Impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources. Similar to the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative, the Revised Project would have no impacts on tribal cultural resources during operation. However, significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources could result from construction of Revised Project, but with implementation of the Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1, CUL-
2.2, and CUL-2.3, these would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (LTS/M) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative development in the city would result in demolition or alteration of non-archaeological and archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources under CEQA. Therefore, Revised Project, similar to the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative, could contribute to a cumulative loss of tribal cultural resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2.1, CUL-2.2, and CUL-2.3, which require an archaeological monitoring plan, cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction crews participating in ground-disturbing activities, and stopping work if archaeological deposits are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, would reduce impacts to less than significant. (LTS/M)
City of Santa Clara Final EIR
Mission Point Project
Attachment 3. Impacts Resulting from Revised Project (Option B) 18 November 1, 2024 ICF 103980.0.001
Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities and Service Systems impacts of the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative and Revised Project would be similar to those identified for the Project, as described in the DEIR and summarized below.
Topics Found to Have No Impact. Similar to the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative, the Revised Project would not result in the generation of unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations regarding solid waste disposal. Therefore, there would be no impact related to complying with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. (NI) Utility Relocation, Construction, or Expansion. Similar to the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative, the Revised Project would upgrade all utilities to meet the demand for the increased number of onsite residents and employees. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-
3.1 and WQ-3.2 would ensure that potential construction impacts of the Project related to exceeding the capacity of existing or proposed stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant with mitigation Therefore, similar to the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. (LTS/M) Water Supply. Construction activities under the Revised Project would be served by existing water systems and infrastructure. and impacts on water supplies during construction would be less than significant, similar to the Project. (LTS)
During operation, the Revised Project total water demand would be 646.4 acre-feet per year, same as the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative. Therefore, as with the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative, implementation of the Revised Project would have a less- than-significant impact on water supplies. (LTS)
Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Construction activities associated with the Revised Project would be served by the existing sewer system and infrastructure and would result in a less-than- significant impact on wastewater treatment providers during construction, same as the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative. (LTS)
During operation, the Revised Project estimated BWF would be 51,533 gpd by 2035, same as the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative and therefore impacts on wastewater facilities would likewise be less-than-significant. (LTS)
Solid Waste Capacity. Demolition under the Revised Project would be the same as under the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative and would not constitute a substantial portion of the solid waste facilities’ daily permitted capacity. Therefore, the solid waste facilities that would serve the Project site during construction would be able to accommodate the construction waste generated by the Revised Project and would be served by a landfill with adequate permitted capacity to accommodate its solid waste disposal needs. (LTS) Cumulative Impacts. The Revised Project would result in utilities and service system impacts similar to those of the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative. Therefore, cumulative impacts under the Revised Project, including impacts related to utility relocation, water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, and solid waste capacity, would be less than cumulatively considerable. (LTS)
City of Santa Clara Final EIR
Mission Point Project
Attachment 3. Impacts Resulting from Revised Project (Option B) 19 November 1, 2024 ICF 103980.0.001
3. Conclusions and Findings Regarding Recirculation of
the Draft EIR
As described above, the Revised Project (Option B) would result in impacts that are the same as or similar to those of the Project (Option A) and some Air Quality and Population and Housing impacts would be less than those caused by the Project. No impacts under the Revised Project would be greater than the Project. Therefore, neither a new significant environmental impact nor a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact as disclosed in the EIR would result from Option B. Thus, the impacts of Option B are fully within the scope of the analysis in the Final EIR.
With respect to whether Option B triggers a recirculation of the EIR. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires recirculation “when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review” but prior to certification of the Final EIR. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.) New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[a].) “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from a project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5).
The analysis of impacts from Option B, as detailed above, shows that the first two conditions requiring recirculation are not met because:
1. Option B would not result in any new significant environmental effects and
2. Option B would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Further, the third condition requiring recirclution is not met because:
City of Santa Clara Final EIR
Mission Point Project
Attachment 3. Impacts Resulting from Revised Project (Option B) 20 November 1, 2024 ICF 103980.0.001
3. The project proponent is proposing the Revised Project (Option B), which, as detailed above, is essentalilly the same as the Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative, which was fully analyzed in the DEIR.
Finally, the fourth condition is not met because:
4. All Project modifications or amendments to the EIR are either environmentally benign or environmentally neutral, and thus represents the kinds of common changes that occur and supplemental information that is received during the environmental review process as it works toward its conclusion; Comments provided on the EIR have not shown the EIR to be inadequate or conclusory.
Therefore, inclusion of this analysis as Attachment 3 to the FEIR does not constitute “significant new information” that would trigger recirculation because the analysis does not result in any new significant environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or feasible project alternatives that would clearly lessen the environmental effects of the Project that Kylli has declined to adopt. This analysis clarifies and amplifies the conclusions of the Project and Reduced Office/Increased Housing Alternative and concludes that the Revised Project is within the scope of the EIR.