Draft Resolution Actions related to Certifying EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations

DRAFT 7/15/2026_____
T-CDD-260012/87696 1
Council Agenda: 7/21/2026
Item No.:

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE

CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION AND MONITORING

REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 800 CARLISLE WAY WELL

AND WATER TANK PROJECT
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) (collectively, "CEQA") requires local agencies to consider environmental consequences of projects for which they have discretionary authority; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") (collectively, the "EIR") has been prepared for and by the City of Sunnyvale for the 800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank Project ("the Project") pursuant to CEQA (State Clearinghouse #2023020080); and
WHEREAS, the EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the Project, which is further described in Section VII of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the City has issued notices, held public hearings, and taken other actions as described in Section IV of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the EIR is incorporated by this reference in this Resolution, and consists of those documents referenced in Section V of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, by motion adopted on March 9, 2026, the Sunnyvale Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the certification of the EIR; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2026, regarding the Project and the EIR, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto were heard, and the EIR was considered; and
WHEREAS, by this Resolution, the City Council, as the lead agency under CEQA for preparing the EIR and the entity responsible for approving the Project, desires to comply with the requirements of CEQA for consideration, certification, and use of the EIR in connection with the approval of the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE THAT:

Attachment 6

Page 1 of 48 ends

T-CDD-260012/87696 2
Council Agenda: 7/21/2026
Item No.:

1. The City Council hereby finds and certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project; that the EIR was presented to the City Council; that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Project; and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

2. The City Council hereby finds and recognizes the Final EIR and administrative record contain additions, clarifications, modifications, and other information in its response to comments on the Draft EIR or obtained by the City after the Draft EIR was issued and circulated for public review and does hereby find that such changes and additional information are not significant new information as that phrase is described under CEQA because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any of the following would result from approval and implementation of the Project: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact not already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR, (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the D r af t E IR th a t wou ld le sse n a sign if ic an t en viron me n t a l im pa c t of th e P roj e c t ha s been proposed and would not be implemented, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented.

3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that recirculation of the EIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the provisions of CEQA.

4. The City Council hereby identifies the significant effects, adopts the mitigation measures, makes findings related to the significant effects, mitigation measures and alternatives, adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to be implemented for each mitigation measure, and adopts a statement of overriding considerations set forth in detail in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. The statements, findings and determinations set forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified EIR and other information available to the City Council and are made in compliance with Sections 21081 and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Sections 15091, 15092, 15093, and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. All the information in this Resolution including Exhibit A hereto is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the EIR, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting these findings.

Attachment 6

Page 2 of 48 ends

T-CDD-260012/87696 3
Council Agenda: 7/21/2026
Item No.:

Adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on ___________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

RECUSAL:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________________ _________________________________

DAVID CARNAHAN
City Clerk

LARRY KLEIN
Mayor
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
REBECCA L. MOON
City Attorney
Attachment 6

Page 3 of 48 ends

1 EXHIBIT A
800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank Project
Significant Environmental Effects, Findings of Fact, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations Attachment 6

Page 4 of 48 ends

2 Table of Contents
I. Introduction/Purpose .............................................................................................. 3 II. Project Location, Background, and Description .................................................... 4 III. Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 4 IV. The CEQA Process.................................................................................................. 6 V. Record of Proceedings ............................................................................................ 7 VI. Findings Required Under CEQA ............................................................................. 8 VII. Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Findings ................................................................ 9 A. SigniƱcant and Unavoidable Impact ................................................................... 10 B. SigniƱcant Impacts that are Less Than SigniƱcant with Mitigation .................... 12 VIII. Project Alternatives .............................................................................................. 22 IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................... 26 X. Statement of Overriding Considerations............................................................. 27 Attachment 6

Page 5 of 48 ends

3 I. Introduction
The purpose of these Ʊndings is to satisfy the requirements of Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, associated with approval of the 800 Carlisle Way Well & Water Tank Project (“Project”).

The CEQA Statutes (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000, et seq.) and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.) state that if it has been determined that a project may or will have signiƱcant impacts on the environment, then an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. Prior to approval of the project, the EIR must be certiƱed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090. When an EIR has been certiƱed that identiƱes one or more signiƱcant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following Ʊndings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), for each identiƱed signiƱcant impact:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signiƱcant environmental eƯect as identiƱed in the EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Ʊnding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. SpeciƱc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identiƱed in the EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 states that after consideration of an EIR, and in conjunction with making the Section 15091 Ʊndings identiƱed above, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. A project that would result in a signiƱcant environmental impact cannot be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact. However, in the absence of feasible mitigation, an agency may approve a project with signiƱcant and unavoidable impacts, if there are speciƱc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental eƯects. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to document and substantiate any such determination in a “statement of overriding considerations” as a part of the record.

Attachment 6

Page 6 of 48 ends

4 The requirements of Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 (as summarized above) are all addressed herein. This document summarizes the Ʊndings of fact and statement of overriding considerations authorized by those provisions of the CEQA Guidelines.

II. Project Description
The approximately 0.77-acre Project site is located on the southeast corner of Lillian Avenue and Carlisle Way at 800 Carlisle Way in the City of Sunnyvale. The Project site is bound by Panama Park to the west, Carlisle Way to the north, and residential developments to the south and east.

The Project site was formerly used as a groundwater extraction site for California Water Service (Cal Water) to provide potable water to their Los Altos Suburban service district (which includes portions of Sunnyvale). The site consisted of a water well and associated chemical storage buildings, a cellular communication tower, booster pump, and a 50,000- gallon water storage tank. In 2016, the water well on-site was decommissioned and properly destroyed due to sanding issues and casing deterioration within the well, and is no longer functional. The water tank was also removed in 2016. The chemical storage buildings – though unused – remain on-site. The cellular communication tower was removed by the cellular service provider under a separate project application in January 2025.

To provide water supply reliability and meet current and future customer water supply demands, Cal Water is proposing to reactivate the site as a groundwater extraction site by constructing a replacement well and associated improvements.

The Project would demolish the existing chemical storage buildings, electrical control panel, and connection to the existing water main on-site. After demolition, the Project would install a replacement groundwater well and construct a new, approximately 56,000- gallon steel water storage tank, three chemical storage enclosures, and several utility and right-of-way improvements, including a new discharge pipeline. The previous groundwater well that was capped in 2016 is located in the center of the site on the north side; the new well would be located on the southwest portion of the site and would reach a depth of approximately 1,000 feet below ground surface (bgs). The Project would also include a diesel-powered emergency generator with a sound attenuation enclosure and comply with the City’s Bird Safe Building Design Guidelines. Emergency lighting would also be installed on-site; however, it would be reserved for emergency situations where repair work is required at night.

Attachment 6

Page 7 of 48 ends

5 III. Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the EIR must identify the objectives sought by the project. As shown in Section 2.3 Project Objectives of the Draft EIR for the Project, the speciƱc project objectives of the applicant for this Project are to:

1. Replace a critical Cal Water supply well that was previously destroyed on-site due to its age.

Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) is planning a 10-year Pipeline Inspection and Rehabilitation project that will take signiƱcant portions of its supply system down over a phased period. These planned shutdowns started in 2021 and are expected to extend until 2028. During the Valley Water project, Cal Water expects interruptions to the supply system between 2023 to 2026. These interruptions in supply would remove the emergency supply for Cal Water, and would increase the risk of supply shortfalls if an emergency or a break in a mainline were to occur.

This well would provide potable water to Cal Water’s Los Altos Suburban service district which encompasses the city of Los Altos and portions of the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale, and adjacent unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The service district delivers potable water to approximately 18,000 service connections (approximately 2,000 of which are located in Sunnyvale) and a population of approximately 70,000 customers.

2. Upgrade Cal Water’s aged infrastructure in the Los Altos Suburban service district with a new well and water tank to maximize and improve the reliability of the water supply in the area.

Of the 20 groundwater wells operated by Cal Water in the Los Altos Suburban service district, 16 were installed before 1970 and are near the end of their anticipated service life. Aging infrastructure is at a higher risk to experience potential failures, including water quality issues, mechanical equipment failure, or structural issues in the well.

3. Address potential drought emergency in the County of Santa Clara by generating an additional source of groundwater .

Attachment 6

Page 8 of 48 ends

6 4. Address Ʊre risk in the area generating an additional source of groundwater in the area that can be used in emergency scenarios.

IV. The CEQA Process
Based on the nature and scope of the Project, the City of Sunnyvale determined, based on substantial evidence, that the Project may have a signiƱcant eƯect on the environment and prepared an EIR for the Project. The EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020080) was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with CEQA (PRC Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.), and noticing and opportunities for public comment were provided as follows:

A. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated on February 3, 2023, for the minimum 30-day period of public and agency comment. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder.

The NOP was sent to responsible and trustee agencies during the 30-day public comment period.

B. A public scoping meeting to receive comments regarding the issues to be covered in the EIR was held on February 16, 2023. The meeting was held virtually and can be accessed at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/live/OTR2c_b0Kuw?si=47CWVQ3P6hah3nd6.

C. Following the publication of the original NOP on February 3, 2023, the dimensions of the proposed water tank were changed from 33 feet in diameter and 12 feet in height to 21 feet in diameter and 24 feet in height. This change was disclosed in a Recirculated NOP , which circulated on March 14, 2025, for the minimum 30-day period of public and agency comment.

D. A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse on May 15, 2025, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project or which exercise authority over resources that may be aƯected by the Project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law.

E. A Notice of Availability of Draft EIR was published on the City’s website (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/business-and-development/projects-in- sunnyvale/development-projects/carlisle-well-and-water-tank) and in the Sunnyvale Sun, a newspaper of general circulation in Sunnyvale, on May 9, 2025.

It was also mailed to project-area residents and other members of the public who had indicated interest in the Project. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available on the City’s website (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/business-and- Attachment 6

Page 9 of 48 ends

7 development/projects-in-sunnyvale/development-projects/carlisle-well-and- water-tank ) and at the City of Sunnyvale Library (located at 665 West Olive Avenue), City of Sunnyvale One-Stop Permit Center (located at 456 West Olive Avenue), and City of Sunnyvale Community Center (located at 550 East Remington Drive).

F. The public comment period on the Draft EIR began on May 15, 2025, and concluded on June 30, 2025.

G. On June 23, 2025, the City of Sunnyvale held a Planning Commission meeting to present an overview of the Project, summarize the potential environmental impacts identiƱed in the Draft EIR, and to receive comments from members of the Planning Commission and the public on the information and analysis included in the Draft EIR.

H. On February 6, 2026, the City published the Final EIR, which includes responses to all comments received during the Draft EIR public comment period, as well as revisions to the Draft EIR.

I. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15088(b), a written response was provided to each public agency on comments made by that public agency on July 10, 2026, at least 10 days before the EIR was considered for certiƱcation.

J. On March 9, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the required Ʊndings under CEQA and approve the Project.

V. Record of Proceedings
In accordance with PRC Section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project includes the following documents, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Ʊndings:
x The application package, and all attachments and supplemental information thereto.
x City staƯ reports and all attachments;
x The Draft EIR and all appendices to the Draft EIR;
x The Final EIR and appendix to the Final EIR, including comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the comment period of the Draft EIR; x All comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the comment period on the original and recirculated Notice of Preparation; x All notices required by CEQA and presentation materials related to the Project; Attachment 6

Page 10 of 48 ends

8 x All studies conducted for the Project and contained or referenced in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR;
x All documents cited or referenced in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR; x All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for City and other agencies;
x All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR;
x All other documents related to the Project;
x The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project; and x Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law.

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at the City of Sunnyvale One-Stop Permit Center at 456 W. Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086.

The EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR together with the Final EIR and is incorporated into these Ʊndings in its entirety, unless and only to the extent these Ʊndings expressly do not incorporate by reference the EIR. The EIR is posted on the City’s website at:
https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/business-and-development/projects-in- sunnyvale/development-projects/carlisle-well-and-water-tank. Hard copies are also available at the City of Sunnyvale Library (located at 665 West Olive Avenue), City of Sunnyvale One-Stop Permit Center (located at 456 West Olive Avenue), and City of Sunnyvale Community Center (located at 550 East Remington Drive) during normal business hours. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the signiƱcance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for associated signiƱcant and unavoidable adverse physical environmental impacts.

VI. Findings Required Under CEQA
The City Council certiƱes that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the City Council prior to acting on the Project. In so certifying, the City Council recognizes that there may be diƯerences in and among the diƯerent sources of information and opinions oƯered in the documents and testimony that make up the EIR and the administrative record; that experts disagree; and that the City Council must base its decision and these Ʊndings on the substantial evidence Attachment 6

Page 11 of 48 ends

9 in the record that it Ʊnds most compelling. Therefore, by these Ʊndings, the City Council ratiƱes, clariƱes, and/or makes insigniƱcant modiƱcations to the EIR and resolves that these Ʊndings shall control and are determinative of the signiƱcant impacts of the Project.

The mitigation measures proposed in the EIR are adopted in this Exhibit A, substantially in the form proposed in the EIR, with such clariƱcations and non-substantive modiƱcations as the City Council has deemed appropriate to implement the mitigation measures.

Further, the mitigation measures adopted in this Exhibit A are expressly incorporated into the Project pursuant to the adopted conditions of approval.

The Ʊndings and determinations in this Exhibit A are to be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any subdivision of this Exhibit A fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of this Exhibit A, that any Ʊnding or determination required or permitted to be made shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document. All of the text included in this document constitutes Ʊndings and determinations, whether or not any particular caption sentence or clause includes a statement to that eƯect.

Each Ʊnding herein is based on the entire record. The omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication that a particular Ʊnding is not based in part on the omitted fact.

Many of the mitigation measures imposed or adopted pursuant to this Exhibit A to mitigate the environmental impacts identiƱed in the administrative record may have the eƯect of mitigating multiple impacts (e.g., conditions imposed primarily to mitigate air quality impacts may also secondarily mitigate greenhouse gas emission impacts, etc.). The City Council has not attempted to exhaustively cross-reference all potential impacts mitigated by the imposition of a particular mitigation measure; however, such failure to cross- reference shall not be construed as a limitation on the potential scope or eƯect of any such mitigation measure.

VII. Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Findings
In conformance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section of the Ʊndings lists each signiƱcant environmental eƯect of the Project listed in the EIR (including those identiƱed in the Initial Study included as Draft EIR Appendix A); describes those mitigation measures recommended in the EIR; and, as required by Section 15091(a), Ʊnds that either the adopted mitigation measures have substantially lessened the signiƱcant ôƯect or that speciƱc considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identiƱed in the EIR.

Attachment 6

Page 12 of 48 ends

10 All feasible mitigation measures listed and described below have been incorporated into the MMRP . Compliance with the MMRP is a condition of approval of the Project and the construction of the Project will incorporate all conditions contained in the MMRP .

A. SigniƱcant and Unavoidable Impact
Construction of the groundwater well would require 24-hour drilling, including work outside normal construction hours. With respect to the foregoing Ʊndings and in recognition of those facts that are included in the record, the City has determined that the Project will result in a signiƱcant and unavoidable impact related to temporary nighttime construction noise that would occur outside allowed construction hours, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.

1. Noise
NOI-1 Impact: The Project (speciƱcally the Project construction drilling phase occurring during the nighttime outside the allowed construction hours) would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, even with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation:

MM NOI-1.1: Installation of Acoustic Barriers: During drilling activities on-site, the Project shall install the following acoustic barriers (the installation of which shall take place during regular, daytime construction hours):
x Approximately 600 linear feet of 32-foot-high, Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rated 32 acoustic barrier wall shall be installed parallel to the site boundaries. The acoustic barrier wall shall be installed with no openings or gaps except for an acoustical gate on the north side of the Project site to facilitate site access during drilling activities. This acoustical gate shall remain closed during drilling operations.
x Approximately 190 linear feet of 20-foot-high, STC rated 32 dual K-rail mounted acoustic barriers shall be installed on the south and north sides of drilling equipment. These acoustic barriers shall also be installed on portions of the east and Attachment 6

Page 13 of 48 ends

11 west sides of drilling equipment as shown in Figure 7-3 of the Noise Assessment Report.
x Approximately 72 linear feet of 12-foot-high, STC rated 25 acoustic barrier walls shall be installed on the north, west and south sides of mud pump and air compressor.
x Approximately 96 linear feet of 8-foot-high, STC rated 25 acoustical blankets shall be installed on the rig Ʋoor.

MM NOI-1.2: Provision of Vouchers for Alternative Accommodations.

California Water Service (Cal Water) shall provide the two nearest residences adjacent to the southwestern portion of the Project site (i.e., 819 and 823 Coventry Court as identiƱed in the Noise Assessment Report dated July 24, 2024 in Appendix B of the Draft EIR) with the potential to exceed 50 dBA noise levels during nighttime drilling activities, with vouchers for alternative accommodations. At least 45 days prior to the initiation of nighttime drilling activities, Cal Water shall communicate the anticipated drilling schedule to the ÍƯected residents at 819 and 823 Coventry Court. Vouchers shall be ĺƯered based on the needs of each household for the speciƱc dates that nighttime drilling activities are scheduled. It is anticipated that the nighttime drilling activities would occur over two separate phases.

Vouchers for alternative accommodations shall be issued for each of the two phases based on the Ʊnalized construction schedule and be for $300/night/room, with the necessary number of rooms being determined through consultation with the aƯected residents.

ConƱrmation regarding the provision of vouchers for alternative accommodations shall be provided by Cal Water to the City prior to the initiation of nighttime drilling activities.

Finding: Drilling activities on-site would not exceed the applicable daytime thresholds of 80 dBA and 85 dBA during allowed construction hours; however, the drilling activities outside allowed construction hours would exceed the applicable daytime thresholds of 60 dBA and 70 dBA and nighttime thresholds of 50 dBA and 60 dBA. This would result in a signiƱcant construction noise impact. With implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-1.1, drilling activities outside allowed construction hours would be below the daytime threshold. However, drilling activities would still generate noise levels that would exceed the established nighttime thresholds for construction noise outside of Attachment 6

Page 14 of 48 ends

12 the allowed construction hours at the two nearest residential noise receptors adjacent to the southwestern portion of the Project site. No other feasible mitigation measures are available that would clearly lessen the noise levels from drilling. With implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-1.2, residents adjacent to the Project site that would experience construction noise levels exceeding the City’s established threshold of signiƱcance would have the option to relocate during the signiƱcant and unavoidable noise activity. Since this measure does not actually reduce the signiƱcant, unavoidable noise levels at these two residences to an acceptable level and the City cannot require the residents of these two residences relocate, the impact from nighttime construction noise that would occur outside allowed construction hours would remain signiƱcant and unavoidable.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would lessen the signiƱcant construction noise impact outside of allowed construction hours identiƱed in the EIR. Even with implementation of MM NOI-1.1 and MM NOI-1.2 above, the impact would remain signiƱcant and unavoidable because the noise levels at two residences during nighttime drilling activities would not be lowered to an acceptable level, and the City cannot require the residents of these two residences to temporarily relocate.

B. SigniƱcant Impacts That Are Less Than SigniƱcant With Mitigation

2. Air Quality
AIR-1 Impact: The Project would conƲict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

AIR-2 Impact: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Mitigation:

LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3: Basic BMPs – Include measures to control dust and exhaust during construction.

Attachment 6

Page 15 of 48 ends

13 During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD (now called the Bay Area Air District, referred to herein as the “Air District”) and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-signiƱcant level. Additional measures are identiƱed to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:
x All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
x All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material oƯ-site shall be covered.
x 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.
x All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
x All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
x Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment oƯ 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. x All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
speciƱcations. All equipment shall be checked by a
Attachment 6

Page 16 of 48 ends

14 certiƱed mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

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.

Finding: The construction period and operational period criteria air pollutant emissions from the project would not exceed the Air District thresholds of signiƱcance. With implementation of mitigation measure LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3, the project construction period emissions would be further reduced by controlling dust, limiting equipment idling, and properly maintaining equipment and meet the Air District’s criteria for a less than signiƱcant impact.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen construction air quality impacts identiƱed in the EIR to a less-than- signiƱcant level.

AIR-3 Impact: During construction, the Project could expose oƯ-site sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and PMμϟο.

Mitigation:

Implement mitigation measure LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 above.

MM AIR-3.1: Use construction equipment that has low diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions.

Implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by 35 percent such that increased cancer risk from construction would be reduced below the Air District signiƱcance threshold as follows:

1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise,
Attachment 6

Page 17 of 48 ends

15 a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 veriƱable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve a 35
percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in
comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination).
b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment.

2. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 35 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures:
x Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment,
x Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors, x Use of electrically-powered equipment,
x Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered,
x Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and
x Implementation of diƯerent building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage.

Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction.

Finding: Modeling was completed to determine the eƯectiveness of mitigation measures LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 and MM AIR-3.1 at reducing health risk impacts to project MEI. The modeling results show that with the implementation of mitigation measures LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 and MM AIR- Attachment 6

Page 18 of 48 ends

16 3.1, the project’s signiƱcant cancer risk impact would be reduced to a less than signiƱcant level.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the impacts to sensitive receptors from exposure to pollutants identiƱed in the EIR.

3. Biological Resources
BIO-1 Impact: The Project would have a substantial eƯect, either directly or through habitat modiƱcations, on any special status species identiƱed as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

BIO-4 Impact: The Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory Ʊsh or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Mitigation:

MM BIO-1.1: When possible, construction shall be scheduled 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 1 through August 31.

If it is not possible to schedule construction and tree removal between September and January, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualiƱed 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 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).

Page 19 of 48 ends

17 disturbed by construction, the ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buƯer zone to be established around the nest to ensure that nests of bird species protected by the MBTA or Fish and Game code shall not be disturbed during project construction.

A Ʊnal report of nesting birds, including any protection measures, shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to the start of grading or tree removal.

Finding: The proposed Project, with the implementation of the above mitigation measure, would result in less than signiƱcant impacts to nesting birds by avoiding construction activities during the nesting season and conducting preconstruction surveys if construction activities were to take place during nesting season to avoid disturbing active nests that may be ÍƯected by project construction. If any nesting birds are identiƱed during these surveys, construction-free buƯer zones would be established around nests to protect the nesting birds.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the impacts to special status species and wildlife nursery sites identiƱed in the EIR.

4. Cultural Resources
CUL-2 Impact: The Project would cause a substantial change in the signiƱcance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Mitigation:

MM CUL-2.1: Prior to ground-disturbing activities, a qualiƱed archaeologist shall provide cultural resources training to all contractors and employees involved in trenching and excavation. The training shall inform participants how to recognize archaeological artifacts and deposits, and discuss their obligations under the law and the project mitigation measures.

MM CUL-2.2: A qualiƱed archaeologist shall monitor the demolition of the building foundations and any other below surface disturbances, such as but not limited to, grading, excavation, and utility connections and improvements. If any cultural resources are identiƱed, all activity in the vicinity of such resources shall stop until a research design and treatment plan is prepared to address those types of resources encountered and such Attachment 6

Page 20 of 48 ends

18 plan is approved by the City, as described in mitigation measure MM CUL-2.3 below. Any cultural resources identiƱed shall be evaluated to determine if these resources would qualify for the NRHP or CRHR. If no resources are found during excavation work, the implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-2.3 below is not required.

MM CUL-2.3: In the event that buried, or previously unrecognized archaeological deposits or materials of any kind are inadvertently exposed during any construction activity, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the Ʊnd shall be stopped until a qualiƱed archaeologist can assess the Ʊnd and provide recommendations for further treatment, if warranted. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment of an archeological resource. When preservation in place of an archeological resource is not feasible, data recovery, in accordance with a data recovery plan prepared by a qualiƱed archaeologist and adopted by the City, is the appropriate mitigation.

Construction and potential impacts to the area within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

Finding: With implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-2.1 through MM CUL-2.3, the proposed Project would not result in signiƱcant impacts to buried archaeological resources because it would provide cultural sensitivity training to educate all contractors on types of artifacts and features that may be encountered and what to do if those items are encountered, retain a qualiƱed archaeologist to monitor excavation work, and stop construction and prepare a research design and treatment plan to protect and preserve resources if found.

CUL-3 Impact: The Project would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Mitigation:

MM CUL-3.1: 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 Ʊnd shall be stopped. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notiƱed and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native American Attachment 6

Page 21 of 48 ends

19 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 NAHC immediately. Once NAHC identiƱes the most likely descendants, the descendants shall make recommendations regarding proper burial, which shall be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Finding: With implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-3.1, the proposed Project would not result in signiƱcant impacts to human remains because, if any remains are discovered, work would be stopped within a 50- foot radius of the Ʊnd and, if the Ʊnd is determined to be Native American, recommendations by the most likely descendants would be implemented for a proper burial.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the impacts to human remains identiƱed in the EIR.

5. Energy
EN-1 Impact: The Project would result in a potentially signiƱcant environmental impact due to wasteful, ineƯicient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Mitigation:

Implement mitigation measures LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 and MM AIR-3.1 above.

Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures above will restrict equipment idling times, require that signs be posted on the Project site reminding workers to shut oƯ idle equipment, and require use of certain construction equipment with emission controls, thus reducing the potential for energy waste and reducing Impact EN-1 to a less than signiƱcant level.

6. Geology and Soils
Attachment 6

Page 22 of 48 ends

20 GEO-6 Impact: The Project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.

Mitigation:

MM GEO-6.1: Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identiƱed at the Project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the Sunnyvale Community Development Director notiƱed immediately. A qualiƱed paleontologist shall evaluate the Ʊnd and prescribe measures to preserve the Ʊnd. Work may proceed on other parts of the Project site while measures to preserve the paleontological resources or geologic features are implemented. One such measure would be a buƯer that would be established by the qualiƱed paleontologist. This buƯer would preserve the area immediately surrounding the discovered resource while allowing work to happen beyond the buƯer. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology shall also be submitted to the City.

Finding: With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Project would halt work and implement measures to preserve any undiscovered paleontological resources encountered during construction, ensuring impacts to paleontological resources would be less than signiƱcant.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the impacts to paleontological resources identiƱed in the EIR.

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1 Impact: The Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a signiƱcant impact on the environment.

GHG-2 Impact: The Project would conƲict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Mitigation:

Implement mitigation measures LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 and MM AIR-3.1 above.

Attachment 6

Page 23 of 48 ends

21 Finding: The Project would implement mitigation measure LUTE DEIR MM

3.5.3 and MM AIR-3.1 to restrict idling of construction equipment and utilize energy-ôƯicient equipment, which would in turn reduce GHG emissions. For these reasons, the Project’s construction GHG emissions are less than signiƱcant and the Project would not conƲict with the 2017 CAP goal to reduce GHG emissions.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the greenhouse gas emission impacts identiƱed in the EIR.

8. Noise and Vibration
Refer to Impact NOI-1 and mitigation measures MM NOI-1.1 and MM NOI-1.2 above.

MM NOI-1.3: Ongoing Noise Monitoring and Implementation of Portable Acoustic Barriers: During demolition, grading, excavation, trenching, and tank construction activities on-site, the Project shall conduct ongoing noise monitoring to determine when the use of portable acoustic barriers is required to the prevent the exceedance of the applicable 80 dBA threshold as measured at surrounding sensitive receptors. If noise levels during these construction activities are measured within one dBA of the 80 dBA threshold at surrounding sensitive receptors, then portable acoustic barriers shall be installed between the noise generating equipment and the impacted sensitive receptor prior to initiating any additional noise generating construction activities.

Finding: With implementation of MM NOI-1.3, noise levels at the impacted surrounding receptors during the demolition, grading, excavation, trenching, and tank construction activities on-site would be reduced by up to six dBA.

With strategic positioning of the portable acoustic barriers, even greater noise reduction could be achieved on-site. Therefore, the signiƱcant construction noise impact during demolition, grading, excavation, trenching, and tank construction would be reduced to a less than signiƱcant level with implementation of MM NOI-1.3. The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the Attachment 6

Page 24 of 48 ends

22 construction noise impacts during the demolition, grading, excavation, trenching, and tank construction activities on-site identiƱed in the EIR.

9. Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Impact: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the signiƱcance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as deƱned in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

TCR-2 Impact: The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the signiƱcance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be signiƱcant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

Mitigation:

Implement mitigation measures MM CUL-2.1, MM CUL-2.2, MM CUL-2.3, and MM CUL-3.1 above.

Finding: The Project would implement mitigation measures MM CUL-2.1, MM CUL-2.2, MM CUL-2.3, and MM CUL-3.1 to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to buried cultural resources (including tribal cultural resources) to a less than signiƱcant level by providing cultural sensitivity training to educate all contractors on types of artifacts and features that may be encountered and what to do if those items are encountered, monitoring excavation work by a qualiƱed archaeologist, and stopping construction and preserving the resources in place if any are found, or preparing a data recovery plan if preservation in place is not possible.

The City Ʊnds that, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the tribal cultural resources impacts identiƱed in the EIR.

VIII. Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that an EIR identify a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives which “would feasibly attain the most basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen anyof the signiƱcant environmental eƯects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. ” The purpose is to Attachment 6

Page 25 of 48 ends

23 determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the signiƱcant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.)
The Project would result in one signiƱcant and unavoidable impact due to the construction noise levels generated by nighttime drilling activities on-site (Impact NOI-1). Therefore, the alternatives analysis focused on a reasonable range of alternatives that would avoid or reduce this signiƱcant and unavoidable impact. While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the Project objectives, their ability to meet most of the objectives is relevant to their consideration.

The City Council has reviewed the signiƱcant impact associated with the reasonable range of alternatives as compared to the Project, and in evaluating the alternatives has also considered each alternative’s feasibility, taking into account a range of economic, environmental, social, legal, and other factors. In evaluating the alternatives, the City Council has also considered the important factors listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included below.

Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) provides that when approving a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared, a public agency may Ʊnd that speciƱc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identiƱed in the environmental impact report and, pursuant to Section 21081(b) with respect to signiƱcant eƯects which were subject to a Ʊnding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency Ʊnds that speciƱc overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other beneƱts of the Project outweigh the signiƱcant eƯects on the environment as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included below.

Project Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Several alternatives were considered for the proposed Project and rejected from further analysis due to their infeasibility or inability to meet project objectives or reduce impacts compared to the proposed Project. The Draft EIR (Section 7.2.1) discusses these potential alternatives and the reasons for rejecting them, and the Council conƱrms the decision not to further analyze them.

Among the potential alternatives rejected as infeasible were an onsite alternative well location (Draft EIR sections 2.2.2 and 7.2.1.5) and an oƯsite alternative location (Draft EIR section 7.2.1.6). After the close of the EIR circulation period and publication of the Final Attachment 6

Page 26 of 48 ends

24 EIR, additional comments were received related to an oƯsite location alternative. An oƯsite alternative location for the Project was determined to be infeasible and not further evaluated as the applicant did not have a suitable vacant or developed parcel within the city or service district to develop a new groundwater well, and the City did not have a parcel that could be exchanged for the project site. As further described in the staƯ report to Council dated March 9, 2026 and clariƱed in the supplemental staƯ report for the July 21, 2026 Council meeting, the other sites owned by Cal Water all contain wells and water tanks and do not have space to construct a new well. Acquiring new property in the Los Altos Suburban service district is diƯicult, the proposed Project site is owned by Cal Water, the former onsite well previously produced good yields and the site is already connected to Cal Water’s existing distribution system and infrastructure. The Council adopts as Ʊndings the determinations in the referenced staƯ reports’ Alternatives discussions, which merely clarify and amplify the information in the EIR, and aƯirms the rejection of those potential location alternatives as infeasible.

Selected Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR
The following alternatives to the project were evaluated in further detail Section 7.2.2 of the Draft EIR.

A. No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative
Description: Under the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative, the site would remain as it is today and continue to contain the old chemical storage buildings and inactive booster pump.

Comparison: This Alternative would retain the site in its existing condition with the old chemical storage buildings and inactive booster pump, and none of the proposed improvements would occur. As a result, all direct environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project would be avoided.

Findings: The No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative would avoid all of the Project’s impacts, but would also fail to meet any of the Project objectives.

Moreover, the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative could result in indirect impacts of the same magnitude as the proposed Project in other areas within the service district as Cal Water would implement diƯerent strategies to secure additional groundwater supplies.

For the foregoing reasons, the No Project/No Development Alternative is hereby rejected.

Attachment 6

Page 27 of 48 ends

25 B. No Project/Redevelopment Alternative
Description: The No Project/Redevelopment Alternative assumes that, if the proposed Project were not approved, the site could be sold by Cal Water and redeveloped according to the existing General Plan designation and zoning for the site. The No Project/Redevelopment Alternative assumes up to four single-family residences would be constructed on-site of similar scale and character of existing residences in the surrounding neighborhood, which are primarily single-story residences.

Comparison: Under this Alternative, single-family homes would be built on the site.

This option would create fewer construction impacts to the nearby neighborhoods.

Therefore, the signiƱcant-and-unavoidable impact related to nighttime drilling outside allowed construction hours caused by the Project would be avoided and the signiƱcant-but-mitigable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emission, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and geology and soils caused by the Project would be less but comparable under this alternative.

Findings: The No Project/Redevelopment Alternative would avoid the Project’s signiƱcant and unavoidable construction noise impact and result in similar impacts to other resources. This alternative could result in marginally fewer construction criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and lesser eƯects on subsidence than the proposed Project. This alternative, however, would not meet any of the Project objectives. In addition, the No Project/Redevelopment Alternative could result in indirect impacts of similar magnitude as the proposed Project in other areas within the service district as Cal Water would implement diƯerent strategies to secure additional groundwater supplies.

For the foregoing reasons, the No Project/New Development Alternative is hereby rejected.

C. Shallower Well Depth On-Site Alternative
Description: The Shallower Well Depth Alternative would reduce the amount of time that drilling would occur on-site as the well depth under this alternative would be approximately 600 feet below ground surface, as opposed to the 1,000 feet below ground surface for the proposed Project.

Comparison: This alternative would result in fewer impacts on nearby neighborhoods compared to the proposed Project. However, the Shallower Well Depth would produce insuƯicient groundwater yield or contaminated groundwater resulting in an unsuccessful groundwater extraction.

Attachment 6

Page 28 of 48 ends

26 Findings: The Shallower Well Depth Alternative could lessen, though not avoid, the Project’s signiƱcant and unavoidable construction noise impact because it would still require continuous drilling activities over several weeks. It could result in similar less-than-signiƱcant impacts in other environmental resource areas and could also potentially reduce construction air quality and GHG impacts and operational geology and soils and hydrology and water quality impacts. The target depth, 1,000 feet, is based on data collected during operation of the previous on-site well.

According to Cal Water, historic data indicate that this depth consistently provides reliable groundwater yield and acceptable water quality. Drilling a shallower, 600- foot well would introduce greater uncertainty and risk related to groundwater quantity and quality compared to the proposed depth. As a result, this alternative could lead to indirect impacts such as reduced groundwater yield or degraded water quality. Although this alternative would meet the Project objectives, including replacing the on-site Cal Water supply well, upgrading Cal Water infrastructure, and providing an additional water source to address potential future drought conditions and Ʊre risk, it would do so to a lesser extent than the proposed Project and with less certainty regarding groundwater yield and quality.

For the foregoing reasons, the No Project/New Development Alternative is hereby rejected.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines require identiƱcation of an environmentally superior alternative. Based on direct impacts alone, the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative is environmentally superior because it would avoid the Project’s signiƱcant environmental impacts. However, CEQA Guidelines require identiƱcation of another environmentally superior alternative when the no-Project alternative is selected. The No Project/Redevelopment Alternative is also environmentally superior based on direct impacts, as it would avoid signiƱcant and unavoidable construction noise and result in fewer impacts to air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality than the proposed Project. However, both these alternatives would result in indirect impacts comparable to the proposed Project in other residential areas of the Los Altos Suburban service district, since Cal Water would still need to secure a supplemental groundwater source to meet demand.

IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) sets forth speciƱc monitoring actions, timing requirements and monitoring/veriƱcation entities for each mitigation Attachment 6

Page 29 of 48 ends

27 measure adopted in this Exhibit A, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP and determines that compliance with the MMRP is a condition of approval of the Project.

X. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Sunnyvale adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining signiƱcant, unavoidable impact of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social, and other beneƱts of the Project.

Based on the record of proceedings, the City Ʊnds and determines that (1) the majority of the signiƱcant impacts of the Project will be reduced to a less-than-signiƱcant level by implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and adopted with these Ʊndings; (2) the City’s approval of the Project as proposed will result in one signiƱcant adverse environmental eƯect that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than- signiƱcant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce to a less-than signiƱcant level the remaining signiƱcant environmental eƯect.

Cal Water has no feasible alternative site because the six other sites owned by Cal Water in Sunnyvale are already active and lack suƯicient space to accommodate an additional well and water tank, and according to Cal Water, constructing a new well at an active station could require temporarily taking critical water supply infrastructure out of service.

Additionally, no quieter alternative equipment is feasible, as available options would be less eƯective or eƯicient than the proposed equipment. Though continuous 24-hour drilling will cause unavoidable nighttime noise, continuous drilling is required because stopping work could lead to borehole collapse and equipment damage, which will lead to extended project duration. Also, there are no alternate drilling techniques available that would reduce noise to a less-than-signiƱcant level or allow drilling to pause during nighttime and resume only during allowed construction hours.

The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all public hearings related to the Project, and does hereby determine that implementation of the Project as speciƱcally provided in the Project documents would result in the following substantial public beneƱts:

Attachment 6

Page 30 of 48 ends

28 x Reactivating the site for groundwater extraction would provide potable water to Cal Water’s Los Altos Suburban service district, which serves parts of Sunnyvale and surrounding cities.
x The proposed Project supports the City’s water supply goals and policies outlined in the General Plan, including the following:
o Community Vision: Goal XII. Supportive Utilities: To provide and maintain water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and drainage facilities that are safe, ôƯicient, and reliable, and which can develop suƯicient capacity to meet the expected growth of the city.
o Land Use and Transportation: Policy LT-1.9. Work with regional agencies to ensure an adequate water supply that will allow progress toward Sunnyvale’s long-term land use plans.
o Environmental Management: Goal EM-1. Adequate Water Supplies:

Acquire and manage water supplies so that existing and future reasonable demands for water, as projected in the 20-year forecast, are reliably met. o Environmental Management: Action Statement EM-1.1a. Investigate possibilities to increase well water sources within the City. o Environmental Management: Policy EM-1.3. Provide enough redundancy in the water supply system so that minimum potable water demand and Ʊre suppression requirements can be met under both normal and emergency circumstances.
o Environmental Management: Goal EM-3. Reliable and Safe Water Distribution: Proactively maintain the water distribution system infrastructure to ensure the reliable and safe delivery of water under normal and emergency conditions to both current and future customers.

The Project is also consistent with the General Plan land use designation and Zoning of Low Density Residential which is intended primarily for low density residential use and other compatible uses as acknowledged in the General Plan and enumerated in the Zoning Code.
x The proposed Project would replace a critical water supply well that was decommissioned and destroyed due to age and would upgrade aged infrastructure to enhance and improve the reliability of the water supply. x The proposed Project is an eƯicient and cost-ôƯective way to increase local serving water supply, as the former on-site well had strong yields and is already connected to the existing distribution system.
x The proposed Project is needed to safeguard public health and safety in Sunnyvale and surrounding cities by providing a reliable alternative potable water supply. Cal Water’s Los Altos Suburban District relies mainly on water from Valley Water, with Attachment 6

Page 31 of 48 ends

29 aging groundwater wells providing supplemental supply. Frequent maintenance and unexpected outages from the district’s aging infrastructure, combined with potential disruptions from Valley Water’s 2021–2028 pipeline program (2023–2026), pose a signiƱcant risk to water reliability.
x The proposed Project would supply additional groundwater to ensure emergency potable water for Sunnyvale and nearby cities, during peak demand, or disasters like Ʊres or earthquakes.

The City Council has weighed each of the above beneƱts of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental eƯect identiƱed in the EIR, and hereby determines that those beneƱts, and each of them, outweigh the risks and adverse environmental eƯects of the Project and, therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental eƯects are acceptable and overridden. Each of the above statements constitutes a separate and independent ground for Ʊnding that the beneƱts of the Project outweigh its signiƱcant adverse environmental eƯect.

Attachment 6

Page 32 of 48 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank Project
File # PLN2022-7041, SCH # 2023020080
January 2026
Attachment 6

Page 33 of 48 ends

P R E F A C E
S
ection 21081.6 of the C alifornia Environmental Quality A ct (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) whenever it approves a project for which measures hav e been required to m itigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the mo nitori ng and reporting program is to ens ure compliance w i th the mitigation measures during project implementation.

On July 21, 2026, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank project. The Final
EIR concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were identified to reduce significant impacts identified. This MMRP addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

Attachment 6

Page 34 of 48 ends

AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-1: The
project would not
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan with mitigation
incorporated.

Im
pact AIR-2: The
project would not result
in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is non-attainment
under an applicable
federal or state ambient
air quality standard with
mitigation incorporated.

LUT E DEIR MM 3.5.3: Basic BMPs – Include measures to
control dust and exhaust during construction.

Du
ring any construction period ground disturbance, the
applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below
would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level.

Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• 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.

Prior to issuance of
building permits, the
applicant is responsible
for incorporating the
measures to control
dust, particulate matter,
and diesel emissions
included in this
mitigation measure into
the final plan set. The
City is responsible for
reviewing the final plan
set for compliance.

Dur
ing construction,
the applicant and its
contractors are
responsible for
implementing the
measures identified in
the mitigation measure.

Al l measures to
control dust,
particulate matter,
and diesel
emissions during
construction listed
in this mitigation
measure shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans.

Com munity
Development
Director
Attachment 6

Page 35 of 48 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank Project
File # 2022-7041, SCH # 2023020080
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited
to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Attachment 6

Page 36 of 48 ends

Refer to LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 above.

MM AIR-3.1: Use construction equipment that has low
diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions.

Implement a
feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by 35
percent such that increased cancer risk from construction would be reduced below the Air District significance
threshold as follows:

1. All construc
tion equipment larger than 25
horsepower used at the site for more than two
continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S.

EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM
10 and
PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise,
a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available,
alternatively use equipment that meets U.S.

EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3
engines and include particulate matter
emissions control equivalent to CARB
Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control
devices that altogether achieve a 35 percent
reduction in particulate matter exhaust in
comparison to uncontrolled equipment;
alternatively (or in combination).
b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled
equipment.

2. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another
construction operations plan demonstrating that the
Prior to issuance of
building permits, the
applicant is responsible
for incorporating the
measures to control
diesel particulate matter
emissions into the final
plan set. The City is
responsible for
reviewing the final plan
set for compliance.

During constructio
n,
the applicant and its
contractors are
responsible for
implementing the diesel
particulate matter
control measures
identified in the
mitigation measure.

All measures to
reduce diesel
particulate matter
emissions shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans.

Community
Dev
elopment
Director
Attachment 6

Page 37 of 48 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank Project
File # 2022-7041, SCH # 2023020080
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
construction equipment used on-site would achieve a
reduction in construction diesel particulate matter
emissions by 35 percent or greater. Elements of the
plan could include a combination of some of the
following measures:
a. Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier
4 or alternatively fueled equipment,
b. Installation of electric power lines during
early construction phases to avoid use of
diesel generators and compressors,
c. Use of electrically-powered equipment,
d. Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior
and interior building construction shall be
electric or propane/natural gas powered,
e. Change in construction build-out plans to
lengthen phases, and
f. Implementation of different building
techniques that result in less diesel
equipment usage.

Such a
construction operations plan would be subject to
review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: The
project would not have a
substantial effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
MM BIO-1.1: When possible, construction shall be
scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible.

The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in The applicant is
responsible for ensuring
construction activities
avoid the nesting
All mitigation
measures shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
Community
Development
Director
Attachment 6

Page 38 of 48 ends

Impa
ct BIO-4: The
project would not
interfere substantially
with the movement of
any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites
with mitigation
incorporated.
the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1 through August 31.

If i
t is not possible to schedule construction and tree removal between September and January, then 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 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).

Duri
ng this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats within and immediately
adjacent to the construction area 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 to ensure that nests of bird species protected by the MBTA or Fish and Game code shall not be disturbed during project construction.

A fi
nal report of nesting birds, including any protection
measures, shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to the start of grading or tree removal. season to the extent
feasible.

The ap
plicant is
responsible for ensuring
pre-construction
surveys are completed
(as described in
mitigation measure
MM BIO-1.1) if
construction and tree
removal cannot occur
between September and
January. Any
construction buffer
zones determined to be
required shall be
implemented and
maintained during
construction activities.

Prio
r to the start of
grading or tree removal,
the applicant is
responsible for
submitting a final report
of nesting birds
(including any
protection measures) to
the City.
contracts, and
project plans.

A fin
al report of
nesting birds,
including any
protection
measures shall be
submitted by the
applicant to the
City.

Attachment 6

Page 39 of 48 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-2: The
project would not cause a
substantial change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section
1564.5 with mitigation
incorporated.

M M CUL-2.1: Prior to ground-disturbing activities, a
qualified archaeologist shall provide cultural resources training to all contractors and employees involved in
trenching and excavation. The training shall inform
participants how to recognize archaeological artifacts and deposits, and discuss their obligations under the law and the project mitigation measures.

Prior to ground-
disturbing activities, the
applicant is responsible
for having a qualified
archeologist provide a
cultural resources
training to all
contractors as described
in mitigation measure
MM CUL-2.1.

All mitigation
measures shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans.

Co mmunity
Development
Director
M M CUL-2.2: A qualified archaeologist shall monitor the demolition of the building foundations and any other below surface disturbances, such as but not limited to, grading, excavation, roadway improvements, and utility connections and improvements. If any cultural resources are identified, all activity in the vicinity of such resources shall stop until a research design and treatment plan is prepared to address those types of resources encountered and such plan is
approved by the City, as described in mitigation measure MM CUL-2.3 below. Any cultural resources identified shall be evaluated to determine if these resources would qualify for the NRHP or CRHR. If no resources are found during
excavation work, the implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-2.3 is not required.

During demolition of
the building
foundations and any
other below surface
disturbances, the
applicant is responsible
for having a qualified
archaeologist monitor
construction activities.

All mitigation
measures shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans.

Co mmunity
Development
Director
Attachment 6

Page 40 of 48 ends

Preservation in place is the preferred treatment of an
archeological resource. When preservation in place of an archeological resource is not feasible, data recovery, in accordance with a data recovery plan prepared by a qualified archaeologist and adopted by the City, is the appropriate mitigation. Construction and potential impacts to the area within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

If archaeological
deposits are found, the
applicant and its
contractor are
responsible for
implementing
mitigation measure
MM CUL-2.3 at the
time of discovery.

Al l mitigation
measures shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans.

Com munity
Development
Director
Impact CUL-3: The
project would not disturb
any human remains,
including those interred
outside of dedicated
cemeteries with
mitigation incorporated.

MM CUL-3.1: 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 NAHC immediately.

Once NAHC identifies the most likely descendants, the
descendants shall make recommendations regarding proper burial, which shall be implemented in accordance with
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

If human remains are
found, the applicant and
its contractor are
responsible for
implementing
mitigation measure
MM CUL-3.1 at the
time of discovery.

All mitigation
measures shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans.

Community
Development
Director
Attachment 6

Page 41 of 48 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank Project
File # 2022-7041, SCH # 2023020080
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
ENERGY
Impact EN-1: The
project would not result
in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption
of energy resources,
during project
construction or operation
with mitigation
incorporated.

Refer to LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 and MM AIR-3.1 above.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-6: The
project would not
directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geological feature with
mitigation incorporated.

MM GEO-6.1: Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet shall cease and the Sunnyvale Community Development Director notified immediately. A
qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe measures to preserve the find. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measures to preserve the paleontological resources or geologic features are
implemented. One such measure would be a buffer that
would be established by the qualified paleontologist. This buffer would preserve the area immediately surrounding the discovered resource while allowing work to happen beyond the buffer. Upon completion of the paleontological
assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological All m itigation
measures shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans.

Commun ity
Development
Director
Attachment 6

Page 42 of 48 ends

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: The
project would not
generate GHG emissions,
either directly or
indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on
the environment with
mitigation incorporated.

Im
pact GHG-2: The
project would not
conflict with an
applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs
with mitigation
incorporated.

Refer to LUTE DEIR MM 3.5.3 and MM AIR-3.1 above.

Attachment 6

Page 43 of 48 ends

NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impact NOI-1: The
project would result in
generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels
(specifically the project
construction drilling
phase) in the vicinity of
the project in excess of
standards established in
the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of
other agencies, even with
mitigation incorporated.

MM NOI-1.1: Installation of Acoustic Barriers: During
drilling activities on-site, the project shall install the following acoustic barriers (the installation of which shall take place during regular, daytime construction hours):
• Approximately 600 linear feet of 32-foot-high,
Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated 32 acoustic
barrier wall shall be installed parallel to the site
boundaries. The acoustic barrier wall shall be
installed with no openings or gaps except for an
acoustical gate on the north side of the project site to facilitate site access during drilling activities. This acoustical gate shall remain closed during drilling
operations.
• Approximately 190 linear feet of 20-foot-high, STC
rated 32 dual K-rail mounted acoustic barriers shall
be installed on the south and north sides of drilling
equipment. These acoustic barriers shall also be
installed on portions of the east and west sides of
drilling equipment as shown in Figure 7-3 of the
Noise Assessment Report.
• Approximately 72 linear feet of 12-foot-high, STC
rated 25 acoustic barrier walls shall be installed on
the north, west and south sides of mud pump and air
compressor.
• Approximately 96 linear feet of 8-foot-high, STC
rated 25 acoustical blankets shall be installed on the
rig floor.

The applicant shall
apply for a
Miscellaneous Plan
Permit with the City at
least 60 days prior to
initiation of drilling
activities to finalize the
design, size, and
location of the acoustic
barriers. The design of
the barriers shall be
consistent with the
placement indicated on
Figure 7-3 of the Noise
Assessment Report.

The City is responsible
for reviewing the final
plan set for consistency.

Pr
ior to the
commencement of
drilling activities on
site, the applicant is
responsible for
installing acoustic
barriers.

The location and
size of the acoustic
barriers shall be
identified on the
final plan set.

Th
e acoustic
barriers shall be
installed on-site as
noted in the final
plan set.

Com munity
Development
Director
Attachment 6

Page 44 of 48 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
800 Carlisle Way Well and Water Tank Project
File # 2022-7041, SCH # 2023020080
Impact Mitigation Measure(s)
Timeframe and
Responsibility for
Implementation
Method of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
MM NOI-1.2: Provisi on of Vouchers for Alternative
Accommodations. California Water Service (Cal Water) shall provide the two nearest residences adjacent to the
southwestern portion of the project site (i.e., 819 and 823 Coventry Court as identified in the Noise Assessment Report dated July 24, 2024 in Appendix B of the Draft EIR) with the potential to exceed 50 dBA noise levels during nighttime drilling activities, with vouchers for alternative
accommodations. At least 45 days prior to the initiation of nighttime drilling activities, Cal Water shall communicate the anticipated drilling schedule to the affected residents at 819 and 823 Coventry Court. Vouchers shall be offered based on the needs of each household for the specific dates that nighttime drilling activities are scheduled. It is anticipated that the nighttime drilling activities would occur over two separate phases. Vouchers for alternative accommodations shall be issued for each of the two phases based on the finalized construction schedule and be for $300/night/room, with the necessary number of rooms being determined
through consultation with the affected residents.

Confirmation regarding the provision of vouchers for
alternative accommodations shall be provided by Cal Water to the City prior to the initiation of nighttime drilling activities.

Prior to the
commencement of
nighttime drilling
activities, the applicant
is responsible for
providing the City and
residents of the affected
households with the
proposed construction
schedule. The applicant
is responsible for
providing vouchers for
alternative
accommodations to the
affected residents
during the periods of
nighttime drilling
activities and
submitting proof of
issuance to the City.

The City is responsible
for confirming issuance
of the vouchers.

A memorandum
from the applicant
documenting the
issuance of
vouchers for
alternative
accommodation to
the affected
residents.

Community
Develo
pment
Director
MM NOI-1.3: Ongoing Noise Monitoring and
Implementation of Portable Acoustic Barriers: During
demolition, grading, excavation, trenching, and tank
construction activities on-site, the project shall conduct ongoing noise monitoring to determine when the use of
Prior to the
commencement of
demolition, grading,
excavation, trenching,
and tank construction
The monitoring
plan shall be
printed on all
construction
documents,
Community
Development
Director
Attachment 6

Page 45 of 48 ends

During demoliti
on,
grading, excavation,
trenching, and tank
construction activities
on-site, the applicant
shall conduct ongoing
noise monitoring to
determine when the use
of portable acoustic
barriers is required to
the prevent the
exceedance of the
applicable 80 dBA
threshold per mitigation
measure MM NOI-1.3.

The applicant is
responsible for
installing portable
acoustic barriers
between the noise
generating equipment
and the impacted
sensitive receptor as
required per mitigation
measure MM NOI-1.3.
contracts, and
project plans.

Ongoing noise
monitor
ing shall be
conducted during
all demolition,
grading,
excavation,
trenching, and tank
construction
activities on-site.

Portable acoustic
barriers shall be
installed if
construction noise
is within one dBA
of the 80 dBA
threshold.

Attachment 6

Page 46 of 48 ends

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TCR-1: The
project would not cause a
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is
listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k) with
mitigation incorporated.

Impact TCR-2: The
project would not cause a
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is
determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion
and supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
Refer to MM CUL-2.1, MM CUL-2.2, MM CUL-2.3, and
MM CUL-3.1 above.

Attachment 6

Page 47 of 48 ends

Sources: 1) City of Sunnyvale. 800 Carlisle Way Well & Water Tank Draft EIR (including Appendix A). January 2026. 2) City of Sunnyvale. 800 Carlisle Way Well & Water Tank Final EIR. February 2026.

Attachment 6

Page 48 of 48 ends

Sunnyvale City CouncilJuly 21, 2026

Sunnyvale City Council
July 21, 2026