downtown college preparatory relocation project

City of San José i April 2016
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................... 1
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 2
2.1 PROJECT TITLE ................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................ 2
2.4 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER..................................................................................... 2
2.6 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS ......................... 2
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 6
SECTION 4.0 SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACTS ........................... 14
4.1 AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 20
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 29
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 34
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................... 49
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................ 61
4.10 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 68
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 72
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 118
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of San José ii April 2016
FIGURES
Figure 2.2-3 Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................... 5
Figure 3.2-1 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3.2-2 Building One Interior Renovations (first floor) .......................................................... 9
Figure 3.2-3 Building One Interior Renovations (second floor) .................................................... 10
Figure 3.2-4 Building Two Interior Renovations........................................................................... 11
Figure 4.16-1 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................ 91
Figure 4.16-2 Study Intersections .................................................................................................... 94
TABLES
Table 3.0-1: Proposed School Schedule ............................................................................................... 7
Table 4.3-1: Number of Ambient Air Quality Standards Violations and Highest Concentrations
(2013-2015) .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4.6-1: Active Faults Near the Project Site ................................................................................ 37
Table 4.7-1: Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Criteria ................................................ 47
Table 4.8-1: Hazardous Materials Sites Within 1/8 Mile Radius of Project Site ............................... 51
Table 4.12-1: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise in San José (GP Table EC-
1) .......................................................................................................................................................... 74
Table 4.16-1: VTA Bus Service in the Project Area ........................................................................... 90
Table 4.16-2: Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay........................................... 92
Table 4.16-3: Signalized Study Intersections Level of Service – Existing Conditions ...................... 93
Table 4.16-4: Background Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................. 96
Table 4.16-5: Total Project Trip Generation Summary .................................................................... 100
Table 4.16-6: Proposed School Schedule ......................................................................................... 101
Table 4.16-7: Peak Hour Project Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................ 101
Table 4.16-8: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .................................................. 102
Table 4.16-9: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................................... 104
APPENDICES
Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis
Downtown College Prep Relocation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San José 1 April 2016
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations §15000 et.seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of San José (referred to as
“the City” hereafter), California. The purpose of this Initial Study is to provide objective information
regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project to the decision makers who will
be reviewing and considering the project.
The City of San José is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to evaluate
the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from the relocation of two
Downtown College Prep charter schools, El Primero High School and El Camino Middle School, to
the project site and the renovation of the site to accommodate the schools.
All documents referenced in this Initial Study are available for public review in the Office of
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement at San José City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, during
normal business hours.
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 1402 Monterey Highway, on the southeast corner of Alma Avenue and
Monterey Highway in the City of San José.
Figure 2.2-1 Regional Map
Figure 2.2-2 Vicinity Map
Figure 2.2-3 Aerial Map
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
City of San José
San Jose, CA 95113
477-07-012
Zoning District: CIC – Combined Industrial/Commercial
General Plan Designation: Combined Industrial/Commercial
2.6 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS
Conditional Use Permit
Panoma Avenue
Panoma Avenue
5
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, March 18, 2016. Photo Date: Mar. 2015
0 25 100 200 300 Feet
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 EXISTING SITE
The 3.38-acre project site is comprised of one parcel (APN 477-07-012) and is located at 1402
Monterey Highway, on the southeast corner of Alma Avenue and Monterey Highway in the City of
San José. The project site is designated CIC – Combined Industrial/Commercial in the Envision San
José 2040 General Plan and zoned CIC – Combined Industrial/Commercial.
The project site is currently developed with vacant commercial buildings which were most recently
occupied by a lumber supply store. There are three buildings on the site with a combined total of
81,498 square feet (sf) of commercial building space. Landscaping on the project site includes trees
and small shrubs, which line the perimeter of the parking lot. The main retail building, totaling
64,595 sf, takes up most of the southwest portion of the site. For the remainder of this report this
building will be referred to as “Building One.” The two smaller buildings on the project site, totaling
16,903 sf, occupy the eastern portion of the site and are separated from the front parking lot by a
concrete wall, which contains three metal gates for vehicle and pedestrian ingress and egress. These
buildings share a partition wall and are configured in an L-shape. For the remainder of this report the
eastern of these two buildings will be referred to as “Building Two” and the more western of the two
will be referred to as “Building Three.” Building One is a two-story structure and buildings two and
three are single-story structures.
There is one main parking lot that runs adjacent to, and along the entire frontage of, Alma Avenue
and contains 92 parking spaces. Additionally, there are some parking spaces for vehicle loading and
unloading on the south side of the concrete wall, directly in front of Building Three. Vehicular
ingress and egress to the project site is provided by three driveways on Alma Avenue and one
driveway on Monterey Highway.
3.2 REDEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESIGN
The proposed project would result in the relocation of two Downtown College Prep charter schools,
El Primero High School (high school) located at 1460 The Alameda and El Camino Middle School
(middle school) located at 1155 East Julian Street, to the project site and the renovation of the site to
accommodate the schools, as shown on Figure 3.2-1. Following the relocation, the high school
would increase its student capacity from 357 to 709 students and the middle school would increase
its student capacity from 140 to 528 students, for a maximum student capacity of 1,237.
The school would operate on a staggered schedule to avoid all students having to arrive on campus at
the same time. The transportation analysis is based on the schedule shown in Table 3.0-1 below.
Table 3.0-1: Proposed School Schedule
Time Activity
6:50-7:20 AM Breakfast (15 percent of middle school students participate)
7:20-8:20 AM Zero Period (50 high school students are anticipated to participate)
7:30 AM Start of School – Middle School
8:30 AM Start of School – High School
2:55 AM End of School – Middle School
3:55 PM End of School – High School (10 percent of high school students are
anticipated to stay late for after-school programs)
The project proposes to renovate the interior of Building One to accommodate classrooms for both
the middle school and high school. As shown on Figures 3.2-2 and 3.2-3, interior renovations would
include partitioning areas of the building for individual classrooms and ancillary uses, as well as
establishing a partial second floor that would consist of classrooms and a staff workroom/lounge
area. The addition of the second floor would increase the usable building square footage to 75,122
sf. An administrative and student support area for both schools would be located within the
northwestern portion of Building One. Exterior renovations to Building One would include the
addition of windows on the first and second floors, as well as other minor modifications including the
addition of a second entranceway to the building.
Building Three would be demolished and Building Two, approximately 9,876 sf, would be renovated
to house a multi-use room, dance/weight room, and boys’ and girls’ locker rooms as seen on Figure
3.2-4. Physical education and sports activities would occur within Building Two and at off-site
locations. No outdoor space for the students is proposed.
The proposed use of the site for a charter high school and middle school would require a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) under the existing zoning designation of CIC – Combine Industrial/Commercial.
3.2.1 Access and Parking
The project proposes to reconfigure the parking lot and modify automobile circulation. The area in
front of Building One would remain a parking lot. The area between Building One and Building
Two would also be utilized for parking. The proposed parking lot would contain a total of 188
spaces. Staff parking would be designated.
In order to facilitate student drop-off and pick-up, an existing right-turn in and out driveway on
Monterey Highway and one full access driveway on Alma Avenue would be removed to provide a
clear path for student drop-offs and pick-ups. Two other existing driveways on Alma Avenue would
be retained. The westernmost driveway would only allow vehicle ingress to the site, and the
easternmost driveway would only allow vehicle egress from the site. A designate drop-off area
would be located in front of the building entrance to allow students to be dropped off without
walking through the parking lot.
The project proposes 195 bicycle parking spaces which would be located along the northern façade
of Building One and at the southern end of the parking area, adjacent to the southeast corner of
Building One.
OCCUPANCY 'E' ±59,000 sf
NAVD88 ELEV. 104.60'
NAVD88 ELEV. 104.60'
PARKING 70 SPACES
9
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 30'-0"
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
BREAK-OUT 794 SF
N
10
DN.
DN.
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 22'-81
4" 22'-81 4" 30'-0"
ELEV.
DN.
N
11
7'-0" HIGH SCREEN WALL
5'-0" DIAMETER CLEAR SPACE
3.2.2 Landscaping
There are street trees along Monterey Highway and Alma Road and a few trees interior to the site
located around the buildings. All but two trees, located near the entrance of Building One, are
proposed to be retained on-site. Five additional street trees are proposed by the project as well as 11
new trees along the southern property line, between Buildings One and Two.
3.2.3 Temporary Classrooms
Renovation of Building One is estimated to start in August of 2016 and finish in January of 2017. In
order for the middle school and high school to occupy the site for the 2016/2017 school year,
approximately 25 temporary classroom buildings are proposed to be placed in the parking lot as
shown on Figure 3.2-5. During renovation of Building One, parking spaces on-site would be limited
to five accessible parking spaces and both vehicle ingress and egress would be limited to the
Monterey Highway driveway. The remainder of the required parking for students and staff would be
located at an off-site location which has not yet been determined. The off-site location would,
however, be located within one-half mile of the project site.
Once Building One renovations are complete, the modular classroom buildings would be removed
and work would begin to construct the parking area.
TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS FIGURE 3.2-5
M.U.R.
SECTION 4.0 SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND
IMPACTS
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies
environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented.
The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all
significant project impacts. “Mitigation Measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or
eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines §15370).
Important Note to the Reader: The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion
[California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.
4th 369 (No. S 213478)] confirmed that CEQA, with several specific exceptions, is concerned with
the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on
a project. Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the
following sections focuses on impacts of the project on the environment, including whether a
project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards.
The City of San José currently has policies that address existing conditions (e.g., noise) affecting a
proposed project, which are also addressed below. This is consistent with one of the primary
objectives of CEQA and this document, which is to provide objective information to decision-
makers and the public regarding a project as a whole. The CEQA Guidelines and the courts are
clear that a CEQA document (e.g., EIR or Initial Study) can include information of interest even if
such information is not an “environmental impact” as defined by CEQA.
Therefore, where applicable, in addition to describing the impacts of the project on the
environment, this chapter will discuss “planning considerations” that relate to City policies
pertaining to existing conditions. Such examples include, but are not limited to, locating a project
near sources of air emissions that can pose a health risk, in a floodplain, in a geologic hazard zone,
in a high noise environment, or on/adjacent to sites involving hazardous substances.
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Setting
4.1.1.1 Project Site
The 3.38-acre project site is flat and developed with three warehouse-style buildings; buildings one,
two, and three. Building One is a concrete and metal warehouse building, with a flat roof and no
windows. The front façade is completely flat, except for the front pedestrian entrance on the corner
of Monterey Highway and Alma Avenue. This entrance is curved and made up of wood paneling
and a lattice shade structure at a lower height than the rest of the building.
Buildings Two and Three are also mainly concrete and metal with no windows. Building Two has a
slightly sloped roof, while Building Three has a flat roof. There are large loading doors on the
northern side of Building Three.
The paved surface parking lot for the facility lies directly in front of the buildings, adjacent to Alma
Avenue. A concrete wall with a metal gate separates buildings two and three from the main parking
lot area. Landscaping consists of trees and bushes along the periphery of the buildings and parking
lot. The buildings and landscaping on the project site appear well-maintained.
4.1.1.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The area surrounding the project site contains a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land
uses. North of the site, across Alma Avenue, are two single-story, concrete commercial buildings
with flat roofs and a single-story restaurant with a sloped, red-tile roof. East and northeast of the site,
across the adjacent Union Pacific Rail Line, are large industrial and light-industrial buildings similar
in size and shape to Building One. San José State University’s Spartan Stadium is one block east of
the site on South Seventh Street. Adjacent to the southern border of the site is the recently developed
Sun Garden Shopping Center, which contains commercial buildings of various sizes, a gas station,
and a large surface parking lot. West of the site, across Monterey Highway, are a small restaurant
and two-story motel, both with sloped, red-tile roofs.
4.1.1.3 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations
State Scenic Highways Program
The California Department of Transportation designates state scenic highways, based upon how
much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the
extent that development modifies traveler’s enjoyment of the view. California State Route (SR) 9 is
the only officially designated state scenic highway in Santa Clara County.1 SR 9 is 9.6 miles
northwest of the project site and, therefore, not visible from the site.
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan includes policies applicable to all development projects in
San José. The following policies are specific to visual character and scenic resources and applicable
to the proposed project.
Policy CD-1.1: Require the highest standards of architecture and site design, and apply strong design
controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development
of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land uses.
1 Caltrans. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System.” Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed March 23, 2016.
Policy CD-1.8: Create an attractive street presence with pedestrian-scaled building and landscape
elements that provide an engaging, safe, and diverse walking environment. Encourage compact,
urban design, including use of smaller building footprints, to promote pedestrian activity through the
City.
Policy CD-1.12: Use building design to reflect both the unique character of a specific site and the
context of surrounding development and to support pedestrian movement throughout the building site
by providing convenient means of entry from public streets and transit facilities where applicable,
and by designing ground level building frontages to create an attractive pedestrian environment along
building frontages. Unless it is appropriate to the site and context, franchise-style architecture is
strongly discouraged.
Policy CD-1.13: Use design review to encourage creative, high-quality, innovative, and distinctive
architecture that helps to create unique, vibrant places that are both desirable urban places to live,
work, and play and that lead to competitive advantages over other regions.
Policy CD-1.17: Minimize the footprint and visibility of parking areas. Where parking areas are
necessary, provide aesthetically pleasing and visually interesting parking garages with clearly
identified pedestrian entrances and walkways. Encourage designs that encapsulate parking facilities
behind active building space or screen parked vehicles from view from the public realm. Ensure that
garage lighting does not impact adjacent uses, and to the extent feasible, avoid impacts of headlights
on adjacent land uses.
Policy CD-1.23: Further the Community Forest Goals and Policies in this Plan by requiring new
development to plant and maintain trees at appropriate locations on private property and along public
street frontages. Use trees to help soften the appearance of the built environment, help provide
transitions between land uses, and shade pedestrian and bicycle areas.
4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
vista?
1-4
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1-4
glare which will adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1-4
4.1.2.1 Aesthetic Impacts
The proposed project would not construct any new buildings on-site, but Building Three would be
demolished. The exterior facades of Building One and Building Two would receive minor, aesthetic
alterations. Sets of tall, rectangular windows would be installed along the northern and western walls
of Building One, with decorative corrugated metal panels applied to the lower portion of the wall
between the windows along the north facade. Other physical changes proposed by the project
include reconfiguration of the parking lot. Construction activities would primarily consist of interior
renovations of the existing buildings and landscaping. Alterations to the exterior of buildings one
would be minor and include the addition of windows, which would make the visual character of the
project site more consistent with the storefronts of the surrounding area.
During the proposed renovation of Building One, approximately 25 temporary classroom buildings
would need to be placed in the parking lot until the renovations are complete. The proposed
temporary classrooms would only be present and visible on the site until renovations to Building One
are completed. There are no designated scenic vistas or scenic resources on-site or in the project
vicinity. The project site is not visible from a state designated scenic highway. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not block views of any designated scenic vistas or
scenic resources off-site. For these reasons, development of the proposed project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. (Less than
Significant Impact)
The existing commercial buildings have building security and parking lot lighting. The project
proposes the addition and replacement of outdoor lighting on the site, along buildings, entrance areas,
and throughout the surface parking lot. This outside lighting would comply with the City’s Outdoor
Lighting Policy and be comparable in brightness to the ambient lighting in the surrounding area.
Increased lighting on the site, relative to the existing outdoor lighting, would incrementally increase
the level of illumination in the area. Compliance with the City’s lighting requirements would result
in a less than significant light and glare impacts. (Less than Significant Impact)
4.1.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly change the visual character of the
project area. The project would not create significant additional sources of light or glare, and it
would not impact any designated scenic resources. Therefore, the project would not result in a
significant aesthetic impact. (Less than Significant Impact)
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2.1 Setting
The project site is located in an urban area in San José and is not used for agricultural purposes nor is
it adjacent to agricultural land. According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2012,
the project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land.2 The project site is not designated by the
California Natural Resources Agency as farmland of any type and is not the subject of a Williamson
Act contract.3 There is no forest land on or adjacent to the project site.4
Potentially
Significant
Impact
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1-4, 5
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1, 3, 6
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
1, 3
4. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
1-4
2 1) California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012. August 2014 2) Urban
and Built-up Land is defined as land occupied by structure with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres.
Common examples of this land type include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries,
airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. 3 California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 2013 4 According to California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), Forest Land is land that can support 10-percent
native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of
one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation,
and other public benefits. According to California Public Resources Code Section 4526, “Timberland” means land,
other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land,
which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber
and other forest products, including Christmas trees.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1-4
4.2.2.1 Agricultural and Forest Resources Impacts
The project site and surrounding areas are not used or zoned for agricultural purposes or forest land.
Development of the proposed project would not impact agricultural or forest resources or result in the
loss of designated agricultural land. (No Impact)
4.2.3 Conclusion
The project would not result in any agricultural or forest impacts. (No Impact)
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1.1 Background Information
Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of a
pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major
determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical
pollutants, sunshine. The Bay Area typically has moderate ventilation, frequent inversions that
restrict vertical dilution, and terrain that restricts horizontal dilution. These factors give the Bay Area
a relatively high atmospheric potential for pollution.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations
within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. As shown in Table 4.3-1, violations of State and Federal
standards at the downtown San José monitoring station (the nearest monitoring station to the project
site) during the 2013-2015 period (the most recent years for which data is available) include high
levels of ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. 5 Violations of carbon monoxide (CO) standards have not been
recorded since 1992.
Table 4.3-1: Number of Ambient Air Quality Standards Violations and Highest
Concentrations (2013-2015) 6
2013 2014 2015
SAN JOSÉ STATION
Federal 8-hour 1 0 2
Carbon Monoxide Federal 8-hour 0 0 0
State 8-hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-hour 0 0 0
PM10 Federal 24-hour 0 0 0
State 24-hour 5 1 1
PM2.5 Federal 24-hour 6 2 2
The pollutants known to exceed the State and Federal standards in the project area are regional
pollutants. Ozone (O3), PM10, and PM2.5 are all considered regional pollutants because the
concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but rather show a relative
uniformity over a region.
5 PM refers to Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is referred to by size (i.e., 10 or 2.5) because the size of
particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-summaries Accessed April 1, 2016.
The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or Federal ambient air quality standards for ground
level O3 or State standards for PM10, and PM2.5. Based on air quality monitoring data, the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) has designated Santa Clara County as a “nonattainment area” for O3
and PM10 under the California Clean Air Act. The County is either in attainment or unclassified for
other pollutants.
4.3.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The Federal Clean Air Act defines Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) as air contaminants identified
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as known or suspected to cause
cancer, serious illness, birth defects, or death. In California, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) include
all HAPs, plus other contaminants identified by CARB as known to cause morbidity or mortality
(cancer risk). TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry,
agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). Because chronic
exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and Federal
level. Unlike other emissions, TACs are measured based on the risk of human health rather than a
set emission standard.
Diesel exhaust, a mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles, is the predominant TAC in urban air
and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide
average). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is of particular concern since it can be distributed over
large regions, thus leading to widespread public exposure. CARB has adopted and implemented a
number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM.
4.3.1.3 Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where population groups that are particularly
sensitive to the effects of air pollutants (i.e., children, the elderly, and people with illnesses) are likely
to be located. Examples include schools, hospitals, parks, and residential areas. The nearest
sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences approximately 245 feet west of the project
site. The other nearby buildings are commercial businesses which are not considered sensitive land
uses.
4.3.1.4 Applicable Air Quality Regulations and Policies
San José. The following policies are specific to air quality and applicable to the proposed project.
Policy MS-10.1: Assess projected air emissions from new development in conformance with the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and relative to state and federal standards. Identify and implement air
emissions reduction measures.
Policy MS-10.2: Consider the cumulative air quality impacts from proposed developments for
proposed land use designation changes and new development, consistent with the region’s Clean Air
Plan and State law.
Policy MS-11.1: Require completion of air quality modeling for sensitive land uses such as new
residential developments that are located near sources of pollution such as freeways and industrial
uses. Require new residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors to
incorporate effective mitigation into project design or be located an adequate distance from sources
of toxic air contaminants (TACs) to avoid significant risks to health and safety.
Policy MS-11.5: Encourage the use of pollution absorbing trees and vegetation in buffer areas
between substantial sources of TACs and sensitive land uses.
Policy MS-13.1: Include dust, particulate matter, and construction equipment exhaust control
measures as conditions of approval for subdivision maps, site development and planned development
permits, grading permits, and demolition permits. At a minimum, conditions shall conform to
construction mitigation measures recommended in the current BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for the
relevant project size and type.
Policy MS-13.3: Construction and/or demolition projects that have the potential to disturb asbestos
(from soil or building material) shall comply with all the requirements of the California Air
Resources Board’s air toxic control measures (ATCMs) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
the applicable air quality plan?
1-4, 7, 8
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
pollutant concentrations?
1-4, 7
substantial number of people?
1-4
The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) confirmed CEQA is
concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment
may have on a project. The project, however, is a school and the court ruled that the evaluation of
the effects of existing hazards on future users of school projects is required pursuant to CEQA
Statute §21151.8. As a result, the impacts of existing emissions on future site users (i.e., students) is
addressed.
4.3.3.1 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan
The most recent clean air plan is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP) that was adopted by
BAAQMD in September 2010. This plan addresses air quality impacts with respect to obtaining
ambient air quality standards for non-attainment pollutants (i.e., O3, PM10 and PM2.5), reducing
exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such that the
region can meet AB 32 goals of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The consistency of the
proposed project with this regional plan is primarily a question of the consistency with the
population/employment assumptions utilized in developing the 2010 CAP, which were based on
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections. The proposed project is not consistent
with the land use assumptions of the City’s General Plan that were utilized in the ABAG Projections
and the 2010 CAP because the project proposes a school on a designated commercial/industrial site.
As a result, population and employment assumptions for the project would differ from the General
Plan assumptions.
As proposed, the project would relocated two existing schools onto the project site and increase the
overall student capacity. While not a commercial/industrial use, the two schools already exist within
the City and would continue to serve existing residents. As a result, the project would not result in a
substantial change relative to ABAG projections and would not conflict with the assumptions of the
2010 CAP.
Because the project, having a capacity of 1,237 students, would not exceed the development
assumptions of the General Plan and would not conflict with the assumptions in the CAP, the
proposed project would not impede implementation of the 2010 CAP. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Operational Emissions – Criteria Pollutants
The proposed project would renovate an existing commercial building accommodate two exiting
school campuses. BAAQMD developed screening criteria to provide a conservative indication of
whether a project could result in potentially significant operational air quality impacts for criteria
pollutants (e.g., emissions of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx, PM2.5, and 82 pounds per day of
PM10). For operational impacts from criteria pollutants, the screening size for a middle school is
2,460 students and for a high school it is 2,390 students. Projects that are smaller than the screening
size would have a less than significant operational air quality impact.
The proposed project is well below the screening sizes for the proposed land use. Therefore, the
project will have a less than significant operational criteria air quality impact. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the pollutant of greatest
concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest
potential to cause high-localized concentrations of CO. BAAQMD screening criteria indicate that a
project would have a less than significant impact to CO levels if the project is consistent with a local
congestion management plan7 and would not increase traffic levels at any affected intersection to
more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
The proposed project would result in approximately 1,219 net new AM Peak Hour and 613 net new
afternoon Peak Hour traffic trips. The project would not cause any intersections to exceed 44,000
vehicles per hour and would not result in significant CO impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.3.3.3 Construction Impacts to Regional and Local Air Quality
Criteria Pollutants and Dust Generation
As with operational emissions, BAAQMD has developed screening criteria to provide a conservative
indication of whether construction activities associated with a project could result in a potentially
significant air quality impact. For construction impacts from criteria pollutants, the screening size
for both a middle school and high school is 277,000 square feet. Projects that are smaller than the
screening size are considered to have a less than significant operational air quality impact.
The proposed project, occupation of an existing commercial building with a school use, is below the
screening size for the proposed land use and would not require new building construction. The
interior modifications proposed by the project would not generate substantial construction emissions.
Therefore, the project will have a less than significant construction air quality impact. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Construction activities on-site would be limited to demolition of Building Three, the insertion of
windows in the existing Building One (which is made of concrete), and minor ground disturbing
activities which will generate dust and other particulate matter. While limited, the generation of dust
and other particulate matter could temporarily impact nearby receptors.
Consistent with the General Plan FEIR, the following Standard Permit Conditions would be
implemented during construction to reduce exposing nearby residents to dust and other particulate
matter emissions:
Standard Permit Conditions
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.
7 The City of San Jose uses its Level of Service policy in-lieu of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorities
Congestion Management Plan.
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.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 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 five 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 be respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
With implementation of the standard permit conditions, dust and other particulate matter generated
during construction that could affect nearby sensitive land uses will be reduced to a less than
significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Community Risk Impacts – Toxic Air Contaminants
Emissions from construction-related automobiles, trucks, and heavy equipment are a primary concern
due to release of DPM, organic TACs from all vehicles, and PM2.5, which is a regulated air pollutant.
There are sensitive receptors surrounding the project site.
As noted above, implementation of the proposed project would require only minor construction and
minimal, limited use of heavy equipment. Construction activities associated with the proposed
project would, therefore, not expose nearby sensitive receptors to significant TAC emissions.
Consistent with the General Plan FEIR, the Standard Permit Conditions noted above would be
implemented during construction to further reduce TAC emissions.
Implementation of the Standard Permit Conditions will reduce exhaust and fugitive dust emissions.
As a result, the proposed project would result in a less than significant community risk impact due to
construction activities. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.3.3.4 Existing Air Quality Conditions Impacts
Community Risk Impacts – Toxic Air Contaminants
Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of
these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The City of San Jose General
Plan Policy MS-11.1 requires completion of air quality modeling for sensitive land uses such as new
residential developments and schools that are located near sources of pollution such as freeways and
industrial uses. The policy also requires new residential development projects and projects
categorized as sensitive receptors to incorporate effective mitigation into project design or be located
an adequate distance from sources of TACs to avoid significant risks to health and safety.
The project would include sensitive receptors that could be exposed to TACs due to the site’s
proximity to Monterey Highway and nearby industrial and commercial land uses.
BAAQMD provides Roadway Screening Analysis Tables that are used to assess potential cancer risk
and annual PM2.5 concentrations from surface streets for each Bay Area county. The criteria used by
the City of San José are that a project would result in a significant TAC or PM2.5 impact if:
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (chronic or
acute) hazard index greater than 1.0.
An incremental increase of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual
average PM2.5.
Based on the BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tables, there are no stationary source
emissions (i.e., generators) within 1,000 feet of the project site that would exceed the excess cancer
risk threshold.
Based on the City of San Jose General Plan, the segment of Monterey Highway between Bellevue
Avenue and San Jose Avenue carries approximately 31,900 cars per day.8 Using the BAAQMD
Roadway Screening Analysis Tables and a daily trip volume of 30,000 cars within 1,000 feet of the
site, it was estimated that the cancer risk on-site would be more than 10 in one million and the annual
average PM2.5 would exceed 0.3 µg/m3. The cancer risk is, however, based on a 70-year exposure.
While emissions on the site currently exceed the excess cancer risk threshold and PM2.5 exposure
threshold for lifetime exposure, roadway volumes and transportation-related emissions will likely
reduce over time as emission standards increase. Furthermore, the students would be located within
the buildings while on campus (no outdoor areas are proposed) and the long-term exposure would be
limited due to the time spent on campus each week and the total length of time they attend the
school. Nevertheless, available data indicates that future students on-site would be exposed to TAC
emissions above established thresholds.
8 This roadway segment is approximately 1,150 feet south of the project site and the nearest roadway segment for
which data is available.
Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors
(i.e., students) to TAC emissions above established thresholds. (Significant
Impact)
Consistent with General Plan Policy MS-11.1, the following mitigation measures are proposed to
reduce exposure to TAC emissions and avoid significant TAC emissions impacts.
MM AIR 1-1: A refined TAC analysis for the project shall be completed by a qualified air quality
consultant, consistent with BAAQMD standards, prior to issuance of building permits
MM AIR 1-2: Based on the findings of the TAC emissions analysis, the qualified air quality
consultant will determine performance standards for air filtration systems for the
buildings on-site.
MM AIR 1-3: The air filtration system shall be tested by a qualified air quality consultant to ensure
that the systems are operating as designed. A report of the findings will be submitted
to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval
prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
MM AIR 1-4: An ongoing maintenance plan for the buildings’ heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) air filtration systems shall be prepared and submitted to the
Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior
to issuance of the occupancy permit. This maintenance plan is typically developed by
the contractor responsible for designing and constructing the HVAC system for the
project.
With implementation of these measures, the health risk to future students from TAC emissions would
be reduced to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation)
4.3.3.5 Odor Impacts
The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction equipment
operation. These emissions may be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors. Odors
would, however, be localized and temporary and are not likely to affect people off-site. The long-
term use of the site as a school would not generate odors. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.3.3.6 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Please refer to Section 4.18, Mandatory Findings of Significance, for a discussion of cumulative air
quality impacts.
4.3.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in significant operational regional or local air quality impacts.
Implementation of the standard permit conditions would reduce short-term construction-related
diesel emissions and dust impacts to a less than significant level. With the identified mitigation
measures, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
(Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation)
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Setting
The project site is located in a developed urban habitat in the City of San José. There are three
commercial buildings and paved areas on the project site. The surrounding area is developed with
industrial, commercial, and residential uses. There are no sensitive habitats or wetlands on or
adjacent to the project site. The nearest body of water, the Guadalupe River, is 0.8 miles west of the
site.
Vegetation in the project area includes landscaping which primarily consists of shrubs and trees.
Habitats in developed areas, such as the project area, are extremely low in species diversity and
include predominantly urban adapted birds and animals.
4.4.1.1 Trees
Mature trees (both native and non-native) are valuable to the human environment for the benefits
they provide for resisting global climate change (i.e., carbon dioxide absorption), protection from
weather, and because they are a visual enhancement. Trees are also valuable because they provide
nesting and foraging habitat for raptors and other migratory birds. The project site contains a few
trees near the entrance of Building One. Additionally, street trees border the project site along Alma
Avenue and Monterey Highway.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) is a
conservation program intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance
ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in approximately 500,000
acres of southern Santa Clara County.9 The HCP/NCCP is a regional partnership between six local
partners (the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara Valley
Water District, and the cities of San José, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill) and two wildlife agencies (the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
The HCP/NCCP identifies and preserves land that provides important habitat for endangered and
threatened species. The land preservation is to both mitigate for the environmental impacts of
planned development, public infrastructure operations, and maintenance activities, as well as to
enhance the long term viability of endangered species. Species of concern include, but are not
limited to, the California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, western burrowing owl, Bay
Checkerspot butterfly, and a number of plant species endemic to serpentine grassland and scrub.
9 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Website. Available at: http://scv-habitatagency.org/. Accessed October 6,
The proposed project is located within the HCP/NCCP study area and is designated as Urban-
Suburban.10 Urban-Suburban land is comprised of areas where native vegetation has been cleared
for residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, or recreational structures, and is defined as one
or more structures per 2.5 acres. The project site is not identified as important habitat for endangered
and threatened species in the Habitat Plan. The entire project site is within the Urban Areas Land
Cover Fee Zone, which does not require any payment of land cover fees as a condition of
development. A nitrogen deposition fee will, however, be applied to the project in the form of a fee
per each new daily vehicle trip over the existing condition.
City of San José Tree Ordinance
The City of San José Tree Removal Controls (San José City Code Section 13.32.010 to 13.32.100)
protect all trees having a trunk that measures 56 inches or more in circumference (17.8 inches in
diameter) at a height of 24 inches above the natural grade. The ordinance protects both native and
non-native species. A tree removal permit is required from the City of San José for the removal of
ordinance-size trees. In addition, any tree found by the City Council to have special significance can
be designated as a Heritage tree, regardless of tree size or species. It is unlawful to vandalize,
mutilate, remove, or destroy such Heritage trees.
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan includes the following policies, specific to biological
resources applicable to all development projects in San José.
Policy MS-21.4: Encourage the maintenance of mature trees, especially natives, on public and
private property as an integral part of the community forest. Prior to allowing the removal of any
mature tree, pursue all reasonable measures to preserve it.
Policy MS-21.5: As part of the development review process, preserve protected trees (as defined by
the Municipal Code), and other significant trees. Avoid any adverse effect on the health and
longevity of protected or other significant trees through appropriate design measures and
construction practices. Special priority should be given to the preservation of native oaks and native
sycamores. When tree preservation is not feasible, include appropriate tree replacement, both in
number and spread of canopy.
Policy MS-21.6: As a condition of new development, require, where appropriate, the planting and
maintenance of both street trees and trees on private property to achieve a level of tree coverage in
compliance with and that implements City laws, policies or guidelines.
10 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Geobrowser. Available at: http://www.hcpmaps.com/habitat/. Accessed
October 6, 2015
Potentially
Significant
Impact
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified 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 or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
1-4
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
1-4
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
1-4
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1-4, 9
4.4.2.1 Biological Resources Impacts
Sensitive Species and Habitat
There are no sensitive or natural habitats or migratory wildlife corridors on the project site or in the
immediate area; therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to natural
plant communities or special status or endangered species. There are no federally protected
wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, located on the project site. (No
Impact).
Trees
The project site has trees along the Alma Avenue frontage and a few trees along the building frontages.
The trees on-site combined with trees and vegetation within the project area are part of the urban forest.
Within the City of San José, the urban forest as a whole is considered an important biological resource
because most mature trees provide some nesting, cover, and foraging habitat for a variety of birds
(including raptors) and mammals that are tolerant of humans, as well as providing necessary habitat for
beneficial insects. While the urban forest is not as favorable an environment for native wildlife as
extensive tracts of native vegetation, trees in the urban forest are often the only or best habitat
commonly or locally available within urban areas.
Trees along the street frontage are proposed to be retained. Two trees interior to the site, a Japanese
maple and a coast live oak located near the entrance of Building One, are proposed to be removed. The
maple is a non-native tree with trunk diameter of 10 inches. The oak is a native tree with a trunk
diameter of 27 inches. Any trees on-site or adjacent to the site that would be damaged or removed as a
result of the project would be required to be replaced in accordance with all applicable laws, policies, or
guidelines, including:
San José Municipal Code Section 13.28
General Plan Policies MS-21.4, MS-21.5, and MS-21.6
The species of
with minimum 24-inch
box trees and the maple would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with minimum 15-gallon container trees, for a
total of six new trees.
The proposed project would be required to meet the minimum tree replacement standard through on-
site tree plantings. The project proposes to plant five new street trees and 11 trees along the southern
property line between the buildings. As proposed, the project would exceed the City’s tree replacement
requirements. The General Plan FEIR concluded that compliance with local laws, policies, or
guidelines, as proposed by the project, would result in less than significant impacts to the urban forest.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
Diameter of
Replacement Tree Native Non-Native Orchard
18 inches or
12-18 inches 3:1 2:1 none 24-inch box
Less than 12
x:x = tree replacement to tree loss ratio
Consistency with Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
The proposed project is located within the HCP/NCCP study area. The project site is designated as
Urban-Suburban in the HCP/NCCP and is not identified as important habitat for endangered or
threatened species. The project would be required to pay a nitrogen deposition fee as a condition of
project approved. The fee applied to the project would be in the form of a fee per each new daily
vehicle trip over the existing condition. No other fees or actions under the HCP apply. Therefore,
development of the project site would be consistent with the HCP/NCCP. (Less Than Significant
Impact).
4.4.3 Conclusion
Development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on biological
resources. (Less Than Significant Impact).
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Setting
The project site has been developed and used for lumber supply and sale since at least 1915 (see
Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). The large commercial building on the southwest
portion of the site (Building One) has been on the site since 1974. Building Two was built between
1999 and 2000 and Building Three was built between 1977 and 1978
4.5.1.1 Historic Resources
Hispanic Period
The project site is located just outside the boundary of the second El Pueblo de San José de
Guadalupe, which was established in 1797.11 The mostly heavily populated area of the pueblo was
in the current downtown core area between Caesar Chavez Park and Santa Clara Street. There are no
known historical records for the project site during the Hispanic period and, because of the distance
from the core area, was not likely an active part of the pueblo.
American Period to Present
As stated above, the project site has been used for a commercial business from at least 1915 until
present day. The existing buildings on-site were constructed after 1974 and there are no historic
buildings present on the site.
4.5.1.2 Prehistoric Resources
Due to the previous development on the project site, no detailed subsurface archaeological
inspections have been completed on-site. Archaeological inspections have, however, been completed
in the project area. Records show that the project site is within the recorded location of a large
archaeological site centered near Spartan Stadium.
Much of the project site has been disturbed due to building construction, demolition, and removal of
an underground storage tank. There is no documentation that prehistoric artifacts were found during
these activities. Nevertheless, unknown subsurface resources associated with the nearby recorded
archaeological site could be present on-site.
4.5.1.3 Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
San José. The following policies are specific to cultural resources and are applicable to the proposed
project.
Policy ER-10.1: For proposed development sites that have been identified as archaeologically or
paleontologically sensitive, require investigation during the planning process in order to determine
11 Sun Garden Redevelopment Project Draft EIR. March 2011
whether potentially significant archaeological or paleontological information may be affected by the
project and then require, if needed, that appropriate mitigation measures be incorporated into the
project design.
Policy ER-10.2: Recognizing that Native American human remains may be encountered at
unexpected locations, impose a requirement on all development permits and tentative subdivision
maps that upon discovery during construction, development activity will cease until professional
archaeological examination confirms whether the burial is human. If the remains are determined to
be Native American, applicable state laws shall be enforced.
Policy ER-10.3: Ensure that City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and
codes are enforced, including laws related to archaeological and paleontological resources, to ensure
the adequate protection of historic and pre-historic resources.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
significance of an historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5?
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?
1-4, 10
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1-4, 10
4.5.2.1 Impacts to Historic Resources
Development of the proposed project would not impact any historic buildings or other historic
resources. (No Impact)
Archaeological Resources
Although there are no recorded archaeological resources on the project site, there is a chance that
buried archaeological resources could be uncovered if there is any ground disturbance on-site. For
this reason, the following City of San José standard conditions shall be implemented during project
construction to avoid and reduce the potential for impacts.
Standard Permit Conditions: Consistent with Envision San José 2040 General Plan policies ER-
10.2 and ER-10.3, the following standard permit conditions are included in the project to reduce or
avoid impacts to subsurface cultural resources.
In the event that prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or
grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall be notified, and the archaeologist
will examine the find and make appropriate recommendations prior to issuance of building
permits. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any
significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery during
monitoring would be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation and/or grading of the site,
all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped. The Santa Clara County
Coroner shall be notified and make a determination as to whether the remains are of Native
American origin or whether an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the
remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) immediately. Once the NAHC identifies the most likely
descendants, the descendants will make recommendations regarding proper burial, which will
be implemented in accordance with Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work on the site will stop
immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and
importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include
preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate
museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication
describing the finds. The project proponent will be responsible for implementing the
recommendations of the paleontological monitor.
With implementation of the standard conditions stated above, the proposed project would result in a
less than significant impact to archaeological resources on the project site. (Less than Significant
Impact)
Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in
geologic strata. These resources are often found at depths greater than 10 feet below the ground
surface. Any excavation of the site would not be deep enough to encounter paleontological
resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant
impact on paleontological resources. (Less than Significant Impact)
4.5.3 Conclusion
The proposed project, with implementation of the identified standard measures, would have a less
than significant impact on cultural resources. (Less than Significant Impact)
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6.1.1 Geology and Soils
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, a relatively flat alluvial basin bounded by the
Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and west, the Diablo Mountain Range to the east, and the San
Francisco Bay to the north. The project site consists entirely of the Urbanland-Newpark complex,12
which is composed of a silty clay loam soil profile to a depth of 52 inches, and a fine sandy loam soil
profile to a depth of 79 inches. Based on the soil composition present, the site has moderate soil
drainage as well as a moderate potential for soil expansion.
There are no unique geologic features on or adjacent to the project site. Due to the flat topography of
the site, the potential for erosion or landslide on or adjacent to the site is low. The groundwater table
is estimated to be deeper than six feet below the ground surface.
4.6.1.2 Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Area is classified as the most seismically active region in the United States.
Strong ground shaking can, therefore, be expected to occur on-site during moderate to severe
earthquakes that occur in the general region. Significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are
generally associated with crustal movement along well defined active fault zones of the San Andrea
Fault System.
a designated Alquist-Priolo
Clara County Fault Hazard Zone
and no active faults have been
mapped on-site.13 Therefore, the
low. Faults in the region, however,
are capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher. Strong to very strong ground
shaking would be expected to occur at the project site during a major earthquake on one of the
nearby faults. Active faults near the project site are shown in Table 4.6-1.
4.6.1.3 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose water-
saturated soils from a solid to liquid state during ground shaking. There are many variables that
12 1) A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small
areas that they cannot be shown separately on maps. 2) Web Soil Survey. Custom Soil Report 13 Santa Clara County Planning and Development Department Website. Available at:
https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html. Accessed September 29, 2015
Table 4.6-1: Active Faults Near the Project Site
Fault Distance from Site
Calaveras 8.3 miles NE
Hayward 11.0 miles NE
San Andreas 11.5 miles SW
contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and
depth to groundwater.
The proposed site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone.14
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying
alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavated
area. There are no creeks, channels, or open bodies of water on or adjacent the project site for lateral
spreading to occur.
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan includes the following policies applicable to all
development projects in San José. The following policies are specific to geology and soils and are
applicable to the proposed project.
Policy EC-3.1: Design all new or remodeled habitable structures in accordance with the most recent
California Building Code and California Fire Code as amended locally and adopted by the City of
San José, including provisions regarding lateral forces.
Policy EC-4.1: Design and build all new or remodeled habitable structures in accordance with the
most recent California Building Code and municipal code requirements as amended and adopted by
the City of San José, including provisions for expansive soil, and grading and storm water controls.
Policy EC-4.2: Development in areas subject to soils and geologic hazards, including unengineered
fill and weak soils and landslide-prone areas, only when the severity of hazards have been evaluated
and if shown to be required, appropriate mitigation measures are provided. New development
proposed within areas of geologic hazards shall not be endangered by, nor contribute to, the
hazardous conditions on the site or on adjoining properties. The City of San José Geologist will
review and approve geotechnical and geological investigation reports for projects within these areas
as part of the project approval process.
Policy EC-4.4: Require all new development to conform to the City of San José’s Geologic Hazard
Ordinance.
Policy EC-4.5: Ensure that any development activity that requires grading does not impact adjacent
properties, local creeks, and storm drainage systems by designing and building the site to drain
properly and minimize erosion. An Erosion Control Plan is required for all private development
projects that have a soil disturbance of one acre or more, adjacent to a creek/river, and/or are located
14 Santa Clara County Planning and Development Department Website. Available at:
https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html. Accessed September 29, 2015
in hillside areas. Erosion Control Plans are also required for any grading occurring between October
15 and April 15.
Action EC-4.11: Require the preparation of geotechnical and geological investigation reports for
projects within areas subject to soils and geologic hazards, and require review and implementation of
mitigation measures as part of the project approval process.
Action EC-4.12: Require review and approval of grading plans and erosion control plans (if
applicable) prior to issuance of grading permits by the Director of Public Works.
Policy ES-4.9: Permit development only in those areas where potential danger to health, safety, and
welfare of the persons in that area can be mitigated to an acceptable level.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.)
1-4, 11
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
1-4
3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building
Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
1-4, 12
Potentially
Significant
Impact
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
1
4.6.2.1 Geological Impacts
As previously discussed in Section 4.0, on December 17, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued
an opinion in “CBIA vs. BAAQMD” holding that CEQA is primarily concerned with the impacts of
a project on the environment and generally does not require agencies to analyze the impact of
existing conditions on a project’s future users or residents unless the project risks exacerbating those
environmental hazards or risks that already exist. Nevertheless, the City has policies and regulations
that address existing conditions affecting a proposed project, which are also discussed below.
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The project site is located within a seismically active region; therefore, strong to very strong ground
shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project. The project site is also
located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. Although the proposed project would be subject to
seismic related hazards, renovations to the existing on-site buildings would be in adherence to the
2013 California Building Code, which would minimize potential damage from seismic shaking and
liquefaction. Similarly, conformance to the California Building Code would ensure proposed
renovations do not adversely affect off-site properties due to exacerbating seismic hazards. (Less
than Significant Impact)
Soil Erosion and Instability
Due to the flat topography and predominantly paved area of the project site, the potential for soil
erosion is low. The proposed project would not exacerbate soil erosion and stability impacts to off-
site properties. (Less than Significant Impact)
Expansive Soils
Soils on the project site have a moderate potential for expansion, which can result in structural
damage to on-site buildings. Existing buildings on the project site were designed and constructed in
accordance with standard engineering safety techniques in the California Building Code. The
proposed project would include renovations to existing buildings and the parking lot on the site as
well as landscaping activities; however, no additional structures would be constructed.
Implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate any off-site hazards related to
expansive soils. (Less than Significant Impact)
Septic Systems
The existing buildings on the project site utilize the City’s sanitary sewer system. Implementation of
the proposed project would not change the building’s wastewater disposal infrastructure and would
not affect any off-site properties that may use septic systems. (No Impact)
4.6.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or property to significant impacts
associated with geologic or seismic conditions due to exacerbating geologic hazards or risks that
exist on the site. (Less than Significant Impact)
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Setting
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the
“greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an
increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The principal GHGs contributing to global
warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are
attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial and
manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors.
California Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in 2006
and established a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to the adoption of AB
32, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-05 into law, which set a long term
objective to reduce GHG emissions to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is the state agency in charge of coordinating the GHG
emissions reduction effort and establishing targets along the way.
In December 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the Climate Change
Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s
dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other
goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32
policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. The
first update to the Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 and builds upon the Scoping Plan
with new strategies and recommendations. The first update defines CARB’s priorities over the next
five years and lays the groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05.15
Senate Bill 97 – Modification to the Public Resources Code
On August 24, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 97. SB 97 requires the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit guidelines to the Resources Agency
for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions including, but not limited to,
the effects associated with transportation or energy consumption.16 The Resources Agency adopted
the CEQA Guidelines Amendments addressing greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009.
15 California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Resources Board. “First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan.”
Accessed September 18, 2015. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.html 16 California Legislative Counsel’s Digest. Senate Bill 97. August 2007
California Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection
Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to
develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors
for 20

downtown college preparatory relocation project

Documents