REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Including: Adoption and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared to Analyze the Potential Environmental Impacts for the Project and an Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Adoption of a General Plan Text Amendment to Add Language Regarding the Creation of Additional Future Focus Areas, the Re-designation of Land Outside of Focus Areas, Creation of the New Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) Designation, and Adoption of a General Plan Amendment to Create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, Bounded by Great America Parkway to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, and Highway 101 to the South; Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment to Change the Designation of the Greystar Site from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (Maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Units/Acre); and Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar Site, Which Would Allow up to 1,100 Units on a 13.3 Gross Acre Site Bounded by Freedom Circle to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East and Highway 101 to the South
Report
COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing, and Transportation Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject item before the City Council combines actions on a privately initiated General Plan Amendment and a City initiated General Plan Amendment. The private Amendment was initiated by Greystar Development (Greystar) and would change the City’s General Plan Land Use Designation from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre) to allow the development of up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units on a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101. The accompanying City Initiated General Plan Amendment would create a new Future Focus Area in the General Plan for a larger 108 acre area encompassing the Greystar site and extending westward to Great America Parkway (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQ), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment and related approvals. The EIR analyzes program-level impacts of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. Key findings from the EIR are summarized below.
As discussed below and in the attached Report to the Planning Commission, the General Plan Amendment proposed by Greystar along with the creation of a new Future Focus Area within the General Plan will allow for intensified land uses within the northern part of the City, supporting future economic development while also providing near-term and long-term capacity for new housing development. In doing so, the General Plan Amendments will support City goals for efficient land use and future growth. The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area will be in close proximity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, which is the north-south spine of the City’s active transportation network, and will have proximity to employment and other commercial uses that support the continued development and prosperity of North Santa Clara as a more urban regional job center.
The City Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing and take four actions
related to the creation and adoption of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the associated Greystar General Plan Amendment (the project):
1) Adoption and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project and an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Adoption of a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area;
3) Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre); and
4) Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.
The Planning Commission heard and deliberated on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar project (Attachment 3) on April 13, 2022. Public speakers at the Planning Commission meeting included a number of members of labor unions, some supporting and some opposing approval of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar General Plan amendment. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project as recommended by staff with the following modification:
1) Change the proposed bike lanes in the Future Focus Area from Class II on-street bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, Greystar submitted a proposal to the City to redevelop a 13.3 acre site in North Santa Clara between Freedom Circle and San Tomas Aquino Creek on the north side of US Highway 101 from low intensity commercial office use to a high intensity mixed-use development featuring residential and office towers. Rather than proceed independently with a General Plan Amendment (GPA) specific to the Greystar site, the City Council directed staff to process the General Plan Amendment along with an amendment to the City’s General Plan to designate the Greystar site and adjacent properties to the west and north as a Future Focus Area in the City’s General Plan, thereby establishing additional commercial and residential development capacity for the larger area. Greystar has been funding the Future Focus Area process while also moving forward with a GPA application for their site and an accompanying development proposal for up to 1,100 multi-family dwelling units.
The Freedom Circle area (shown in Attachment 1) is not currently designated for conversion to residential uses under any phase of the 2010 - 2035 General Plan, but rather planned over the long-term to be preserved for employment uses. The existing buildings in the Freedom Circle area are a mix of concrete tilt-ups, office towers, and single-use commercial buildings such as the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel and Pedro’s Cantina. The Greystar site, which sits directly north of 101 and directly west of San Tomas Aquino Creek, is undeveloped.
The proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area (Attachment 2) encompasses approximately 108 gross acres in an employment-rich area of northern Santa Clara, comprising several moderate-intensity office and industrial parks accompanied by surface parking, along with the Santa Clara Marriott Hotel. The Plan Area is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Great America Parkway to the west, Great America Theme Park to the north, and US-101 to the south. It is proximate to a range of regional destinations and amenities, including Levi’s Stadium, Great America Theme Park, and the Santa Clara Convention Center.
The vision for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area is an intensely urban environment, with Great America Parkway and Mission College Boulevard retaining their commercial character while sites along Freedom Circle could be converted to high-intensity residential use. As indicated in the Notice of Preparation circulated on June 26, 2020, the proposed Future Focus Area would support up to 2,500 residential dwelling units in addition to the 1,100 units proposed through the Greystar GPA, for a total of 3,600 dwelling units. The Future Focus Area designation will also add the potential to develop 2 million square feet of office space beyond the current General Plan capacity, allowing a total of 9.6 million square feet of potential office/industrial development. The addition of new residentially designated land will help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals for housing production. The parcels designated High Intensity Office/R&D are currently developed with approximately 2.35 million square feet of building space.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission heard and deliberated on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar project (Attachment 3) on April 13, 2022. The following discussion summarizes the Planning Commission hearing discussion and actions. Additional staff analysis is provided in the attached Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4).
Staff provided a presentation on the proposed project and noted that the City received a letter from the law firm of Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo shortly before the hearing (Attachment 5). The letter raises issues around the consistency of the proposed Focus Area Plan with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and issues regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR including the amount of detail in the biological surveys; concerns about building design and the potential for bird strikes; and the lack of a quantitative health risk analysis.
Public speakers at the Planning Commission meeting included a number of members of labor unions, some supporting and some opposing approval of the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and the Greystar General Plan amendment.
Issues Raised by Public Testimony
The law firm Adams Broadwell brought up several issues relating to the proposed General Plan amendment and environmental analysis, which were responded to as follows:
• General Plan Consistency Issues: The Commenter cited to an existing General Plan policy requiring the adoption of a comprehensive plan prior to rezoning within a future focus area, claiming that the City was acting inconsistently with that policy. Staff responded that Freedom Circle is not one of the existing future focus areas in the General Plan, and explained that a new policy is being added to allow for the rezoning in combination with the creation of new future focus areas.
• Diesel Particulate Matter: The correspondence and testimony provided by the law firm Adams Broadwell argued that the qualitative health risk analysis (HRA) did not provide sufficient detail to comply with CEQA, and that the City needed to perform a quantitative analysis. However, CEQA does not require a quantitative HRA, and staff explained that the qualitative analysis, along with the project’s proposed mitigation measures, were sufficient.
• Analysis of the possibility of bird strike resulting from the Greystar development: Adams Broadwell indicated that the proposed elevations for the Greystar project could cause bird strike issues, especially because of the proximity of the project to a riparian corridor. Staff and the project consultant indicated that the proposed project elevations were conceptual, and would be reviewed for consistency with bird safety standards per the City’s standard condition for bird-safe design. Moreover, the creek in the project area is channelized, and with the minimal plant life, does not attract abundant bird species.
• Adequacy of the biological survey for the project site: Adams Broadwell claimed that the biological analysis did not provide sufficient detail about the site visit used in the analysis, and questioned the City’s utilization of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to evaluate the site (as opposed to other citizen-driven databases). Staff responded that the City sets the thresholds of significance for CEQA impacts, and as part of that, selects the applicable databases for the biological analysis. The City utilizes CNDDB because the data has been vetted, whereas the alternate databases proposed by the commenter allow anyone to contribute information.
The Assistant City Attorney also indicated that if the Planning Commission thought that the project needed supplemental analysis to address Adams Broadwell’s concerns, that the project and the Planning Commission’s recommendations could move on to City Council and be supplemented with additional analysis prior to the Council hearing.
Following public testimony, Commissioner Saleme made a motion to recommend adoption of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Saleme then made a motion to adopt the Future Focus Area Plan, including Chair Biagini’s proposed modification to the Future Focus Area Plan to make all Class II bike lanes separated Class IV bikeways.
Planning Commission Action
By a vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cherukuru absent) the Commission recommended approval of the Future Focus Area Plan and associated environmental clearance and land use changes as recommended by staff with the following modification:
1) Change the proposed bike lanes in the Future Focus Area from Class II on-street bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways.
The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area diagram, included as a part of Attachment 2, has been updated to reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Additional Analysis
This report includes additional analysis related to the General Plan Consistency Issues, the Traffic Analysis, and related to questions raised regarding the qualitative Health Risk Assessment and the Biological Assessment provided in the Draft EIR (Attachment 6).
General Plan Consistency
The 2035 General Plan includes three Future Focus Areas. All the requirements set forth in the General Plan relating to Future Focus Areas concerns these three existing Future Focus Areas. For these three existing Future Focus Areas, the General Plan includes discussion and policies concerning the development of comprehensive planning for these areas. In adopting policies relating to these three Future Focus Areas as part of the existing General Plan, the City exercised its discretion to prohibit any specific project from moving forward within these three Future Focus Areas until after comprehensive planning was completed.
Freedom Circle is not one of the three existing Future Focus Areas included in the General Plan. The General Plan does not state that, should the City exercise its discretion to create Additional Future Focus Areas, those Additional Future Focus Areas must be made subject to all the same requirements as the three Future Focus Areas included in current General Plan. Therefore, in proposing to identify Freedom Circle as an Additional Future Focus Area, the City has the discretion to create new policies relating to it and other Additional Future Focus Areas that may be proposed by the City in the future.
As explained in the EIR, the City has proposed adding Policy 5.4.7-P11 to the General Plan, which allows for the creation of Additional Future Focus Areas and also allows the City to exercise its discretion to allow General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed at the same time as an Additional Focus Area is created. For example, the City may choose to exercise its discretion to allow for General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed concurrently for an Additional Focus Area, where a Future Focus Area is made up of numerous property owners and only a subset of those property owners is prepared to move forward to specific project applications (as was the case with Freedom Circle and Greystar). In such circumstances, the City may determine that delaying an application for a specific development project is not appropriate for one or more reasons such as, for example, where due to the location or use proposed by an applicant the City believes the use can move forward concurrently with the comprehensive planning without negatively impacting the ability to comprehensively plan the Additional Future Focus Area or where the City determines the use, if developed, should be developed in the near term. For Greystar, as demonstrated in the EIR, the Project can be implemented without negatively impacting comprehensive planning of the entire Additional Future Focus Area. Moreover, the Greystar Project proposes over 1,000 new homes. Given the local need and state objective to produce more housing, City staff believes the uses proposed in Greystar further supports the City Council exercising its discretion to allow the project to move forward concurrently with comprehensive planning of this Additional Future Focus Area.
City Staff, however, acknowledges that minor clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments may help to avoid confusion concerning the differences between existing Future Focus Areas and Additional Future Focus Areas such as Freedom Circle. Therefore, City Staff is now proposing the following clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments:
Text under section 5.4.7, Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies:
“In addition to the three Future Focus Areas identified in the General Plan as adopted on November 16, 2010, Aadditional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. Subject to the discretion provided pursuant to Policy 5.4.7-P11, tThe creation of an Additional Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.”
Policy 5.4.7-P11:
Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Additional Future Focus Areas.
Updated Traffic Analysis
The December 2021 version of the Transportation Analysis has been included as a part of this report (Attachment 7). The updated Transportation Analysis concludes that conversion of Hichborn Drive to two-way traffic and installation of a traffic signal at Hichborn and Great America Parkway would help to lessen adverse effects on the level of service (LoS) along Great America Parkway. The updated analysis includes the conversion of Hichborn Drive from one-way to two-way traffic and fair-share payments for those improvements by both Greystar and future Freedom Circle developers as conditions of approval.
Pursuant to SB 743 (2013), the City ceased using LoS as a threshold of significance in CEQA documents on July 1, 2020. Instead, the City adopted a transportation policy establishing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the methodology for analyzing transportation impacts. For Freedom Circle, the VMT impacts were determined to be less-than-significant, because the project qualified as a transit supportive project (located near the intersection of major bus routes; minimum residential density of 35 du/ac and office FAR of 0.75; includes transit-oriented-design elements; and no excess parking).
Nevertheless, the City still requires traffic studies to examine LoS, but as an operational analysis element, not as a CEQA threshold. Because impacts on LoS are no longer considered a CEQA impact, the updated Transportation Analysis does not alter the mitigation measures or conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report.
Quantitative Health Risk Analysis
One of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report indicated that the commentors felt that the environmental analysis was inadequate for purposes of CEQA, and that a quantitative Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was required. See comments L4.30 through L4.39 in the Final EIR. The City maintains that a Qualitative HRA is legally adequate under CEQA. However, to confirm the results of the Qualitative Analysis, the City’s CEQA consultant has also performed a Quantitative Health Risk Assessment, which is included as Attachment 8.
The Quantitative HRA finds that the construction of the Greystar project would not lead to a significant impact regarding health risks to sensitive receptors, based on the size of the construction site, the duration of construction, or the distance from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor. The impact conclusions of the DEIR remain unchanged, and re-circulation is not required.
Updated Biological Assessment
The same commentor felt that the Biological Assessment included with the EIR was inadequate, because the Assessment was based on a December 12, 2020 site visit that was made shortly after the site was disked, when vegetative cover was minimal and had no remaining small mammal burrows. That survey concluded that the site “…therefore provides very little habitat value for raptor or other carnivore (i.e. coyote, fox) foraging and does not provide aestivation and/or cover to reptile or amphibian species.”
To provide a more complete picture of the habitat value of the Greystar site, the City is including an updated biological analysis, from April of this year (Attachment 9). The analysis concludes that the site is being used by species that are adapted to urban habitats, that the site does not provide unique habitat value, and that species using the site will disperse to other nearby parcels. Similar to Air Quality Impacts, the conclusions of the DEIR remain unchanged, and re-circulation of the document for additional review and comment is not required.
Biological site survey and methodology used in the Draft EIR
Although the description in the DEIR is brief, it was based on research of multiple databases (as reported in the DEIR) and a site visit. The survey completed in December 2020 was completed by a single biologist who walked the perimeter of the site and noted conditions within and around the site using visual surveys and binoculars. The site had been mowed, and vegetation was predominantly dried grasses in winter. The biologist did not observe burrows during the survey; these would have been evident under the mowed conditions due to mounded dirt or ground squirrel activity during the day. The weather was cloudy, dry, and about 60 degrees. The biologist summarized her observations on that day in Chapter 6 of the DEIR, including that the site vegetation was either lacking or had died back and that she did not observe any animal burrows. We look for animal burrows because they indicate a food source for predators, and ground squirrel burrows would indicate potential habitat for burrowing owl. Since it has been more than a year, and the initial survey was conducted in winter, we report current conditions in April 2022 in an additional memo for the Council’s benefit. The updated setting does not change the conclusions or mitigation requirements in the DEIR.
An additional walking survey throughout the parcels was conducted in April 2022. Two land cover types were mapped: (1) Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland (Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Semi-natural Alliance), and (2) developed. The grassland is dominated by ruderal and invasive non-native plant species. The developed portions are paving and electrical structures remaining from past activities. Several species adapted to the urban environment were observed.
The differences between the December 2020 and April 2022 site visits are:
• In December 2020 the site had been mowed, and the lack of vegetation resulted in less cover and forage for wildlife, while in April 2022 the site had not been mowed, and greater use by urban-adapted species was observed.
• In 2022 active ground squirrel burrows were observed on the San Tomas Aquino levee next to 101, in the southeast corner of the site, and inactive burrows were observed on a berm on the south end of the site adjacent to US 101; they were not observed during the 2020 visit. Ground squirrel burrows are not evident anywhere else on the parcels or on the levee.
Prior land uses have affected the biological setting. Sometime between 1968 and 1980, the Greystar parcels were graded as the area was developed (UCSB 2022). Plowing, tilling, and other land disturbance associated with agriculture and urbanization has likely eliminated most soil seed banks of native plants and degraded natural habitats within the parcels. The parcels are currently mowed short three times annually, and have been for at least the last 6 years (M. Avila, J. Ly pers. comm.). The parcels are currently under a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) voluntary clean-up program for soil contamination by agricultural chemicals, including pesticides (DDT, chlordane), arsenic, and lead. In 1997 between one and five feet of imported gravel and soil were placed on the parcels for use as parking and temporary construction storage. In 2004, under the DTSC-approved Removal Action Workplan, a portion of the Greystar parcels was capped with a one-foot deep covering of soil and gravel, and additional gravel was applied periodically as part of maintenance activities directed under the Operations and Management Plan with DTSC. Most of the site was used for parking and storage between 2004 and 2014. The parcels currently still contain the gravel and cap, but over time have been overgrown with vegetation.
Multi-season and multi-year surveys provide a better picture of site use by wildlife, but the assessment of whether the project site has been significantly impacted by historic use can be done with research and a single season survey. The DEIR acknowledges that site conditions can change, and requires nesting bird surveys as mitigation to minimize or avoid impacts to these species for this reason. These surveys include all birds, regardless of whether they are defined as special-status species.
Methods used to assess biological resources are reported in the DEIR, but further explanation is provided here. A “desk-top analysis” is completed first so that the biologist understands what specific habitat requirements are important to look for during the field survey. During the desk-top analysis, Google Earth history and a minimum of three databases maintained by the state and federal governments are reviewed: the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In some cases, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory is also reviewed. MIG biologists also regularly review citizen science sites, including eBird and iNaturalist, but these data points are sometimes entered by non-scientists and must be considered carefully. If there are recent biology reports from projects nearby, those may also be reviewed. Using these resources, a list of special-status species that have been reported to occur in the region, and a description of their habitat requirements, is compiled.
The list informs the site visit, but it is also presented as a table in the biology analysis that includes an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence on the project site once site conditions are observed. This assessment records which state or federally listed, or candidates for listing, could be impacted by the project. One of the data points we use is whether the species has been recorded within a certain distance of the site in any database, although in the table the CNDDB and the CNPS Inventory are mainly referred to because they are map-based. Citizen science sites are more recent additions to the map-based tools available for this review and should have also been referenced in the table. If the databases don’t report an occurrence on or adjacent to the project site, that is never interpreted to mean that the species are absent. If the project site has suitable habitat for the plant or animal species, and there is a reasonably recent record for the species within a certain distance (usually five miles), then further surveys for that species would be required. The DEIR includes the criteria used to determine whether a species potentially occurs on the parcel and also explains the methods used.
Bird-window collisions
The renderings presented in the DEIR are conceptual and do not show the final materials to be used, because they don’t fully reflect standard conditions of approval that will be imposed on the project. They were not assessed, because the conditions of approval will require bird safety standards in the final design. Those conditions include at least the following measures, which are enforceable through the design review process:
The final design of buildings shall incorporate specific bird safety standards based on the following bird-friendly building principles:
• Reduce mirrors and large areas of reflective glass.
• Avoid transparent glass skyways, walkways, or entryways, free-standing glass walls, and minimize transparent building corners, or utilize glazing treatments to mitigate the hazard.
• Minimize funneling of open space toward a building façade.
• Strategically place landscaping to reduce reflection and views of foliage inside or through glass.
• Reduce potential light and glare by installing low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward, installing shielded fixtures for outdoor lighting, and using low emissivity reflective coating on exterior glass surfaces.
• To the extent consistent with the normal and expected operations of the uses planned for the particular development area, take appropriate measures to avoid use of unnecessary lighting at night, especially during bird migration season (February-May and August-November) through the installation of motion sensor lighting, automatic lighting shut-off mechanisms, or other effective measures to the extent feasible.
Burrows, burrowing owl, and nesting bird protection
Burrowing owls prefer open grassland with mounds or berms where they can easily stand and watch for predators. In April, the site conditions were not attractive to burrowing owls due to few apparent burrows, tall weedy vegetation, and a predominantly flat site; although, a berm next to US 101 and the levee adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek provide raised areas that could provide suitable burrow and sentinel habitat. Feral cats are fed on the site adjacent to Freedom Circle, despite efforts by the landowner to stop this use (M. Avila, pers. comm.), and these are a burrowing owl predator. For safety reasons it is likely that ground squirrel burrows are discouraged in the creek levee; in April a few burrows were observed in the levee at US 101, but the rest of the levee along the parcel had been mowed and no evidence of burrows was detected. During a subsequent visit in May, after the site had been mowed, it was easier to detect ground squirrel burrows. There is an active burrow system consisting of 5 or 6 openings on the creek levee at US 101. There are burrows on the berm at the south end of the project site, but they did not have the dirt spray that typically indicates they are in use.
Although burrows were not detected during the December 2020 survey, the DEIR acknowledges that site conditions can change over time, and species can appear into what was thought to be unoccupied habitat. The DEIR includes a mitigation measure to survey for nesting birds prior to site disturbance (measure 6-4 applies to the Focus Plan Area and the Greystar site). The survey is expected to include observations of all ground squirrel burrows on or adjacent to the site for sign of burrowing owl use (whitewash, feathers, prey items), followed by dawn and dusk surveys completed according to CDFW protocol. No sign of burrowing owl use was observed at ground squirrel burrows in site surveys in April and May 2022, and potential use by burrowing owls is expected to be low.
If burrowing owls are detected on the site, consultation with CDFW would be necessary before the project could move forward.
Species to address in the DEIR
The DEIR is not required to address an exhaustive list of species that may be impacted by the project (14 CCR 15003(i)). As documented in the DEIR (pages 6-2, 6-3), the analysis focuses on species that are on the following lists:
§ The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) records for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle containing the project area and the eight (8) surrounding quadrangles (Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, and San Jose East),
§ United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database,
§ USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI), and
§ California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory records for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle containing the project area and the eight (8) surrounding quadrangles (Newark, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mountain View, Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, and San Jose East).
As a result, a total of 650 special-status plant and animal species were considered, and 89 were selected for further analysis in the DEIR.
In addition to these species, the DEIR requires surveys and protection for nesting birds and roosting bats to minimize impacts to these species as required by state and federal law.
Traffic-wildlife collisions
The DEIR determined that the project is not growth-inducing, and therefore will not increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT). If VMT is not increased over the current setting, then the project will not increase traffic wildlife collisions unless wildlife populations increase. Because this is an urban setting, it is not expected that wildlife populations will increase in the local area and result in a significant impact due to traffic collisions.
Tree removal
Tree removal in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan area is addressed in the DEIR on page 6-14.
First, any future project in the Focus Area Plan area is required to comply with City ordinances related to trees. By obtaining a written permit from the superintendent of streets before altering or removing any trees, plants, or shrubs along streets or public portions of the project, as well as ensuring the required minimum ratio for tree replacement of 2:1 as required by General Plan Policy 5.3.1-P10, any project would comply with all local policies or ordinances preserving trees.
Second, Mitigation Measure 6-4 on page 6-13 of the DEIR specifies when pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats are required, and what measures need to be implemented to protect nests until the birds have fledged, and to minimize impacts to bats.
There are multiple trees on the Pedro’s Restaurant border with the Greystar site and there are a few trees along the San Tomas Aquino Creek border of the Greystar site, otherwise the site is treeless. Trees and shrubs proposed to be planted on the Greystar site will add nesting habitat for urban-adapted bird species, but will remove ground-nesting habitat that the project site may currently provide.
Wildlife Corridor
Using both a site visit and a desktop analysis of the resources contained in the Focus Plan Area and the surrounding areas, the DEIR analysis determined that the area contains neither a significant wildlife corridor, nor a significant nursery site. This is based on the habitat quality determined to be present.
A significant wildlife corridor is one which is important to the survival of populations that migrate between winter and summer habitat, or which provides an unimpeded link between populations to allow for gene exchange. That is not present in the Focus Plan Area, which is urbanized and is surrounded by urbanization. A significant nursery site is a site that is essential for population survival, because it has unusual characteristics that are not found elsewhere, and the species are able to successfully reproduce using that site. The Focus Plan Area provides urban habitat for common wildlife species, and redevelopment will provide the same. That said, the Greystar site is an open field, albeit heavily disturbed, that is used by wildlife, particularly birds, that are adapted to urban habitats. Many common bird species will find habitat in the developed area on Greystar, but possibly not in the same numbers because there will be less open space. San Tomas Aquino Creek connects habitats within the watershed, and is both a nursery site and a corridor. The project does not propose to encroach on the creek or block species use or travel within the creek corridor. Wildlife will not be prevented from traveling through the area to reach breeding or foraging grounds.
Wildlife use of the Focus Plan Area and the Greystar site
Wildlife use is generally greater in areas with a diverse assemblage of plant species, habitat structure, and edges between vegetation types. There is not a high diversity of plant species in the Focus Plan Area or the Greystar site due to long-term and consistent human disturbance that has reduced both diversity and habitat structure. The Focus Plan Area does provide mature vegetation, including trees, that support a variety of urban-adapted bird species and provide some habitat diversity. Trees located in areas of future development of the Focus Plan Area will need to be preserved or replaced at a 2:1 ratio, benefitting the same urban-adapted wildlife currently found there. The Greystar site is an open field dominated by non-native weed species that supports one vegetation type and, except for a berm, no diversity in habitat structure. That said, it is not devoid of wildlife at all. It provides open, urban habitat that primarily benefits bird species. The presence of San Tomas Aquino Creek adjacent to the Greystar site may contribute to the species observed to use the site for forage, such as Canada goose and rough-winged swallow. The Greystar project will replace the open forage habitat with urban park and apartment uses that will likely change current wildlife use of the site, but is not expected to result in an adverse impact as defined under CEQA.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment and related approvals (the “project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 6). The EIR analyzes program-level impacts of the Patrick Henry Drive Specific Plan. The EIR and Notice of Availability were circulated for a 45-day period from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the project, and addresses topics identified within the General Plan policies for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, including land use compatibility and provision of public facilities and parks and open space (Policy 5.4.7-P6, 5.4.7-P7, 5.4.7-P8, and 5.4.7-P9).
The EIR found that there would be significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to:
• Air Quality emissions (toxic air contaminant emissions)
• Potential destruction or degradation of Historic Resources
• Noise (increases in traffic noise levels from Specific Plan development)
The project would also result in the following significant unavoidable cumulative impacts:
• Air Quality emissions (criteria pollutant emissions)
All of the other potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are included in their entirety as a part of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A detailed discussion of the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be applied to the project is specified in the EIR and would be implemented through project conditions of approval and the MMRP for the proposed project.
The Draft EIR comment period ran from November 5, 2021, to December 20, 2021. A total of five comments were received during the comment period. None of the comment letters have identified a new significant impact or have provided substantial evidence that the CEQA analysis is otherwise inadequate. Recirculation of the EIR is therefore not required. Responses to the Draft EIR comments, as well as minor text changes and clarifications, in the form of a Final EIR, was made available to the public through the City’s website on March 30, 2022, and have been forwarded on to any commenters on the Draft EIR. In addition, the supplemental analyses described above (traffic, HRA, biology), were made available to the public through the City’s website on May 13, 2022, and have been forwarded on to the commenters on the EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant costs borne by the City for the preparation of the Future Focus Area have been borne by Greystar through a reimbursement agreement with the City.
The proposed change in land uses would significantly increase land values and the property tax base as well as demand for services, having both positive and negative fiscal impacts upon the City. The addition of retail services and an increased local population will add to more sales tax revenue for the City. It is understood that residential land uses generally have a net negative fiscal impact (as increased land value revenue does not completely offset increased costs for service), but infill development and higher density development, particularly utilizing Type I or Type III construction, provides for more efficient delivery of services and can be revenue neutral or even positive in some circumstances. Furthermore, the Plan will include private maintenance of park spaces and a significant private investment for infrastructure that will also provide fiscal benefits. On the whole, implementation of the eventual Specific Plan is expected to have a relatively minor net fiscal impact to the City and will provide housing necessary for Santa Clara’s ongoing economic vitality.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by publishing a hearing notice in the Santa Clara Weekly on May 11, 2022, and by mailing a hearing notice to properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the plan area and posting a notice of public hearing at three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site on March 30, 2022. The City Council agenda was also posted 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 clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
The City held a community meeting on the North Santa Clara area including the Freedom Circle area on February 25, 2019. Approximately 28 members of the public attended the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
(Planning Commission Recommendation)
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;
2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south, including modifications of the plan area diagram to change all Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways;
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre);
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south;
OR:
5. Provide direction to staff to make modifications to the Freedom Circle and Greystar General Plan Amendments and/or the Greystar Planned Development rezoning for City Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Adopt a resolution approving and certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan and the Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH #2020060425), including CEQA Findings and a statement of overriding consideration;
2. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/R&D designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area bounded by Great America Parkway to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south, including modifications of the plan area diagram to change all Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways;
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Unit/Acre); and
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south.
Staff
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial of the Freedom Circle Focus Area
2. Proposed Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan
3. Greystar Rezoning Proposal
4. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Planning Commission Report
5. Adams Broadwell letter dated 4/13/2022
6. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR
7. Freedom Circle December 2021 Transportation Analysis
8. Updated Air Quality Analysis (with Quantitative Health Risk Assessment)
9. Updated Biological Assessment
10. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment Findings of Fact
11. MMRP for the Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment
12. Freedom Circle/Greystar General Plan Amendment EIR Resolution
13. Freedom Circle Future Focus Area General Plan Text and Map Amendment Resolution
14. Greystar project General Plan Amendment Resolution
15. Greystar Planned Development Rezoning Resolution
16. 8-3-2021 Subdivision Committee Minutes