CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
FOR THE UNIVERSITY STATION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Introduction
The City of Santa Clara (City), as the Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report for the University Station Residential Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2025050963) (Final EIR or EIR”). The Final EIR is a project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the CEQA (CEQA Guidelines). The Final EIR consists of the April 2026 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and August 2026 Final Environmental Impact Report. The EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision-makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the project. The EIR addresses the potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project and identified feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate those impacts.
In determining to approve the University Station Residential Project, which is described in more detail in Section II, the City Council certifies that the EIR reflects the City's own independent judgment and analysis under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(a)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a)(3). The City Council further makes and adopts the following findings of fact and adopts and incorporates into the project the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (“administrative record”). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a), the EIR was presented to the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to making the findings provided in Sections IV to VIII, below. The conclusions presented in these findings are based upon the EIR and other evidence in the administrative record. The documents that constitute the administrative record on which the City Council's findings are based are located at the Planning Division office at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California. This information is presented in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).
Project Description
Project Location
The approximately 10.96 gross acre project site is comprised of two parcels, one located at 451 El Camino Real in Santa Clara (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 230-09-020; 10.02 acres) and one parcel in San José without a physical address (APN 230-09-021; 0.94 acres) that is accessed via the site in Santa Clara. The project site is situated between El Camino Real to the southwest and the Southern Pacific railroad lines (that serve Caltrain, Amtrak, Altamont Corridor Express, and Union Pacific freight trains) to the northeast. The site is currently developed with four office buildings, two parking garages, and surface parking lots. The Santa Clara portion of the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Santa Clara Station Regional Mixed Use (Santa Clara Station Regional Commercial + Santa Clara Station High Density Residential) and is in the Planned Development zoning district. The San José portion of the site is designated and zoned Light Industrial (LI).
Project Overview
As proposed, the project would remove the existing four office buildings (which total 217,000 square feet of office space) and two parking garages and construct a new five-story building with 297 multi-family residential units and 111 three-story townhouse units distributed amongst 26 buildings. Thirteen of the townhouse units would be located on what is currently the 0.94-acre San José parcel (which will be annexed to Santa Clara as described below) and the remaining townhouse units and the multi-family building would be on the Santa Clara parcel. The average density of the project would be 37 dwelling units per acre.
The project would comply with Santa Clara’s Affordable Housing Ordinance and the affordability requirements of the State Density Bonus Law. The proposed multi-family residential building would provide 15 percent of the 297 units at affordable income levels averaging to no more than 100 percent of area median income (AMI), of which 10 percent would be affordable to lower income households. The proposed townhouses would provide 15 percent of the 111 units at affordable income levels averaging to no more than 100 percent of AMI, of which 10 percent would be affordable to moderate income households.
All five levels of the proposed multi-family residential building would include residential units. The multi-family residential building’s roof would include screened mechanical units. The maximum height of the multi-family residential building would be 60 feet above grade, as measured to the top of the parapet. The maximum height of the townhouse buildings would be 38 feet above grade, as measured to the top of the roof.
The proposed multi-family residential building would be set back approximately 10 to 15 feet from El Camino Real, and the townhouse development would be set back approximately 10 to 28 feet from the northern property line and approximately 150 feet from Campbell Avenue. The project would construct a new 8.5-foot-wide sidewalk along the project frontage adjacent to the proposed multi-family residential building on El Camino Real and along the project frontage on Campbell Avenue. The project would construct a 10-foot soundwall along the northern boundary of the site.
Site Access and Parking
The proposed project would be accessed via four 26-foot-wide driveways located on El Camino Real, Franklin Street and Campbell Avenue, which would connect to internal drive lanes within the development.
The multi-family residential building would include a parking garage on the western end of the building. The parking garage would have 359 parking spaces, including dedicated parking spaces to accommodate electric vehicles (EV) consistent with 2025 Energy Code and 2025 CALGreen Tier 1 requirements. The parking garage would include six levels of parking (including a roof level) and have a maximum height of 64 feet, as measured to the top of the parapet.
Each townhouse unit would include an attached two-car garage on the ground floor, for a total of 222 parking spaces. All 222 parking spaces would have EV charging, consistent with 2025 Energy Code and 2025 CALGreen Tier 1 requirements. Specifically, 111 spaces would be Level 2 EV ready, and the other 111 spaces would be Level 1 EV ready. The project would include 12 on-street parking spaces on the site’s internal streets which would be available to guests of the townhouse development. In addition, the project would provide 408 long-term bicycle parking spaces (297 for the multi-family development and 111 spaces for the townhouse development) and 15 short-term bicycle parking spaces (at the multi-family development).
Transportation Demand Management Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) states that multi-family residential development projects are required to adopt a 20 percent reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) with a 10 percent reduction through active transportation demand management (TDM) measures. The project TDM plan, completed in March 2025, includes the TDM measures and features listed below.
Designating a Transportation Coordinator on-site
Providing a New Resident Welcome Flyer
Providing an Online Kiosk/TDM Information Board
Providing trip planning assistance to residents
Providing transit resources to residents (e.g., schedules, route maps & other info) Constructing pedestrian scale lighting on-site
Constructing new walkways on-site
Providing on-site bicycle parking
Providing biking resources to residents (e.g., bikeway maps & other information) Providing ride-matching assistance to residents
Providing residents with information regarding the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Ride-matching Service Providing incentives to residents for new carpools/vanpools Providing residents with information regarding the VTA Guaranteed Ride Home Service Providing residents with a high-bandwidth internet connection General Plan Amendment, Detachment, Pre-Zoning and Annexation of the San José 0.94-acre Parcel The project would annex the 0.94-acre San José parcel to the City of Santa Clara, which would require the City of San José to approve the detachment of the parcel and the City of Santa Clara to approve the pre-zoning and annexation of the parcel to the City. The Santa Clara General Plan would be amended to designate the annexed parcel to Santa Clara Station Regional Mixed Use (Santa Clara Station Regional Commercial and Santa Clara Station High Density Residential) and the annexed parcel would be rezoned to the Mixed Use-Regional Commercial (MU-RC) zoning district.
Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must identify the objectives sought by the proposed development project. The applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows:
Support the State’s housing goals during a time of housing crisis by providing much needed housing, including affordable housing.
Redevelop the property consistent with the land use policies and strategies provided in Plan Bay Area 2050 such as integrating affordable housing into all major housing projects and transforming aging office buildings into vibrant neighborhoods.
Redevelop the project site consistent with the vision of the Santa Clara General Plan for higher-density residential development (37 to 50 dwelling units per acre) along major transportation corridors.
Provide a mix of for-sale and rental housing at a range of income levels and unit sizes, to assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations in accordance with its Housing Element.
Annex the San José portion of the project site into Santa Clara to provide for efficient delivery of services and utilities.
Replace underutilized office buildings and surface parking lots with modern, high-quality residential units and associated landscaping and amenities.
Enhance the architectural and visual character of the neighborhood by improving the site with high-quality architecture and landscaping.
Deliver an economically feasible development balancing market conditions and City objectives.
III. Environmental Review Process
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for the University Station Residential Project. The NOP was sent to state and local responsible and trustee agencies and federal agencies on May 23, 2025. The 30-day comment period concluded on June 23, 2025. The NOP provided a description of the project and identified probable environmental effects that could result from implementation of the project. The City also held a public scoping meeting on June 4, 2025, during the NOP comment period to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and content of the EIR. The meeting was held at the City of Santa Clara City Hall.
The City prepared the Draft EIR for the University Station Residential Project in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for 45 days from April 10, 2026 through May 25, 2026. During this period, the Draft EIR was available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the Availability and completion of the Draft EIR was sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP, as well as to the State Clearinghouse. Written comments from public agencies, organizations, and individuals concerning the environmental review contained in the Draft EIR were sent to the City during the 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR.
Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR includes responses to comments received by the City on the Draft EIR and any necessary text revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions do not require recirculation of the EIR because none of the revisions constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in as much as these changes would not result in a new environmental impact and would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; and the project sponsor would adopt the mitigation measures. Responses to public agency comments on the EIR were sent to the commenting agencies on August 7, 2026.
On September 2, 2026, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR.
IV. Findings
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the EIR about project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis for each impact in the EIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR, and state the City’s findings and rationale therefore on the significance of each impact with the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR supporting the EIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project’s impacts.
In adopting the mitigation measures outlined below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is hereby referred to, adopted, and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
Sections V through VII, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts the Final EIR identified as less than significant with adopted mitigation. No impacts in the Final EIR were found to be Significant and Unavoidable. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
V. Significant Adverse Impacts Identified in the Final EIR that are Reduced to a Less than Significant Level by Mitigation Measures Adopted and Incorporated Into the Project The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that the following potentially significant impacts will be reduced below a level of significance with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. These findings are based on Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment, which would constitute a significant impact under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Findings BIO-1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant biological resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM BIO-1.1 and MM BIO-1.2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce biological resource impacts to a less than significant level by scheduling demolition and construction activities outside of the nesting season, when feasible, or by completing pre-construction surveys for nesting birds prior to the initiation of construction activities during the nesting season.
MM BIO-1.1: The project applicant shall schedule demolition and construction activities to avoid the nesting season if feasible. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area, extends from February 1st through August 31st (inclusive).
MM BIO-1.2: If demolition and construction cannot be scheduled between September 1st and January 31st (inclusive), pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February 1st through April 30th inclusive) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May 1st through August 31st inclusive).
During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats immediately adjacent to the construction areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist 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 shall not be disturbed during project construction.
Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any grading or demolition permits (whichever occurs first), the ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or Director’s designee.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Construction activities associated with the project could disturb unknown archaeological resources.
Findings CUL-1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant cultural resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM CUL-1.1 through CUL-1.5, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid and/or reduce significant impacts to unknown buried archaeological resources to a less than significant level by completing subsurface sampling in identified sensitive areas on-site, preparing a workforce environmental awareness program, monitoring excavation activities, and identifying the procedures necessary to protect resources, if found.
MM CUL-1.1: After demolition but prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, a qualified archaeological consultant will conduct subsurface sampling in identified sensitive areas on-site (based on the Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment) to determine if subsurface archeological resources are present. If requested by a tribe registered with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the City of Santa Clara that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, a Native American monitor will assist in the implementation of the subsurface sampling.
Testing for historic-era resources shall extend to a depth of four feet below the current ground surface. Testing for prehistoric resources shall extend to a depth of eight feet below the current ground surface. In the event that no significant resources are discovered, the archaeological consultant shall prepare a findings report to be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval and no further field work would be required prior to the start of construction. In addition, Mitigation Measures CUL-1.3 through CUL-1.5 (listed below) would be required to be implemented.
In the event that significant resources are discovered on-site, a site-specific cultural resources treatment plan shall be prepared by the archaeological consultant and approved by the Director of Community Development. Implementation of the plan will occur prior to issuance of any grading permits in conformance with the steps outlined below.
Investigation – Resource Identification
Archaeologists will investigate features to determine their potential significance. Decisions will be made about which features will be subject to archaeological data recovery.
Determination of significance of historic archaeological property types is tied directly to their historical context and relevance to research themes further discussed below. Usefulness of a property type (feature) with regard to relevant research themes determines the legal importance of that resource. Also germane to the importance of property types are assessments of integrity, land use history, and comparison with other known similar property types. Especially relevant here are issues that cannot be addressed using data from other sources. The purpose of identifying relevant research themes is to help predict areas of special concern, given expected property types. Determination of relevance to research themes is critical to the identification of significant features in the field.
If data recovery is determined to be appropriate, excavation will target recovery of an appropriate amount of information from archaeological deposits to determine potential of the resource to address specific research questions. If it occurs, data recovery will emphasize understanding of the archaeological deposit’s structure, including features and stratification, horizontal and vertical extent, and content including the nature and quantity of artifacts.
Reporting
Upon completion of the field work, a findings report will be prepared consistent with the outline below and will focus on particular finds encountered during the excavation. All reports will at a minimum meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. The report will be submitted to the applicant and all reviewing agencies, and will ultimately be filed with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University.
The technical report on project results may address the following elements: executive summary; statement of scope, including project location and setting; background contexts or summaries; summary of previous research, historical and archaeological; research goals and themes; field and laboratory methodologies; descriptions of recovered materials; findings and interpretations, referencing research goals; conclusions; references cited; and appendices such as artifact catalogs, special studies, and other information relevant to the project and findings.
MM CUL-1.2: Upon completion of all field work, but before completion of the Findings Report (outlined in MM CUL-1.1), a preliminary report outlining the data recovery work on the site shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
MM CUL-1.3: Prior to the commencement of construction activities on-site, the applicant shall secure the services of a qualified archaeologist and a representative of a tribe registered with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the City of Santa Clara that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3. The qualified archaeologist and tribal representative shall prepare a workforce environmental awareness program (WEAP) to instruct construction workers of the obligation to protect and preserve valuable resources. The WEAP shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Community Development Director, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of construction and grading permits. This program shall be provided to all construction workers as a field training prior to the beginning of ground-disturbing activities, and shall include a discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the laws; samples or visual aids of resources that could be encountered in the project vicinity; instructions regarding the need to halt work in the vicinity of any potential archaeological and Native American resources encountered; and measures to notify their supervisor, the applicant, and the specialist(s).
MM CUL-1.4: Ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, excavation, grading, irrigation installation, foundation preparation, and utility trenching) shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards and, if requested by a tribe registered with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the City of Santa Clara that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, a Native American monitor. The qualified archaeologist and Native American representative shall be given five days’ written notice prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity. The project applicant shall document receipt of notification in writing. The qualified archaeologist shall have authority to halt construction activities temporarily in the immediate vicinity of an unanticipated find until its significance can be assessed by the qualified archaeologist. A summary report of the monitoring results, including any protective measures implemented, shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
MM CUL-1.5: In the event that archaeological deposits or materials of any kind are inadvertently exposed during any construction activity, work within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the qualified archaeologist can assess the find and provide recommendations for further treatment, if warranted. The archaeologist, in consultation with the project applicant, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) if the resource is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Construction within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete. a. Any treatment other than preservation in place must be approved by the City of Santa Clara. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in resource. b. The culturally affiliated tribe(s) who consulted on the project, or if no consultation occurred the tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), shall determine the disposition of any tribal cultural resources (TCR) artifacts discovered during on-site excavation or construction activities or TCR artifacts resulting from execution of a treatment plan. The disposition of TCR artifacts shall include, but not be limited to, reburying in close proximity of the finds without scientific study, allowing scientific study before reburying the materials either near the origin of the find or in another protected place, or temporary curation at a facility at an institution that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for curation (36 CFR 79) prior to reburial. Disposition of any TCR artifacts shall be subject to approval by the culturally affiliated tribe. All curation fees and related expenses shall be paid by the project applicant. c. To ensure adequate space and protection are provided for reburial of any TCRs discovered on the project site, the Permittee shall designate a cultural easement area. The easement area shall be in a location that will not be subject to future disturbance and that will not require the relocation of buildings or other physical improvements on the site. d. The registered professional archaeologist shall file State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms for the cultural easement/TCR reburial location (if used) with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Center in accordance with the guidelines established by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The DPR Series 523 forms shall establish a permanent record of the cultural easement location and any TCRs discovered on the project site for future site identification and protection. The registered professional archeologist shall also file a Sacred Lands File record with the NAHC on behalf of the culturally affiliated tribe.
Impact CUL-2: The proposed project could result in the disturbance of human remains during excavation of the project site.
Findings CUL-2: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant cultural resource impact. Specifically, implementation of MM CUL-2.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would avoid and/or reduce significant impacts to unknown buried human remains to a less than significant level by following procedures necessary to identify and protect resources if found.
MM CUL-2.1: 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 shall 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 shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in the disturbance and/or accidental destruction of unknown paleontological resources, if any resources are on-site.
Findings GEO-1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant geological hazards impact. Specifically, implementation of MM GEO-1.1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce geologic impacts to a less than significant level by identifying the procedures necessary to protect paleontological resources, if found.
MM GEO-1.1: If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work on the site shall stop immediately, the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee shall be notified, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or the Director’s designee.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Development of the project could result in an impact to construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to contaminated soil and soil vapor.
Findings HAZ-1: Changes or alterations, which have been incorporated into the project, will reduce the severity of the significant hazards and hazardous material impact. Specifically, implementation of MM HAZ-1.1, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project, would reduce construction worker, future occupant, and surrounding environment exposure to on-site contaminated soil and soil vapor impacts to a less than significant level by additional testing, analysis, and implementation of measures to dispose of contaminated soils consistent with regulatory requirements and under regulatory oversight.
MM HAZ-1.1: Due to detections of various contaminants above regulatory environmental screening levels in the subsurface soils and soil vapor, prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall obtain regulatory oversight from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under their Site Cleanup Program.
The applicant shall meet with the RWQCB and perform additional soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling and testing, as needed, to adequately define the known and suspected contamination from past uses of concern. In addition to a Health and Safety Plan (HSP), a Site Management Plan (SMP), Removal Action Plan (RAP), or equivalent document shall be prepared under regulatory oversight and approval by a qualified environmental consultant that identifies remedial measures and/or appropriate management practices to ensure construction worker safety and protect the health of nearby sensitive receptors. These appropriate management practices shall include measures to sample excavated soil that will be exported from the site to ensure proper disposal and sampling of any soil that will be imported to the site to confirm that no contaminates are introduced to the existing soil on-site. The plans and evidence of regulatory oversight shall be provided to the Planning Manager of the Planning Division, or their designee. vi. Growth Inducing Impacts
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d); Pub. Resources Code Section 21100(b)(5).) Direct growth inducement would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of substantial new housing that would support an increased population in a community or establish substantial new permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. Indirect growth inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that results in physical development or removes an obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) cautions that it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
These findings are based on the discussion of growth inducing impacts in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis of which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
As discussed throughout the EIR, particularly in Section 3.14 Population and Housing and Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems in the Draft EIR, most of the development included in the project is accounted for in the City’s General Plan based on the project’s consistency with the established General Plan land use designation for the site. The only portion of the project that was not previously accounted for in build out of the City’s General Plan is the portion currently within the City of San José. The project would result in the construction of 13 townhouse units on this portion of the site which would result in an incremental increase in development and an associated population increase than previously evaluated. However, this additional development would remain consistent with the visions, standards, guidelines, policies, and intent of the General Plan and would be located in an urbanized area served by existing infrastructure and services. Incorporation of this small area into the City and development of 13 townhouse units would not require an expansion of existing utility infrastructure or the construction of new public streets to access the site. For these reasons, the project would not foster or stimulate substantial economic growth or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding area.
VII. SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVerSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires that an EIR also address significant and irreversible environmental changes that may occur as a result of project implementation. Significant irreversible changes include the use of nonrenewable resources, the commitment of future generations to similar use, irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project and the irretrievable commitment of resources.
These findings are based on the discussion of significant and irreversible environmental changes in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
Use of Nonrenewable Resources; Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Use The project would occur in an infill location adjacent to a transit corridor and major transit facilities, encourage the use of transit services through implementation of a TDM plan, and result in the efficient use of non-renewable energy sources. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.6 Energy of the Draft EIR, the project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable building codes and the City’s Reach Code and would not result in unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. The project would result in an irreversible use and commitment of nonrenewable resources; however, the project would result in the construction and operation of a more transit-oriented and sustainable development on-site.
Irreversible Damage Resulting from Environmental Accidents Associated with the Project As discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, the project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the safe use and storage of hazardous materials. In addition, the project would implement MM HAZ-1.1 to ensure that any potentially contaminated materials are handled properly during the construction process. Implementation of this measure and compliance with relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations would reduce any potential irreversible or nearly irreversible environmental changes to a less than significant level.
VIII. Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The EIR considered alternatives of design, scope, or location, which would substantially lessen the project's significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive. While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, an alternative's ability to meet most of the objectives is considered relevant to its consideration.
The Project Objectives
The applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows:
Support the State’s housing goals during a time of housing crisis by providing much needed housing, including affordable housing.
Redevelop the property consistent with the land use policies and strategies provided in Plan Bay Area 2050 such as integrating affordable housing into all major housing projects and transforming aging office buildings into vibrant neighborhoods.
Redevelop the project site consistent with the vision of the Santa Clara General Plan for higher-density residential development (37 to 50 dwelling units per acre) along major transportation corridors.
Provide a mix of for-sale and rental housing at a range of income levels and unit sizes, to assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations in accordance with its Housing Element.
Annex the San José portion of the project site into Santa Clara in order to provide for efficient delivery of services and utilities.
Replace underutilized office buildings and surface parking lots with modern, high-quality residential units and associated landscaping and amenities.
Enhance the architectural and visual character of the neighborhood by improving the site with high-quality architecture and landscaping.
Deliver an economically feasible development balancing market conditions and City objectives.
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law have determined that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that such factors can include, but are not limited to, the suitability of an alternate site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with planning documents or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries or whether the project proposed can "reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site." The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, hereby finds that the alternatives described below are not feasible. The City finds that there are specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including consideration for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, and important matters of public policy that render these alternatives infeasible.
As explained above, "feasible" is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City may reject an alternative to the project if the City finds that it would be infeasible to implement that alternative because of "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers." In Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 947, the City of Rialto approved a project while rejecting as infeasible a reduced-density alternative that stripped out the portions of the project that would have created a synergistic mix of retail and restaurant tenants, thereby failing to meet core project objectives. An agency also may reject an alternative that does not meet the public policy goals of the agency. In California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001, the Court upheld the Santa Cruz City Council’s rejection of the environmentally superior alternative on the basis that the alternative was undesirable from a policy standpoint because it failed to achieve primary objectives of the city’s master plan with respect to transportation alternatives and open space considerations. Additionally, in Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039, the appellate court upheld the City of Sacramento's rejection of an enhanced preservation alternative as based on findings that additional preservation of open space would be infeasible because it would fail to implement the jurisdiction's General Plan or Community Plan and "at the very least [slow] 'the progress of necessary development such that the public's health and welfare is harmed through the lack of economic growth and productivity and a shortage of housing supply." These findings are based on the discussion of alternatives in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR, the discussion and analysis of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Location Alternative
CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternate sites always be included in an EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), in making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternate site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the proposed project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the proposed project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” Here, the proposed project’s applicant does not control a site within the City of Santa Clara that could accommodate the proposed development and meet the basic project objectives, and lacks funding to acquire an alternative site. As stated above, CEQA confirms that whether a proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site is a key factor in determining whether an off-site alternative is potentially feasible (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)). In addition, some of the primary, basic objectives of the project are to replace the existing underutilized office buildings and surface parking lots on the project site with modern, high-quality residential units and focus higher-density residential development (37 to 50 dwelling units per acre) along major transportation corridors. The project applicant does not have access to alternative location(s) that contain aging, underutilized office development and that are located proximate to a major transportation corridor like El Camino Real, or a major transportation stop like Santa Clara Station.
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified for the proposed project. Several potentially significant impacts were identified for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials, but all of these impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels through incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Since these significant impacts are primarily related to the construction activities planned on-site, it is reasonable to assume that similar impacts could result at an alternative project location given the archaeological sensitivity in Santa Clara, the common presence of residual agricultural contaminants in shallow soil throughout Santa Clara Valley, and the likelihood that alternative sites would also have existing trees that would be removed during redevelopment.
For all these reasons, most of the impacts of the proposed project would not be reduced or avoided by constructing the project on a different parcel, and in any event the project would not have significant and unavoidable impacts after incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. In addition, the project applicant does not control other parcels within the City that are suitable for the proposed project or that would meet the basic project objectives, and so this alternative was not considered further.
Reduced Redevelopment Alternative
The construction and operation of the proposed project would result in an increase in temporary and permanent air pollutant emissions and noise levels. However, as discussed in Section 3.3 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the criteria air pollutant emissions generated by project implementation would not exceed the Air District’s thresholds of significance, and the health risk impacts associated with construction of the proposed project would not exceed the Air District’s single-source threshold for health risks. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.13 Noise of the Draft EIR, compliance with the City’s allowable construction hours and implementation of standard Conditions of Approval would reduce impacts associated with construction noise to a less than significant level.
The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the number of units developed on-site and result in a corresponding decrease in the duration of the construction periods required to implement the alternative, which in turn would reduce the already less than significant air emissions and construction noise generated during construction and operation of the project. However, as currently proposed with 408 dwelling units on an approximately 10.96-acre site, the project’s development density would be approximately 37 dwelling units per acre, which is the minimum required under the existing General Plan designation for the site and the minimum density stated in the project objectives. Therefore, any meaningful reduction in the number of units constructed on-site under this alternative would result in a project that would not meet the minimum development density required for this General Plan designation and included in the project objectives. As such, this alternative was not considered further.
Focused Development Alternative
Construction of the proposed project has the potential for disturbance of unknown archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources as described in Chapters 3.5 and 3.18 of the Draft EIR. However, these potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR (CUL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 2-1).
The Focused Development Alternative would shift the development on-site and concentrate the proposed 408 dwelling units on the portions of the site most likely to contain resources associated with the Santa Clara Mission orchard and orchard walls, the abode structures within the orchard, and the neophyte cemetery that abutted the orchard walls between the Mission and the orchard. The type of development that could accommodate this shift is assumed to be a larger multi-family residential building or two similarly sized multi-family residential buildings, and no townhome units.
However, unless this alternative also imposed development restrictions on the western portion of the site limiting development to surface-level improvements like parking or open space areas, this alternative would not avoid the potential for future redevelopment of that portion of the site with something that could disturb the documented resources related to the Santa Clara Mission. In addition, disturbance and demolition of existing structures would still be required even for surface level improvements, which could likewise result in impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. Moreover, restriction of portions of the project site to future development would not meet the project objective of providing a mix of for-sale and rental housing at a range of income levels and unit sizes, nor would it meet the objective of replacing existing underutilized office buildings and surface parking lots with modern, high-quality residential units and associated landscaping and amenities. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR, a Native American shell midden was identified adjacent to the site and records of known Native American burial areas have been recorded in the project area. The horizontal and vertical extent of the shell midden and Native American burial areas has not been clearly delineated; therefore, it is possible that the portions of the site where redevelopment would be concentrated under the Focused Development Alternative are equally as sensitive for cultural resources as the remaining portion of the site. In which case, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the potential impacts to archaeological resources compared to the proposed project.
In addition, this alternative could concentrate development closer to the railroad tracks that run parallel to the northern site boundary, which could expose future residents on-site to additional noise from train pass-bys. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further.
No Project Alternative - No Redevelopment Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 specifically advises that the No Project Alternative “shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published” and “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services,” and emphasizes that an EIR should take a practical approach, and not “…create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” Under the No Project, No Redevelopment Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today, and no annexation would occur. Under existing conditions, the site is developed with four office buildings, two parking garages, and surface parking lots.
The No Project, No Redevelopment Alternative would avoid all impacts associated with the project, as no changes would occur to the existing improvements on-site and no short-term construction impacts would be generated. However, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives because no new housing units would be constructed on-site.
No Project Alternative - Redevelopment Alternative
The approximately 10.02-acre portion of the project site in Santa Clara has a General Plan land use designation of Santa Clara Station Regional Mixed Use (Santa Clara Station Regional Commercial + Santa Clara Station High Density Residential) and is in the Planned Development zoning district. This General Plan designation permits residential development at 37 to 50 dwelling units per gross acre. The San José portion of the site is designated and zoned Light Industrial.
If the proposed project were not approved, the annexation would not be approved, and Santa Clara would have no jurisdiction over development on the San Jose portion of the site. Although San Jose might approve light industrial development on the San José portion of the site, for purposes of the No Project – Redevelopment Alternative, the San Jose portion of the site is assumed not to be redeveloped.
Under this alternative, it is reasonable to expect that an alternative residential project would be proposed on the Santa Clara portion of the site in the foreseeable future, particularly due to the site’s location within the proposed Santa Clara Station Area Plan area. Based on the maximum allowable residential density allowed for the project site (50 dwelling units per gross acre) and the size of the site (10.02 acres), this could include a residential development with up to 502 dwelling units (assuming that no density bonuses are utilized).
Under this alternative, the potential number of residential units constructed on-site would increase by up to 94 units (23 percent) compared to the proposed project. To achieve this density, it is likely that the site would be developed solely with multi-family residential buildings instead of the proposed mix of multi-family residential units and three-story townhouse units. Although this alternative would meet most of the project objectives by redeveloping a site with underutilized office buildings and surface parking lots and constructing new housing units adjacent to a major transportation corridor, this alternative would not meet the project objective of providing a mix of for-sale and rental housing at a range of income levels and unit sizes. Therefore, it would not meet that project objective to the same extent as the proposed project.
In addition, the larger size of the potential residential development under this alternative could result in a corresponding increase in the duration of construction activities on-site. This could result in new or more severe impacts to surrounding receptors from construction equipment emissions and temporary construction noise/vibration that could require mitigation. The higher unit count would also result in additional vehicle trips compared to the proposed project, which could generate new or more severe impacts related to circulation on-site, traffic safety, and operational deficiencies, as well as new or more severe impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and traffic noise. Finally, depending on the location and orientation of the additional units on-site, more of the future residents on-site could be exposed to high levels of noise from the adjacent rail tracks and El Camino Real.
The No Project, Redevelopment Alternative could result in a residential development on-site; however, it would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project and could result in more significant environmental impacts related to air quality, noise, greenhouse gases, and transportation.
Redistributed Housing Units Alternative
Under this alternative, approximately 16 of the townhouse units would be removed from the northernmost portion of the site and would be replaced by 16 additional apartment units in the multi-family residential building in order to maintain the required minimum development density for the site. This would require an additional level on at least a portion of the multi-family residential building, which would result in the multi-family residential building being a maximum of six-stories tall (an increase to approximately 80 feet).
Although this alternative would meet most of the Project Objectives by redeveloping a site with underutilized office buildings and surface parking lots and constructing new housing units adjacent to a major transportation corridor, this alternative would not provide the same number or mix of for-sale housing units as the proposed project. Therefore, it would not meet that project objective to the same extent as the proposed project.
In addition, constructing a taller multi-family residential building on-site would exacerbate conflicts with the design requirements (i.e., maximum height and step-back standards) under the existing zoning and General Plan land use designation. Constructing a taller multi-family residential building on-site could also result in the need for taller construction equipment (e.g., cranes) that would require review by the FAA to ensure compatibility with nearby airport operations. The addition of another story of residential development on the apartment site would also increase construction costs compared to the construction of town home development.
Under the Redistributed Housing Units Alternative, impacts associated with both construction and operation of 16 apartments within the same footprint as the proposed apartment building would be slightly reduced when compared to construction of 16 townhomes, however these reduced impacts would not be material and all project impacts are already less than significant with application of mitigation measures. This alternative would reduce exposure of future residents adjacent to the northern site boundary to noise and vibration from train pass-bys. These impacts of the environment on the project, however, are not considered impacts under CEQA.
The Redistributed Housing Units Alternative would result in a residential development on-site that is similar to the proposed project; however, it would not meet the project objectives regarding the mix of for-sale and rental units to the same extent as the proposed project. This alternative would result in additional conflicts with the City’s standard design requirements under the existing land use and zoning designation. This alternative could potentially utilize design waivers permitted under the State Density Bonus Law. Although these design waivers are not likely to result in any new or substantial more severe environmental impacts, the applicant has indicated it would not construct the project under these conditions.
No Annexation, Redevelopment Alternative
A separate alternative was considered to evaluate a scenario where the proposed annexation of the 0.94-acre San José parcel would not be approved. If that were to occur, the 13 townhouse units on that parcel would still be constructed under a separate development application with the City of San José. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the separate San José project would comply with San José’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance rather than Santa Clara’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, and that some of the access and utilities for the San José parcel may run through or connect with Santa Clara streets and utilities.
In this alternative, the Santa Clara parcel (which would have an area of 10.02 acres) would be redeveloped with the remaining 98 townhouse units and 297 apartment units in the same locations as the currently proposed project. This would result in a development density of 39.4 dwelling units per acre on the Santa Clara project site, which is consistent with the desired density range in the project objectives and the allowable density under the General Plan designation. However, this alternative would provide 13 fewer residential units in the City of Santa Clara; therefore, it would not assist the City with its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations to the same extent as the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would not meet the project objective to annex the San José portion of the project site into Santa Clara, and could result in less efficient delivery of services and utilities compared to the proposed project as a result.
Under this alternative, construction phasing and development of the site would occur in the same fashion as proposed under the current project. Therefore, the environmental impacts discussed throughout this document would be similar to those that would occur in this alternative.
The No Annexation, Redevelopment Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts compared to the proposed project; however, it would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project and would not meet the project objective related to annexation of the San José parcel.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. Based on the discussion of project alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative to the project is the No Project, No Redevelopment Alternative because it would avoid all of the project’s environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that “[i]f the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” CEQA, however, does not require an agency to consider an environmentally superior alternative when approving a project if mitigation measures will substantially reduce the project’s environmental impacts. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 402; see also Laurel Hills Homeowners Ass’n v City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515.) Because all potentially significant effects of the proposed project will be mitigated to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures, the City is not required to make findings that the environmentally superior alternative is infeasible. (Mira Mar Mobile Community v City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477.) Among the other alternatives, the Redistributed Housing Units Alternative would be an environmentally superior alternative because on an individual unit basis, both construction and operation of 16 apartments within the same footprint as the proposed apartment building, would have slightly reduced impacts when compared to construction and operation of 16 townhomes, however these reduced impacts would not be material and all project impacts are already less than significant with application of mitigation measures. The Redistributed Housing Units Alternative would also reduce exposure of future residents adjacent to the northern site boundary to noise and vibration from train pass-bys. These impacts of the environment on the project, however, are not considered impacts under CEQA. The Redistributed Housing Units Alternative, as described above, would not reduce impacts in a material way sufficient to justify the alternative’s failure to fully implement the project objectives and would also increase construction costs compared to the construction of town home development, and therefore the City rejects the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 21 The State CEQA Guidelines are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.
Although no commercial uses are proposed as part of the project, this designation allows development to provide up to 3.0 floor area ratio (FAR) of commercial space.
Similarly, courts have upheld an agency's infeasibility finding on a policy-based rationale in the following cases: Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 936, and Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1270.