REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on Related Santa Clara Development Area Plan (DAP) 2 for Phase 2 of the Related Santa Clara Project, located on Vacant Parcels North of Stars and Stripes Drive (Former Municipal Golf Course) [Council Pillar: Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development]
Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Related Companies (Developer) filed an application for a Development Area Plan (DAP 2) for the Related Santa Clara Project (Project) located on an approximately 240-acre site north of Tasman Drive. The Related Santa Clara Project was previously referred to as the “City Place Project” and is referenced as such in various City documents. The entire Project includes the development of up to 9.16 million gross square feet of office buildings; retail, food and beverage, and entertainment facilities; residential units; hotel rooms; surface and structured parking facilities; new open space and roads, landscaping and tree replacement; and new/upgraded/expanded infrastructure and utilities.
On June 28, 2016, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved General Plan Amendments, and approved the Planned Development - Master Community (PD-MC) Zoning and accompanying Master Community Plan document (MCP) to allow for the phased development of the Project. The MCP (Attachment #7) sets forth the development standards, design guidelines, phasing constructs, project implementation procedures, development transfer provisions among parcels, permitted and conditional uses allowed within the proposed land use areas, and City Approval standards for DAP applications. The adopted Project entitlements also include a Development Agreement (DA) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Consistent with these Project approvals, development of the entire Project is anticipated to occur in approximately seven phases. The City Council approved DAP 1 for the first phase on March 24, 2020.
Before the Developer may ground lease portions of the Project site from the City, it must receive City approval of a “Phase Option Notice” defining the boundaries of the development phase and of a DAP, which will implement the approved PD-MC Zoning and the MCP. The Developer submitted the Phase 2 Option Notice on December 11, 2019, and submitted an amended Phase 2 Option Notice on January 15, 2020 (Attachment #3) delineating the specific boundaries to be included in Phase 2. The City approved such amended Phase 2 Option Notice on January 28, 2020 (Included in Attachment #3). This DAP 2 application is the next step in the land use entitlement process for the second phase of the Project.
As discussed in the attached report to the Planning Commission, staff evaluated DAP 2 and found it to be consistent with the MCP and other applicable standards. As discussed in the following Analysis section of this report, staff evaluated DAP 2 and found it to be consistent with the Project’s Development Obligations as set forth in the DDA.
The Planning Commission at a public hearing on May 27, 2020 considered DAP 2 and recommended that the Council adopt a Second Addendum to the previously-certified Project EIR and approve the DAP 2 application subject to conditions of approval. The Planning Commission also, requested that the Council engage in additional discussions with the Developer regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM).
BACKGROUND
DAP 2 encompasses a 44.5-acre portion of the 86.6-acre area identified in the MCP as Parcel 4 (APN: 104-03-036). See Attachment #1 (Key Plan Map) for the location of the property and its vicinity. The DAP 2 area is generally bordered by the future Second Street to the north; San Tomas Aquino Creek to the west; the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (west of Lafayette Street) to the east; and the future relocated Stars and Stripes Drive and the Phase One area to the south.
The DAP 2 development would create six blocks within Parcel 4, generally correlating to portions of Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4H within the Parcel 4 area of the approved MCP. Block 4H does not include the Station Area. New streets proposed as part of the DAP 2 development include east/west First and Second Streets, north/south Creekside Drive, and the extension of Avenues A, B, and C, and Centennial Boulevard from Phase One. All of City Place Parkway is also a component of this phase.
The proposed development program would be distributed as follows:
Block 4B:
• 100,000 square feet of office;
• 65,000 square feet of retail/food & beverage; and
• 50,000 square feet of entertainment
Block 4D (now divided into two blocks):
• 30,000 square feet of office;
• 150,000 square feet of retail;
• 20,000 square feet of food and beverage
• 180,000 square feet of hotel (220 guest rooms);
• 530,000 square feet of residential (200 Service Apartments & 300 residential units);
• Health club, office, retail, food & beverage, and entertainment uses supporting the primary hotel and residential uses; and
• Structured parking (500 spaces)
Block 4E and 4F:
• 305,000 square feet of loft style office buildings;
• 180,000 square feet of retail;
• 115,000 square feet of food & beverage, including the global food market;
• a large public outdoor plaza; and
• a smaller plaza space associated with the offices
Block 4H:
• 20,000 square feet of retail;
• 5,000 square feet of food & beverage; and
• Structured Parking Garage (2,920 spaces), with the retail and food and beverage uses at the ground floor along Avenue B
Summary of Parking:
• Parking Structure: 2,920 spaces
• Street parking: 150 spaces
• Residential parking: 500 spaces
• Valet storage increment: 275
• Total: 3,845 spaces
DISCUSSION
The following discussion includes a summary of the Planning Commission hearing and additional information related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and a summary of future entitlement actions for DAP 1 and DAP 2 that were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. It also provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the DDA. The determination of DDA consistency was not part of the Planning Commission review, but is a requirement for the City Council.
Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on DAP 2 at their May 27, 2020 regular Meeting. Following a presentation by staff, the Commission opened the item for public hearing. The applicant made a presentation and answered questions form the Commission. No other members of the public appeared to speak at the hearing.
The staff presentation focused on how the DAP 2 conforms with the MCP. The Planning Commission staff report and its attachments provide a more detailed analysis of MCP conformance and are attached to this report (Attachment #2).
During the public hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff and the Developer clarifying questions regarding several issues, including:
• The amount of development square footage within the DAP 2 area compared to the amount planned for Phase 2 in the MCP;
• How the project would work in light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic;
• The potential to add TDM Strategies to target a greater level of trip reduction for the project and mode shift from vehicles to other modes of transportation such as bicycles; and
• The rationale for the proposed reduction of parking spaces from the numbers described in the MCP.
After the close of the public hearing, the majority of the Commission expressed their support for the Project, particularly program and design elements as depicted in the applicant’s conceptual architectural renderings. The Commission considered the DAP 2’s consistency with the MCP, including additional analysis with respect to DAP 2’s development area, parking supply, and impact on area traffic and asked for clarification of procedural issues. In response to a question from the Commission, staff clarified that the Planning Commission’s purview is focused on evaluating the project’s conformance to the MCP rather than with the DDA and that the Council is the review body for conformance to the Project’s Development Obligations including the DDA. The Commission acknowledged the deferral of architectural review after the initial stage of DAP approval to a later stage review and approval process by the Community Development Director, as permitted under the MCP. The Commission’s discussion then focused primarily on TDM requirements for the project, which are summarized below, with some Commissioners noting that the proposed reduction in parking ratios for the project would be appropriately accompanied by increased use of TDM strategies.
The Planning Commission adopted two Resolutions: 1) recommending that the Council adopt a Second Addendum to the previously-certified Project EIR in connection with the DAP 2 application (vote 5-1; Becker opposed, Biagini absent), and 2) recommending that the Council approve the DAP 2 application subject to conditions of approval (vote 5-1; Becker opposed, Biagini absent). In addition, the Commission forwarded a request that the Council engage in additional discussions with the Developer to include additional TDM measures in the Project to ensure ample parking (vote 6-0).
Transportation Demand Management
The Planning Commission focused the discussion on its preference for a more robust TDM program with larger trip reduction targets than were required when the Project was first approved. On this issue, clarification was provided by the Assistant City Attorney that under the MCP and the DA, the City may not modify existing conditions of approval (such as that related to TDM) without the voluntary agreement of the Developer. Staff noted that the DAP 2 proposal is consistent with the City’s previously-adopted conditions regarding the TDM program. Accordingly, the Planning Commission did not propose any conditions of approval related to the TDM requirements. However, the Commission made a formal request for the Council to discuss this point with the Developer further.
As required by the MCP, the Developer submitted a Traffic Report as part of its application, which was peer reviewed by City staff and its consultant team. The Traffic Report, which is provided as Attachment B to the First Addendum to the Project EIR, includes parameters for the DAP 2 TDM program. As required by Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1, the TDM program must achieve a reduction in Project office-generated daily traffic by a minimum of four percent with a peak hour trip reduction of at least 10 percent and a reduction in Project residential-generated daily traffic by a minimum of two percent with a peak hour trip reduction of at least four percent.
The Final EIR Response to Comments for the Project, dated June 2016, included detailed responses to comments from a Planning Commissioner and other parties expressing similar concerns that these trip reduction targets were too low. (FEIR, 3-8 to 3-10 and App. B.2-71). The FEIR explained that these reductions are much larger than they may appear because the traffic generation estimates against which these reductions will be measured already reflect substantial reductions from the trip generation estimates for standard office projects in the Trip Generation Manual and Handbook published by the Institute for Traffic Engineers. The estimates used as the starting point for the City Place TDM targets were based on rates from Silicon Valley high-tech office developments, which have higher employee densities than standard office developments. The City Place estimates were further reduced to adjust for proximity to transit, and for the fact that it is a mixed-use development with residential, office and retail uses. The FEIR noted that, taking these adjustments into account, the City Place TDM targets “yield a total trip reduction of 15 to 18 percent,” similar to the 16 percent target that the City had recently required for a project one of the commenters had suggested as a model for the City Place TDM program. The FEIR also provides detailed responses to comments suggesting the TDM targets for the North Bayshore (Google), Apple, and Stanford University projects would be appropriate for City Place. The responses noted substantial differences between Stanford’s unique circumstances as a university and other projects, including City Place, and further noted that the North Mountain View and Apple targets had not in fact been achieved, concluding: “The trip reduction targets for City Place are similar to the actual trip reductions achieved at North Bayshore and more aggressive than what has actually been achieved at the Apple campus.”
As shown in the Traffic Report, DAP 2 includes potential measures and strategies for reducing traffic generated by office and residential uses, along with an annual monitoring program to evaluate TDM effectiveness and determine if the trip reduction targets established by Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1 are satisfied. In addition, the Addendum to the Project’s EIR concluded that the overall number of trips generated by DAP 2 will be less than the number of trips analyzed under the EIR for Phase 2, and that approval of DAP 2 would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than previously analyzed for Phase 2.
Future Entitlement Actions
As part of the Planning Commission discussion, Commissioners requested clarification on the design review process established through the MCP. Staff noted the following review procedures will be conducted either at a staff level or through a separate hearing process.
Architectural Review
Under the City’s review process as set forth in Appendix C of the MCP (Attachment #7), the Developer has elected to defer the submittal of architectural materials, building architectural designs, and building site designs, including building setbacks and building coverage details for each of Blocks 4B, 4D, 4E/F and 4H to a later submittal for review by the Community Development Director, who has approval authority under the MCP. Staff will post the application materials submitted for Architectural Review on the City’s website, on the project web page, as soon as a complete application is received.
Sign Program
The Applicant has also requested to defer the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program (“CSP”) for development on Parcels 4 and 5. Staff and the Applicant have been discussing specific details to include in the CSP over the past several months, and anticipate a draft coming together in the near future. Accordingly, Staff recommends a condition of approval to permit the CSP required by the MCP for Parcels 4 and 5 (Phases 1-4) to be considered and approved or conditionally approved by the City Council (following consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission) before the issuance of the first building permit for development (for buildings, other than the below-grade Tasman garage, and excluding excavation and grading) undertaken pursuant to DAP 1 or DAP 2.
Ground Lease
The City and the Developer will prepare a final ground lease that is consistent with the DDA terms and DDA form of Ground Lease for the Phase 2 area before the Phase 2 area is taken down by Developer. Construction under DAP 2 will not commence on Phase 2 until the Ground Lease is executed with limited exception of early infrastructure or site preparation requested by Developer and approved by the City under a form of license, permit to enter, or other agreement approved by the City. In April, the City and the Developer entered into a Landfill Operations and Management Agreement which obligated the Developer to obtain and maintain comprehensive and robust insurance programs throughout the development of the Project and after completion of construction. The insurance terms were carefully negotiated so that City’s interest in the landfill would be sufficiently protected, even for risks that are unrelated to the development of the Project, and so that the broadest possible range of Developer’s indemnification obligations would be backstopped with insurance running to both City and Developer. The insurance provisions addressed in the Landfill Operations and Management Agreement cover all insurance requirements for the Project and will be applicable to any work done on the former landfill. Submission and management of claims under joint insurance programs will be governed by an Insurance Administration Agreement to be executed prior to Developer commencing intrusive work on the Landfill.
Project Consistency with the MCP
The MCP requires that specific materials be submitted in connection with a DAP application. The following discussion details how the Developer’s application complies with the requirements of Section 1.4 (Development Obligations) of Exhibit 2 (Documents to be Submitted for DAP Applications) of Appendix C (DAP Submittal & Approval Procedures) to the MCP. (The following Section references are to MCP Appendix C, Exhibit 2 except as otherwise noted) This information was updated to further clarify compliance since the Planning Commission meeting.
Section 1.4.1 - Temporary Fire Station No. 8
Section 1.4.1 requires the Phase 1 DAP to provide details regarding the temporary Fire Station No. 8. This requirement is not applicable to the DAP 2 application; moreover, the necessary improvements to Fire Station No. 8 to temporarily house operations from Fire Station No.10 were approved and permitted, and the construction is complete.
Section 1.4.2 - Minimum Initial Buildings / Minimum Retail Buildings
Section 1.4.2 requires the DAP to show the proposed locations and square footages of: (1) Minimum Initial Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.2; (2) Minimum Retail Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.4; and (3) a minimum of 200 residential units within Phases 1 and 2.
Minimum Initial Buildings
First, for the Minimum Initial Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.2 requires that Phase 2 include at least 700,000 square feet of buildings consisting of (i) 500,000 square feet of retail (including food and beverage and entertainment) and (ii) 200,000 square feet of office and/or a 300-key or larger hotel. In addition, as part of the Minimum Initial Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.2 requires at least 200 residential units in the aggregate between Phases 1 and 2. The DAP 2 application demonstrates that it will include 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses, which satisfies the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for retail. DAP 2 also includes 435,000 square feet of office uses plus a 220-room hotel, which satisfies the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for office and/or hotel uses by virtue of the office space being greater than 200,000 square feet. The City previously approved 200 residential units for the Phase 1 DAP, which satisfied the Minimum Initial Buildings requirement for residential uses in Phases 1 and 2. Therefore, DAP 2’s program fully satisfies the remaining requirements to develop the Minimum Initial Buildings.
Minimum Retail Buildings
Second, for the Minimum Retail Buildings, DDA Section 5.3.4 requires 750,000 square feet of retail uses in the aggregate between Phases 2 and 3. As noted above, the DAP 2 application demonstrates that it will include 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses towards this total, leaving 145,000 square feet of retail to be built in Phase 3 to achieve the Minimum Retail Buildings obligation.
Section 1.4.3 - Additional Initial Buildings
Section 1.4.3 requires that the DAP also show the proposed locations and square footages of Additional Initial Buildings as defined in DDA Section 5.3.3. The DDA requires that the Developer use its “best efforts” to develop an additional 230,000 square feet of total office, retail (including food and beverage and entertainment), and/or residential buildings during Phase 2. As summarized previously, DAP 2 provides 435,000 square feet of office, which is 235,000 square feet of buildings in addition to the 200,000 square feet required by the Minimum Initial Buildings. DAP 2 also provides 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses, which is 105,000 square feet of buildings in addition to the 500,000 square feet required by the Minimum Initial Buildings. Finally, DAP 2 provides 530,000 square feet of residential uses as traditional and serviced apartments, in addition to the 200 residential units approved in the Phase 1 DAP and required by the Minimum Initial Buildings. In total, DAP 2 includes 870,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings, easily satisfying the requirement to use best efforts to provide 230,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings.
Section 1.4.4 - Additional Retail Buildings
Section 1.4.4 requires the DAP to indicate the proposed locations and square footages of the Additional Retail Buildings that could be satisfied under the best efforts standard of the DDA. As summarized above, DDA Section 5.3.4 requires 750,000 square feet of retail uses in the aggregate among Phases 2 and 3, and DDA Section 5.3.5 requires that the Developer use its “best efforts” to develop an additional 750,000 square feet as Additional Retail Buildings for an aggregate total of 1,500,000 square feet of retail within Phases 2 and 3. The DAP 2 application proposes 605,000 square feet of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment uses. Therefore, there is a balance of 145,000 square feet of retail uses to satisfy the requirements of DDA Section 5.3.4 to provide Minimum Retail Buildings, plus the full 750,000 square feet of Additional Retail Buildings for which Developer must make best efforts to provide within Phases 2 and 3 combined.
Section 1.4.5
Section 1.4.5 requires the DAP to show whether Phase 2 will include Development Obligations that can be satisfied among two or more phases of the Project or if part of the Development Obligations will be deferred to Phase 3. As discussed above, the Phase 2 DAP provides 605,000 square feet of the Minimum Retail Buildings and defers 145,000 square feet to Phase 3, with an obligation to use best efforts to attempt to develop 750,000 square feet for the Additional Retail Buildings. The DAP 2 application demonstrates that, between Phases 2 and 3, it is possible to satisfy the minimum retail program requirements, although the current retail market may make it infeasible to provide the Additional Retail Buildings in Phase 3 notwithstanding the Developer’s best efforts.
Section 1.4.6 - Major Department Stores
Section 5.3.6 of the DDA requires Developer to use best efforts to develop two to three major department stores to be included in one or more DAPs within Phase 1, Phase 2 and/or Phase 3. Consistent with that provision, Section 1.4.6 requires DAP applications to show proposed locations and square footages of any proposed major department stores. DAP 2 does not propose any major department stores. As noted above, DDA Section 5.3.7(b) permits the Developer to submit an Alternate Leasing Plan that would relieve the Developer of its obligation to use its best efforts to develop the Additional Retail Buildings and any major department stores. The Developer has submitted an Alternate Leasing Plan pursuant to DDA Section 5.3.7(b) that will be considered as an informational item for discussion and comment at a future Council meeting.
Section 1.4.7 is only applicable to Phase 3.
Section 1.4.8 - Cumulative Summary of Uses
Section 1.4.8 requires the DAP to include a cumulative summary of uses constructed to date, plus a balance of development required in future phases (through Phase 3). Although nothing has been constructed to date, DAP 2 includes information about the uses approved under the Phase 1 DAP and proposed by the Phase 2 DAP in Table 1.4.7 on page 1.4-1 (Attachment #10), which is summarized below:
• Minimum Initial Buildings: 1.3 million square feet of office, hotel, and/or retail buildings required among Phases 1 and 2, plus 200 residential units; approximately 2.1 million square feet of office, hotel, and retail buildings approved in DAP 1 and proposed in DAP 2, plus 700 residential units; zero balance required in future phases.
• Minimum Retail Buildings: 50,000 square feet required in Phase 1 and 750,000 required among Phases 2 and 3; 51,000 square feet provided in Phase 1 and 605,000 square feet provided in Phase 2; 145,000 square feet balance required in Phase 3.
• Additional Initial Buildings: 200,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings in Phase 1 and 230,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings in Phase 2 for a total of 430,000 square feet of Additional Initial Buildings; approximately 712,000 square feet of office, retail and/or residential buildings approved in DAP 1 and proposed in DAP 2 as Additional Initial Buildings in excess of the required Minimum Initial Buildings and Best Efforts.
• Additional Retail Buildings: none proposed; balance of 750,000 square feet subject to the best efforts requirement.
• Major Department Stores: none proposed.
Section 1.4.9 - Parking Management Plan
Finally, Section 1.4.9 requires an updated Parking Management Plan to be included in the DAP. In accordance with DDA Section 5.5, Exhibit 1.4.8 on page 1.4-2 of DAP 2 (Attachment #12) illustrates how at least 3,000 parking spaces to serve non-NFL events at Levi’s Stadium on a non-reserved basis can be accommodated on the portions of the Project site that will not have been ground leased once Phases 1 and 2 are taken down. The necessary parking can be accommodated on the City-controlled Parcels 1 and 2.
Authority for DAP 2 Review and Conditions of Approval
In addition to the Development Obligations summarized above, the MCP defines City Approval standards for DAP applications. Specifically, Section 2.7.2.6 authorizes approval or conditional approval of a DAP if the Council finds that (1) the DAP conforms to and is consistent with the applicable project approvals, transaction documents, and the MCP; (2) the Infrastructure that the Developer proposes to construct in connection with the applicable phase is sufficient to serve the proposed development on the subject property; and (3) the proposed shared outdoor space provided for in the applicable phase in accordance with the MCP is reasonable and appropriate to the proposed level of development.
Under Section 2.7.2.5 of Appendix C to the MCP, Council has the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a DAP application. However, Section 2.7.2.6 limits the Council’s authority, only permitting Council to alter or supersede previously imposed conditions of approval if they are consistent with the standards of review and acceptable to the Developer. Moreover, the DA prohibits any conditions of approval that would conflict with the adopted Project entitlements, including, without limitation, conditions that would alter or change the permitted land uses, limit the Project’s height or bulk, limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project, or materially increase the Developer’s obligations.
When it approved the Project site rezoning and MCP in 2016, Council adopted conditions of approval that apply to the Project in addition to the development standards identified in the MCP. Among other requirements, the conditions of approval require the Project to comply with the terms of the DA and with the mitigation measures adopted as part of the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program following certification of the Project’s EIR.
Therefore, Council has authority to adopt new conditions of approval that are required to ensure that DAP 2 is consistent with the MCP with respect to the findings listed above. However, modifications to existing conditions, which include all of the Project’s mitigation measures, would require the Developer’s consent under the DA and the MCP. Accordingly, City staff and the Planning Commission have recommended specific conditions of approval in connection with DAP 2 that either (1) are within the City’s discretion to adopt under the MCP and the DDA or (2) have the Developer’s consent to modify.
Specifically, the Developer has agreed to modify two former Conditions of Approval. Proposed Condition of Approval C5 would replace former Condition of Approval P15 (as modified by Condition of Approval C3 from the DAP Phase 1 Approval) to require the Comprehensive Sign Program for Parcels 4 and 5 to be considered by the City Council before the issuance of the first building permit for buildings (excluding the below-grade Tasman garage) developed pursuant to the DAP for Phases 1 or 2. In addition, proposed Condition of Approval E9 would replace former Condition of Approval E2 (as modified by Condition of Approval E10 from the DAP Phase 1 Approval) to allow the Developer to apply for, and receive Council approval of, a Tentative Map or Vesting Tentative Map for Phase 2 prior to the issuance of building permits (excluding excavation and grading) within Phase 2 and to secure approval of and file for recordation Final Maps for Phase 2 prior to any certificate of occupancy within Phase 2; under the existing Condition, Final Maps would be required prior to the issuance of building permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On June 28, 2016, the Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Although the EIR and MMRP identified mitigation measures to reduce most project impacts to less-than-significant levels, the SOC was required given the EIR’s conclusion that the proposed Project would have significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of land use, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and biology; and cumulative significant unavoidable utilities impacts (Attachment #4).
Although there are certain differences between the project described in DAP 2 and the description of Phase 2 development in the MCP and certified EIR, DAP 2 is consistent with the MCP. To ensure that the potential impacts of the Project continue to be thoroughly analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City worked with consultant Environmental Science Associates to prepare an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Related Santa Clara / City Place Project; the Addendum is attached to this report (Attachment #5).
The Addendum provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that implementation of DAP 2 would not result in substantial changes or introduce new information not already analyzed in the previously-certified Project EIR, primarily because the level of development now proposed for the site is within the broader development assumptions analyzed in the EIR, and would not cause new significant environmental impacts not previously identified in the EIR, or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the potential environmental impacts associated with DAP 2 have already been adequately analyzed in the Project EIR, and no further review or analysis under CEQA is required.
At the May 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting the Commission voted to find that the Addendum provides substantial evidence that the criteria of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring additional environmental review under CEQA have not been met and to recommend that the Council adopt the Addendum prior to acting on the DAP 2 application.
Upon adoption of the Addendum and approval of DAP 2 by the Council, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Because the Clerk-Recorder’s Office is not currently open to the public as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NOD will also be posted on the City’s webpage.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense, which is included in the FY2019/20 Adopted Budget.
As was previously considered by the Council in the decisions to offer development of the project site and subsequent approval of the initial land use entitlements, it was noted there will be social and economic benefits that will accrue to the City and region in terms of new retail and entertainment opportunities not readily found in the South Bay area, as well as creation of jobs, property tax and sales tax revenues, and land lease revenues. Development of the Project will provide substantial land lease revenues to the City. Development fees and other exactions paid for and provided by the Project (including up to $17.4 million for implementation of a multimodal improvement plan and a voluntary contribution to VTA of approximately $16 million) will also benefit the City.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office and Finance Department.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov
Public Notices and Comments:
The notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to property owners, residents and businesses within 1,000 feet of the project site. A joint meeting notice for this meeting and for the Planning Commission meeting held on May 27, 2020 was published in The Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation for the City, on May 14, 2020. Notice was also posted on the City’s website under the development project page.
The Developer held a Community Open House meeting from 5:30 to 7:00 pm on January 15, 2020 at the Santa Clara Convention Center to provide an update to nearby residents and businesses about the current plans and schedule. The event was attended by the Applicant’s project team, City staff and approximately 24 members of the public. A summary of the open house event provided by the Applicant’s consultant is attached (Attachment #8).
The City Council continued the public hearing on this item from June 23, 2020 to July 13, 2020 to allow more time to address questions regarding information on Developer Obligations.
ALTERNATIVES
Adopt resolutions for the Related Santa Clara (City Place) Phase 2 Development Area Plan application located at 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive to:
1. Adopt the EIR Addendum for DAP 2 for the Related Santa Clara project,
2. Approve the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project subject to conditions; or
3. Deny the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project
RECOMMENDATION
Alternatives 1 and 2:
Adopt resolutions for the Related Santa Clara (City Place) Phase I Development Area Plan application located at 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive to:
1. Adopt the EIR Addendum for DAP 2 for the Related Santa Clara project; and
2. Approve the DAP 2 Application for the Related Santa Clara project, subject to conditions.
Staff
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Key Map Plan
2. Web Link Slip Sheet - Planning Commission Staff Report - May 27, 2020
3. Amended Developer Phase Option Notice for DAP 2
4. Web Link Slip Sheet - 5155 Stars and Stripes Drive City Place FEIR and MMRP
5. EIR Addendum for DAP 2
6. Resolution to Adopt EIR Addendum for DAP 2
7. Web Link Slip Sheet - Master Community Plan Volume I
8. Applicant-provided 01.15.2020 Community Open House Summary
9. Resolution to Approve DAP 2
10. Staff Report Tables
11. Conditions of Approval
12. DAP 2 Document Plans