REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
CONTINUED FROM APRIL 7, 2026
Proposed Project: Consider applications on a 0.77-acre site at Carlisle Way:
USE PERMIT: To allow construction of a replacement groundwater extraction well, a 17-foot-tall water storage tank, chemical storage cabinets, and associated utility and right-of-way improvements; and
EIR: Adopt a Resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), make required findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Location: 800 Carlisle Way (APN: 309-12-013)
File: 2022-7041
Zoning: R-0/S (Low Density Residential/Single-Story combining district)
Applicant and Owner: California Water Service (Cal Water)
Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report
Project Planner: Mary Jeyaprakash, (408) 730-7449, mjeyaprakash@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Report
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission considered this item on March 9, 2026 (Attachment 1 - PC Staff Report). Four members of the public spoke on the item. Staff also received several comment letters. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (with Commissioner Davis recused and Commissioner Figone absent) to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Use Permit as recommended by staff with the following modifications:
• Correct page 28 of the draft findings exhibit to the EIR Resolution to identify ‘Low Density Residential’ as the General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site (Attachment 6, page 28).
• Add a condition of approval to limit the discharge of water from the production test to the storm drain system to no more than 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm) and only during dry weather season (Attachment 5, Condition of Approval # GC-11).
• Add a condition of approval that the applicant must conduct noise and vibration monitoring during drilling activities and make the information available to the public in real time (Attachment 5, Condition of Approval # GC-13).
Following the Planning Commission hearing, the Environmental Services Department (ESD) recommends adding the following Condition:
• Obtain a groundwater discharge permit from ESD prior to any discharge to the sanitary sewer and limit the discharge to no more than 200 gpm and only during dry weather conditions (Attachment 5, Condition of Approval # GC-12).
This condition was inadvertently excluded during the preparation of the Planning Commission staff report. The applicant has agreed to the added condition.
City Council was originally scheduled to consider this item at the April 7, 2026 public hearing. The project was continued to provide City staff and the applicant with additional time to address the new conditions and questions raised during the Planning Commission hearing. Modifications to the conditions after the Planning Commission hearing are shown in tracked changes in Attachment 5.
SUMMARY OF NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS
A project-specific noise and vibration study prepared by the applicant's technical consultant was peer reviewed by the City's consultant, who confirmed that the methodology and analysis were appropriate (see Attachment 9 for Noise Assessment and Peer Review). The study evaluated both construction and operational noise impacts, including noise generated by drilling activities at adjacent properties. The study evaluated noise impacts using a combination of standards from the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and the Federal Transit Administration. The study identified that, even with sound mitigation barriers (see Attachment 6 for Recommended Conditions of Approval - GC-6), nighttime noise levels would exceed the City’s limit at two nearby residences (819 and 823 Coventry Court), which are closest to the proposed well. To mitigate this impact, Cal Water will provide hotel accommodation (see Attachment 6 for Recommended Conditions of Approval - GC-7) to the affected households. Cal Water is responsible for implementing the mitigation measures, and the City will oversee compliance.
The study also evaluated whether drilling activities would generate vibration levels that could damage nearby structures. While a threshold of 0.3 inches per second (ips) is commonly used to protect older residential buildings, the analysis applied a more conservative daytime threshold of 0.25 ips, which is commonly used to protect sensitive historic buildings. For nighttime drilling, an even more stringent threshold of 0.04 ips was used, representing the level at which vibration generally becomes perceptible to people, which is well below the levels associated with structural damage. The maximum predicted vibration level at the nearest property line during drilling was 0.03 ips, which is below both thresholds. Therefore, the study concluded that drilling-related vibration impacts would be less significant.
RESPONSE TO KEY ISSUES
The following are responses to key issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing:
• Modified conditions of approval - noise and vibration monitoring: The applicant generally agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommended modified conditions of approval, including noise and vibration monitoring and public reporting of monitoring data during drilling activities. After further discussions with the applicant on monitoring, staff recommend that in lieu of real-time data displayed without context, the applicant prepares, and makes public, a daily report noting any exceedances, source of exceedances, and corrective action to address exceedances. This process would meet the spirit of the Planning Commission recommendation while providing more meaningful and transparent information to the public. This staff-recommended variation to the Planning Commission recommendation is included as part of Alternative 3 below. The applicant prepared a Monitoring Plan (Attachment 15, pages 2 through 25), which includes the updated information about monitoring and reporting. The Monitoring Plan also assigns a 24-hour noise coordinator for the drilling operation.
• Feasibility of alternative sites: The Planning Commission requested additional information about why alternative sites are infeasible. There are seven Cal Water stations within Sunnyvale, including the proposed project site. The other six sites are already active and lack sufficient space to accommodate an additional well and water tank. Cal Water also claims that constructing a new well at an active station could require temporarily taking critical water supply infrastructure out of service. In addition, there are no similarly sized surplus Cal Water owned lands that can be used. Therefore, the project site is the only suitable station for a replacement well and is needed for ensuring a long-term water supply (see Attachment 15, page 1).
• Alternate mechanism for diesel powered drilling: The Planning Commission requested that the applicant evaluate the feasibility of using alternatives to a diesel-powered drill rig. Cal Water consulted with Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE), a hydrogeology and engineering firm, who concluded that an electric-powered drill rig is not a practical or feasible option. Due to the well’s depth and size, the drilling operation requires significant power, torque, and lifting capacity. According to LSCE, an electric drill rig would require a large diesel generator to provide the necessary power, resulting in noise and emissions comparable to those of a conventional diesel-powered rig. LSCE also noted that the number of qualified drilling contractors capable of performing this type of work in Northern California is limited, and none currently operate electric drill rigs for municipal well construction. As a result, requiring an electric drill rig could significantly limit the pool of qualified contractors and adversely affect project feasibility, cost, and schedule (see Attachment 15, page 26).
• Consistency in proposed tree removal between the EIR and site plan: The Planning Commission noted inconsistent tree information provided by the applicant. The Final EIR disclosed one fewer non-protected tree to be removed than was on the applicant’s proposed tree removal plan. The applicant’s tree removal plan includes 10 total trees for removal (Attachment 8), of which:
o 7 are protected trees (38-inch circumference measured 4.5 feet from the ground),
o 3 are non-protected trees,
o 4 trees for removal are dead, dying, or in poor health (3 of which are protected), and
o 6 trees for removal to accommodate project (4 of which are protected)
An erratum to the EIR has been prepared to document the updated tree removal and replacement counts and to explain why these revisions do not represent significant new information that would trigger recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA (Attachment 11).
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council meeting agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board at City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Public Library and in the Department of Public Safety Lobby. In addition, the agenda and this report are available at the City Hall reception desk located on the first floor of City Hall at 456 W. Olive Avenue (during normal business hours), and on the City's website.
Staff received additional comment letters since publication of the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 14), noting concerns regarding adequacy of the EIR. Many of the topics covered in those letters were also raised during the circulation of the Draft EIR. The City’s environmental consultant, David J. Powers & Associates, has prepared a memo response to the additional comment letters (Attachment 13).
ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1. Adopt a Resolution to Certify the EIR, Make the Findings Required by CEQA, and Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Attachment 6.
2. Do not certify the EIR and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.
USE PERMIT
3. Make the Recommended Findings for the Use Permit in Attachment 4 and Approve the Use Permit subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 5.
4. Make the Recommended Findings for the Use Permit; and Approve the Use Permit subject to Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 5 with modifications.
5. Do not make the required Findings and direct staff where changes should be made.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternatives 1 and 3:
1. Adopt a Resolution to Certify the EIR, Make the Findings Required by CEQA, and Adopt the Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
3. Make the Recommended Findings in Attachment 4 to the report and approve the Use Permit subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 5 to the report (as modified by the Planning Commission).
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies related to water supply reliability and infrastructure resilience. The proposed well is part of the district-wide potable water system for California Water Service’s Los Altos Suburban District. The proposed project would improve the reliability and resiliency of water supply within the District, which serves approximately 2,000 service connections and 7,800 residents in Sunnyvale. The proposed well would help maintain a dependable supply of safe drinking water, particularly during periods of peak demand, system outages, or emergency conditions.
The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA requirements and is determined to be adequate and compliant. While continuous drilling activities occurring outside permitted construction hours would result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact (even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures), the impact is outweighed by the project’s substantial public benefits. Specifically, the project would support the protection of public health and safety by ensuring a reliable and resilient potable water supply for the community. Providing hotel vouchers and noise/vibration monitoring during the drilling period will help to reduce concerns raised by residents.
LEVINE ACT
The Levine Act (Gov. Code Section 84308) prohibits city officials from participating in certain decisions regarding licenses, permits, and other entitlements for use if the official has received a campaign contribution of more than $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant in the previous 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
An “X” in the checklist below indicates that the action being considered falls under a Levine Act category or exemption:
SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
_X_ Land development entitlements
___ Other permit, license, or entitlement for use
___ Contract or franchise
EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
___ Competitively bid contract*
___ Labor or personal employment contract
___ Contract under $50,000 or non-fiscal
___ Contract between public agencies
___ General policy and legislative actions
* "Competitively bid" means a contract that must be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Staff
Prepared by: Mary Jeyaprakash, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Noren Caliva-Lepe, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Shaunn Mendrin, Planning Officer
Reviewed by: Matt VanHua, Assistant Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Connie Verceles, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tim Kirby, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report to Planning Commission [26-0192, March 9, 2026] (without attachments)
2. Noticing and Vicinity Map
3. Project Data Table
4. Recommended Findings
5. Recommended Conditions of Approval (updated for City Council)
6. Draft Resolution: Actions related to Certifying EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations (updated for City Council)
7. Letter from Applicant
8. Site and Architectural Plans (updated for City Council)
9. Noise Assessment and Peer Review
10. Links to Draft Environmental Impact Report, and Technical Studies
11. Link to Final Environmental Impact Report and Responses to Public Comments (updated for City Council)
12. Supplemental Memo Added Following Publication
Additional Attachments for Report to Council
13. Memo Addressing Public Questions and Comments After Planning Commission
14. Public Questions and Comments
15. Applicant Memo: Alternate Site, Monitoring Plan, and Alternate Drilling
16. Excerpt of Final Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 2026