SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY

Transcription

1 CITY OF -Z& SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL AGENDA: 09/22/15 ITEM: i\ 2L Memorandum FROM: Harry Freitas SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: September 8, 2015 Approved Date COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 SUBJECT: PDC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FROM THE A(PD) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO THE A(PD) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARY OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (SANTANA ROW), INCREASE THE ALLOWED COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 565,641 SQUARE FEET, ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 47 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (FOR A TOTAL OF 1,229 UNITS), INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HOTEL ROOMS BY SIX (TO CLARIFY THAT THE ALLOWED NUMBER OF ROOMS IS 220), AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER BOULEVARD AND STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, ON A GROSS ACRE SITE. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council consider the Santana Row Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report, consider the adoption of The Statement of Overriding Considerations of the EIR and Protection of the Monroe/Stevens Creek Intersection, and recommend the City Council certify the EIR as completed in compliance with CEQA and reflecting the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezoning as recommended by staff. OUTCOME Should the City Council adopt the Santana Row Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report and approve the Rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, the applicant would be able to move forward with a subsequent Planned Development Permit to effectuate the zoning and develop the project as discussed in the staff report.

2 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL September 8, 2015 Subject: PDC Santana Row Rezoning Page 2 BACKGROUND On August 26, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Santana Row Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report and the proposed Rezoning (File No. PDC13-050). The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement recommended certification of the EIR and approval of the proposed Rezoning. In the verbal staff report, staff stated that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of Regional Commercial, and furthers multiple goals and policies of the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Additionally, staff indicated that the proposed rezoning has established mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts in accordance with CEQA. Public Testimony Public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing included six members of the public. Four members of the public spoke in opposition to the project, and two members of the public spoke in favor of the project. Neighbors who spoke in opposition of the project expressed concern with the following: Improvements needed in the EIR process; Insufficient EIR report; The insufficiency of the traffic analysis; The number of cars on the road if the project is approved; The route of construction vehicles that go through neighborhood streets; The amount of traffic at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Monroe Street; The parking structures on site need to take into account future growth; and The late-night use at the Yardhouse will impact adjacent neighbors. Members of the public who spoke in favor of the project highlighted the following: The project should provide compensation to the residents of the 47 units being displaced prior to demolition; The traffic generated by this project is just a product of the location of this project in the Winchester area, and while not an enjoyable effect, it is inevitable as the City grows; and This is a positive project for West San Jose. Planning Commission Discussion After the public testimony, Commissioner Ballard asked the applicant if the project was subject to the Affordable Housing Impact Fee. The applicant indicated that any residential project going forward would be subject to affordable housing requirements. However, at this time, there is no residential project on file or contemplated for the Santana Row site. The proposed project indicates that the area where the existing 47 units are located is not for future residential use.

3 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL September 8, 2015 Subject: PDC Santana Row Rezoning Page 3 However, if residential units are proposed in the future, that project would be subject to affordable housing requirements that go into effect July Commissioner Kline encouraged the applicant to consider nonprofit groups that help aid in affordable housing issues, and stated reaching out to these types of organizations is a way to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Bit- Badal also indicated that she was grateful that the applicant would even consider opening the dialogue about affordable housing and was impressed that the applicant was willing to entertain the discussion of affordability. Commissioner Pham inquired about a letter mentioned during public testimony by attorney Alan Berger, the representative of the Villas at Santana Park Home Owner's Association. Commissioner Pham indicated that he did not receive this letter. Staff confirmed that the letter mentioned during public testimony was the same letter received during the comment period for the EIR, and that the letter was in fact contained in the First Amendment to the Draft Environmental Impact Report that the Commissioners already had in their possession. The First Amendment to the Draft Environmental Impact Report was attached with the staff report, and was already part of the public record. The Commissioners confirmed that they received the same letter more recently from the City Clerk's office, and Mr. Berger confirmed that the letter in the First Amendment is the same letter that his office resent to the City Clerk. Commissioner Kline suggested that the applicant coordinate with VTA to open the discussion about bringing more rapid transit to the area in order to benefit local neighbors and the Santana Row development itself. Commissioner Kline encouraged the applicant to find a way to bring residents throughout the City to this area in a way that is quick and efficient. Commissioner Bit-Badal commented that pedestrians seem comfortable crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard from Valley Fair Mall to Santana Row, and inquired if there were plans to improve the pedestrian experience. Staff commented that there are plans to create a better pedestrian experience on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Site Development Permit for the Valley Fair Mall contains conditions for improvements for both sides of Steven's Creek. The timeframe for these upgrades is contingent upon Westfield moving forward with the project. Staff indicated that Santana Row has contributed funds to these improvements, but the actual construction of these improvements is part of Westfield's improvements, making a definitive schedule for these improvements difficult to determine. However, staff indicated that the applicant would be willing to help expedite the improvement process if necessary. Commissioner Ballard asked for clarification about the proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan discussed both by the applicant and staff. Staff indicated that the Department of Public Works conditioned the applicant to develop a TDM plan and implement this plan at the Planned Development Permit stage. This plan will incorporate measures that help reduce the development's traffic impacts on an on-going basis. Commissioner Bit-Badal made a motion to recommend that the City Council consider the Santana Row Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report, consider the adoption of The Statement of Overriding Considerations of the EIR and Protection of the Monroe/Stevens Creek Intersection, and recommend to the City Council certification of the EIR as completed in

4 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL September 8, 2015 Subject: PDC Santana Row Rezoning Page 4 compliance with CEQA and reflecting the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezoning as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Abelite. ANALYSIS A complete analysis of the issues regarding this project, including Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan conformance, is contained in the attached staff report. EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP If the Rezoning ordinance is approved, the applicant will be required to obtain a subsequent Planned Development Permit from the Planning Division in order to effectuate the zoning on the subject site. The conceptual site design presented with the planned Development Rezoning may not reflect the final site design of the Planned Development Permit. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy to inform the public about this project. Notices for the public hearings for the project were mailed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the project site. An electronic version of the Staff Report has been available online, accessible from the City Council Agenda for the September 22, Staff has been available to discuss the proposal with members of the public. COORDINATION Preparation of this memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney's Office. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval (7-0-0). CEQA The environmental impacts of this project are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report entitled "Santana Row Expansion EIR" (FEIR) to be considered by the Planning Commission for recommendation for certification to the City Council.

5 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL September 8,2015 Subject: PDC Santana Row Rezoning Page 5 The FEIR identified the following potentially significant environmental impacts: 1. Intersection level-of-service impacts to three intersections under background plus project conditions; 2. Capacity impacts to three freeway segments; 3. Operational air quality impacts related to reactive organic gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), and particulate matter (PMio); 4. Temporary community risk impact due to construction period air quality; 5. Operational noise from late night use of the parking structure; 6. Impacts to groundwater quality; 7. Impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors during construction; and 8. Cumulative traffic impacts to intersection level-of-service at the Stevens Creek Boulevard & Monroe Street intersection. The FEIR identified mitigation measures to reduce most of these impacts to a less than significant level. However, the FEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to three freeway segment impacts, operational air quality, and level-of-service at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Monroe Street. The impact on the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Monroe Street intersection will be significant and unavoidable, but the FEIR recommends adding this intersection to the City's list of protected intersections since there is no feasible way to expand vehicle capacity due to the constrained right-of-way at this location. Circulation and Public Comments The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from March 23, 2015 to May 7, 2015, a 45-day public circulation period. The City received a total of nineteen comment letters from public agencies, individuals, and organizations during the public comment period. Issues raised in these comment letters included the following: Traffic (cumulative traffic with other development in the vicinity, freeway operations, intersection level of service, intersection queuing, and neighborhood pass through traffic); Adequacy of parking supply; Air pollution generated by construction and project traffic; Increased emergency response times due to project traffic; Water use of the project, particularly in light of the current drought; Demolition of older apartment buildings and displacement of existing residents; Height of the proposed office building on Lot 11 and compatibility with existing development; The removal of street trees to facilitate the development of Lot 11; and Recommendations to adopt the Reduced Development Alternative. The City responded to all comments received on the Draft EIR and incorporated them into the First Amendment to the Draft EIR. Also, a Second Amendment was prepared and distributed to reflect text amendments to the Traffic Impact Analysis related to the addition of 47 residential units to the Santana Row site, which corresponds to the existing 47 apartment units in the apartments on Dudley Avenue. The First and Second Amendments, taken together with the

6 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL September 8, 2015 Subject: PDC Santana Row Rezoning Page 6 Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR. The DEIR and First and Second Amendments to the DEIR are available for review on the City's Active EIRs website at: EIR Recirculation Unnecessary The comments received do not identify substantive inadequacies in the Draft EIR or new previously unidentified significant impacts that require recirculation. The recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice if given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review but before certification. "Information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (CEQA Guidelines Section ). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the First Amendment to the Draft EIR for the project includes written responses to all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. As required by Section of the CEQA Guidelines, the responses in the First and Amendment to the Draft EIR address significant environmental points and comments on the content and adequacy of the EIR. The responses and comments provide clarification and refinement of information presented in the Draft EIR and, in some cases, correct or update information in the Draft EIR. The Second Amendment reflected text amendments to the Traffic Analysis related to the 47 residential units and did not add significant information to the report. No significant new information has been added to the EIR since publication of the Draft EIR; therefore, the EIR does not need to be recirculated. /s / Harry Freitas, Director Planning, Building and Code Enforcement For questions, please contact Planning Official, Steve McHarris, at (408) Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report

7 PC AGENDA: ITEM: 5.b. CITY OF SZ: SAN IPSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT File No. PDC Applicant: Seth Bland, Federal Realty Investment Trust Location 330 South Winchester Boulevard Existing Zoning A(PD) Planned Development Council District 6 Historic Resource No Annexation Date: February 18,1954 CEQA: Santana Row Expansion Environmental Impact Report APPLICATION SUMMARY: The proposed project is a Planned Development Rezoning from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to expand the boundaries of a mixed-use development (Santana Row), increase the commercial square footage by 565,641 square feet, allow an additional 47 residential units (for a total of 1,229 units), and increase the number of hotel rooms by six (to clarify that the allowed number of rooms is 220), with minor modifications to the existing use hours, on a gross acre site. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subject Planned Development Rezoning to the City Council for the reasons stated in this staff report. PROJECT DATA! GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY General Plan Land Ese/Transportation Diagram : Designation Consistent Policies Regional Commercial and II rban Village Consistent (Inconsistent LU-1.7; LU-5.1; LU-10; CD-7.6; Major Strategy #3, TR- 1.2; TR-1.4; TR-3.3; TR-5.3 None Inconsistent Policies SURROUNDING USES 1 General Plan Land Use Zoning Existing Use North Rcuional ('ommeivial CG Commercial Regional Shopping Center \ (Westfield Mall) General East \lixed-l se Neighborhood CN Commercial Residential Neighborhood, CG Commercial General, A(PD) Planned Development

8 File No. PDC Page 2 of 15 South West Neighborhood/ Community Commercial Neighborhood/Community Commercial CG Commercial General, R-M Multiple Residence CG Commercial General Office Various Commercial Uses KKLATKI) A TROVALS Date Action 02/18/54 Annexation into the City (MayparkNo. 1) 06/30/98 Planned Development Rezoning to allow for a 650,000 square foot retail complex and 1,200 residential dwelling units (townhomes and apartments) on a 38.8 gross acre site (File No. PDC97-036). 03/29/00 Planned Development Permit to allow up to 575,000 square feet of commercial area, residential units, and two 100-room hotels (File No. PD98-074). 06/28/00 Planned Development Permit for the construction of 20 single-family detached residences and a 57,113-square foot commercial building (File No. PD99-068). 06/28/00 Planned Development Permit for the construction of 100 residential units and 33,795 square feet of retail space on a 1.84 gross acre site (File No. PD99-061). 06/28/00 Planned Development Permit for the construction of 172 multi-family attached residences and 41,900 square feet of commercial space on a 3.7 gross acre site (File No. PD99-073). 06/30/00 Planned Development Permit for the construction of 98 multi-family attached residences and 43,406 square feet of commercial space on a 2.02 gross acre site. 06/30/00 Planned Development Permit to allow up to 246 attached residential units and approximately 89,838-square feet of commercial space on a 5.14 gross acre site (File No. PD00-017). 12/22/00 Planned Development Permit to allow a mixed-use project with 76,125 square feet of commercial and a 200-room hotel on a 1.32 gross acre site. 01/30/01 Planned Development Rezoning from the C-3 Commercial District to the A(PD) Planned Development District to allow an increase in commercial floor area of approximately by 30,000 square feet, an increase in the number of hotel rooms from 200 to 214 room, an increase in height from 90 feet to 120 feet for the hotel site, and incorporating approximately 2.5 acres into the Santana Row site for a total of 40.5 gross acres (File No. PDC00-095). 02/02/01 Planned Development Permit for construction of 140,683 square feet of storage, office/commercial use on a 1.92 gross acre site (File No. PD00-085). 06/26/01 Planned Development Rezoning of a 5.2-gross acre site from the CG Commercial General and CN Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Districts to the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow 75,000 square feet of commercial development, a 190 room hotel, and one residential unit (File No. PDC01-023). 07/20/01 Tentative Map Permit to subdivide one parcel into eleven lots for both residential and commercial purposes (File No. PT00-068). 11/16/01 Special Use Permit to allow demolition of existing residential building on a 0.15 gross acre site (File No. SP01-039). 11/16/01 Planned Development Permit to master plan the project area for a total of 680,000 square feet of commercial space, 404 hotel rooms, 1,201 residential units, and temporary parking lot (File No. PD01-101).

9 File No. PDC Page 3 of 15 03/26/02 Planned Development Rezoning from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow an increase in commercial floor area of 15,200 square feet for restaurant, bar, and nightclub uses on a gross acre site (File No. PDC02-005). 03/01/02 Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of a 339,930-square foot, three level parking garage for residential/commercial uses on a 3.46-gross acre site (File No. PD02-007). 07/10/02 Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of 95,200-square foot restaurant, bar and nightclub on a gross acre site (File No. PD02-031). 11/15/02 Planned Development Permit to construct 47,761 square feet of retail/commercial space on a 1.92-gross acre site (File No. PD02-063). 11/21/02 Planned Development Permit to construct 24,405 square feet for a six-screen movie theater and 4,100 square feet of retail/commercial uses on a gross acre site (File No. PD02-062). 11/27/02 Planned Development Permit to construct 34,399 square feet of retail and commercial space on a 0.98-gross acre site (File No. PD02-074). 12/06/02 Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure three lots for future development on a 8.82-gross acre site (AT02-125). 01/08/03 Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure two parcels for future development, totaling 6.6 gross acres (File No. AT02-135). 06/23/06 Planned Development Permit Amendment to construct three additional attached single-family residential units within an existing mixed-use building on a 5.52 gross acre site (File No. PDA ). 12/05/06 Planned Development Rezoning from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow: 1) up to 400 additional multi-family attached residences (1,601 total units, if a second hotel is not built) or up to 210 additional dwelling units (1,411 total units, if the second hotel is built); 2) an additional 15,000 square feet of retail/commercial space for a total of 695,000 square feet; 3) up to 20,000 square feet of currently permitted general retail/commercial space to be replaced with 20,000 square feet of restaurant space for a total of 115,200 square feet of restaurant/night club uses; and 4) reduction in required parking on the gross acre Santana Row site (File No. PDC05-030). 01/31/07 Planned Development Permit to construct 238 residential units (Building 8B) at Santana Row on a 4.1-gross acre site (File No. PD05-066). 05/13/2008 Planned Development Rezoning from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow: 1) modification to the perimeter setbacks and 2) to change the allowed uses, including the elimination of previously entitled 22,500-square foot retail use, 190 hotel rooms and 229 residential dwelling units and the addition of 160,000 square feet of office use on a gross acre site (File No. PDC07-065). 05/16/08 PI armed Development Permit to construct a five-story, 76,000-square foot commercial building on a 1.07 gross acre site (File No. PD07-100). 06/30/08 Planned Development Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a new automobile ramp and three additional stories to an existing parking garage on a 3.85 gross acre site (File No. PDA ). 12/22/08 Planned Development Permit for a parking garage on a 0.28 gross acre site within an existing shopping center (File No. PD08-035). 03/08/10 General Plan Amendment to add the Neighborhood Business District Overlay designation to the Land Use Transportation Diagram to both sides of Winchester Boulevard from Stevens Creek Boulevard south to the boundary of the City of Campbell (File No. GP ).

10 File No. PDC Page 4 of 15 08/07/12 12/13/12 Planned Development Rezoning from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow for the full build out of the entire development site, commonly known as Santana Row, to include an additional 228,200 square feet of office space; 46,458 square feet of restaurant/drinking establishments/entertainment establishment space; and 35,139 square feet of retail space over the current built condition on a gross acre site (File No. PDC12-009). Planned Development Permit to effectuate the approved Planned Development Zoning (File No. PDC12-009) and allow specific improvements to replace existing parking lot with the construction of a 229,700-square foot building with below-grade parking for office and commercial uses on a 1.89-gross acre site (File No. PD12-014). PROJECT DESCRIPTION On November 13, 2013, the applicant applied for Planned Development Rezoning from the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to the A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to expand the boundaries of a mixed-use development (Santana Row), increase the commercial square footage by 565,647 square feet, allow an additional 47 residential units (for a total of 1,229 units), and increase the number of hotel rooms by six, on a gross acre site. Site and Surrounding Uses The proposed project site is commonly referred to as Santana Row and is located at the southwest corner of Winchester and Stevens Greek Boulevard (Figure 1). The subject site is bounded on the north and west by six-lane thoroughfares, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north and Winchester Boulevard to the west. The Valley Fair Shopping Mall is located directly to the north, across Stevens Creek Boulevard; commercial buildings, including the Century Movie Theater complex and the Winchester Mystery House are located to the west across Winchester Boulevard; single-family residences and suburban-style offices (house conversions) exist to the east; and a high rise senior housing development and two multi-story office buildings are located to the south, adjacent to Highway 280. < Figure 1: Site Location

11 File No. PDC Page 5 of 15 The majority of the site is already developed. There is a proposed office building and parking lot for Lot 17, located along Tisch Way. There is a proposed parking garage on Lot 9, located behind the proposed office building on Lot 17, approximately located at Dudley Avenue terminus and Hatton Street to the east. There is also a proposed retail/commercial building on Lot 9, located to the west of the proposed parking garage on Lot 9. An approved retail/commercial building (PD12-014) will be located on Lot 11, which is west of the existing Cine Arts Theater, adjacent to Winchester Boulevard. Project Background Figure 2: Existing and Proposed buildings at Santana Row The Santana Row project was originally approved by the City Council in 1998 (File No. PDC97-036) and has been subsequently rezoned eight times, most recently in 2012 (File No. PDC12-009). The project as originally approved allowed for a mixed use development on a 38.8 gross acre site with 650,000 square feet of commercial uses (including offices and a movie theater), 1,200 residential units, and two hotels. This original zoning also included the extension of Hatton Street from within Santana Row out to Tisch Way at the southern end of the development. This street connection is required in order to better distribute traffic within the surrounding area to meet the Level of Service (LOS) requirements of the City's Transportation Level of Service Policy (City Council Policy 5-3). The subsequent rezonings allowed for an expansion of the site area to its current gross acre size and additional commercial uses including hotel rooms, but the elimination of the second hotel, additional residential units, a reduction in minimum building setbacks along the perimeter of the site, and modifications to the operating hours for health club uses. The Planned Development Zoning File No. PDC07-095, allowed for a total 832,500 square feet of commercial/retail space which included: 160,000 square feet of office, 557,300 square feet of retail, and 115,200 square feet of restaurant/bar/entertainment space. The zoning also allowed for a total of 1,182 residential units and 214 hotel rooms. This rezoning established the core of what Santana Row is today. In 2012, the eighth rezoning, File No. PDC was filed to facilitate a Planned Development Permit (File No. PD12-014) that was concurrently filed by the applicant with the rezoning to allow for an existing 1.89-gross acre surface parking lot within Santana Row (lot 11) to be replaced with a 229,700 square foot, six-story office building with ground floor retail/commercial uses, and a below-grade parking structure. This new building will be located at the southeast comer of Winchester Boulevard and Olsen Drive. Said office building will utilize the remaining office square footage entitlement for Santana Row.

12 File No. PDC Page 6 of 15 The subject rezoning, File No. PDC proposes to expand the previous boundaries of Santana Row to make the entire project gross acres. The added area is at the south of the overall Santana Row site and is bordered by Dudley Avenue to the west, Hatton Street to the east, and Tisch Way to the south. This expansion and rezoning will increases the total residential unit count by 47 units, for a total of 1,229 units on site. The applicant purchased three existing residential buildings, and this rezoning will take those units and add them to the Santana Row residential entitlement. This rezoning will also entitle an additional 565,647 square feet of commercial entitlement to the Santana Row property as a whole. The proposed rezoning also correctly reflects the existing number of hotel rooms on site, which is 220 rooms. The previous zoning incorrectly references 214 rooms. The below graphs (Figures 2 and 3) show what the proposed, entitled-not built, and entitled-built residential capacity is and what the proposed, entitled-not built and entitledbuilt commercial capacity is for the entire Santana Row site. This rezoning also permits late-night use in several areas of Santana Row that are not residential-adjacent so that future uses and the Yard House can extend their hours to 1:00 a.m. Santana Row Residential Development Capacity 1,400 1, Proposed Increase a Entitled - Not Built 1, Entitled - Built U) c ra 4-1 c a> T3 O) Q Figure 3: Residential Development Capacity

13 File No. PDC Page 7 of 15 Santana Row Commercial Development Capacity Retail Restaurant Office Figure 4: Commercial Development Capacity ANALYSIS, The proposed Planned Development Rezoning was analyzed for conformance with respect to: 1) the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, 2) key changes form the previously approved development standards, 3) City Council Policies 5-3 (Transportation Level of Service) and 5-4 (Alternative Traffic Mitigation); and 4) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan The subject site is designated as Regional Commercial and is within an Urban Village Area Boundary on the San Jose 2040 General Plan Laud Use/Transportation Diagram (see Figure 4).

14 File No. PDC Page 8 of 15 Figure 5: General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation The Regional Commercial land use designation is intended to designate commercial areas that attract customers from a regional area and play an important fiscal and economic role for the City. This designation is applied primarily to regional shopping centers, though sometimes it may reflect the cumulative attraction of a regional center, and one or more nearby community or specialty commercial centers. In this case, the designation reflects both Santana Row and the adjacent Valley Fair Mall. This designation supports a very wide range of commercial uses, which may develop at a wide range of densities, ranging in an FAR from 1 to 25 stories. The General Plan supports intensification and urbanization of Regional Commercial areas in order to promote increased commercial activity and more walkable, urban environments in Regional Commercial districts. This particular site is also part of a larger area designated as an Urban Village, due to the site's vibrant, walkable, mixed-use urban community. This site will continue to evolve and will allow the City to incorporate all of the major strategies of the General Plan. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: 1. Implementation Land Use Policy LU-1.7: Use standard Zoning Districts to promote consistent development patterns when implementing new land use entitlements. Limit use of the Planned Development Zoning process to unique types of development or land uses which cannot be implemented through standard Zoning Districts, or to sites with unusual physical characteristics that require special consideration due to those constraints. Analysis: The existing development provides a multitude of amenities to the City and the immediate community. In order to appropriately provide these amenities, a Planned Development Zoning is the best way to continue developing this unique property, but allowing consideration of alternative development standards to those of conventional zoning districts.

15 File No. PDC Page 9 of Urban Village Design Policy CD-7.6: Incorporate a Ml range of uses in each Urban Village Plan to address daily needs of residents, businesses, and visitors in the area. Consider retail, parks, school, libraries, day care, entertainment, plazas, public gathering space, private community gathering facilities, and other neighborhood-serving uses as part of the Urban Village planning process. Encourage multi-use spaces wherever possible to increase flexibility and responsiveness to community needs over time. Analysis: The proposed project will allow an additional 565,641 square feet of commercial/retail space, and 47 additional residential units. The overall mix of use captures the spirit of an Urban Village, as it incorporates a full range of uses that can address the daily needs of residents. The amount of retail that can be provided on this site has potential to provide a variety of amenities for that the residents will need on a daily basis. 3. Efficient Use of Residential and Mixed Use Land Use Goal LU-10: Meet the housing needs of existing and future residents by Mly and efficiently utilizing lands planned for residential and mixed-use and by maximizing housing opportunities in locations within a half mile of transit, with good access to employment areas, neighborhood services, and public facilities. Analysis: The existing andfuture Santana Row site offers employment opportunities, neighborhoods services, and housing opportunities all in a 42 acre site. The additional 47 units, which will increase the unit count to 1,229, will help the City achieve its housing needs of future and existing residents. The future retail and commercial development will provide greater retail and office employment opportunities for the City as well. This site is also within a half mile offour bus stops- three stops along Winchester Boulevard, and one on Stevens Creek Boulevard. 4. Neighborhood Serving Commercial Policy LU-5.1: In order to create complete communities, promote new commercial uses and revitalize existing commercial areas in locations that provide safe and convenient multi-modal access to a full range of goods and services. Analysis: The proposed rezoning will allow 565,641 square feet of commercial space in the Santana Row area. This additional commercial space will be an added community amenity in the form of office space andfuture retail use. This added space will allow Santana Row to provide an even larger range of goods and services to the community. 5. Major Strategy #3: Focused Growth: Focused Growth Major Strategy focuses new growth into areas of San Jose that will enable the achievement of City goals for economic growth, fiscal sustainability and environmental stewardship and support the development of new, attractive urban neighborhoods. Analysis: The subject site is an existing urban mixed use neighborhood that is continuously getting more dense and becoming more attractive to the City projected growing demographic groups, that support walking, provide opportunities to incorporate retail and other services in a mixed-use format, and support transit use. As such the continued development of this site is not only consistent with the intent of the Regional Commercial and Urban Village Area Boundary land use designation, but the Focused Growth Major Strategy as well. 6. Balanced Transportation System Policy TR-1.2: Consider impacts on overall mobility and all travel modes when evaluating transportation impacts of new developments or infrastructure projects. Analysis: An Environmental Impact report was prepared for this Rezoning application which evaluated the transportation impacts of this project. The EIR included a traffic impact analysis that covered the proposed development and expansion of the Santana Row area. The traffic study's purpose was to identify the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed project. The potential impacts related to the proposed development were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the Cities of San Jose, Campbell, and Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

16 File No. PDC Page 10 of Balanced Transportation System Policy TR-1.4: Through the entitlement process for new development, fund needed transportation improvements for all transportation modes, giving first consideration to improvement of bicycling, walking, and transit facilities. Encourage investments that reduce vehicle travel demand. Analysis: The project proposes mitigation to reduce the identified intersection impacts and will be required to pay fees for off-setting improvements to alternative modes of transportation including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 8. Maximize Use of Public Transit Policy TR-3.3: As part of the development review process, require that new development along existing and planned transit facilities consist of land use and development types and intensities that contribute toward transit ridership. In addition, require that new development is designed to accommodate and to provide direct access to transit facilities. Analysis: The overall Santana Row site is a mixed-use development that provides opportunities for people to live, work, and play all within walking distance of each other. The proposed expansion of the Santana Row area will enhance this site's ability to accommodate a lifestyle that promotes walkability and transit ridership. There is a VTA limited Stop Bus route along Stevens Creek Boulevard with two stops within a half mile of the Santana Row site. There are two VTA Local Bus routes with three stops along Winchester Boulevard, and one stop on Stevens Creek Boulevard, all within a half mile of the Santana Row site. This project will be placing jobs near these transit locations, which is not only convenient for existing residents, but future employees who will come to the site to work and shop. 9. Vehicular Circulation Policy TR-5.3: The minimum overall roadway performance during peak travel periods should be level of service "D" except for designated areas. How this policy is applied and exceptions to this policy are: Protected Intersections. In recognition that roadway capacity-enhancing improvement measures can impede the City's ability to encourage infill, preserve community livability, and promote transportation alternative that do not solely rely on automobile travel, specially designated Protected Intersections are exempt from traffic mitigation measures. Protected Intersections are located in Special Planning Areas were proposed developments causing a significant LOS impact at a Protected Intersections are required to construct multimodal (non-automotive) transportation improvements in one of the City's designated community Improvement Zones. These multimodal improvements are referred to as off-setting improvements and include improvements to transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian facilities. Analysis: The proposed project will result in LOS impacts at four intersections. One intersection is currently designated by the City as a protected intersection. Another intersection, Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard, is proposed to be protected. With the payment of trip fees for the protected intersections, the project would have a less than significant impact. The remaining two intersections are Congestion Management Plan (CMP) intersections with identified Tier 1 improvements. The project will be required to pay fair share fees toward the identified improvements which will improve the LOS of these intersections to an acceptable level. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Policy TR-5.3. City Council Policies 5-3 Transportation Level of Service and 5-4 Alternative Traffic Mitigation Council Policies 5-3 and 5-4 were adopted on June 21, 2005 by the City Council (Resolution Number 72765). The purpose of these Policies is to guide analyses and determinations regarding the overall conformance of a proposed development with the City's various General Plan multimodal transportation policies, which together seek to provide safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive transportation system for the movement of people and goods.

17 File No. PDC Page 11 of 15 These policies require that new development maintain and improve the multi-modal transportation system around the project and city-wide. The Policies require that existing neighborhoods are protected from significant traffic effects, and that the development ensures that the burden of serving new development does not fall disproportionately upon existing neighborhoods and business. To evaluate the effect of this new development, a transportation impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project (See Section 4.2, Transportation of the E1R). Traffic conditions were evaluated for existing conditions, background conditions, existing plus project conditions, and background plus project conditions to determine if the level of service (LOS) of the local intersections in the project area would be adversely affected by the proposed project generated traffic. LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or freeflowing conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. Based on the City of San Jose's policies, an acceptable operating level of service is defined as LOS D or better at all City controlled intersections. For County of Santa Clara and CMP intersections, an acceptable level of service is LOS E. Because the project site is very near the City boundary with Santa Clara and Campbell, traffic trips associated with the project site would travel through Santa Clara and Campbell intersections as well as San Jose intersections. For this reason, the analysis also took into account the acceptable LOS standard for the City of Santa Clara and Campbell, which is equivalent to the LOS standard established by the City of San Jose. Consistent with City Council Policy , the City of San Jose LOS methodology is TRAFFIC, which is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for signalized intersections. Analysis of the existing intersection operations concluded that the Stevens Creek Boulevard/San Tomas Expressway intersection currently operates at LOS E during the PM Peak Hour. LOS E is acceptable under the CMP thresholds, but not under City of San Jose thresholds. All other study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS. The project proposes mitigation to reduce the intersection impacts and will be required to pay fees for off-setting improvements to alternative modes of transportation including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The mitigation measures (See Section 4.2.2, Transportation, of the EIR) identity roadway improvements that will reduce the identified intersection impacts that once implemented, will help provide safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive transportation system for the movement of people and goods. Key Changes to the Previous Entitlement The rezoning of the subject site has been proposed in order to revise the Development Standards to allow for: 1) an additional 565,641 square feet of commercial space, 2) an increase the amount of permissible residential units by 47, and 3) the increase of hotel units from 214 to 220. The below chart details the maximum development capacity for Santana Row as it exists today. Planned Development Rezoning File No. PDC is left out of this chart, as the only change that occurred with this rezoning is an allowance for late-night use for the health club at Santana Row. No square footage was altered with the zoning.

18 File No. PDC Page 12 of 15 TABLE Existing Conditions, Zoning, and Proposal for Santana Row Comparison of Existing Conditions and Zonec Development Use "Existing Approved PD Zoning Difference Total Laud Area acres acres Hotel rooms 214 rooms 214 rooms -- Residential 834 units units 348 units Commercial space 644,395 sf 940,700 sf 309,797 sf - Retail Combined 584,395 sf 652,500 sf sf - Retail sf 507,300 sf 28,124 sf - Restaurant+ 105,219 sf 145,200 sf 39,981 sf - Office 60,000sf 288,200 sf 228,200 sf Comparison of Existing PD Zoning and Proposed PD Zoning Use Approved PD Zoning ^Proposed Zoning Difference Total Laud Area acres acres 1.91 acres Hotel rooms 214 rooms 220 rooms 6 rooms Residential 1,182 units 1,229 units 47 units Commercial space 940,700 sf 1.506,341 sf, 565,641 sf - Retail Combined 652,500 sf 708,141sf 55,641 sf - Retail sf 562,941 sf 55,641 sf - Restaurant* sf 145,200 sf - Office 288,200 sf 798,200 sf 510,000 sf Figure 6: Existing and Proposed Zoning Entitlements 1. An additional 565,641 square feet of commercial space will be added to Santana Row's entitlement. Of the 565,641 square feet, 55,641 square feet will be put toward retail uses. This retail square footage allotment, combined with the existing retail entitlement, will permit 80,000 square feet to be used toward theater use. The remaining 510,000 square feet will go toward office development. This number, combined with the existing entitlements, will entitled 789,200 square feet of office space at Santana Row. 2. The existing entitled residential unit count for Santana Row is 1,182. The Santana Row expansion on this site will encompass 47 existing units. The absorption of these units will bring the entitled unit count in Santana Row to 1,229. Of those entitled units, 834 units have been constructed, and 348 have yet to be built. 3. This rezoning will increase the hotel room count from 214 to 220. The constructed hotel already has 220 rooms. The error in room count has been carried out through several rezonings, and the purpose of "adding" these units is to reflect the actual hotel room count as it exists at Santana Row. This rezoning will not physically be adding any hotel rooms.

19 File No. PDC Page 13 of 15 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The environmental impacts of this project are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report entitled "Santana Row Expansion EIR" (FEIR) to be considered by the Planning Commission for recommendation for certification to the City Council. The FEIR identified the following potentially significant environmental impacts: 1. intersection level-of-service impacts to three intersections under background plus project conditions; 2. capacity impacts to three freeway segments; 3. operational air quality impacts related to reactive organic gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), and particulate matter (PMio); 4. temporary community risk impact due to construction period air quality; 5. operational noise from late night use of the parking structure; 6. impacts to groundwater quality; 7. impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors during construction; and 8. cumulative traffic impacts to intersection level-of-service at the Stevens Creek Boulevard & Monroe Street intersection. The FEIR identified mitigation measures to reduce most of these impacts to a less than significant level. However, the FEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to three freeway segment impacts, operational air quality, and level-of-service at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Monroe Street. The impact on the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Monroe Street intersection will be significant and unavoidable, but the FEIR recommends adding this intersection to the City's list of protected intersections since there is no feasible way to expand vehicle capacity due to the constrained right-of-way at this location. Circulation and Public Comments The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from March 23, 2015 to May 7, 2015, a 45-day public circulation period. The City received a total of nineteen comment letters from public agencies, individuals, and organizations during the public comment period. Issues raised in these comment letters included the following: Traffic (cumulative traffic with other development in the vicinity, freeway operations, intersection level of service, intersection queuing, and neighborhood pass through traffic); adequacy of parking supply; air pollution generated by construction and project traffic; increased emergency response times due to project traffic; water use of the project, particularly in light of the current drought; demolition of older apartment buildings and displacement of existing residents; height of the proposed office building on Lot 11 and compatibility with existing development; the removal of street trees to facilitate the development of Lot 11; recommendations to adopt the Reduced Development Alternative.

20 File No. PDC Page 14 of 15 The City responded to all comments received on the Draft EIR and incorporated them into the First Amendment to the Draft EIR. The First Amendment, taken together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR. The DEIR and First Amendment to the DEIR are available for review on the city's Active EIRs website at: EIR Recirculation Unnecessary The comments received do not identify substantive inadequacies in the Draft EIR or new previously unidentified significant impacts that require recirculation. The recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice if given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review but before certification. "Information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (CEQA Guidelines Section ). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the First Amendment, to the Draft EIR for the project includes written responses to all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. As required by Section of the CEQA Guidelines, the responses in the First Amendment to the Draft EIR address significant environmental points and comments on the content and adequacy of the EIR. The responses and comments provide clarification and refinement of information presented in the Draft EIR and, in some cases, correct or update information in the Draft EIR. No significant new information has been added to the EIR since publication of the Draft EIR; therefore, the EIR does not need to be recirculated. PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST On February 27, 2014, a joint Environmental Scoping Meeting and Community Meeting was held for the subject Planned Development Rezoning at the Cypress Community Center. Approximately 75 community members were in attendance. The comments expressed by those at the meeting are summarized below: The residents were very concerned about how residents would get out of their homes in the area in the event of an emergency, and they were conversely worried about how emergency vehicles would get into the area if the need arose. Residents felt there should be a better traffic/circulation control plan inside of Santana Row that deals with vehicle turning movement conflicts and pedestrian safety. Safety and policing is a concern, as the area is already over burdened and increasing the uses will further exasperate the lack of policing. Police do not enforce traffic and noise laws at Santana Row. The Santana Row development has been piecemealed over the last 10 years to the detriment of the area residents. There is no longer a balance between commercial interests and those of the residents. The overall development has lost sight of its original intent and promises made to the surrounding residents have not been kept. The residents expressed confusion over promises made by developers versus what was actually being constructed at Santana Row and the area. Residents expressed concerned with protecting the Stevens Creek and Winchester intersection.

21 File No. PDC13-G50 Page 15 of 15 In addition to the community meeting, the property owners and occupants within a foot radius were sent public hearing notices for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. This staff report has been posted on the City's web site. Signage has been posted at the site to inform the public about the proposed change. Staff has been available to discuss the proposal with interested members of the public. PUBLIC BEARING NOTTIHCATION LJ Criterion I: Requires Council action on the use of public funds equal to $1 million or greater. (Required: Website Posting) Q Criterion 2: Adoption of a new or revised policy that may have implications for public health, safety, quality of life, or financial/economic vitality of the City. (Required: and Website Posting) Criterion 3: Consideration of proposed changes to service delivery, programs, staffing that may have impacts to community services and have been identified by staff. Council or a Community group that requires special outreach. (Required: , Website Posting, Co nun unity Meetings, Notice in appropriate newspapers). Although this item does not meet any of the criteria above, staff followed Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy, A notice of the public hearing was distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within feet of the project she and posted on the City website. The staff report is also posted on the City's website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public, Project Manager: Lea C. Simvoulnkis Approved by:. { #<, Planning Official for Harry I'Veil as, Planning Director Attachments! Exhibit A: Development Standards Exhibit B: Plan Set Exhibit C: Public Letter Exhibit D: EIR Owner: Federal Realty Investment Trust 356 Santana Row Suite #1005 San Jose. CA Applicant: Seth Bland Federal Realty Investment Trust 356 Santana Row Suite #1005 San Jose, CA 95128

22 PDC Santana Row Development Standards August 2015 *In any cases yvhere the graphic plans and text may differ, the text takes precedence. * USE ALLOWANCES: 1. The permitted, special, and conditional uses of the CG Commercial General Zoning District, as amended. Conditional and Special uses shall require the approval of a Planned Development Permit. 2. All of the uses identified as "Permitted" in Use Table of Section of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, shall be permitted as a matter of right except those uses listed below which are prohibited: (a) (b) (c) All health and veterinary services listed in the Use Table except for those uses that are expressly permitted as indicated in these development standards. Medical, dental, and health practitioner use is permitted by right. All uses between 12:00 Midnight and 6:00 A.M. excepting those within the hotel building/block, the office/retail buildings on and adjacent to Santana Row or Stevens Creek Blvd. and health club uses. Any allowed health club uses shall not operate between the hours of 12:00 Midnight and 5:00 A.M. Recycling facilities, except as incidental to an allowed primary use. 3. The following Uses require the issuance of a Planned Development Permit: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Public eating establishments and entertainment/drinking establishments larger than 9,000 gross square feet. Eating and drinking establishment uses between midnight and 6:00 A.M. within the hotel site footprint. Such uses, incidental to the hotel facility, and having no independent exterior access, shall be allowed by right. Outdoor Vending Uses (note: Individual outdoor vending shall be allowed by right in areas where a Planned Development Permit has already been approved for such uses). Live/work uses (note: Individual live-work uses shall be allowed by right in areas where a Planned Development Permit has already been approved for such uses). Commercial indoor and commercial outdoor recreational uses.

23 (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) Amusement arcades for 19 or fewer games or fewer than 19 amusement arcade games incidental to an allowed primary use. Maintenance and repair, small household appliances. Day care centers, including those located in school and/or church facilities. Retail sales establishments with tenant spaces larger than 48,000 gross square feet. Animal grooming and indoor animal boarding. All vehicle related uses listed in the Use Table except for those that are permitted as a matter of right. Except that automobile sales must occur within a building, no maintenance and repair can occur on the site, and additional car stock, if kept on site, must be within the building and not displace any parking spaces in the Santana Row development. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT ALLOWANCES: Commercial Uses: 4. The maximum gross floor area for all commercial uses up to 1,506,341 square feet, including any theater uses, plus that area required for up to 220 hotel rooms. At least 100,000 square feet of this commercial area will be for office use. 5. Gross square footage is calculated using the following definition, with the addition that unenclosed walkways and stairs shall also be excluded from the gross square footage calculations: The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building or buildings in a lot, on or above or below grade, situate within the exterior walls of the building or buildings, excluding such cellar or basement areas as are proposed to be used and are used exclusively for the following purposes: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Off-street parking, loading and/or unloading of vehicle of owners, occupants, employees, and/or visitors of the building; Ways of ingress to and/or egress from off-street vehicular parking, loading and/or unloading areas; - Heating, cooling and/or air conditioning of the building; Heating and/or cooling of water for occupants, employees and visitors of building; Building maintenance rooms and facilities;

24 (f) (g) Storage space and facilities for use of owners, occupants and/or employees of the building; To provide public utility and other services to owners, occupants and/or employees of the building, other than services which are not accessory to the maintenance, operation and use of the building. Limitations on Public Eating Establishments, Drinking Establishments: 6. The maximum cumulative gross building area allowed for all "restaurant" drinking establishment uses shall not exceed a total of 175, 200 square feet at any time. 7. Restaurants shall be defined as those establishments meeting the definition of "bona fide public eating establishment" as defined by California Business and Professions Code Section ["Bona fide public eating place" means a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to guests for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which must be kept in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food on said premises and must comply with all the regulations of the local department of health. "Meals" means the usual assortment of foods commonly ordered at various hours of the day; the service of such food and victuals only as sandwiches or salads shall not be deemed a compliance with this requirement."] Residential Uses: 8. A maximum of 1,229 residential units shall be allowed. All residential development shall be constructed to meet common interest subdivision standards. 9. Residential uses shall include a mix of condominiums, townhouses and apartments, as well as leasing offices, club houses, pools and other residential amenities. The specific type and variety of units shall be determined by an approved Planned Development Permit/Amendment or Adjustment. DESIGN STANDARDS: Interfaces: 10. Since the character of this project is mixed-use in nature, the adjacency of noise, traffic or odor-generating activities such as loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and rooftop equipment to sensitive residential and other uses is anticipated - segregation of these uses is not a requirement for this project. However, partial mitigation of these effects is anticipated and should occur in the design and construction techniques of all buildings through the employment of a combination of

25 internal loading facilities, masonry screen walls, landscaping, building orientation, activity usage limitations and construction techniques. 11. Since this project is mixed-use in character with shared residential and commercial parking facilities, any proposed restrictions at the access points for any parking facility must be approved through a Planned Development Permit. 12. All covered unenclosed walkways are to be accessible as public pedestrian ways, 24 hours per day. Architecture/Building Orientation; 13. Architectural design and building materials are subject to approval by the Director of Planning and shall be of equal or superior quality to those shown on sheet 5 of the original zoning, PDCO1-023, entitled "Building Elevations" of the approved plan set for this planned development zoning. 14. "Non-active Building Elevations" facing a street will include details and/or appropriate architectural design consistent with the scale and style of active street facades in the project. 15. Because of the variety of uses within this project, the exterior building design, roof style, color, materials, architectural form and detailing may not be consistent among all buildings. Elowever, each building and each facade on that building will contribute to the project character. Loading and Trash Collection Facilities: 16. Loading docks may be located adjacent to residential structures or private rear yards. 17. Loading areas, dock and truck circulation aisles will be separated from residential uses, where possible, by a masonry screen wall or similar device. 18. Aisles designed as fire lanes will be a minimum of 20 feet, unless otherwise agreed to by the San Jose Fire Department. 19. Loading/trash collection spaces will be provided throughout the development. Loading and trash collection facilities may be shared between residential and commercial uses when appropriate. 20. Loading access may be allowed directly from the street. Such access shall include architectural detailing and other screening measures. Maximum Height: 21. The maximum building height shall be provided per Title 20, Section , as amended, and with the following exceptions:

26 (a) (b) Portions of structures within 30 feet of residentially zoned single-family units shall have a maximum building height of 35 feet. The overall maximum height of buildings on Lot 12 shall be 90 feet. Minimum Setbacks: 22. All perimeter setbacks are subject to approval by the Director of Planning at the Planned Development Permit stage. 23. Setbacks will be 15 feet from proposed structures to property line along Stevens Creek Boulevard, 5 feet along Winchester Boulevard and 25 feet from structure-to-structure adjacent to residentially zoned, single-family detached units except as specifically identified in the General Development Plan Exhibit C. 24. Canopies, lights, signs, awnings, balconies and other similar architectural features may project into setbacks if approved by a Planned Development Permit or Planned Development Permit Adjustment, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Open Space Requirements: 25. The parks and open space requirements for the original 1201 units are subject to the terms and conditions of that certain agreement entitled "Settlement and Parkland Agreement Between City of San Jose and FRIT San Jose Town and Country Village, LLC" bearing the effective date of December 5, The locations of existing and future private recreation amenities are shown on Sheet 7 hereof, entitled "Park Plans", and incorporated into this General Development Plan, subject to the provisions of the Agreement identified in paragraph (1) above. These provisions are intended to supersede prior diagrams depicting such site amenities. 27. The future private recreation improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the construction of the associated residential units as delineated on Sheet 7A, and shall be completed on each parcel on or before the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the last building to be constructed on the parcel that includes the planned private recreational improvements, With respect to any improvements given credit pursuant to the Agreement which relate to the original 1201 dwelling units and which are not completed in accordance with the schedule on Sheet 7A, the credits for the incomplete improvements shall be disallowed and Parkland Fees shall be required to be paid to the City as calculated using the methodology set forth in attachment A to the Agreement. 28. As of the effective date of the Planned Development Rezoning City File Number PDC05-030, the Parks and Open Space requirements for the residential units beyond the first 1201 plus the 47 units annexed under PDC for the project shall be as set forth in the City's PDO/PIO Ordinances and associated Fee and Credit Resolution.

27 PARKING REQUIREMENTS; 29. As an interim use, surface parking may be permitted with a Planned Development Permit for any area on which a building is ultimately proposed. 30. On-site parking for the commercial uses shall be provided at a ratio of no less than 1 space per 275 square feet of floor area. This ratio acknowledges the alternating nature of parking demand for office use (primarily weekdays) and other commercial uses such as retail, cafe and restaurant (primarily evenings and weekends). For parking purposes, "floor area" shall be as defined in Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended. 31. The standard for off-street parking for residential units shall be one and three-tenths (1.3) spaces per unit. Shared and/or alternating parking arrangements based on a parking analysis for specific uses and residential unit types may be approved through a Planned Development Permit or Amendment. Circulation; 32. On-site vehicular access shall be accommodated along internal street and driveway networks, should the site be subdivided. Each site will share the private circulation system common to all sites. Sidewalks shall be provided within the public right-of -way as shown. 33. Internal sidewalk networks will provide access to public spaces and connection points to adjacent sites and the public sidewalk network. Provisions will be made to integrate private pedestrian networks with public sidewalks. GENERAL NOTES: Water Pollution Control Plant Notice: 34. Pursuant to Chapter of the San Jose Municipal Code, no vested right to a Building Permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of any land development approvals and applications when and if the City Manager makes a determination that the cumulative sewage treatment demand at the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant represented by approved land uses in the area served by said Plant will cause the total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant to treat such sewage adequately and within the discharge standards imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay region. Substantive conditions designed to decrease sanitary sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by the approving authority.

28 PUBLIC WORKS CLEARANCE: Public Works Clearance for Building Permit(s) or Map Approval: Prior to the approval of the Tract or Parcel Map (if applicable) by the Director of Public Works, or the issuance of Building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant will be required to have satisfied all of the following Public Works conditions. The applicant is strongly advised to apply for any necessary Public Works permits prior to applying for Building permits. Standard review timelines and submittal instructions for Public Works permits may be found at the following: http: / / a spx?nid= Construction Agreement: The public improvements conditioned as part of this permit require the execution of a Construction Agreement that guarantees the completion of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. This agreement includes privately engineered plans, bonds, insurance, a completion deposit, and engineering and inspection fees. 2. Transportation: a) A Traffic Impact Analysis has been performed for this project based on 660 AM and 713 PM peak hour trips. We conclude that the subject project will be in conformance with the City of San Jose Transportation Level of Service Policy (Council Policy 5-3) and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. See separate Traffic memo dated XXX for additional information. b) Install new traffic signal at Hatton Street and Tisch Way. c) Add Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard to the City of San Jose's list of protected intersections. d) Conform to the Protected Intersection Policy for which traffic impacts will be mitigated by payment of the Protected Intersection Fee. The fee as of July 1, 2015 is equal to $2,821 per net peak hour project trip for one intersection impact and $4,232 per net peak hour project trip for multiple intersection impacts. The fee will automatically adjust annually on July 1 st based on a 3.5 percent annual cost escalation. The total amount of offsetting improvements is approximately $3,017,416 based on 713 net new peak hour trips must be paid prior to issuance of Public Works Clearance. e) Fair-share contribution towards the County Expressway Plan for San Tomas Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Tomas Expressway/Moorpark Avenue in order to add a fourth through travel lane. The fair-share contribution amount will be determined prior to PD permit issuance. 3. Urban Village Plan: This project is located in a designated Urban Village per the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. In order for this project to establish an identity as an Urban Village, applicant must meet with Public Works to discuss opportunities for implementation of the following within the public right-of-way: a) Up to 15-foot sidewalks with special paving treatments. b) Pedestrian scale lighting. c) Enhanced landscaping and street trees. d) Streetscape amenities such as benches, bicycle racks, and attractive trash/recycling receptacles.

29 e) Awnings or overhangs which will require a sidewalk easement. Easement: In order to accomplish the land use on the site plan: a) The existing 20-foot public storm drain easement between Hatton Street and Dudley Avenue will need to be vacated. b) Prior to vacating the existing 20-foot public storm drain, a grant of easement for overland release must be recorded. The grant of easement must state owners' maintenance and responsibility and the City shall be indemnified from any flooding damage to private property. Existing overland release will flow through the new parking garage on Hatton Street. c) A new 20-foot public storm drain easement will be required between Dudley Avenue and Hatton Street to accommodate the relocated public storm main (see Storm item #10). Grading/Geology: a) A grading permit is required prior to the issuance of a Public Works Clearance. b) All on-site storm drainage conveyance facilities and earth retaining structures 4' foot in height or greater (top of wall to bottom of footing) or is being surcharged (slope of 3:1 or greater abutting the wall) shall be reviewed and approved under Public Works grading and drainage permit prior to the issuance of Public Works Clearance. The drainage plan should include all underground pipes, building drains, area drains and inlets. The project shall provide storm drainage calculations that adhere to the 2010 California Plumbing Code or submit a stamped and signed alternate engineered design for Public Works discretionary approval and should be designed to convey a 10 year storm event. c) If the project proposes to haul more than 10,000 cubic yards of cut/fill to or from the project site, a haul route permit is required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, contact the Department of Transportation at (408) for more information concerning the requirements for obtaining this permit. d) Because this project involves a land disturbance of one or more acres, the applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for controlling storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Copies of these documents must be submitted to the City Project Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. e) A soils report must be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Storm: Relocate public storm main out of proposed parking garage stru=cture to the satisfaction of the Dircetor of Public Works. Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Measures: This project must comply with the City's Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (Policy 6-29) which requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which includes site design measures, source controls and numerically-sized Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges.

30 a) The project's preliminary Stormwater Control Plan and numeric sizing calculations have been reviewed for Lot 9. At PD stage, submit the final Stormwater Control Plan and numeric sizing calculations. b) Final Stormwater Control Plan design for Lot 17 will be reviewed at PD permit stage. c) Final inspection and maintenance information on the post-construction treatment control measures must be included on the final Stormwater Control Plan. d) A post construction Final Report is required by the Director of Public Works from a Civil Engineer retained by the owner to observe the installation of the BMPs and stating that all post construction storm water pollution control BMPs have been installed as indicated in the approved plans and all significant changes have been reviewed and approved in advance by the Department of Public Works. a) Media Filter Unit(s) located within Building footprints must conform to Building Division Directive P-005 located at the following: http: / /www, sanioseca.gov/clocu mentcen ter / view / b) A design of the pervious pavement by a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Public Works Clearance. 8. Stormwater Peak Flow Control Measures: The project is located in a non- Fly dromodification Management area and is not required to comply with the City's Post- Construction Hydromodification Management Policy (Council Policy 8-14). 9. Flood: Zone D: The project site is not within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. Flood Zone D is an unstudied area where flood hazards are undetermined, but flooding is possible. There are no City floodplain requirements for Zone D. 10. Sewage Fees: In accordance with City Ordinance all storm sewer area fees, sanitary sewer connection fees, and sewage treatment plant connection fees, less previous credits, are due and payable. 11. Parks: This residential project is subject to either the requirements of the City's Park Impact Ordinance (Chapter of Title 14 of the San Jose Municipal Code) or the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter of Title 19 of the San Jose Municipal Code) for the dedication of land and/or payment of fees in-lieu of dedication of land for public park and/or recreational purposes under the formula contained within in the Subject Chapter and the Associated Fees and Credit Resolutions. 12. Street Improvements: a) Remove and replace broken or uplifted curb, gutter, and sidewalk along project frontage. b) Reconstruct curb, gutter, and 10-foot sidewalk along Dudley Avenue frontage. c) Reconstruct curb, gutter, and 15-foot sidewalk along Tisch Avenue frontage, dedication may be required. d) Reconstruct Tisch Avenue frontage to provide a smooth curved transition between the adjacent two parcels.

31 e) Close unused driveway cut(s). f) Proposed driveways along Dudley Avenue will require further analysis at PD permit stage. g) Install handicap ramps (2) at opposite returns across Dudley Avenue. h) Dedication and improvement of the public streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. i) Repair, overlay, or reconstruction of asphalt pavement may be required. The existing pavement will be evaluated with the street improvement plans and any necessaiy pavement restoration will be included as part of the final street improvement plans. j) Applicant shall be responsible to remove and replace curb, gutter, and sidewalk damaged during construction of the proposed project 13. Revocable Encroachment Permit (Street/Sidewalk Closures): At the Implementation stage, Developer shall apply for a Revocable Encroachment Permit for any proposed sidewalk and lane closures to support the onsite construction activities. a) The following should be included with the Revocable Permit application, but are not limited to: i) Letter of Intent: This document should provide a detailed description of the reasons for the sidewalk/lane closures and why they are absolutely necessary (man lifts, baker tanks, staging area, concrete pumping activities, etc.) and reasons why covered pedestrian walkways will not be provided (ex. swinging loads over sidewalk not safe for pedestrians). ii) Multi-Phased Site Specific Sketches: These sketches should show the phased closures during the course of construction with a provided timeframe estimate of when each phase would be implemented. These sketches should include the type and location of the work to be accomplished within the right-of-way. The exhibit should show in detail the vehicular and/or pedestrian diversion route that shows the appropriate safety equipment, such as barricades, cones, arrow boards, signage, etc. b) Developer shall minimize the potential impact to vehicular and pedestrian traffic by: i) Implementing the closures at the time the onsite activities dictate the need for the closure. ii) Minimizing the closure timeframes to accomplish the onsite tasks and implement the next phase of the closure as outlines in condition lo.a.ii above. c) If proposed lane and parking closures are a part of the Revocable Permit Application, Developer shall submit Downtown Lane Closure and Tow Away Permit Applications to DOT. These applications may be obtained at: http: / / Developer shall contact DOT at (408) for more information concerning the requirements of these applications. 14. Electrical:

32 a) Existing electroliers along the project frontage will be evaluated at the public improvement stage and any street lighting requirements will be included on the public improvement plans. b) Locate and protect existing electrical conduit in driveway and/or sidewalk construction. c) Provide clearance for electrical equipment from driveways, and relocate driveway or electrolier. The minimum clearance from driveways is 10' in commercial areas and 5' in residential areas. 15. Undergrounding: a) The In Lieu Undergrounding Fee shall be paid to the City for all frontage adjacent to Tisch Way prior to issuance of a Public Works Clearance. Currently, the 2015 base fee is $441 per linear foot of frontage and is subject to change every January 31 st based on the Engineering News Record's City Average Cost Index for the previous year. The project will be required to pay the current rate in effect at the time the Public Works Clearance is issued b) The Director of Public Works may, at his discretion, allow the developer to perform the actual undergrounding of all off-site utility facilities fronting the project adjacent to. Developer shall submit copies of executed utility agreements to Public Works prior to the issuance of a Public Works Clearance. 16. Street Trees: The locations of the street trees will be determined at the street improvement stage. Contact the City Arborist at (408) for the designated street tree. Install street trees within public right-of-way along entire project street frontage per City standards; refer to the current "Guidelines for Planning, Design, and Construction of City Streetscape Projects". Street trees shall be installed in cut-outs at the back of curb. Obtain a DOT street tree planting permit for any proposed street tree plantings. Street trees shown on this permit are conceptual only. 17. Private Streets: Per Common Interest Development (CID) Ordinance, all common infrastructure improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current CID standards. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION: 1. Biological Resources: In compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, the project applicant will be required to pay applicable nitrogen deposition fees prior to the issuance of grading permits. Impact BIO-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment. MM BIO 1-1: The project applicant shall schedule construction to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February through August.

33 MM BIO 1-2: If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction between September and January, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests are disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of grading, tree removal, or other demolition or construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats immediatelyadjacent to the construction areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist, in consultation with CDFW, shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest, typically 250 feet, to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests will not be disturbed during project construction. 2. Geology The project will implement the following measures, consistent with the regulations identified in the General Plan FEIR, for avoiding and reducing construction related erosion impacts. All excavation and grading work will be scheduled in dry weather months or construction sites will be weatherized. Stockpiles and excavated soils will be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting. Ditches will be installed, if necessary, to divert runoff around excavations and graded areas. Impact GEO-1: Future development under the proposed PD rezoning could impact ground water. MM GEO-1.1: To account for seasonal variations in the groundwater level and regional rise in the groundwater table during the life of the structures, the geotechnical report recommends the following measures to account for long-term groundwater levels greater than those currently encountered at the site: Excavate an additional 12 to 18 inches below subgrade, place a layer of stabilization fabric at the bottom, and backfill with clean crushed rock. Extend the wall drainage system to a depth of 42 feet below existing grades, and design the floor slabs and the portions of the walls below a depth of 42 feet to resist hydrostatic pressure. As an alternative, the wall drainage system could be lowered to decrease the hydrostatic load on the walls and floor slab. Dewatering shall adhere to all applicable laws and regulations, including those in the General Plan, to ensure potential impacts to groundwater are less than significant. 3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: 1). As a condition of approval, the following measure, consistent with the mitigation approved as part of the Town and Country Village FEIR, is included in the proposed project and would be implemented during all phases of construction on Lots 9, 11, and 17 and all phases of future construction under the proposed PD rezoning:

34 Prior to issuance of a PD Permit for development of either (1) the Courtesy Chevrolet portion of the property, (2) the Building 9 area of the vacant former dry cleaner operation, or (3) the former agricultural area, a Removal Action Workplan will be developed in conjunction with the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the City of San Jose requirements. The RAW will describe the specific measures that will be implemented to reduce or avoid the potential exposure of future residents, workers, and users of the site to hazardous materials, if it is determined that such measures are necessary. The Workplan will include proposed remedial measures such as capping the contaminated soil with buildings or pavement and/or removing all or a portion of the contaminated soil for off-site treatment or disposal at an appropriate disposal site. Once implemented, the Workplan will reduce the levels of contamination within the areas designated for residential uses to acceptable threshold levels as established by local, State, and Federal regulatory agencies. 2). The project is required to conform to the following regulatory programs and to implement the following standard project conditions, consistent with OSHA requirements, to reduce impacts due to the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint: a. In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint. b. During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code Regulations , including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. c. All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESHAP guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure. d. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. e. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and notifications. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality: Specifically, the proposed development on Lots 9 and 17 include the following measures for avoiding and reducing impacts from construction stormwater runoff, consistent with the City's required standard permit conditions:

35 I Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sediment and other debris away from the drains. Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high winds. All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary. Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be watered or covered. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered. All paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas, and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites shall be swept daily with water sweepers. Utilize stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks; Vegetation in disturbed areas shall be replanted as quickly as possible. All unpaved entrances to the site shall be filled with rock to remove mud from tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system may also be installed at the request of the City. Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has been completed. A Storm Water Permit will be administered by the RWQCB. Prior to construction grading for the proposed land uses, the project proponent will file a "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare a SWPPP which addresses measures that would be included in the project to minimize and control construction and post-construction runoff. Measures will include, but are not limited to, the aforementioned RWQCB mitigation. The project proponent will submit a copy of the NOI and draft SWPPP to the City of San Jose for review and approval prior to start of construction on the project site. The certified SWPPP will be posted at the project site and will be updated to reflect current site conditions. When construction is complete, a Notice of Termination (NOT) for the General Permit for Construction will be filed with the RWQCB. The NOT will document that all elements of the SWPPP have been executed, construction materials and waste have been properly disposed of, and a post-construction storm water management plan is in place as described in the SWPPP for the site. 5. Noise: Consistent with the Municipal Code and in accordance with the San Jose 2040 General Plan FEIR, particularly Policy EC-1.7, the proposed project will be required by conditions of project approval to implement the following measures during all phases of construction on the project site:

36 Demolition and construction activities on- or off-site, within 500 feet of sensitive receptors, such as residential development, shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday, non-holidays only. Staging areas and construction material areas shall be located as far away as possible from adjacent land uses. All internal combustion engines for construction equipment used on the site shall be properly muffled and maintained. All unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. Construct solid plywood fences around the construction site where it is adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or noise-sensitive land uses. A temporary noise control blanket barrier would be erected, if necessary, along building facades facing the construction site. This would be at the discretion of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement should conflicts arise during construction. All stationary, noise-generating construction equipment, such as ah compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as practical from existing residences and businesses. o If pile driving is necessary, pre-drill founding pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the piles. Residential neighborhoods proximately located to the project site shall be notified in writing by the developer of the construction schedule at least seven days prior to the start of construction. A noise disturbance coordinator shall be designated who is responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the construction site and shall also be included in the notice sent to neighbors and the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement regarding the schedule. Impact NOI-1: Use of the proposed parking structure outside standard operating hours could have a significant effect on nearby residences. MM NOI-1.1: The project applicant shall construct the eastern fafade of the parking structure as a solid wall to shield nearby residences from project generated noise with the structure during sensitive evening hours. If it is not feasible to construct a solid wall on the eastern side of the parking structure, then the project applicant shall permanently prohibit, through the use of signs, gates, and/or movable barricades, parking within the two easternmost parking aisles (as demonstrated in Figure 4 of Appendix D) Monday through Saturday from 9:00 PM to 8:00 AM and Sunday from 7:00 PM to 8:00 AM.. 6. Transportation and Traffic; Impact TRAN-1: Implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact on the Winchester Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard, Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Tomas Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard, and San Tomas Expressway/Moorpark Avenue intersections under background plus project conditions.

37 MM TRAN-1.1: Winchester Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard: This intersection^which is also impacted under existing plus project conditions, has been identified by the City of San Jose as a protected intersection. Therefore, in lieu of physical improvements to the intersection, the project applicant shall construct offsetting improvements to other parts of the citywide transportation system. The final improvements required will be identified by the City of San Jose based on the traffic impact fees paid by the project. Offsetting improvements shall be required to be implemented prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the new buildings on Lots 9 and 17. Pursuant to the City's policy, the implementation of offsetting improvements would provide project benefits that outweigh the project's significant impact. MM TRAN-1.2: Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard: There are no feasible capacity improvements for this intersection due to right-of-way restrictions. The addition of project traffic to the intersection would result in a significant unavoidable impact. Therefore, the intersection is proposed for addition to the City's list of protected intersections. MM TRAN-1.3: San Tomas Expressway and Stevens Creek Boulevard: The LOS of this intersection would be improved to an acceptable LOS D with the addition of a fourth through lane. The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study identified the widening of San Tomas Expressway as a Tier 1 priority. The project applicant shall pay a fair share contribution towards the County's addition of new through lanes on San Tomas Expressway. The payment of fair share fees would reduce the project's impact to a less than significant level. MM TRAN-1.4: San Tomas Expressway and Moorpark: The LOS of this intersection would be improved to an acceptable LOS D with the addition of a fourth through lane. The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study identified the widening of San Tomas Expressway as a Tier 1 priority. The project applicant shall pay a fair share contribution towards the County's addition of new through lanes on San Tomas Expressway. The payment of fair share fees would reduce the project's impact to a less than significant level. Impact TRAN-2: Implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact on the westbound segment of between Meridian Avenue and 1-880, one northbound segment of between and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and one southbound segment of between N. Bascom Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce project impacts on local freeways to a less than significant level (Significant Unavoidable Impact). 7. Cultural Resources: Consistent with Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan policies ER-10.2 and ER-10.3, the following standard permit conditions are included in the project to reduce or avoid impacts to subsurface cultural resources. In the event that prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or. grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall be notified, and the archaeologist will examine the find and make appropriate recommendations prior to issuance of building permits.

38 Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery during monitoring would be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. 8. Air Quality The project will be required to implement BAAQMD dust control measures as a condition of project approval, as outlined below. Construction on Lots 9 and 17 and all future development under the proposed PD rezoning shall implement the following Best Management Practices that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible and feasible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible and feasible, as well, after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

39 Impact AIR-1: Full build out of the PD zoning would have a significant ROG, NOx, and PMi 0 operational air quality impact. There are no mitigation measures available to reduce identified ROG, NOx, and PMio emissions impacts to a less than significant level (Significant Unavoidable Impact). Impact AIR-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary community risk impact. MM AIR 2-1: All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent; MM AIR 2-2: All diesel-powered forklifts, aerial lifts, air compressors, and generators shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent; or the construction contractor shall use other measures to minimize construction period diesel particulate matter emissions to reduce the predicted cancer risk below the threshold. Such measures may include the use of alternativepowered equipment (e.g., LPG-powered forklifts, electric compressors), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures, provided that these measures are approved by the lead agency; and MM AIR 2-3: Minimize the number of hours that equipment will operate, including the use of idling restrictions. Traffic Memo - r ACCESS Primary access to the project site would be provided by Olsen Drive and Hatton Street. However, existing access points to Santana Row may be utilized including Winchester Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Proposed access from Dudley Avenue will be further evaluated at PD permit stage. As a result of this project, Santana Row would close off access between Olin Avenue and Olsen Drive. This would allow development of a pedestrian plaza between the existing Santana Row and the proposed Lot 9. Vehicular access to the site will be provided by four (4) limited (right-in/right-out) driveways; three (3) limited driveways along Winchester and one (1) limited driveway along Stevens Creek Boulevard. ANALYSIS ' Project traffic impacts and transportation level of service (LOS) have been calculated using Traffix, the City of San Jose and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) approved software.

40 City of San Jose Methodology: Twenty-nine (29) signalized intersections were analyzed for the AM and PM peak commute hours using TRAFFIX and conforming to the City of San Jose Level-Of-Service (LOS) Policy impact criteria. The results indicate that the intersection of Winchester Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard, Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Tomas Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard, and San Tomas Expressway/Moorpark Avenue would be significantly impacted by the addition of project traffic. The results of the analysis are summarized in the attached Table ES-1. The project is adding significant traffic to the intersections and surrounding areas: Monroe/Stevens Creek: This intersection is significantly impacted based on the City of San Jose level of service criteria (Council Policy 5-3). There are no feasible improvements that can be implemented at Monroe/Stevens Creek due to right-of-way restrictions and the addition of project traffic would result in a significant unavoidable impact. In addition, it is located within the transit corridor of Stevens Creek Boulevard and has been built to maximum capacity with Stevens Creek Boulevard measuring 135 feet wide. Currently, the I-280/I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard Improvement Project has improved traffic flow and circulation on Monroe/Stevens Creek by reconfiguring the full cloverleaf I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard interchange, widening of the overcrossing at Stevens Creek Boulevard over 1-880, constructing a direct connector from Northbound to Northbound 1-880, and constructing a direct connector ramp from Southbound to northbound Monroe Street. Based on the geometric limits of Monroe/Stevens Creek and the concurrent improvements from other developments to the surrounding area, Monroe/Stevens Creek should be added to the City of San Jose's Protected Intersection list. San Tomas/Stevens Creek & San Tomas/Moorpark: These intersections are significantly impacted based on the City of San Jose level of service criteria (Council Policy 5-3). The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study identifies the widening of San Tomas Expressway by adding a fourth through lane in both the north and south approaches to improve the intersection's level of service. Currently, the project is scheduled to begin construction in October/November of 2015 with the widening from Homestead Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Additional funding is required to continue the project through Stevens Creek Boulevard. This improvement would reduce the average delay for vehicular traffic to an acceptable level during AM and PM peak hour in both the north and south approaches. This project is conditioned to contribute a Fair- Share Contribution to the County project, which provides mitigation for the project impacts. Santa Clara County CMP Methodology: Twelve (12) signalized intersections were analyzed for the AM and PM peak commute hours using TRAFFIX and conforming to the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements. The results indicate that the studied signalized intersections would not be significantly impacted by the addition of project traffic, according to CMP LOS criteria. The results of the analysis are summarized in the attached Table ES-1.

41 City of San Jose Protected Intersections: The analysis shows that one (1) intersection at Winchester Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard will be significantly impacted by this project. This project will be required to provide offsetting transportation system improvements. The specific offsetting improvements will be identified at the future Planning PD Permit stage and the value of the offsetting improvements must be equal to $2,821 per net peak hour project trips (2015 rate) for one intersection impact, as set forth in the LOS Policy. In addition, the project is proposing to add Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard to the Protected Intersections list. The project would then be required to provide offsetting improvements equal to $4,232 per net peak hour project trip (2015 rate) for two or more protected intersection impacts. Signal Warrant Studies: Signal warrant studies were performed at Hatton Street/Tisch Way, Hatton Street/Olsen Drive, Garage Entrance/Olsen Drive, and Dudley Avenue/Tisch Way. The intersections of Hatton Street/Tisch Way, and Dudley Avenue/Tisch Way meet peak hour warrants for signalization under project conditions. However, due to close proximity of the intersections (less than 200 feet), signalization of only Hatton Street/Tisch is recommended. Left-turn Storage Analysis: Left-turn lane storage analyses were performed at the intersections of Winchester Boulevard/Santana Row/Redwood Avenue/Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The analysis indicated that these intersections currently and are projected to exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity under project conditions during peak hours. The segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Winchester Boulevard and Monroe is planned to have improvements as part of the Valley Fair expansion. These improvements will improve capacity and traffic flow. Additional left-turn storage analyses were performed at Olin Avenue/Olsen Drive/Tisch Way and Winchester Boulevard. The analysis indicated that these intersections would exceed the existing storage capacity under project conditions for both AM and PM peak hours. The Winchester Boulevard/Tisch Way Southbound left-turn pocket currently provides 150 feet of vehicle storage, or approximately six (6) vehicles. Under background conditions, the queue is projected to extend by one (1) vehicle and under background plus project, it is anticipated to exceed by four (4) vehicles in both the AM and PM peak hours. The left-turn pocket may be extended, however it would require removal of existing mature trees and landscaping, therefore the left-turn pocket extension is not recommend. Freeway Analysis: Eighteen (18) freeway segments of State Route 17, Interstate 880, and Interstate 280 were analyzed for possible freeway impacts. The results of the analysis indicate the project would have significant impact on mixed flow lanes on two directional freeway segments and HOV lanes on one directional freeway segment during at least one peak hour. The results of the analysis are summarized in the attached Table ES-2. Project conditions: a) Add Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard to the City of San Jose's list of protected intersections. b) Conform to the Protected Intersection Policy for which traffic impacts will be mitigated by payment of the Protected Intersection Fee. The fee as of July 1, 2015 is equal to

42 $2,821 per net peak hour project trip for one intersection impact and $4,232 per net peak hour project trip for multiple intersection impacts. The fee will automatically adjust annually on July 1 st based on a 3.5 percent annual cost escalation. The total amount of offsetting improvements is approximately $3,017,416 based on 713 net new peak hour trips must be paid prior to issuance of Public Works Clearance. c) Fair-share contribution towards the County Expressway Plan for San Tomas Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard and San Tomas Expressway/Moorpark Avenue in order to add a fourth through travel lane. The fair-share contribution amount will be determined prior to PD permit issuance. d) Installation of a new traffic signal at Hatton Street/Tisch Way. RECOMMENDATION: With the inclusion of the above conditions, the subject project will be in conformance with both the City of San Jose Transportation Level of Service Policy (Council Policy 5-3) and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program.

43 R< CAL PMENT REZONING ent Rezoning to rezone from the A(PD) Planned anned Development Zoning District to expand (Santana Row), increase the commercial square f 1,506,341 square feet), allow an additional 47 d increase the number of hotel rooms by six (to 10), with minor modifications to the existing use PLANNED DEVELOPMENT F PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONTACTS SHEET INDEX OWNER/APPLICANT OWNER/APPLICANT ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING FEDERAL REALITY INVESTMENTTRUST 356 SANTANA ROW, SUITE 1005 SAN JOSE, CA PHONE_ FEDERAL REALITY INVESTMENTTRUST 1628 EAST JEFFERSON STREET ROCKVILLE, MD PHONE_ WRNS STUDIO 501 SECOND STREET, SUITE 402 SAN FRANCISCO, CA PHONE AO COVER SHEET A1.1 PROPOSED LAND USE PL, A1.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDAR A1.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDAR A2 AERIAL MAP A3 VICINITY MAP A4 EXISTING SITE & SURROU A5.1 CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR A5.2 CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR A6 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION C1.1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING/ C1.2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING / C2.1 CONCEPTUAL UTILITIES P C2.2 CONCEPTUAL UTILITIES P C3.1 CONCEPTUAL STORM WA C3.2 CONCEPTUAL STORM WA LI CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAF L2 CONCEPTUAL SITE ELEVA L3 CONCEPTUAL TREE DISPC L4 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAF CIVIL ENGINEERING BKF ENGINEERS 981 RIDDER PARK DRIVE, SUITE 100 SAN JOSE, CA PHONE PLAN SET REVISIONS SUBMITTAL SUBMITTAL SUBMITTAL SUBMITTAL PD REZONING S REVISED PD RE2 REVISED PD RE; REVISED PD RE]

44 A(PD) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GROSS ACRES 0.0 ACRES 1,229 DU 220 ROOMS 1,506,341 S.F. GROSS BUILDING AREA 6,500-8,900 SPACES 24 Q UNKNOWN XND USE BREAKDOWN BY AREA IMMERCIAL 2UARE FOOTAGE) 0, , ,000 >50,000 >75,000 TO 1,506,341 HOTEL PARKING SPACES (ROOMS) 220 2,500-3, ,500-2, , UP TO 220 6,500-8,900 E FOOTAGE MAYBE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN AREAS GO ODaoaaaoD RESIDENTIAL LEGEND PRIMARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM LATE NIGHT USE I PRIMARY ACCESS POINTS NOTE: - See conceptual site plan she 20 for Street Designations, DE STANDARDS AMO MITKSATIOK R MAXIMUM BUILDING HEK DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

45

46

47 WESTFIELO VALLEY FAIR., X^T'/N ^ 1 4 i. *5l SANTANAROW ACRES I l[fcntbl

48 DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER SAN JOSE CITY COLLEGE

49

50 PROPOSED LOT 9 PARKING EXISTING KBTOWNHOUSES EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING SANTANA ROW RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS EXISTING MISORA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING APPROVED LOT 11 RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING AERIAL VIEW- LOOKING FROM THE NORTHWEST EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS PROPOSED LOT 17 OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSED LOT 17 OFFICE PARKING PROPOSED LOT 9 RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROPOSED LOT 9 PARKING EXISTING KBTOWNHOUSES

51 EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS PROPOSED LOT 17 OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSED LOT 17 OFFICE PARKING PROPOSED LOT 9 PARKING EXISTING KBTOWNHOUSES AERIAL VIEW - LOOKING FROM THE SOUTHEAST EXISTING KBTOWNHOUSES PROPOSED LOT 9 PARKING PROPOSED LOT 9 COMMERCIAL/RETAIL BUILDING APPROVED LOT 11 RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDING EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS PROPOSED LOT 17 OFFICE BUILDING

52 LOT 17 [OFFICE BUILD:KG BEYOND) LOT 9 - (PARKING STRUCTURE) LOT 9 - (RETAIL & OFFICE BUILDING) SECTION B - SITE ELEVATION EAST (1'=40') LOT 9 - (RETAIL & OFFICE BUILDING) LOT 17 - (OFFICE BUIL

53 \(N) PRECAST W«J_ ZG^ AC GRIND AND OVERLAY NEW ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT FLOW LINE rzzzzzzzzzz/z/. ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION AREA DRAIN BUBBLER BOX BACK OF WALK UP OF GUTTER LOW POINT MANHOLE DUDLEY AVE

54

55 \ Xorotiy ^ 12" SD 0 S=0.5S ~ WV 1)2.0 1

56 GRAPHIC ( IN F 1 Inch * PROPERTY UNE VALLEY GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER UNDERGROUND PARKING GAF VERTICAL CURB BIORETENHON BASIN - SANITARY UNE STORM DRAIN UNE (TREATEI HEAT PUMP SUPPLY/RETURI WATER UNE GAS UNE PG&E ELECT/GAS TRENCH \private TELEPHONE/FIRE ULARM/CABLE llolnt TRENCH GREASE WASTE 'RAIN WATER LEADER DOMESTIC WATER UNE FIRE WATER UNE AREA DRAIN OVER FLOW DRAIN SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER CLEANOU STORM ORAIN MANHOLE STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT FIRE HYDRANT PG&E VAULTS TRANSFORMER I BACKFLOW PREVENTER Y/ATER METER (BY SJWC) IRRIGATION WATER METER ( DOUBLE CH "ASSEMBtY FIRE ALARM VAULT SUMP PUMP BUBBLER BOX I TELEPHONE VAULT STORM DRAIN MECHANICAL TREATMENT DEVICE

57

58 BIORETENTION AND FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER AREAS MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION GUIDELINES: av&t M nrmtf&if/vm. rofcpcrt trd sve.wo*>rr4tnavptckiu* TUmUeJtet araiiytettwrfrgin *,fkt i/fl Mtfwj tenarg *i* otpr* kyct cr ouw J»><r, Bloratinifon Area ttatnltnanee Project Address ard Cccss Streets^ Assessor's Pirtel Ho,: _ Property Owner: I. Routine Maintenance Activities The principal mawenirw* objscth* la to prevent sedrn«ritbujdt.p and dogging. which reduces polubnl removal effldsney and may lead to Harefcrrion area faiire. RoiAne mabsenanee aetvsae. and the frequency it which they v9 be ear^ibed, are shj*n In Table 1. It. Problbitiona The use of pettlddee end quick ukase hrttaai* shab be mnntlud. and the prinepks of hbgrtled pest management (IPM) followed: 1. Employ non-chemical controls (btolopsea!. physical and cusural ccrfiob) bebre uvng ehamfcala to treat a pett probkm. 7- Prune plants property and at the appropriate tnve of year. 3. Provide adequakltrigibofifortindseapep'anfo. Oo not over water. 4. Ih&fartfzerirteiriieusofitfitinglrxrealetadeltcaeAcy. SbiKthaseorergaric fertsuriaprobtahb. CluckwithrmmtopaRy lortpectfcraqu'rerrvtrtls. 5. Pest eortnt should avoid harming non-target organvns. or negatively alfeejirg at ard wattrquatty and pubgc heahh. Apply chemical eon tub only wtwn rosnioring kk*causttatprmftlatri«and non-chemical methods art notketpng pests below accapbbb tasks. Whan pe stock a art required, apply the least tmte and thi kast persistant pssfede Put nil provide idaquak psstcorlrol Do not apply pes&fots on preschediied bask. 5. Sweepuptpi'edfertgzirardpeitodoL Oonotwatheway orbtaysuchspls.?. Do notovtrapply pestdde. Spray only whero tha Inkrtatlon tiltu. Foaowth* manirtaduac'a instructions formiing and applying malarial*. 6. Only Scented. MnedpeKb&e appealers thai apply peitiebe*. 9. Apply pea&ides at tha ipproprtala One to maitnlw their ifbaeuveross and rrinvntra iheu^hoodotdeemrgkgpaaaedcxintonrnoff. Wththectcepbcnofproam* rgentpestfciies. evo'dspf lea tbn ft rah tseapeckd. 10. Uiwsnkdfonwed pesticide t ehal be dtpottd at hazardous waste. Starving weler that not remiri h the traabrent ma ihtu for more than free days, to prevent mosquto generation. Should any moiquio bouse arise, contact the Sards Clara Cotnt/Veifor Control CttmtSCCVCO), ai needed lor assistance. Moiqirte Urriddst thai be eppfedonfy when absoutely necessary, ee tndealed by the SCCVCO, and then only by a Scented prefetafonal or contractor. ContactlnbrmaSon for SCCVCO a provided beta*. UK Mosquito Abatement Contact Informal/on Saru Ctira Cotady Victor Ccrrtrol District 1550 Beeper Or. San JoteCa Phb408-91M770 IV, Inspections The asachtd Bbretention Area Inspection and Ua'ntenence Chcddbt shal be used to ccndud inapectiona monthly (or ai needed). kkntjy needed ma'ntanance. and record mameranee that b conducted. Property. Property i Type oft C Month C Other.. Traaiagft SWoKi StonawaterTrratajtet Mrasert Opacities sad Mitilnuct latptcdea Report for tkectaufciat5uh»a JCirhtiel Dneleparat This report ud attsrbed ibipcction sad Miiaicninrc CbccMisti doeumcalthe infection tad miiikaiace conducted for the identified swnawster tiwnaroimeasures) sobjeet to the Maistmaocc Agreement bcwcca the City tad the property owner during ihc intuit repcrtiag period indicated Mow. 'V. Summary of Inapectiona and Maintenance: 1 Sumraarice the followia; mrarroidcnuiiagihe auazbed latpccaoi a:u Maiairsaace ChroUirts: AiMtitoo: Cceeesi I. Property Information: Property Address ce A FN: Propatv Owner: R. Contact Information: Nune of pcrooa to eo&uct rojjnfing this report: Phone aumberofejaucl person: i-mill Address to which oorrepeedence refjnfiiji this report should be directed. IS. Reporting Period: This report, with the attacked ceaplctedfosfectiaa checklists, documents the ialpeetkru tad mttnteasnce of the Identified ircatroeo t measure* Airing the time period from!o. IV. Idcesaytc# Ksseerof Tmtsa Stomwater Treatment Measure Informaaon: Type eftraisca Mcanro teafa trtiaacitlanc eta VI. Sediment Ramoval: Total amcrzat of accumulated MdtmcDt mnoved from (he aormwiicrtreatincac mcisurc(j) daiiaj the rcpcrtiaj period: cubic yards. How ni udaital disposed? luiliiu olhcrlocalioooa-sile as described iaaadauowrd by ihcmaislcaaaccplaa Type or Address Phones' GRAPHIC SCALE IS X ( IN FEET )

59 LOT! 7 LANDSCAPE DESIGN TO B ADDRESSED DURING PD PEF

60 PFfffWPrR'' ill# 1 \ S$iRk! fif$&v # ',1 I 1$ i!! m ll c E I g: a V t?oi i; 3 i? i I' -Jl,j,:i T^ r i' lsjlu ;-y. "9 Ci a i 3 M - E" t ~t"»' _ ^ ^ l' '*. J. 3 ''*T - ~:y.^ km dj-i 8 ilki; JL i'a. Ma; V. Jffl J- Ir-.^afiRia ^ ; JKTirr ^ g ffl D UB (1/16"=1'-0") NORTH ELEVATION AT PLAZA {1/16"=1 '-0") fi.;: -n : \ 'Ft Frv,0<>:^0-dL' X> : <> <>' <>''.K-, ^' '1 i'. j /[_' u' i.l.. SEJEg4Eti r»" : T '" TI~ A 0 I'dj =,V ^ (: -n--u i it--'i lid W, ei3 Oi _ ps i ^FIH 1 o\ an \ >i o u,j ' m&'_' EES' H ;'.. ' i" --03S3E53 CQ 4 60 oo..so *.. <m2.'l v s L> : L- L>:i: -i^v»;'//.: > * * s> <Q> O C- / C"C> SS -/sct'l'v.-; [ " <V'" "><'. OQT" r,i Qi (E33EH3 'i LllcFI r# H' AAA AAA Eu ft. k -~ i>- ~-r> i,^ - v;,;- - ' n--r-1" ~""" -? "T Sr"^ ' ^ _aat En Ha 1 awk^a if mm > 'a -O^-, _ P, a~. i, -.- * ~ - y"*«4 J 'T-^- 1 1 I "P: «* j *, EE' : FEifE' '" :< ^fr ' > 'r ffllr. Ill iw.. > L -"..» -V * "'V

61 -J i! ft!8 Tf '8 'AISL'- L0T17 LANDSCAPE DESIGN! ADDRESSED DURING PD

62 aououmius> hekratoj* PMihowcsars tbcusboata ixsdcts axauicria sclamju jaa»ooes kugmmiea occumivy bostoh ivr fn) TSUPST WE potato we

63 2/12/2015 Development concerns - Keyon, David Development concerns brian darby <brianinsanjose@gmail.com> Wed 2/11/ :37 PM Inbox To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOfficeofMayorSamLiccardo@sanjoseca.gov>; Districtl <districtl@sanjoseca.gov>; District2 <District2@sanjoseca.gov>; District3 <district3@sanjoseca.gov>; District4 <District4@sanjoseca.gov>; District5 <District5@sanjoseca.gov>; District 6 <District6@sanjoseca.gov>; District7 <District7@sanjoseca.gov>; District8 <district8@sanjoseca.gov>; District9 <district9@sanjoseca.gov>; District 10 <DistrictlO@sanjoseca.gov>; Keyon, David <david.keyon@sanjoseca.gov>; City Clerk <city.clerk@sanjoseca.gov>; Please include these in the public record in the next Open Government if appropriate. Thanks Brian Darby February 11, Dry Yard Drive San Jose, CA Dear Project Manager, Planning Commission, Councilperson; I am writing to express my concern about the new development taking place at Santana Row (Santana Row Expansion Project File No. PDC The original Santana Row Project was developed in the early 2000's. There was little if any mitigation concerning traffic, congestion, drain on city resources, and other factors. I remember. meeting with representatives of the city of San Jose and federal Realty when Santana Row was being proposed. They spoke about how there would be no/negligible traffic impact and that Winchester Avenue and Stevens Creek along with Moorpark would be upgraded before there was any further development. Absolutely none of this happened and I found that to be a common theme when these developments are proposed. Often times there is a negligence to upgraded the supporting infrastructure, basically the supporting infrastructure is 1 to 2 decades behind the development that depends on that upgraded infrastructure. There are also concerns as to community resources such as police, fire, and utilities. California is struggling with an unprecedented drought in the continued development causes strain on vital water resources. In the EIR's that I read there is "language" the deals with this but in the real world little is done to mitigate these issues. Many of the neighbors that reside in this area feel unheard, they go to meetings, write s and letters, and make phone calls. Decisions are made at times diametrically opposed to the position of the many neighborhood organizations and individuals that reside in this area. Many neighbors expressed their concerns over these many years, though the neighbors were allowed to express himself and city staff listened it seemed like little was done to mitigate the issues. Now Federal Realty is proposing a new development which will dramatically increase traffic in the area. I know that the hope of developing these Urban Villages is to increase local ridership of VTA 1/3

64 2/12/2015 Development concerns - Keyon, David (which has made absolutely no changes in the Winchester route to facilitate expanded ridership absolutely nothing has been done to facilitate more bus routes on Winchester). It should be noted that there have been changes on Stevens Creek with a new express route. The problem is there is no publicly accessible data that we can access to see if this one key area of changing the way people commute has been achieved. There are no benchmarks within any of these projects to determine if VTA ridership, walking to local locations, or bicycling to locations has increased. These were critical factors focused on in the envision 2040 plan. I understand the need for the development of housing and jobs within San Jose. The problem is I believe this planning is somewhat haphazard and does not take into account the needs of the existing neighbors. They are allowed to express their concerns in s and letters that are often, basically ignored, or placated. The traffic situation within the Winchester Stevens Creek corridor is untenable and from my experience it will not be dealt with for another decade or more. Also there is proposed development at the Winchester theaters along with a rather substantial development at Winchester and Williams. All of the letters and public comments I have observed have expressed deep concern with traffic, congestion, and further stress on city resources. I will be honest none of these issues are dealt with at all. They are placated but the situations continue I have lived in the Winchester/Stevens Creek area for over 22 years and relatively nothing has been done to facilitate the increase in development in this area. I am writing this to express my opposition to the massive development taking place at Santana Row Until concrete assurances are in place to help mitigate the increase in traffic these are not found in the other EIR's in development in this area. There is some mention as to an upgrade at Winchester and Moorpark but this will not facilitate smoother traffic on Winchester or Moorpark. As has been expressed at Council several times the upgrades at Stevens Creek/880 will not mitigate local traffic at all. And this was known at the inception of this upgrade but it was not adequately expressed to the public when these issues were raised. The fact that developers pay for the EIR give me great concern this is an apparent conflict of interest that the city seems to ignore. Other cities do not allow this to take place. It is nice to be able to express oneself at Council, rules and open government, or other government functions but when one feels absolutely totally ignored on almost every issue expressed it becomes frustrating. The people in this area feel totally ignored because they have been. Many of my neighbors have expressed their unwillingness to become involved because they have contacted city government concerning traffic in the area increase crime and other issues. They were treated kindly and city staff listened intently and nothing at all was done. I agree this is probably a dramatization as the city can only do so much when mitigating development over private land. But the drain on resources, the increased traffic, and the effect on emergency services have not been mitigated for at least the last 10 years. That is a decade I would hold it's, probably more than 15 to 20 years. The city of San Jose is struggling with meeting basic requirements concerning police services. Since the passage of measure B which changed retirement and benefits for police officers outside of the bargaining process was a slap right in the face of every single police person that serves in the city of San Jose that is just the plain fact. This is hampered the city's efforts to minimize crime or to even go after potentially dangerous individuals. When homicide and burglary detectives need to go out on 911 patrol to meet the basic needs of the citizenry there is something dramatically wrong with the people who chose to run for office and chose to lead the city and their policy decisions. Many aspects of Measure B have been found to be unconstitutional in the city has not fared well in its constant litigation to push this legislation which was obviously ill-conceived. The city has spent millions of dollars in litigation, monies that could've been used in other areas. It is a travesty that this was allowed to happen, many on the Council supported Measure B. I understand the need for pension reform but it could have been achieved by honest forthright negotiations and not an ill-conceived ballot measure. 2/3