demand.
Fearing that Tiburcio could not get a fair trial in Hollister (where it was set to be held) as the victims had lots of friends in San Benito County, and also fearing he might be lynched there, his lawyers moved for a change of venue to San Jose and on August 3rd, this was granted by Judge Belden. On September 7,1874, Tiburcio Vasquez appeared before Judge Belden, and when asked , “Do you plead guilty or not guilty?” he replied in a firm voice,” I am not guilty. I never shed human blood in my life.” When his attorneys then claimed there was a witness who could testify that Leiva had admitted killing two of the Tres Pinos victims but was away on a mining expedition, Judge Beldon agreed to continue the trial until January 5, 1875.
During this time, while his lawyers were working on his case and attempting to round up the many witnesses they intended to call to testify, Tiburcio received an unexpected offer of help from a Los Angeles lawyer, who was a brother of Undersheriff Johnson, who offered to defend Tiburcio Vasquez “without charge.” He wrote in his letter that, “knowing as well as I do the impositions placed upon native Californians whereby their property and almost all else sacred to them have been wrested from their hands and despoiled, I believe there exists a moral tho’ not a legal justification of the acts to which Tiburcio Vasquez confesses guilt.” And he astutely pointed out that “as the brother of his captor,” his presence would incite sympathy among the jurors. He asked the reporter, Beers, to have the letter delivered to Tiburcio, but Beers gave it to Darwin, one of Tiburcio’s attorneys, and it ended up being foolishly declined.
As his trial approached Tiburcio was reported to be in good spirits and firmly believed he would never be hanged. He gave several interviews to George Beers and talked a lot about how when he was a boy, his idea was that he could incite a revolution among the Spanish-speaking population and recover Southern California from the United States.” Then on January 4th, the day before the trial was due to start, his attorney, Darwin stunned his co-counsel by telling him he was dropping out of the case. When he left taking important legal papers with him, it dealt a serious blow to Tiburcio’s defense.
When court opened the following day, more than 200 people, many of them Californios, flooded the courtroom. Every seat in the auditorium and gallery was taken, and people filled the aisles and lined the walls. When the case was called, Tiburcio’s lawyer asked for a 10-day continuation due to the sudden absence of Darwin, Tiburcio’s lead counsel, which “prejudiced his ability” to properly defend Tiburcio. The prosecuting attorneys, which included the California Attorney General, protested and after hearing both sides, Judge Belden ruled that the case had already been continued once before, and he felt Tiburcio’s lawyer was fully informed of the case and could do a good job and then instructed the clerk to call the names of the jurors.
15 The trial went on all day, with multiple testimonies, including that of Tiburcio, who as he had said before the trial and would after, claimed that he had killed no one. Leiva, who was still incensed at Tiburcio’s affair with his wife, testified that Tiburcio had been the killer and because Darwin had left with the papers that included Leiva’s prior testimony in a related trial there was no way to properly impeach him. Note: In exchange for his testimony no charges were brought against Leiva.
After all the testimony was finished, when Tiburcio’s attorney addressed the jury, he made the only plea he could, he begged the jury to spare Tiburcio’s life and give him life imprisonment.
In his closing argument, Attorney General Love pointed out that witnesses had stated that Vasquez had been the killer and said, “if you believe he is wrongfully accused, let him go, but if you believe he is guilty, punish him so that others may be deterred from his example.” At five o’clock the jurors retired and deliberated for three hours. On the first ballot, they voted unanimously to convict him of first-degree murder. On the second ballot, where they voted for the penalty, ten voted for hanging, two for life in prison. When after more deliberation, they took a third ballot, they all voted for death.
On January 23, 1875, Tiburcio and his attorneys appeared before Judge Belden for sentencing.
After a long and rambling oration, Belden finished with the required legal language: “The judgement is death. That you be taken hence and securely kept by the sheriff of Santa Clara County, until Friday, the 19th day of March, 1875. That upon that day, between the hours of nine o’clock that morning and four in the afternoon, you be by him hanged by the neck until you are dead. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul. “ While he was in jail in San Jose, Tiburcio’s first cousin, Augustina Vasquez Bee, who lived in Santa Clara, frequently visited him. She was married to José Guadalupe Bee, the Californio son of Henry Bee, an Englishman who had arrived in California in 1830, become a Mexican citizen and in 1839 married Clara Tapia Moreno, a Californio woman. Augustine’s first husband had been the brother of Anastacio García and she would be accompanied by their 23-year-old, son, Encarnacion García, who idolized Tiburcio, and by her two of her daughters.
In between her visits, Tiburcio would write poems to Augustina and her daughters, which illustrated not only his passion for lovely women but his loneliness and despair.
His attorneys had made an appeal to the California Supreme Court, but it rejected their arguments and upheld the conviction. A petition to the Governor to commute his sentence to life imprisonment was rejected, as well as a request for a reprieve from several prominent Angelenos. As a condemned man, Tiburcio could not receive a Catholic burial unless he confessed his sins and received absolution. For days, he had refused to see the priests who had been calling at the jail. Finally, his sister, Maria, was able to convince him to see Father Serda, a Spanish priest from St. Patrick’s Church, and he made a full confession and was administered the last rite s, thus clearing the way for him to be buried in the Mission Santa Clara cemetery. 16 Now, in a reflective mood, he told Sheriff Adams he wanted to make a speech from the gallows but was persuaded to instead make a written statement. In it he asked for pardon from “each and everyone who I have injured “as well as “from the Great Father whose laws I have so ruthlessly trampled upon.” After thanking his brothers and sisters for their love, he concluded with a message to members of his “gang” that said, “Take warning then by my fate, and change your course of life while you may.”
Tiburcio Vasquez’ last day dawned clear and bright. And the hanging was scheduled for 1:30 p.m. It was the most important and publicized execution in the history of the Pacific Coast; over 300 invitation cards had been issued. At a quarter past twelve, Tiburcio, after saying goodbye to those present ate his last meal, a piece of cake and sipped some wine. An hour later, Sheriff Adams read the death warrant and then led the way to the gallows. Showing no nervousness, Tiburcio Vasquez climbed the steps and stood on the trap. The noose was carefully adjusted around his neck and a white shroud draped across his shoulders. Just before the black hood was draped over his head, he gasped his last word “Pronto!” At two o’clock his body was loaded on to a hearse and driven to José and Augustina Vasquez Bee’s home in Santa Clara, which was located on the southwest corner of Washington and Harrison Streets.
The Bee Home in Santa Clara in 1875
A wake was held that night, which was attended by throngs of people anxious to get a final view of the famous bandit, some talking in solemn groups or “wandering silently about dejectedly alone.” Included were Undersheriff Winchell and the San Francisco Chronicle 17 reporter, George Beers, the latter of whom later described what they found as, “the body of the dead criminal lying state, as though he’d been a martyr to some glorious cause.” The next morning Tiburcio’s body was taken to Mission Santa Clara for a high mass and then returned to the Bee home, where once again a large crowd of visitors came to view him.
Finally, that afternoon, his coffin was taken to the mission cemetery in Santa Clara. Here it was interred on the cemetery’s westside close to where his father had been buried seventeen years earlier and wooden cross, some 10 to 12 feet high, was erected to mark the site.
Note: Over time the wood cross decayed and until 1930 his gravesite would be marked only by a solitary palm tree. Then a granite marker was placed, simply inscribed, “Vasquez, Tiburcio 1835-1875. Rest in Peace.”
As seen to the right, Tiburcio Vasquez’s gravesite still attracts visitors and sympathizers to the cause of the
dispossessed.
Tiburcio Vasquez - A Dual Legacy
A notable figure in American history, Tiburcio Vasquez is is recognized as both a Hispanic outlaw and folk hero.
Despite his criminal reputation, he has been viewed by
some as a symbol of resistance against the
encroachment of Anglo Americans in California post the
1840s. His trial and subsequent execution in 1875 garnered significant attention, and he became a controversial figure, celebrated by some as a hero and reviled by others as a villain.
Tiburcio Vasquez's fame grew after his death. Stories about him were featured in numerous books, magazine articles and newspapers. Mexican balladeers sang songs about his exploits, and he took his place among other outlaw folk heroes. In the twentieth century, Hollywood fictionalized Vasquez and captured his life on film many times. In movies, he became known as Zorro.
And the differences of opinion regarding his legacy persist. Was he an opportunist who manipulated the grievances of native Californios to further his own criminal gains or a Robin Hood-type defender of the oppressed? Was he a thief and murderer who got what he deserved when he was hanged, or a heroic symbol of resistance who refused to submit to the American conquest of California? Or a little bit of both. Even today, it depends on who you ask. 18 In 2013, a school district in California caused a great deal of controversy when they named an elementary school after Vasquez. Some thought: "why name an elementary school after a criminal who was hanged for murder." But as a retired teacher who was on the naming committee, Francisco Estrada, said: "The community does not see Tiburcio as a thief or a murderer ... we see him as a fighter for social justice of the Mexican-Californio whose rights have been deprived."
When, in an effort to find ways to reduce health disparities in migrant communities and address the growing poverty rate, Tri Valley Health Center was established in Union City and Hayward they named their first clinic, the Tiburcio Vasquez Medical Clinic. According to the founders they “wanted to choose a name that evoked a sense of pride and fortitude in their community, and what better choice than the heroic character who—legend has it—defied authority in order to aid the downtrodden Californios?” Even today, 170 years later, the scars from the American takeover of California can be seen.
And the legend of Tiburcio Vasquez has grown to represent, for some, the struggle against oppression for Californians of Mexican decent. To this day, places like Vasquez Rocks and Vasquez Canyon serve as reminders of his legacy, reflecting his complex role in the cultural history of California.
Currently, on September 22, 2025, in celebration of Latinx Heritage Month, a new exhibition, “Tiburcio Vasquez and His Times,” opened in the King Library at San Jose State University. In announcing the exhibition, it was described in the following manner: “Presented by Centro Aztlan Chicomoztoc, this exhibit re-examines one of California’s most misrepresented historical figures, Tiburcio Vásquez. A resister of California’s colonial status following the annexation of Mexican territory in 1848, Vásquez’s legacy reflects both the upheavals of 19th-century California and the enduring spirit of its multicultural communities. The exhibit demonstrates that Tiburcio Vásquez was not merely an outlaw, but a freedom fighter resisting colonial power and occupation.” This exhibition was followed by a lecture on Thursday, November 6, 2025.
February 25, 2026
Lorie Garcia
City Historian, City of Santa Clara
Historical Advisor to the Historical and Landmarks Commission Article 6 – Permit Processing Procedures Chapter 18.130 Santa Clara Zoning Code, Title 18 July 2024 6-49
Chapter 18.130 – Historic Preservation
Sections:
18.130.010 – Purpose
18.130.020 – Intent
18.130.030 – Identification of HRI Properties
18.130.040 – HRI Property Designation
18.130.050 – Property Alteration
18.130.060 – Demolition Permits
18.130.070 – HLC Referral for Projects Near HRI Properties
18.130.080 – Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
18.130.010 – Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the identification, protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of buildings, structures, and properties within the City that reflect special elements of the City’s social, economic, historical, archaeological, architectural, engineering, cultural, natural, or aesthetic heritage.
18.130.020 – Intent
This Chapter shall be known as the Santa Clara Historic Preservation Ordinance.
18.130.030 – Identification of HRI Properties
A. In order to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan, and to further the purposes of this Chapter, a list of architecturally or historically significant resources shall be maintained as Appendix
8.9 of the General Plan. This list shall be known as the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI).
B. In order for a property to be placed on the HRI following the adoption of this Chapter, an historic resource survey (DPR 523A) shall be prepared by a qualified consultant in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation:
Professional Qualifications Standards. Properties evaluated in an historic resource survey that meet the designation criteria specified in Subsection 18.130.040 A. (Designation Criteria) may be added to the HRI by the Council after consideration and recommendation by the Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC).
C. The HRI shall be kept on file in the Department, subject to review and update by the HLC and the Council as deemed necessary. Because the HRI is an appendix to the General Plan, the City shall amend the General Plan on a regular basis to update the HRI to reflect recent Council decisions on designation.
18.130.040 – HRI Property Designation
A. Designation Criteria. For purposes of this Chapter, a building, structure, object, or site is eligible for inclusion in the HRI if it meets all of the following designation criteria:
Chapter 18.130 Historic Preservation
6-50 July 2024 Santa Clara Zoning Code, Title 18
1. Age. A building, structure, object, site, or district that is 50 years of age or older may qualify as an HRI property if it meets other designation criteria. If a property proposed for inclusion is less than 50 years of age, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the property, and/or the property proposed for inclusion is a distinctive or important example of its type or style;
2. Retains Historic Integrity. A building, structure, object, site, or district must maintain integrity to be considered eligible for listing on the City’s inventory as an HRI property.
Integrity refers to a resource’s ability to convey its significance by the retention of a property’s visual and physical characteristics and its surroundings. If a property proposed for inclusion was moved to prevent demolition at its former location, it may still be considered eligible for listing as an HRI property if the new location is compatible with the original character of the property; and
3. Appendix 8.9. The property proposed for inclusion falls within one or more of the following categories, as these terms are defined in Section 8.9.2 (Criteria for Local Significance) of Appendix 8.9 of the General Plan:
a. Historical or cultural significance;
b. Architectural significance;
c. Geographic significance; or
d. Archaeological significance.
B. Initiation of Designation.
1. Designation of a property proposed for inclusion on the HRI may be initiated by any of the following parties:
a. Owner(s) of the property proposed for inclusion or authorized representative of the owner(s);
b. Historical and Landmarks Commission; or
c. Council.
2. If designation is initiated by the owner(s), an application for designation shall be made to the Department through submittal of the prescribed application form accompanied by a nonrefundable filing fee as specified in the Fee Schedule. The Department shall establish what supporting documentation shall accompany the application, including, but not limited to, State of California DPR 523 series forms or other HRI forms as may be approved by the State.
3. At the time of submission of an application for designation, the owner(s) or authorized representative of the owner(s) shall provide written consent for the designation process to the City.
4. The application shall indicate the parameters of the property proposed for inclusion, specifying any related structures or landscape that is to be included for consideration and an evaluation of the property’s conformance with the applicable criteria.
5. If designation is initiated by the HLC or the Council, the Department shall notify the owner(s) of the property by certified mail within 90 days of the initiation and request written Article 6 – Permit Processing Procedures Chapter 18.130 Santa Clara Zoning Code, Title 18 July 2024 6-51
consent from the owner. If the owner does not consent to the designation application, the designation procedure shall not proceed.
6. Applications for designation of a property proposed for inclusion on the HRI shall be agendized for review by the HLC within 60 days from the date the application is deemed complete.
C. Approval of Permits When Designation is Pending. Except as provided in Section 18.130.080 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions), no Building Permit, Demolition Permit, or other permit that would result in a major alteration of the property shall be issued for any property when a HRI designation application has been initiated with the Department as specified in Subsection B. (Initiation of Designation) until all hearings on the matter are concluded. Minor alterations and small projects may still be approved.
D. HLC Public Hearing.
1. The HLC shall conduct a public hearing on the application for designation in a timely manner.
2. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 18.146 (Public Notices and Hearings).
3. A staff report, including the supporting documentation as described in Subsection B. (Initiation of Designation) concerning the property proposed for inclusion shall be provided to the HLC. The report shall address the significance and integrity of the property proposed for inclusion as it relates to the designation criteria, provide other relevant information, and include a recommendation concerning the application and the basis therefor.
4. The HLC shall consider any evidence or input offered at the hearing. The HLC shall recommend to the Council approval, modification, or denial of the designation proposal.
E. Council Action. Following the HLC action, the Council shall take action on the request by resolution or other means determining whether the subject property is eligible for inclusion on the HRI.
F. Notice of Designation.
1. Following action by the Council, a copy of the findings shall be sent by first class mail to the owner(s) of the newly designated HRI property, and a notice of the designation, along with a legal description of the property, shall be recorded in the records of the County Recorder.
2. Failure to record with the County Recorder shall not invalidate a designation or any of the requirements of this Chapter.
G. Designation Repeal or Amendment.
1. Designation may be repealed or amended in the same manner and procedure as was followed in Subsection B. (Initiation of Designation) et seq. This action shall result from new information, the discovery of earlier misinformation or change of original circumstances, conditions, or factors that justified the designation.
2. If a repeal is approved by the Council, a notice shall be sent to the same persons and manner specified in Subsection F. (Notice of Designation).
Chapter 18.130 Historic Preservation
6-52 July 2024 Santa Clara Zoning Code, Title 18
18.130.050 – Property Alteration
A. Permit(s) Required for Alterations. No person shall make alterations to any HRI property without first obtaining the required permits or approvals from the Director, or the Review Authority specified in this Chapter.
1. A Significant Properties Alteration (SPA) Permit shall be required for alterations to an HRI property.
2. The addition of an accessory dwelling unit to an HRI property requires an SPA Permit.
3. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an SPA Permit for a major alteration shall be considered a discretionary project under Section 15357 of the CEQA Guidelines.
B. Application for Significant Property Alteration (SPA) Permit.
1. The owner or authorized representative proposing alterations to an HRI property shall file a planning application with the Department, with the required supporting information, and any applicable filing fee in compliance with the Fee Schedule.
2. As soon as practicable after the application is deemed complete, the application for the SPA Permit shall be forwarded to the Director or HLC, as appropriate, for its review and recommendation.
C. Review Required for Alterations.
1. The Director shall approve or deny applications for SPA Permits for small projects as defined in this Chapter. The Director has the discretion to determine that any such application for a small project should instead be construed as a major alteration requiring review by the HLC and approval by the Director of Community Development.
2. The HLC shall review applications for SPA Permits proposed for major alterations and render a recommendation to the Director of Community Development.
3. Following review and recommendation by the HLC, applications for SPA Permits for major alterations shall be forwarded to the Director of Community Development, which shall approve or deny the application.
4. The Director or HLC may require supplemental information or reports as may be necessary for a complete review.
5. The Director may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as they deem necessary or appropriate on a case-by-case basis to promote or achieve the purposes of this Chapter.
6. Preventative maintenance, as defined in this Chapter, shall be excluded from the review process specified in this Section.
7. The addition of an accessory dwelling unit to an HRI property shall be considered a major alteration if (A) the accessory unit would be attached to the main house and involve alterations to the exterior of the main house; (B) the HRI property is subject to a Mills Act contract; (C) the accessory dwelling unit would convert a garage that may be of a similar age and design to the main dwelling and contribute to the integrity of the HRI property; or Article 6 – Permit Processing Procedures Chapter 18.130 Santa Clara Zoning Code, Title 18 July 2024 6-53
(D) the Director makes a determination that the addition would be a major alteration. All other additions of accessory dwelling units shall be processed as small projects.
D. Findings Necessary to Approve SPA Permits. A decision to approve, approve with changes, and/or conditions, or deny the application for the SPA Permit shall be based upon the following findings.
1. The alterations shall be designed to the essential character, features, and defining elements that make the HRI property significant;
2. The project proposal shall not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the HRI property;
3. The alterations must be compatible with the existing structure or district; and
4. The alterations must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Treatment Standards.
E. Appeal Procedures.
1. In the event the applicant or other interested party is not satisfied with the permit or approval action permitted by this Section, the decision may be appealed. Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice in writing to that effect with the City Clerk within seven calendar days after rendition of the decision, along with the payment of an appeal fee as specified in the Fee Schedule.
2. Appeals of the Director’s decisions shall be evaluated in the same manner as major alterations and shall be referred to the HLC for recommendation and the Council for decision.
F. Approval Expiration. Any approval granted under this Section shall remain valid for a period of two years following the date the action was taken by the Director or the applicable Review Authority.
The Director or Review Authority may at any time authorize extensions of time on any approval, without the need for any public hearing, for a total period of 24 months following the original date of expiration.
G. Preventative Maintenance. The owner, lessee, or other person(s) in actual charge of an HRI property (“responsible party”) shall maintain and keep such property in a manner that ensures its continued eligibility for listing on the HRI. Care of the HRI property shall be undertaken so as not to constitute “demolition by neglect” and prevent deterioration, dilapidation, and decay of the historic fabric of any portion of the property. The responsible party shall ensure that all HRI properties shall remain free from structural defects through prompt corrections of any of the following defects:
1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation, defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports, deteriorated walls, or other vertical structural supports.
2. Members of ceilings, roofs, and roof supports or other horizontal members which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
3. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, or floors, including broken window glass or doors.
4. Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior wall covering, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering.
Chapter 18.130 Historic Preservation
6-54 July 2024 Santa Clara Zoning Code, Title 18
5. Any fault or defect in the structure which renders it structurally unsafe or not properly watertight.
6. Minor mechanical systems in need of repair, not involving substantial removal of original interior or exterior building materials or features.
18.130.060 – Demolition Permits
A. Properties Not Listed on the HRI.
1. Upon receiving an application for a Demolition Permit for a property not listed on the HRI, the Department shall search the City permit system database to ascertain if the property is noted as “potentially historic” next to the assessor’s parcel number. If the property contains this notation, the Department shall make a determination as to whether an application should be referred to the HLC and Council for a determination as to whether the property is eligible for listing on the HRI. If no referral is made, the Demolition Permit may be approved or denied along with replacement plans by the Director.
2. For any such referral, the HLC and Council shall make an eligibility determination using the same criteria and process as a designation determination in compliance with Section
18.130.040 (HRI Property Designation), except that properties found to be eligible will not automatically be added to the HRI, unless the property owner requests that the property be listed. The owner shall be responsible for submitting the required documentation needed, including but not limited to a completed DPR 523A form so the City may make a determination on the referral of the property to the HLC or Council.
3. For properties the Council determines to be ineligible for listing on the HRI, the Council may approve or deny the Demolition Permit at the time of the eligibility determination. For properties the Council determines to be eligible for listing on the HRI, the Demolition Permit application shall follow the process in Subsection B. (HRI Properties and Eligible Properties).
B. HRI Properties and Eligible Properties.
1. An Environmental Impact Report shall be required for any application to demolish an HRI property or a property determined to be eligible for listing in compliance with Subsection A. (Properties Not Listed on the HRI).
2. The Demolition Permit application and Environmental Impact report shall be referred to the HLC for a recommendation on whether to grant, modify, or deny the Demolition Permit application. The HLC recommendation shall be forwarded to the Council, which shall make a final decision on the application.
3. The HLC shall recommend approval of a Demolition Permit, and the Council shall approve a Demolition Permit, only if there are no viable alternatives for saving the property, and such alternatives have been fully addressed in an Environmental Impact Report.
18.130.070 – HLC Referral for Projects Near HRI Properties A. For development projects that require Architectural Review but that are not located on HRI properties, if the project is located within 200 feet of an HRI property, then before submitting the application to the Director, the application shall first be referred to the HLC.
B. The HLC shall review the project for neighborhood compatibility and consistency with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines and make a recommendation to the Director.
Article 6 – Permit Processing Procedures Chapter 18.130 Santa Clara Zoning Code, Title 18 July 2024 6-55
18.130.080 – Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
A. None of the provisions of this Chapter shall prevent the alteration, construction, reconstruction, restoration, stabilization, or demolition of an HRI property, or any exterior feature thereof, which the Building Official or designee has declared necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition where there is a threat to public health and safety.
B. Only such work as is reasonably necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed in compliance with this Subsection.
C. The California Historical Building Code shall be employed for this purpose at the request of the property owner.
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-908 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Action on the City Council's Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County"
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2026, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County" (Civil Grand Jury report) (Attachment 1). The Civil Grand Jury report includes various findings and recommendations.
California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report to respond within 90 days on the specified findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.
The Penal Code outlines the following legal requirements for responses:
Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury finding:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe cannot exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 5 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-908 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
Consistent with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and 933.05(b), this report contains draft responses for the City Council’s consideration and approval. A response letter will be prepared consistent with the City Council’s direction the draft responses below, and will be transmitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
The City Council’s final responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 10, 2026.
DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made various findings and recommendations; however, only certain findings and recommendations require the City’s response. The report included a total of four (4) findings and five (5) recommendations. Of these, the City, as an agency, has been directed to respond to three (3) of the findings and three (3) of the recommendations.
A complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “Pothole Damage:
Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County” report can be found on pages 14-15 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil Grand Jury’s website: https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/pothole-damage-improvingclaims-processes-within-santa-clara-county.pdf Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Findings
For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings to which the City was directed to respond:
Finding 1
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.
Draft Response
Relying on the research conducted by the Grand Jury, which the City has not independently verified, the City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding. In the City of Santa Clara, our records indicate that the City of Santa Clara rejected 85% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025.
Finding 2
Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.
Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the finding in part. Eleven (11) of the forty-two (40) pothole claims submitted to the City of Santa Clara during the period January 1, 2020, through October 31, 2025, were directed to the wrong entity.
The City of Santa Clara is unique among the cities in the County in that we share our name with the County and various entities within the County. Misdirected claims received by the City are often the City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 5 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-908 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
result of a claimant mistaking the City for the County, or mistakenly thinking that the City is affiliated with an agency/entity that has “Santa Clara” in the title (such as Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency or Santa Clara Valley Medical Center). That said, the City does agree that there is a benefit to be derived from providing additional information regarding roadways in our jurisdiction, as further discussed under Recommendations below.
Finding 3
Fifteen jurisdictions - the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga - have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.
Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara disagrees with the finding as it relates to the City of Santa Clara. As noted in the report, both the City’s claim form and claim instructions are clearly posted on the City’s website.
The City of Santa Clara has installed DocAccess, described further in response to Recommendation 3b, that enhances accessibility to the form and instructions for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the DocAccess program also provides language translation functionality for these documents. For these reasons, we respectfully disagree that the City’s website contains deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.
Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Recommendations
For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s Recommendations to which the City was directed to respond:
Recommendation 2a
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the recommendation, in part, and it will be implemented. As described below, to the extent the City includes a list of roadways on its claims website, that list would more clearly communicate the information if it was a list of roadways maintained by other agencies.
The City’s Information Technology Department is working to update its Geographic Information Services portal and estimates that this project will be completed by January 1, 2027. The update should provide information about the entity responsible for any particular roadway. A link to the portal will then be added to the City’s claims instructions. In the alternative, the City may include a list of roads owned and/or maintained by other entities on its claims website (such as County owned/maintained expressways and State owned/maintained highways).
Recommendation 2b
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 5 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-908 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the recommendation, and it will be implemented.
The update to the City’s claims instructions will be completed in conjunction with the implementation of Recommendation 2a. This list will be based upon data collected as of July 1, 2026.
Recommendation 3b
Fifteen jurisdictions - the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga - should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Draft Response
The City of Santa Clara agrees with the recommendation, and it has already been implemented.
In April, the City implemented DocAccess software to improve accessibility to its PDF documents.
The software includes translation functionality that allows the claim form and instructions to be translated into languages consistent with the City’s demographics.
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 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
There is no fiscal impact related to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense. However, implementation of certain contemplated recommendations may result in increased expense for the City, which will be addressed by budget action, if necessary.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County" and direct the City Attorney to prepare the formal response consistent with City Council direction; and City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 5 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-908 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
2. Authorize the City Manager to submit the City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject only to finalization of response language, as directed, and any technical, conforming, non-substantive modifications approved by the City Attorney, to the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than September 10, 2026.
Reviewed by: Glen Googins, City Attorney
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Civil Grand Jury Report: "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County"
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 5 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795
G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 12, 2026
City of Santa Clara
c/o Mr. Bob O'Keefe, City Clerk
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Mr. O'Keefe,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.
California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.
Please note:
1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1, 2, and 3. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 2a, 2b, and 3b.
Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Thursday, September 10, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.
If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara Jōvan Grogan, City Manager
State of California
PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.) 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:
Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026