Attachment — San Jose City Council, March 15, 2022

Appeal of ED.pm65/Applications Rev. 5/28/2008
PLEASE CALL THE APPOINTMENT DESK AT (408) 535-3555 FOR AN APPLICATION APPOINTMENT.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN APPLICATION FOR

APPEAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

PROCESSING SCHEDULE
Planning Staff:
• Checks the application for completeness.
• Logs and collects fees.
• Sets a public hearing date before City Council and
places the item in the agenda.
• Prepares a recommendation to the City Council.

City Council:
• considers and acts upon the appeal in a public
hearing.

WHO MAY APPEAL
Any person may file.

TIME LIMIT
A complete Notice of Environmental Appeal (see back
page) must be filed in person at Development Services
Center, City Hall, no later than 5 p.m. on the third
business day following the day of the public hearing
that relied upon the Environmental Determination.

APPEAL REQUIREMENTS

1. A complete Notice of Environmental Appeal includ-
ing the following within the appropriate time limit:
a. Application filing fee, (see Filing Fee Schedule).
b. The appeal shall state with specificity the rea-
sons that the Environmental Determination
should be found not to be complete or not to
have been prepared in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA.
c. No appeal shall be considered unless it is based
on issues which were raised at the public hearing
either orally or in writing prior to the public
hearing. (21.07.040C)

CITY OF SAN JOSE
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
tel (408) 535-3555 fax (408) 292-6055
Website: www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113-1905

ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
NAME

FAX NUMBER
( )

CONTACT PERSON
(IF DIFFERENT FROM PERSON FILING APPEAL)

ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
NAME

DATESIGNATURE

PERSON FILING APPEAL

TO BE COMPLETED BY PLANNING STAFF

FILE NUMBER

TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (EIR, MND, EX)

TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSON FILING APPEAL
REASON(S) FOR APPEAL (For additional comments, please attach a separate sheet.):

PLEASE REFER TO ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS PAGE.

THE UNDERSIGNED RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS AN APPEAL FOR THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA- TION:

RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
DATE
BY

DAYTIME TELEPHONE
( )

E-MAIL ADDRESSDAYTIME TELEPHONE
( )

NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate; please see attachment.

Mark Espinoza 408 624-7660
P.O. Box 1301 Alviso CA 95002
12/9/2021
1 December 10, 2021
Thai-Chau Le
CEQA Planning Supervisor
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]

Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination-1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FILE NOS: H21-049 (FORMERLY SP18-058) AND ER21-110)

Dear Ms. Thai-Chau Le:

The community of Alviso is submitting simultaneously the Appeal of Environmental Determination and the Permit Appeal for the 1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MD). As documented in the IS/MND Technical Appendix A (p. A.1-1) this project proposes:

Note 2. Land uses and sizes are drawn from the site plans for proposed development dated August 7, 2019. Land uses utilized in the emissions model represent the following:
• Parking > Parking Lot > 23 x Space = Proposed parking area. Square footage adjusted to match Applicant‐provided information dated April 2, 2021. • Parking > Other Non‐Asphalt Surfaces > 0.61 x 1000 sqft = Proposed 605 square feet of new sidewalk.
• Parking > Other Asphalt Surfaces > 4.42 x 1000 sqft = Balance of project site, paved area for equipment storage.
• Recreational > Health Club > 0.64 x 1000 sqft = Proposed 635 square foot employee locker room building.
• Recreational > City Park > 0.09 x acre = Proposed 3,872 square feet of landscaping. • Industrial > Unrefrigerated Warehouse‐No Rail > 3.00 x 1000sqft = Existing warehouse to be repurposed as contractor warehouse and office. Lot acreage was reduced to zero to remove any grading requirements associated with project construction for this area. • Note 3. Construction activities and equipment list were adjusted to match Applicant‐provided information dated April 2, 2021.

This proposed corporation yard/ warehouse project with 5 light duty trucks (10 daily), 9 medium duty trucks (18 daily), 7 heavy duty trucks (14 daily), and 5 personal vehicles (52 daily) trucks will have approximate 94 daily vehicle trips.

This attachment includes all previous submissions pertaining to the Proposed Project. The Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which includes the City of San Jose’s Responses to Written Comments were inadequate.

The IS/MND is vague about what activities will be taking place at the site once construction is complete. The IS/MND repeatedly describes the project as “interior improvements of the existing building on the site, repaving and striping the site, rebuilding an existing utility building, a new exterior storage equipment area and the reconfiguration of the gates.” This is an 2 inadequate project description. The IS/MND must be revised and recirculated to thoroughly and accurately explain what activities will occur over the project’s life time that might affect air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and any other environmental impact category. [For example: The City did not provide an adequate explanation in their response for the project description, see page 2-39 per CEQA §15124]

The IS/MND appears to evaluate potential health impacts to local residents from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions during project construction, which will be of short duration, but does not do so for emissions during project operation, which will be long-term. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust can cause serious health problems, especially in children. This is especially true when there are already significant levels of toxic air pollutant emissions in the area, which is the case for Alviso. The IS/MND needs to consider health risks from adding this project’s emissions to existing pollution levels. [For example: The City did not provide substantial evidence and explanation in their response, see page 2-39, for air quality impacts during project operations.]

The noise assessment simply reports sound measurements taken at the applicant’s Fremont facility on 2 days in 2019. There is no indication or explanation to establish that these measurements are in any way representative of what would occur at the Alviso site.

The City should revise the IS/MND to address the deficiencies described above before it can approve this project.

Hi Thai

I’d like this article to be added to the comment period for the 1436 State street project. [External Email]
3 I believe the studies have not addressed the cumulative impact associated with this project. There 1
are many other PM sources that are present within a 1000 feet of the project but have yet to be
considered when the analysis generated their reports. Thereby producing a flawed inaccurate report.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21555471/
Chau <[email protected]>
Subject: project proposal @1436 State Street

I’d like to submit the attached photographs to illustrate the current damaged street @1592 Grand blvd. where I reside. The first photograph is of a nondamaged roadway located @1235 Wabash Street. As evident there is no damage to the asphalt. Whereas the following photographs located @1592 Grand Blvd we can see the entire section of roadway distressed due to traffic loading. Which means heavy
loaded truck traffic. 1
Your applicant wishes to have this damage continue with the added truck traffic in his proposed project. Why has this not been included in the studies provided. I would request for this project to complete an EIR because there are more impacts found that have not been discussed, studies, and or evaluated.

Learn why this is
important at
http://aka.ms/LearnAbout
SenderIdentification.]
Dear Thai,
4 My name is Marcos Espinoza and I am a resident of Alviso Ca. I'm am opposed to the proposed project at the site of 1436 State Street Alviso Ca 95002. I oppose this project due to many reasons. The first being the environmental impact this will cause to Alviso residents. Allowing diesel trucks to operate within a small community impacts the health and well being of the community.

There are multiple
student bus stops close to this site and this will affect the kids who use the bus service. Also the site will 1
operate as an asphalt company. Asphalt produces toxic air with is known to be carcinogenic. To allow an asphalt company to operate literally in front of people houses is wrong. There are many other businesses that operate on state street that are illegal and any study that may be done does not take into account the overall impact of all of those businesses plus the new proposed project.

Thanks,
Marcos Espinoza

Currently the community of Alviso has at least a dozen construction type of land-uses. This proposed corporation yard/ warehouse project with 5 light duty trucks (10 daily), 9 medium duty trucks (18 daily), 7 heavy duty trucks (14 daily), and 5 personal vehicles (52 daily) trucks will have approximate 94 daily vehicle trips. Although this project incrementally is less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the small community of Alviso is cumulatively and disproportionately burden with environmental impacts.

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts for Sensitive Receptors and MANDATORY FINDINGS

OF SIGNIFICANCE
As you know, the BAAQMD is in the process of updating their CEQA thresholds. o The BAAQMD thresholds have not been updated since 2010. The 2017 version solely reflects the California Supreme Court’s 2015 opinion in Cal. Bldg. Indus.

Ass’n vs. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369. Per BAAQMD’s website: “The Guidelines for implementation of the thresholds are for information purposes only to assist local agencies. Recommendations in the Guidelines are advisory and should be followed by local governments at their own discretion.

1 CEQA Guidelines Update (baaqmd.gov) date accessed December 8, 2021. 2 Per (2021) CEQA 15064. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A

PROJECT
5 CEQA Comments and Responses: “Furthermore, the BAAQMD was notified of the circulation of the Draft Initial Study and did
not provide comments.” The absence of a comment letter from BAAQMD does not provide substantial evidence that this project will not have any significant impacts.

(a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process.
(b) (2) Thresholds of significance, as defined in Section 15064.7(a), may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that the project's impacts are less than significant. Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.

6 Envision San José 2040 General Plan | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov) 7 Racial Equity | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov)
8 Per CA State Attorney General “In 2016, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1000, codified at Government Code section 65302, subdivision (h), to incorporate environmental justice into the local land use planning process. SB 1000 requires local governments to address pollution and other hazards that disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color in their jurisdiction. If a local government adopts or updates two or more elements of its general plan after January 1, 2018, SB 1000 requires the local government to identify any “disadvantaged communities” within its planning area. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subds. (h)(1)–(2).) The law defines “disadvantaged communities” to include two identification methods: (1) “an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code”; or (2) “an area that is low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(4)(A).) If a local government identifies one or more disadvantaged communities in its planning area, its general plan must have either an “environmental justice element” or “related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements” (collectively, “EJ policies”) that “reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities” by addressing eight different topics, such as reducing pollution exposure, promoting public improvements, promoting safe and sanitary homes, and promoting public engagement in the local decision making process. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1).) ” SB 1000 - Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

7 Figure 1: Alviso is designated as SB1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and AB1550 Low-Income.9

9 Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards (arcgis.com)

8 The results for each indicator range from 0-100 and represent the percentile ranking of census tract 6085504602 relative to other census tracts.

Overall Percentiles
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentile 67
Pollution Burden
Percentile 82
Population Characteristics
Percentile 50
Exposures
Ozone 15
Particulate Matter 2.5 19
Diesel Particulate Matter 29
Toxic Releases 30
Traffic 94
Pesticides 0
Drinking Water 39
Lead from Housing 51

9 Environmental Effects
Cleanup Sites 99
Groundwater Threats 94
Hazardous Waste 93
Impaired Waters 92
Solid Waste 100
Sensitive Populations
Asthma 38
Low Birth Weight 99
Cardiovascular Disease 40
Socioeconomic Factors
Education 73
Linguistic Isolation N/A
Poverty 28
Unemployment 36
Housing Burden 24

Figure 2: Alviso’s cumulative pollution burden per CalEPA’s screening tool.

10 11

Permit Appeal.pm65/Applications Rev. 2/13/2014
Please submit this application IN PERSON to the Development Services Center, 1ST FLOOR, City Hall. Appoint- ments are not required but may be accommodated by calling (408) 535-3555 or by visiting the Planning Division's website: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=3839 . For Assistance, call (408) 535-5680.

WHO MAY APPEAL
The applicant, or any property owner or tenant of a
property within one thousand (1,000) feet of the subject site, may appeal a development permit, development
variance, or development exception. The applicant, or
such property owner or tenant, must sign the permit
appeal form. Alternatively, the signature of the
applicant's, property owner's or tenant's lawful power of attorney or attorney-in-fact may be accepted so long as a writing evidencing that person's authority to sign the permit appeal for the applicant, property owner or tenant also is provided with the permit appeal form.

Exceptions:

For a Tree Removal Permit, property owners or tenants/
occupants of the subject site, or property owners or
tenants/occupants of properties immediately adjacent or across the street from the subject site may appeal.

For Tentative Maps, the subdivider or any interested
party may appeal.

TIME LIMIT
A complete Notice of Permit Appeal (see back page)
must be filed on or before ten calendar days after a
copy of the decision by the Planning Commission or the
Director of Planning has been placed in the mail to the applicant.

Exceptions:

For Tentative Maps, the appeal must be filed within ten calendar days of the permit approval.

APPEAL REQUIREMENTS

1. A complete Notice of Permit Appeal including the
following within the appropriate time limit:
a. Application filing fee, (see Filing Fee Schedule)
(applicable only to 1st filing).
b. Assessor’s parcel map with subject site outlined.
c. If you are the applicant for the permit being
appealed you must also provide the following:

1. Public Noticing Fee, then

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A

PERMIT APPEAL APPLICATION

2. If appealed to:
z City Council, 45 (forty-five) copies of 11"
x 17", Z-folded, 3 hold punched, stapled
plan sets and/or other supporting
documents.
z Planning Commission, 30 (thirty) copies
of 11" x 17", Z-folded, stapled plan sets
and/or other support documents.
d. For Tree Removal Permits. A Public Noticing
Fee will be charged.

PROCESSING SCHEDULE
Planning Staff:
• Checks the application for completeness.
• Logs and collects fees.
• Reviews application with previous files and obtains
pertinent data.
• Sets a public hearing date and places the item in the agenda.
• Prepares a recommendation to the appropriate
decision making body.

Planning Commission:
• considers and acts upon the appeal of a Planned
Development, Special Use, Tree Removal Permits,
Use Exceptions/Fence Variance and Variance in a
public hearing.
• If the appeal is denied, the decision is final.
• If the appeal is granted, the decision shall be effec- tive immediately.

City Council:
• considers and acts upon the appeal of a Conditional
Use Permit, and a Tentative Map in a public hearing.
• If the appeal is denied, the decision is final.
• If the appeal is granted, the decision shall be effec- tive immediately.

CITY OF SAN JOSE
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
tel (408) 535-3555 fax (408) 292-6055
W
ebsite: www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113-1905

ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

NAME DATE

PROPERTY OWNER

ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
NAME

FAX NUMBER
( )

CONTACT PERSON
(IF DIFFERENT FROM PERSON FILING APPEAL)

ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
NAME

DATESIGNATURE
RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT SITE: (e.g., adjacent property
owner, property owner within one thousand (1,000) feet)

PERSON FILING APPEAL

TO BE COMPLETED BY PLANNING STAFF

FILE NUMBER

PROJECT LOCATION

NOTICE OF PERMIT APPEAL

TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSON FILING APPEAL
REASON(S) FOR APPEAL (For additional comments, please attach a separate sheet.):

PLEASE REFER TO PERMIT APPEAL INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS PAGE. THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPROPRIATE FILING FEE.

THE UNDERSIGNED RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS AN APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH IS LOCATED AT:

RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
DATE

BYDAYTIME TELEPHONE
( )

E-MAIL ADDRESSDAYTIME TELEPHONE
( )

CITY OF SAN JOSE
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
tel (408) 535-3555 fax (408) 292-6055
Website: www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113-1905
Permit Appeal.pm65/Applications Rev. 10/13/2009
Please submit this application IN PERSON to the Development Services Center, 1ST FLOOR, City Hall. Appoint- ments are not required but may be accommodated by calling (408) 535-3555 or by visiting the Planning Division's website: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=3839 . For Assistance, call (408) 535-5680. 1436 State Street Alviso, CA 95002
Truck traffic, noise, nuisance, street and road damage, impacts to sensitive receptors, construction debris from trucks, hours of operation, conflict with Alviso Master Plan goals and policies, pedestrian safety, Alviso infrastructure not adequate for truck traffic, increase diesel particulate matter
Manuel Martinez 408 849-7477
1473 Wabash Street Alviso CA 95002
Within 1,000 feet
Mark Espinoza
P.O. Box 1301 Alviso CA 95002
408 624-7660 [email protected]

(s; 0
r 7 --
I
+
I
0:,
g
-I
I
'
EXISTING . I I' OVERHEAD
DOOR

EXISTING '
u u
DOORS
existing steel !building- north elevation (facing back of property) 0 0

I II II I II II
-

EXISTING EXISTING
V.,NDOW \\1NDOW

EXISTING
DOORS

II I II
existing steel building= west elevation (facing cortp0ration yard!) (0 (0
11 1

II II II II I II
existing steel building - east elevation (facing dlriveway) 8,000 GAU.ON ASPHALT SEAINff TAIi(
30-
HOOSEKEEPIIG PAD FlJI IIAlERIAL SRlRAGE 8000 GAU.ON AS'HALT SEAINfl TANK utility structures - west elevation, facing parking lot II
I 31•-4• I 14'-o" 14'-8"
PRll'ANE TANK
I
'\
'- .,,(
10'-o"
I
'
I
' '

EXISTING METAL DECK ROOFING

EXISTING METAL SIDING
LED WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE \\1TH FULL CUT-OFF
II
LENS/HOOD. (TYPICAL)

EXISTING TYPICAL FINISHES
(NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED):

EXISTING METAL DOORS
II
II II

11.000 GAU.ON ASPHN..T SEALANT TAIi(
Y!-8"
Q)
II I
CD
II I
STAFF LOO<ER R0CIIS
' ' "
I
II
(0 (.0
-
, I '
□

EXISTING
WINDOW
existing steel building - south elevation (facing state street) II II
�
, I >

EXISTING

OVERHEAD
DOOR

II II II
Y!-o· .I
0 II II I II II
0 II I II I II

EXISTING
V.,NDOW
�
'
' ' ' ' '
'b =c:::::J � '
- 'b ' ' ' ' ' 1ll,
14'-lr
h1DE ElfVA'IDI FACIIG PARKIIG )I
utiljty structures - south elevation tac1ng state street NOlES:

1. lHS BUILDING IS I.OCAlED WllHN lHE FLOOD PIME AN lllll lHEREFORE BE "FLOOD PROOFED".

1.1. WAil C<JISIRUC!Klt CONalETE BLOCK WllH AN EPOXY PAINT/SEALANT <Jl EXIERIOR SllE. All CONSlRUCll<Jl .KltllS TO BE SEAl.£D ANl WAlER llGIT TO 12" MINIIUII ABO'IE 11£ FLOOD Pl.Al£.

1.2. WAlER TIGHT DOORS l\llH AUlllMAllC CLOSERS AND SEALS \\Ill BE PRCMDED.

1.3. WINDOWS Will BE PROWlED llllH FLOOD SHUTIERS AND SEAI.S.

I I I STAFF LOO<ER R0C11S EIU'IIENT SRlRAGE !RASH EN<l..OSlllE PRll'ANE TAIi( I 8000 GAU.ON ASPHN..T SEALANT TAIi( I HOOSEKEEPIIG PAD FlJI IIAlERIAL SRlRAGE ·1

2. A FLOODPROOFIIG CERllRCAlE (FEIIA FORM 086-0-34) ANl OlHER APPROPRIAlE DOCUIENlS 'Mll BE PRCMDED AS APPROPRIAlE.
utility structures - east elevation, facing property line 0 II I II
-
II I

EXISTING
V.,NDOW
-
wayll1le rell1lslhaw
archllect
111 W Saint John St. #950
San Jose, CA 95113
( 408) 288 8033
consultant
consultant

1. This sheet ls part of a set and Is not to be used
alone.

2. This eheet is not to be weed for construction unless m the architect's stomp and 1Signoture appear on
,! drawings and status box lndcates drawings have been
o released for construction.

3. These plans and prints thereof, as instruments of
"6 aervicv, ore owned by the architect and ore for use
� on this project only. Reproduction and/or
c distribution without the prior written consent of
� the architect is forbidden.

4. Cop�lght WD)t'IB Renshaw. Architect 2018
Improvements to
an existing site
& building
Site De velopment
Permit Application
H21-049
1436 State Street
Alviso, CA
f description date
�& PLANNING REVISIONS 8/7/19
1l � PLANNING REVISIONS 9/10/20
:C .&_ PLANNING REVISIONS 2/12/21
I.& PLANNING REVISIONS 5/17 /21
�&.
i 8 client review
date
§Q .. --------
"!! Q plan check
·f Q bidding
-a O construction
:g 10/24/18
'e� 1844 a.c
., 01 2 345"§ 114"•1'-o· I I 1111111 I I
bn..n � � cdJ � ll1g
e�evat�oll1s
.... .,, :e
.c ::, OI C
A3ol

STANDARD STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES:

 STANDING WATER SHALL NOT REMAIN IN THE TREATMENT

MEASURES FOR MORE THAN FIVE DAYS, TO PREVENT MOSQUITO
GENERATION. SHOULD ANY MOSQUITO ISSUES ARISE, CONTACT

THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
(DISTRICT). MOSQUITO LARVICIDES SHALL BE APPLIED ONLY

WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, AS INDICATED BY THE DISTRICT,

AND THEN ONLY BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL OR
CONTRACTOR. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE DISTRICT IS
PROVIDED BELOW.

 DO NOT USE PESTICIDES OR OTHER CHEMICAL APPLICATIONS TO

TREAT DISEASED PLANTS, CONTROL WEEDS OR REMOVED
UNWANTED GROWTH. EMPLOY NON-CHEMICAL CONTROLS
(BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL CONTROLS) TO TREAT A PEST PROBLEM. PRUNE PLANTS PROPERLY AND AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME OF YEAR. PROVIDE ADEQUATE IRRIGATION
FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTS. DO NOT OVER WATER.

Total Site (acres): 0.96 Total Area of Site
Disturbed (acres):

0.89 IMPERVIOUS AREA (IA) Pre‐Project existing
Impervious Area (sq.ft)
Exisiting Imperviou Area
Retained As‐Is (sq.ft)
Existing Imperious Area
Replaced with Impervous
Area (sq.ft)
New Impervious
Area Created
(sq.ft.)
Total Post Project
Project Impervious
Area (sq.ft)
Total Impervious Surfaces: 41,983 3100 34,714 0 37,814
Total New and Replaced Impervious Surfaces:

Total Public Street Impervious Area 1,756 0 1,756 0 1,756 Total New and replaced Public Street
Total Site and Public Street Impervious Area 43,739 39,570 Total Pervious Area 0 4,169
Total Area (Impervious Area + Pervious Area)
43,739 43,739
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS AND PERVIOUS AREAS AT PROJECT SITE PUBLIC STREET TOTAL
SITE TOTAL
Percent Replacement of Impervious in Redeveolopment Projects (total site existing impervious area replaced with impervious area /total site pre-project existing impervious area)x100 82.69%
PERVIOUS AREA (PA)
34,714
1,756
Project Phase Number: (N/A, 1, 2, 3, etc.)
Pre‐Project existing
Pervious Area (sq.ft)
Total Post Project
Pervious Area

Exhibit D:

Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, technical reports, and Responses to Comments

The Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, technical reports, and Responses to Comments for the 1436 State Street Project (H21-049) are available here at www.sanjoseca.gov/negativedeclarations

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM

ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
Response to Project Appellant Comments
1436 State Street Project
San José, Santa Clara County, California
Prepared for:

City of San José
Planning Division
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor
San José, CA 95113
Contact: Thai-Chau Le, Planner
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Date: February 15, 2022

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Comments Appeal Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/53770001 Sec00-01 TOC no code.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 - Document Organization ............................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2: Responses to Appeal of planning director approval ...................................................... 2-1

2.1 - Responses to Comments ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 - Introduction .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 - Comment Letters and Responses ..................................................................... 2-1 Appendix A: Operational Health Risk Assessment
Appendix B: Operations Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/53770001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The 1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated September 3, 2021, was publicly circulated for comments between Friday September 3, 2021 and Monday October 4, 2021. During the circulation period, the City of San José received seven comments. Formal Responses to those comments (RTC) and Errata to the circulated IS/MND were completed and posted on the City’s website prior to any public hearing. Collectively, the formal Response to Comments (RTC), Errata, and the circulated IS/MND are all part of the IS/MND approved by the Planning Director on December 8, 2021.

Following the approval of the project by the Planning Director on December 8, 2021, Mark Espinoza on behalf of the community of Alviso filed a request for appeal of the Planning Director decision The City of San José Planning Division has prepared the following Responses to Project Appellant Comments received on the 1436 State Street Project IS/MND. The Responses to Comments, which are included in this document, together with the IS/MND, IS/MND appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), comprise the Responses to Project Appellant Comments for use by the City of San José in its review and consideration of the 1436 State Street Project.

1.1 - Document Organization
This document is organized into two sections:
• Section 1—Introduction.
• Section 2—Responses to Appeal of Planning Director Approval: The letter received regarding the IS/MND and responses thereto are included in this section.

The Responses to Project Appellant Comments includes the following contents:
• IS/MND (provided under separate cover)
• IS/MND appendices (provided under separate cover)
• Responses to Written Comments (Section 2)
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx SECTION 2: RESPONSES TO APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL

2.1 - Responses to Comments

2.1.1 - Introduction
Following the approval of the project by the Planning Director on December 8, 2021, Mark Espinoza filed a request for an environmental appeal of the Planning Director decision on December 10, 2021.

The letter and detailed staff responses to the concerns raised therein are discussed in Section 2.

None of the comments received results in the need to recirculate the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The reasons for the environmental appeal are a combination of all issues raised during the public circulation of the IS/MND and during the Director’s Hearing on December 8, 2021.

Each comment in the letter has been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

Author Author Code
Mark Espinoza ...................................................................................................................... ESPINOZA While most of the issues in this comment letter were previously raised during the IS/MND public review period, it should be noted that the following new comments and issues are raised in the appeal letter:
• Alviso being a disadvantaged community (Comments ESPINOZA-11 and ESPINOZA-14).Request for a truck traffic monitoring report (Comment ESPINOZA-12). • Request for the proposed project to adhere to air quality thresholds beyond what is currently required in the 2017 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Guidelines (Comment ESPINOZA-12).
• Consideration of disproportionate impacts in the General Plan (Comment ESPINOZA-13).

2.1.2 - Comment Letters and Responses

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 December 10, 2021
Thai-Chau Le
CEQA Planning Supervisor
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination-1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FILE NOS: H21-049 (FORMERLY SP18-058) AND ER21-110) Dear Ms. Thai-Chau Le:

Note 2. Land uses and sizes are drawn from the site plans for proposed development dated August 7, 2019. Land uses utilized in the emissions model represent the following:

Parking > Parking Lot > 23 x Space = Proposed parking area. Square footage adjusted to match Applicant provided information dated April 2, 2021. = Proposed 605 square feet of new
sidewalk.

Parking > Other Asphalt Surfaces > 4.42 x 1000 sqft = Balance of project site, paved area for equipment storage.

Recreational > Health Club > 0.64 x 1000 sqft = Proposed 635 square foot employee locker room building.

Recreational > City Park > 0.09 x acre = Proposed 3,872 square feet of landscaping.

Existing warehouse to be
repurposed as contractor warehouse and office. Lot acreage was reduced to zero to remove any grading requirements associated with project construction for this area. information dated April 2, 2021.

The IS/MND is vague about what activities will be taking place at the site once construction is existing building on the site, repaving and striping the site, rebuilding an existing utility building, a new ext
2 inadequate project description. The IS/MND must be revised and recirculated to thoroughly ight affect air
quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and any other environmental impact category. [For example: The City did not provide an adequate explanation in their response for the project description, see page 2-39 per CEQA §15124]
The IS/MND appears to evaluate potential health impacts to local residents from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions during project construction, which will be of short duration, but does not do so for emissions during project operation, which will be long-term. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust can cause serious health problems, especially in children. This is especially true when there are already significant levels of toxic air pollutant emissions in the area, which emissions to existing pollution levels. [For example: The City did not provide substantial evidence and explanation in their response, see page 2-39, for air quality impacts during project operations.]
The noise assessment simply reports sound m
facility on 2 days in 2019. There is no indication or explanation to establish that these measurements are in any way representative of what would occur at the Alviso site.

The City should revise the IS/MND to address the deficiencies described above before it can approve this project.

From: Mark Espinoza
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 11:49 AM
To: Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]>
Cc: District4 <[email protected]>; Shani Kleinhaus <[email protected]>; Eileen McLaughlin
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1436 State street Alviso
Hi Thai
like this article to be added to the comment period for the 1436 State street project. [External Email]
3 I believe the studies have not addressed the cumulative impact associated with this project. There
are many other PM sources that are present within a 1000 feet of the project but have yet to be
considered when the analysis generated their reports. Thereby producing a flawed inaccuratereport.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21555471/
Chau <[email protected]>
Subject: project proposal @1436 State Street
street @1592 Grand blvd. where I reside. The first photograph is of a nondamaged roadway located @1235 Wabash Street. As evident there is no damage to the asphalt. Whereas the following photographs located @1592 Grand Blvd we can see the entire section of roadway distressed due to traffic loading. Which means heavy
loaded truck traffic.

Your applicant wishes to have this damage continue with the added truck traffic in his proposed project. Why has this not been included in the studies provided. I would request for this project to complete an EIR because there are more impacts found that have not been discussed, studies, and or evaluated.

I can already identify disparities given we are a low income community a community of minorities. Thanks
OCA President
From: Marcos Espinoza
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 7:12 PM
To: Le, Thai-Chau <Thai-
[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed project
in Alviso
Learn why this is
important at
http://aka.ms/LearnAbout
SenderIdentification.]
Dear Thai,
4 My name is Marcos Espinoza and I am a resident of Alviso Ca. I'm am opposed to the proposed project at the site of 1436 State Street Alviso Ca 95002. I oppose this project due to many reasons. The first being the environmental impact this will cause to Alviso residents. Allowing diesel trucks to operate within a small community impacts the health and well being of the community.

There are multiple
student bus stops close to this site and this will affect the kids who use the bus service. Also the site will
operate as an asphalt company. Asphalt produces toxic air with is known to be carcinogenic. To allow an asphalt company to operate literally in front of people houses is wrong. There are many other businesses that operate on state street that are illegal and any study that may be done does not take into account the overall impact of all of those businesses plus the new proposed project.

Thanks,
Marcos Espinoza
Currently the community of Alviso has at least a dozen construction type of land-uses. This proposed corporation yard/ warehouse project with 5 light duty trucks (10 daily), 9 medium duty trucks (18 daily), 7 heavy duty trucks (14 daily), and 5 personal vehicles (52 daily) trucks will have approximate 94 daily vehicle trips. Although this project incrementally is less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the small community of Alviso is cumulatively and disproportionately burden with environmental impacts.

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts for Sensitive Receptors and MANDATORY FINDINGS

OF SIGNIFICANCE
As you know, the BAAQMD is in the process of updating their CEQA thresholds. o The BAAQMD thresholds have not been updated since 2010. The 2017 version solely reflects the
purposes only to assist local agencies. Recommendations in the Guidelines are advisory and should be followed by local governments at their own discretion.

These Guidelines may inform environmental review for development projects in the Bay Area, but do not commit local governments or the Air District to any 12 On page 2-39 of the State Street IS/MND
1 CEQA Guidelines Update (baaqmd.gov) date accessed December 8, 2021. 2 Per (2021) CEQA 15064. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A

PROJECT
5 CEQA Comments and Responses:
the circulation of the Draft Initial Study and did
The absence of a comment letter from BAAQMD does
not provide substantial evidence that this project will not have any significant impacts.

The 1436 State Street Project IS/MND did not adequately disclose that Alviso is designated as SB1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and AB1550 Low-Income (Figure 1). In addition, Alviso narrowly missed the vulnerability rank of cumulative impacts via the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 screening tool (Figure 2).3 The Alviso residents are disproportionately affected by contamination, air pollution, and many cumulative environmental issues: the former South Bay Asbestos Area on the National Priority List (NPL), the Union Pacific Railroad, Highway 237, methane vapor from the Newby Island Landfill and Zanker Recycling Zero Waste Energy, the Calpine Energy Plant, facilities with hazardous wastes, large Google warehouses, the (Approved Development)Microsoft San Jose Data Center, the RWF Cogeneration Project for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), and numerous unpermitted business with diesel trucks, Topgolf Entertainment Center traffic
impacts, and other proposed projects.4
With this evidence, an additional project condition should require a monitoring report that the truck traffic for the State Street Project does not use residential streets and do not exceed their daily vehicle trips. In addition, this project must implement per the Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau) Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act 5 [The CEQA 2021 Statutes and Guidelines does not preclude the Lead Agency from requiring conditions to the project or additional mitigation measures not included in the BAAQMD CEQA 2017 Air Quality Guidelines. As noted above, the thresholds and guidelines are the same from 2010. For example, the 2017 BAAQMD Guidelines includes URBEMIS and not CalEEMod for analysis and mitigation measures. Yet, the City of San Jose allows for CalEEMod analysis and the mitigation measures in this software.] (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process.
(b) (2) Thresholds of significance, as defined in Section 15064.7(a), may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that the project's impacts are less than significant. Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider be significant.
3 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 | OEHHA
4 RWF Cogeneration Project | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov) San Jose City Data Center, Licensing Case - Docket # 2019-SPPE-04
5 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
6 Land-Use
General Plan, it does not environmentally reflect the significant changes and amendments to the General Plan over many years. Since the adoption of the General Plan in 2011, significant legislative laws have been approved such as SB 1000.6 As a City of San Jose resident, I hope City leaders Office of Racial Equity7 will soon implement SB 1000.8 Ethically, the City has an obligation to consider the disproportionate impacts to the Alviso residents.
6 Envision San José 2040 General Plan | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov) 7 Racial Equity | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov)
8 Per CA State Attorney General In 2016, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1000, codified at Government Code section 65302, subdivision (h), to incorporate environmental justice into the local land use planning process. SB 1000 requires local governments to address pollution and other hazards that disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color in their jurisdiction. If a local government adopts or updates two or more elements of its general plan after January 1, 2018, SB 1000 requires Code, § 65302,
subds. (h)(1)
area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code
-income area that is disproportionately affected by
environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental government identifies one or more disadvantaged
pollution exposure, promoting public improvements, promoting safe and sanitary homes, and promoting public engagement in the local decision making process. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1).) SB 1000 - Environmental
Justice in Local Land Use Planning | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General 7 Figure 1: Alviso is designated as SB1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and AB1550 Low-Income.9
9 Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards (arcgis.com)

8 The results for each indicator range from 0-100 and represent the percentile ranking of census tract 6085504602 relative to other census tracts.

10 11

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-15
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Individuals
Comments below are reprinted verbatim from the appeal letter .

Mark Espinoza (ESPINOZA)
Comment ESPINOZA-1
The community of Alviso is submitting simultaneously the Appeal of Environmental Determination and the Permit Appeal for the 1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MD). As documented in the IS/MND Technical Appendix A (p. A.1-1) this project proposes:

Note 2. Land uses and sizes are drawn from the site plans for proposed development dated August 7, 2019. Land uses utilized in the emissions model represent the following:
• Parking > Parking Lot > 23 x Space = Proposed parking area. Square footage adjusted to match Applicant provided information dated April 2, 2021.
• Parking > Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces > 0.61 x 1000 sqft = Proposed 605 square feet of new sidewalk.
• Parking > Other Asphalt Surfaces > 4.42 x 1000 sqft = Balance of project site, paved area for equipment storage.
• Recreational > Health Club > 0.64 x 1000 sqft = Proposed 635 square foot employee locker room building.
• Recreational > City Park > 0.09 x acre = Proposed 3,872 square feet of landscaping. • Industrial > Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail > 3.00 x 1000sqft = Existing warehouse to be repurposed as contractor warehouse and office. Lot acreage was reduced to zero to remove any grading requirements associated with project construction for this area. • Note 3. Construction activities and equipment list were adjusted to match Applicant-provided information dated April 2, 2021.

Response to ESPINOZA-1
This comment simply lists some of the parameters used in the air quality modeling that was included within the air quality appendix of the IS/MND. This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to the environmental analysis of the IS/MND, it does not identify any significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the IS/MND’s analysis or conclusions, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures not already disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, nor does it present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments

2-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Comment ESPINOZA-2
This attachment includes all previous submissions pertaining to the proposed project. The Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which includes the City of San José’s Responses to Written Comments were inadequate.

The IS/MND is vague about what activities will be taking place at the site once construction is complete. The IS/MND repeatedly described the project as “interior improvements of the existing building on the site, repaving and striping the site, rebuilding an existing utility building, a new exterior storage equipment area and the reconfiguration of the gates.” This is an inadequate project description. The IS/MND must be revised and recirculated to thoroughly and accurately explain what activities will occur over the project’s life time that might affect air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and any other environmental impact category. [For example: The City did not provide an adequate explanation in their response for the project description, see page 2-39 per CEQA § 15124] Response to ESPINOZA-2
As previously stated in the formal Responses to Comments to the IS/MND, the IS/MND Section 2.11, Project Description, on page 10 states that the project site would be used as a corporation yard for vehicle parking and equipment storage.1 Operational impacts would be related to the vehicles and trucks entering and exiting the project site. The air quality, noise, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, transportation, and other environmental impacts associated with project operations were thoroughly analyzed in the respective sections of the IS/MND.

The IS/MND, on page 9 (Section 2.11.1 – Site Design), disclosed that the proposed project, “includes improvements to the interior of the existing 3,000-square-foot metal building, construction of a new 635-square-foot utility building, installation of new storage tanks, and repaving of the site. The proposed project would also include the installation of new landscaping along project boundaries and the creation of new parking areas” to accommodate for a corporation yard use. Section 3.1 Air Quality of the IS/MND also reiterated the criteria for the operation of the proposed corporation yard. Relevant discussion from page 42 includes the following: “The corporation yard would be used for vehicle parking and equipment storage. During operation of the proposed project, odors would primarily consist of exhaust from construction equipment and passenger vehicles traveling to and from the site . . . The proposed project would also involve the operation of an asphalt sealant tank, which may also produce odors during operation; however, asphalt sealant tanks are enclosed storage containers and would not constitute the introduction of a new asphalt batch plant.”
To further elaborate, the proposed corporation yard would be available for parking of company vehicles, equipment, and light materials (such as new wood, rebar, and various other non-hazardous materials packaged in factory sealed containers.) The corporation yard would be staffed by five employees. The proposed project’s vehicle fleet includes five non- commercial half-ton pickup trucks (for miscellaneous support tasks), nine non-commercial

1 City of San José. 2021. 1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. September 3. Website:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/76770/637661106042970000. Accessed November 11, 2021.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-17
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx flatbed trucks (for transport of crew, tools, and materials), and seven heavy commercial vehicles (for transport of equipment and materials). The crew members would arrive at staggered times, as designated by corporation yard staff, and would park their personal vehicles in project’s parking area before departing in one of the company vehicles to a job site. Project vehicles would only be parked in the corporation yard to ensure minimal disruption to the neighborhood.

Project vehicles traveling to and from a job site would need to follow a designated site- specific route provided by the operations staff to ensure adherence to all safety, environmental and municipal protocols. Furthermore, as shown in the Truck Restricted Area exhibit in the proposed project’s Operations Plan (Exhibit B of this document), to reach State Route (SR) 237 project trucks would only travel on State Street (east of the project site), Spreckles Avenue, and Los Esteros Road. Project trucks would not access any other neighboring roads.

The proposed corporation yard would not operate during night hours. Noise from heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, and other on-site commercial/industrial equipment would only occur between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

For purposes of clarification and amplification, an operation plan from the applicant is also attached to this document (Appendix B of this document). This addition provides clarifying information only and does not represent a change to the proposed project that is analyzed in detail throughout the IS/MND nor does it reflect any change to the analysis or conclusions in the IS/MND. Therefore, this comment does not raise any new issues with respect to the environmental analysis of the IS/MND, significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the IS/MND’s analysis or impacts, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those already analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND.

Comment ESPINOZA-3
The IS/MND appears to evaluate potential health impacts to local residents from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions during project construction, which will be of short duration, but does not do so for emissions during project operation, which will be long-term. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust can cause serious health problems, especially in children. This is especially true when there are already significant levels of toxic air pollutant emissions in the area, which is the case for Alviso.

The IS/MND needs to consider health risks from adding this project’s emissions to existing pollution levels. [For example: The City did not provide substantial evidence and explanation in their response, see page 2-39, for air quality impacts during project operations.] Response to ESPINOZA-3
As described on page 2-39 of the formal Responses to Comments to the IS/MND, impacts during project operation would not change the extent or nature of health risks resulting from existing air pollution sources in the surrounding area because the project does not propose to alter any of the existing activities or emission sources associated with City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments

2-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx surrounding permitted stationary sources or other sources of toxic air contaminants that are otherwise not associated with the proposed project.

The proposed project would not constitute a land use or operational activity contained in Table 1-1 of the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook,2 such as a distribution center that experiences greater than 100 trucks per day or greater than 40 trucks with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) per day; therefore, operation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in potentially significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Moreover, as illustrated in the proposed project’s Local Transportation Analysis (LTA),3 employee traffic to and from the project site would principally consist of passenger vehicle use, which would result in the operation of predominantly gasoline-fueled vehicles. In addition, the LTA demonstrates that an estimated 52 daily vehicle trips out of the total 94 daily vehicle trips would be generated by personal vehicles, which are assumed to be passenger vehicles. Moreover, as discussed in the LTA, 28 daily vehicles trips would be attributed to heavy-duty trucks, which would be construction contractor vehicles rather than the trucks referred to in the ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, which are typically considered Class 7 (greater than 26,000 pounds) and Class 8 (greater than 33,000 pounds) vehicles. As the project does not propose to use these types of vehicles, nor does the project proposed the use of trucks greater than the volumes expressed in the ARB’s advisory recommendations of its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, the proposed project was reasonably assumed to not result in operational diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD’s applicable health risk thresholds.

An operational Health Risk Analysis (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project, in accordance with BAAQMD and State guidance, and is included as Appendix A to this document for informational purposes and to provide further evidence in the administrative record of the adequacy of the analysis and conclusions of the IS/MND. The operational HRA considered emissions from the operational vehicle fleet, including both trucks and passenger vehicles traveling to and from the project site, emissions generated from on-site low-speed vehicle activity, on-site truck and passenger vehicle idling emissions, and building emissions.

The land use considered in the HRA is shown in Appendix A.1-1 of this document (California Emissions Estimator Model [CalEEMod] Notes), which demonstrates that the proposed project represents as an “unrefrigerated warehouse with no-rail” and other paved surfaces, such as a parking lot. The proposed project would not include stationary sources of emissions, such as an asphalt or concrete plant. As previously discussed on page 2-43 of the formal Responses to Comments to the IS/MND, the proposed project would not procure, mix, or store asphalt on-site. As discussed in Section 3.1 of the IS/MND and in Response to ESPINOZA-2, the proposed project would not constitute the operation of an asphalt batch plant. As such, the proposed building would most closely resemble a warehouse that is not associated with nearby rail connections or cold storage. The “unrefrigerated warehouse no- rail” land use was selected because it most closely resembles the proposed project’s

2 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2022. 3 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2021. 1436 State Street Industrial Local Transportation Analysis. August 12.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx anticipated uses and is consistent with City-approved project description contained in the IS/MND. Therefore, emissions were quantified, modeled, and the cancer risk and cumulative health risk for the proposed project was identified in accordance with BAAQMD Guidelines.

In the operational HRA, the maximum impacted sensitive receptor was found to be a residence located approximately 65 feet from the project site. This is the same maximum impacted receptor as was identified during the construction HRA. The operational HRA found that at this location, the additional cancer risk impact resulting from project operation would be 0.47 cancer cases per 1 million residents. As the BAAQMD’s project-level significance threshold is 10 additional cases per 1 million residents, this presents a less than significant impact. Additionally, as noted in the operational HRA, the cumulative impacts from the combined operation of the proposed project and existing sources of toxic air contaminants in the area—including existing stationary sources, railroads, local roadways, and highways—would result in a cumulative cancer risk of approximately 17 cancer cases per 1 million people. As the BAAQMD’s cumulative threshold of significance is 100 cancer risk cases per 1 million people, the cumulative health risk impacts resulting from project operation would be less than significant and would not require any mitigation during project operation. This conclusion is consistent with the IS/MND findings. Please refer to the operational HRA summary and results contained in Appendix A of this document. The operational HRA was prepared solely for clarification purposes and does not include new information that would change the project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073.5.

Comment ESPINOZA-4
The noise assessment simply reports sound measurements taken at the applicant’s Fremont facility on 2 days in 2019. There is no indication or explanation to establish that these measurements are in any way representative of what would occur at the Alviso site.

Response to ESPINOZA-4
As stated on page 74 of the IS/MND, consistent with City practice, continuous recordings of sound levels were made at a location on the south side of State Street at the residential property line directly across the street from the site to determine the existing ambient exterior noise. The measurements were made on February 11- 12, 2019, for a continuous period of 24 hours and included measurements during the daytime and nighttime periods of the Day-Night Level (DNL) index during a typical weekday.

Then, as the proposed project is not yet in operation, the analysis modeled the typical noise of a similar use to model the estimated noise increase from operation of the proposed project. As stated on page 2-40 of the Responses to Comments and page 75 of the IS/MND, sound level measurements were taken from the City of Fremont Corporation Yard, because its operation is similar to that of the proposed project as it is a similar size and has the same fleet mix. Thus, the operations at the Fremont facility would be representative of the operations that would occur at the project site. It is therefore appropriate to use the noise City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments

2-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx levels taken from the Fremont facility to determine the project-generated short-term noise levels for the evaluations against the City of San José Zoning Ordinance and the long-term noise exposures for the evaluations against the City of San José General Plan Goals and Policies.

This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the proposed project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND.

Comment ESPINOZA-5
The City should revise the IS/MND to address the deficiencies described above before it can approve this project.

Response to ESPINOZA-5
As stated in the Responses to Comments, the IS/MND, and the responses in this document, there are no new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the proposed project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required.

Comment ESPINOZA-6
I’d like this article to be added to the comment period for the 1436 State street project. I believe the studies have not addressed the cumulative impact associated with this project. There are many other PM sources that are present within a 1,000 feet of the project site but have yet to be considered when the analysis generated their reports. Thereby producing a flawed inaccurate report.

Response to ESPINOZA-6
As stated in the Responses to Comments, Section 3.1 Air Quality of the IS/MND, and the responses in this document, a cumulative HRA was prepared for a corporation yard in accordance with BAAQMD guidance and requirements. As part of this assessment, cancer risk, chronic hazard, and PM

2.5 concentrations, as available, for all permitted stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site and roadways, railroads, and freeways within and beyond 1,000 feet of the project site were identified. Project operation would not change the extent or nature of these existing health risks because the project does not propose to alter any of those existing activities or emission sources. The IS/MND disclosed that on-site toxic air contaminant (TACs) during project operation would consist of DPM emissions from the operation and movement of construction equipment and vehicles; however, the operation of construction equipment and vehicles would be limited to the transport of the equipment and vehicles to and from construction sites elsewhere.

Equipment and vehicles operated by the proposed project would not operate on-site for any extended period of time.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-21
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Also refer to Response to ESPINOZA-3 above for discussion of the project’s operational HRA analysis and cumulative health risk. The comment does not provide new information that would change the project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.

Comment ESPINOZA-7
I’d like to submit the attached photographs to illustrate the current damaged street @[redacted] Grand blvd. where I reside. The first photograph is of a nondamaged roadway located @1235 Wabash Street. As evident there is no damage to the asphalt. Whereas the following photographs located @1592 Grand Blvd we can see the entire section of roadway distressed due to traffic loading. Which means heavy loaded truck traffic.

I can already identify disparities given we are a low income community a community of minorities.

Response to ESPINOZA-7
As stated on page 2-35 of the Responses to Comments,
this comment is related to the existing roadway pavement conditions immediately around the project site and ranging from 0.22 to 0.26 mile away. The commenter indicates that roadway distress is due to traffic loading, which is correlated with loaded truck traffic. The commenter assessed that additional analysis such as an EIR [is required] for these impacts that are not mentioned in the IS/MND.

The connection between the roadway conditions is shown in the pictures provided, but no further evidence is provided to show that this is solely due to loaded truck traffic or how the proposed project would further exacerbate the conditions. The proposed project was reviewed by the Public Works Department and the proposed project is required to improve existing site frontage on State Street as it has a direct connection to the proposed project, including sidewalk and driveways. Separately, the City has a pavement maintenance program
4 to repave every mile of local and neighborhood streets within the City by 2028. As shown in the Pavement Maintenance Plan 2014-2023 interactive map,5 the streets in the vicinity of the project site such as Archer Street, Essex Street, Pacific Avenue, Wabash Street, and Michigan Avenue would be repaved in year 2023. Furthermore, to access SR-237, project trucks would only travel on State Street east of the project site, Spreckles Avenue (pavement maintenance scheduled for 2022), and Los Esteros Road (recently repaved in

4 City of San José. 2021. Pavement Maintenance Program. Website:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/departments/transportation/roads/pavement. Accessed October 11, 2021. 5 City of San José. 2021. Pavement Maintenance Plan 2014- 2023. Website: https://gis.sanjoseca.gov/maps/paveprojects/. Accessed October 11, 2021.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments

2-22 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx 2021). Project trucks would not access any other neighboring roads and would not contribute to pavement deterioration of these neighboring streets. The comment does not provide new information that would change the proposed project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15073.5.

Comment ESPINOZA-8
My name is Marcos Espinoza and I am a resident of Alviso Ca. I'm am opposed to the proposed project at the site of 1436 State Street Alviso Ca 95002. I oppose this project due to many reasons.

The first being the environmental impact this will cause to Alviso residents. Allowing diesel trucks to operate within a small community impacts the health and well-being of the community.

There are many other businesses that operate on state street that are illegal and any study that may be done does not take into account the overall impact of all of those businesses plus the new proposed project.

Response to ESPINOZA-8
As discussed in Section 3.1, Air Quality, of the IS/MND and page 2-43 of the Responses to Comments, a cumulative HRA was prepared in accordance with BAAQMD guidance and requirements. As part of this assessment, cancer risk, chronic hazard, and PM2.5 concentrations, as available, for all permitted stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site and roadways, railroads, and freeways within and beyond 1,000 feet of the project site were identified.

Moreover, the proposed project would not constitute the operation of an asphalt company.

Refer to Response to ESPINOZA-2 above for further clarification on the project description without changes to the analysis. Refer to Response to ESPINOZA-3 and ESPINOZA-6 for more information and additional analysis on health and operations.

This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required.

Comment ESPINOZA-9
Currently the community of Alviso has at least a dozen construction type of land-uses. This proposed corporation yard/ warehouse project with 5 light duty trucks (10 daily), 9 medium duty trucks (18 daily), 7 heavy duty trucks (14 daily), and 5 personal vehicles (52 daily) trucks will have approximate 94 daily vehicle trips. Although this project incrementally is less than significant with mitigation City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-23
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx incorporated, the small community of Alviso is cumulatively and disproportionately burdened with environmental impacts.

Response to ESPINOZA-9
As described in the analysis under Impact 3.1.1 of the IS/MND, the proposed project’s estimated trip generation was incorporated into the operational air quality emissions modeling. The City may utilize standards adopted by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment to establish thresholds of significance. See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envt'l Dev. v City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 CA4th 327, 332. See also Mission Bay Alliance v Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 CA5th 160, 205; Tracy First v City of Tracy (2009) 177 CA4th 912; Cadiz Land Co. v Rail Cycle (2000) 83 CA4th 74.

Accordingly, as discussed in further detail in Response to ESPINOZA-10, the City is utilizing the thresholds of significance established by BAAQMD to gauge the environmental impact of the proposed project. As shown in Table 5 and Table 6 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in operational-related air pollutants or precursors that would exceed the thresholds of significance, indicating that ongoing project operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity of air pollutants or contribute to a cumulatively significant impact; therefore, project operations would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts under the City’s CEQA threshold.

Moreover, the IS/MND’s analysis is consistent with City of San José General Plan Policies MS-

10.1 and -10.2, which require new development projects to conform to BAAQMD Guidelines and consider cumulative impacts consistent with the Clean Air Plan and State Law. The BAAQMD and the Clean Air Plan are designed to prevent significant cumulative air quality impacts by setting thresholds for the maximum emissions a new development project could emit without endangering human health.

This comment does not provide any new information or raise any new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices that would require recirculation of the IS/MND.

Comment ESPINOZA-10
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts for Sensitive Receptors and MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE As you know, the BAAQMD is in the process of updating their CEQA thresholds. o) The BAAQMD thresholds have not been updated since 2010. The 2017 version solely reflects the California Supreme Court’s 2015 opinion in Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n vs. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt Dist., 62 Cal. 4th 369. Per BAAQMD’s website: “The Guidelines for implementation of the thresholds are for information purposes only to assist local agencies. Recommendations in the Guidelines are advisory and should be followed by local governments at their own discretion. These Guidelines may inform environmental review for development projects in City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments

2-24 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx the Bay Area, but do not commit local governments or the Air District to any specific course of regulatory action.12 On page 2-39 of the State Street IS/MND CEQA Comments and Responses: “Furthermore, the BAAQMD was notified of the circulation of the Draft Initial Study and did not provide comments.” The absence of a comment letter from BAAQMD does not provide substantial evidence that this project will not have any significant impacts.

Response to ESPINOZA-10
The commenter is correct that the absence of a comment letter from the BAAQMD does not provide substantial evidence that the project will not have any significant impacts. When adopting or using thresholds of significance, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 specifically states that the lead agency “may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts.” Consistent with Guideline Section 15064.7, San José General Plan Policies MS-10.1 and -10.2 adopted the BAAQMD Guidelines and require new development projects to abide by those thresholds set by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD thresholds are established based on substantial evidence compiled by the Air District. Moreover, the IS/MND follows the recommended methodologies provided by the BAAQMD in their Guidelines and demonstrates less than significant impacts with respect to project emissions compared against the applicable significance thresholds. The BAAQMD Guidelines and thresholds were used to measure project impacts because the BAAQMD prepared the CEQA Guidelines to assist lead agencies in air quality analysis, as well as to promote sustainable development in the region. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines support lead agencies in analyzing air quality impacts and offers numerous mitigation measures and general plan policies to implement smart growth and transit-oriented development, minimize construction emissions, and reduce population exposure to air pollution risks.
6 Therefore, the BAAQMD Guidelines are
appropriate to utilize in analyzing project impacts and are not outdated.

Comment ESPINOZA-11
The 1436 State Street Project IS/MND did not adequately disclose that Alviso is designated as SB1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and AB1550 Low-Income (Figure 1). In addition, Alviso narrowly missed the CalEPA’s top 30% percentile vulnerability rank of cumulative impacts via the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 screening tool (Figure 2). The Alviso residents are disproportionately affected by contamination, air pollution, and many cumulative environmental issues: the former South Bay Asbestos Area on the National Priority List (NPL), the Union Pacific Railroad, Highway 237, methane vapor from the Newby Island Landfill and Zanker Recycling Zero Waste Energy, the Calpine Energy Plant, facilities with hazardous wastes, large Google warehouses, the (Approved Development)

6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). May 2017. Air Quality CEQA Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 10, 2022.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-25
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Microsoft San Jose Data Center, the RWF Cogeneration Project for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), and numerous unpermitted business with diesel trucks, Topgolf Entertainment Center traffic impacts, and other proposed projects.

Response to ESPINOZA-11
The commenter states that the Alviso community is designated as a disadvantaged community and the residents are disproportionately affected by existing contamination, air pollution, and other environmental issues. While the community may experience an existing pollution burden, the community is not identified as part of an area which has different significance thresholds from those recommended by the BAAQMD or by the City. Moreover, as discussed in Response to ESPINOZA-3, an operational HRA was prepared for the proposed project, in accordance with BAAQMD and State guidance, and is attached to this document for informational purposes. The operational HRA demonstrated that the maximum impacted sensitive receptor was found to be a residence located approximately 65 feet from the project site, the same maximum impacted receptor as that identified during the construction HRA. The operational HRA found that at this location, the additional cancer risk impact resulting from project operation would be 0.47 cancer cases per 1 million residents.

As the BAAQMD’s project-level significance threshold is 10 additional cases per 1 million residents, this presents a less than significant impact. The operational HRA also demonstrated that cumulative impacts from the combined operation of the proposed project and existing sources of toxic air contaminants in the area would result in a cumulative cancer risk of approximately 17 cancer cases per 1 million people. As the BAAQMD’s cumulative threshold of significance is 100 cancer risk cases per 1 million people, the cumulative health risk impacts resulting from project operation would be less than significant and would not require any mitigation during project operation. Please refer to the operational HRA summary and results contained in Appendix A of this document.

It was acknowledged in the IS/MND that the project site, and the majority of the Alviso community, is located with the South Bay Asbestos Area NPL Superfund site. In addition, as stated in Section 3.4 of the IS/MND, the 550-acre South Bay Asbestos Area consisted of three landfills that received asbestos wastes from an asbestos cement pipe manufacturing plant from 1953 to 1982. The site also included a levee around Alviso that contained asbestos-contaminated material.

Removal of the asbestos-contaminated ring levee took place in 1993. Furthermore, following cleanup, operation and maintenance activities and monitoring are ongoing. The United States Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) has conducted several 5-year reviews of the site’s remedy. These reviews ensure that the remedies put in place protect public health and the environment, and function as intended by site decision documents. The most recent review concluded that response actions at the site are in accordance with the remedy selected by the EPA and that the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. Continued protectiveness of the remedy requires implementation of institutional controls and updating the remedy to replace deed restriction requirements with the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and State regulations.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments

2-26 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Asbestos was not detected in any of the five soil samples collected in the limited soil sampling conducted for the proposed project, therefore the proposed project would not have the potential to disturb asbestos during construction. In addition, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the safe handling and transport of hazardous materials. The project does not propose commercial or industrial uses, such as gas stations or dry cleaners, that typically use or transport significant amounts of hazardous materials.

Furthermore, to prevent any contamination impacts to workers and nearby residences, the proposed project would implement mitigation measure HAZ-1, which requires a qualified environmental professional to develop, and the project to implement, a Site Management Plan that addresses the site history due to the historical presence of a machine shop and metal recycling facility on the project site. The Site Management Plan would address any potential contamination that could be discovered during the course of grading/development and would require procedures to prevent any impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials.

Therefore, although the proposed project is located within a disadvantaged community, the proposed project, based on the analyses and conclusions in the IS/MND, would not contribute to cumulative air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, or other environmental impacts. This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the proposed project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND.

Comment ESPINOZA-12
With this evidence, an additional project condition should require a monitoring report that the truck traffic for the State Street Project does not use residential streets and do not exceed their daily vehicle trips. In addition, this project must implement per the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau) “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act”.
[The CEQA 2021 Statutes and Guidelines does not preclude the Lead Agency from requiring conditions to the proposed project or additional mitigation measures not included in the BAAQMD CEQA 2017 Air Quality Guidelines. As noted above, the thresholds and guidelines are the same from 2010. For example, the 2017 BAAQMD Guidelines includes URBEMIS and not CalEEMod for analysis and mitigation measures. Yet, the City of San Jose allows for CalEEMod analysis and the mitigation measures in this software.]
Response to ESPINOZA-12
Consultation with the BAAQMD in October 2021 confirmed that the use of CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 is the correct software to use for the impact analysis.7 As described in Responses to ESPINOZA-10 and -11, the IS/MND determined that mitigation such as the type

7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Josephine Fong. October 28, 2021. Personal Communication: email.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-27
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx the commenter is suggesting is not required, because the proposed project would not result in project-level or cumulatively significant operational impacts. The proposed project would not be considered a “warehouse project” as the commenter is suggesting based on the source provided: the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau) “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act” because the proposed project would not support e-commerce activity. As described in Section 3.6, Transportation, of the IS/MND, the proposed project truck trips would only access the project site during the morning and after work hours have completed and would not be continually accessing the site on an hourly basis.

Furthermore, to access SR-237, project trucks would only travel on State Street east of the project site, Spreckles Avenue, and Los Esteros Road. Project trucks would not access any other neighboring roads.

Comment ESPINOZA-13
Land-Use
Although the proposed project’s zoning is consistent with the Alviso Master Plan and the General Plan, it does not environmentally reflect the significant changes and amendments to the General Plan over many years. Since the adoption of the General Plan in 2011, significant legislative laws have been approved such as SB 1000. As a City of San Jose resident, I hope City leaders and the Manager’s Office of Racial Equity will soon implement SB 1000. Ethically, the City has an obligation to consider the disproportionate impacts to the Alviso residents.

Response to ESPINOZA-13
As acknowledged by the commenter, the proposed project is consistent with the Alviso Master Plan and the City’s General Plan and is therefore consistent with the City’s overall vision for development of the site. Future projects will be required to comply with the land use regulations, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan in effect at the time any project applications are submitted. The proposed project was evaluated under the current General Plan regulations and Zoning District was found to have less than significant environmental impacts and would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on the environment or surrounding residences. This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the proposed project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, or present new information that would require recirculation of the IS/MND.

Comment ESPINOZA-14
City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments

2-28 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5377/53770001/RTC Appeal/edit/53770001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Figure 1: Alviso is designated as SB 1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and AB 1550 Low- Income.

Figure 2: Alviso cumulative pollution burden per CalEPA’s screening tool.

Both figures were referenced in Comment ESPINOZA-11.

Response to ESPINOZA-14
These figures were provided by the commenter as supporting information for Comment ESPINOZA-11. According to these figures, the Alviso community is designated as a Senate Bill (SB) 1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and Assembly Bill (AB) 1550 Low-Income community. The Alviso community is also located within the >60-70 percentile in terms of pollution based on environmental, health, and socioeconomic data in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 mapping tool. For responses to these figures and claims provided in Comment ESPINOZA-11, see Response to ESPINOZA-11.

City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix A:

Operational Health Risk Assessment

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A: Operational Health Risk Assessment
Table of Contents
Health Risk Assessment Methodology and Results .................................................................. 1 Operational Emissions Summary ............................................................................................. 7 On‐Site Mobile Emissions Calculations .................................................................................... 8 AERMOD Control Pathway – DPM ........................................................................................... 9 AERMOD Source Pathway – DPM .......................................................................................... 11 AERMOD Receptor Pathway – DPM ....................................................................................... 13 AERMOD Meteorological Pathway – DPM ............................................................................. 15 AERMOD Sensitive Receptor Summary – DPM ...................................................................... 16 AERMOD Isopleth Map – DPM .............................................................................................. 18 HARP2 Cancer Risk Calculation Output .................................................................................. 19 Appendix A
Page-1
Pacific Surfacing Project
Air Dispersion Modeling and Health Risk Assessment Methodology and Results

Model Assumptions and Methodology
The BAAQMD has developed a set of guidelines1 that recommends using the American Meteorological Society and Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model to estimate emission concentrations for use in identifying the cancer risk and hazard index associated with sensitive receptor exposure to project operation emissions. The following modeling parameters were employed using AERMOD, Version 21112, to estimate DPM and PM2.5 exhaust emission concentrations that were used in the associated cancer risk and hazard calculations.

AERMOD Modeling Parameters

1. Sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, care facilities, residences) that are located in the project vicinity are represented in the model with discrete cartesian receptors. The closest sensitive receptor to the project site is a single‐family residence, approximately 65 feet southeast of the project site. A nested cartesian grid was also placed in AERM OD with the following spacing parameters:
 20 meters spacing from the project site boundaries to 200 meters from the project site;  50 meters spacing between 200 and 500 meters from the project site; and  250 meters spacing to between 500 and 2,000 meters from the project sit e.

2. AERMOD’s non‐default regulatory dispersion option was selected. Among the dispersion control options available, the Fast All Sources option was selected.

3. The Urban dispersion coefficient was used as greater than 50 percent of the surrounding three kilometers is developed.

4. The UTM coordinates used to initially locat e the project site are 10 S, 585,703 meters easting and 4,134,320 meters northing.

5. Operation emissions were represented in the model using two separate area sources. For the emissions occurring from on‐site operation activities, one polygon area source was placed across the entire project site. For off‐site vehicl e operation, one line area source was placed on State Street within 1,000 feet northeast of the project site, consistent with the Local Transportation Analysis prepared for the project. Off‐site emissions were adjusted to only account for off‐site emissions that would occur within 1,000 feet of the project site (se e Off‐Site PM2.5 Exhaust Adjustment Sheet of this Appendix).

6. Variable emission factors were selected to represent the expected hours of operational activities for the project. Project operation was assumed to occur 8 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. A variable emission factor of 3.0 was applied to on‐site building emissions during the 8 hour
s of daily operation to compress all 24 hours of emission generation into the operational schedule of 8 hours per day (3.0 = 24/8 hours). In addition, on‐site mobile emissions were estimated to identify on‐site vehicle exhaust and idle emissions from workers frequenting

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. December . Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617‐community‐health/facility‐risk‐ reduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol_august_2020‐pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2021.

Appendix A
Page-2
the project site twice a day, for 30 minutes each occurrence. Mobile emission factors for average daily idle emissions and vehicle exhaust emissions at 5 miles per hour for the specific vehicle classifications utilized in the operational emissions modeling were retrieved from the EMFAC2017 database. Because the emission estimates utilizing EMFAC2017 demonstrate one hour wor th of emission generation, accounting for 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening, a variable emission factor of 0.5 was applied to the 0800 hour bin and 1600 hour bin each (0.5 = 1/2 occurrences). Please refer to the Project Operational Emissions calculation sheet contained in the Appendix fo
r more information.

7. Meteorological data from the Moffett Federal Airfield Air Monitoring Station, Station ID 23244.

This station was selected as it is the closest monitoring station to the project site, and it resembles physical site characteristics and elevation generally representative of the project site.

The Moffett Fe
deral Airfield Air Monitoring Station provides preprocessed meteorological data covering the years 2009‐2014. The model used all years of available meteorological data.

Cancer Risk Calculations
The BAAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for estimating cancer risks resulting from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC).2,3 These guidelines require the use of Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software to identify the cancer risk associated with DPM generated during operation activities. The HARP2 risk scenario inputs used to calculate cancer risk during project operation are as follows:

1. The analysis type used in HARP2 was “Cancer Risk.”

2. The receptor type used in HARP2 was “Individual Resident.”

3. The Exposure Duration used
in HARP2 was “User Defined (Tier 2).” A 30‐year horizon with a start age of 3rd Trimester was selected for this input.

4. The Intake Rate Percentile used in HARP2 was “Risk Management Policy (RMP) ‐ *Inhalation Only*.”

5. The “Apply Molecular Weight Adjustment Factor” factor was selected.

6. Inhalation only was the pathway selected for evaluation in HARP2.

7. The fraction of time at residence factor was selected for age bins greater than or equal to 16 years and age bins le
ss than 16 years on the Inhalation scenario tab in HARP2.

8. The Tier 2 breathing rates and the Tier 2 fraction of time at residence factors were selected on the Inhalation scenario tab in HARP2.

Estimation of Non‐Cancer Chronic Hazards
An evaluation of the potential non‐cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted.

Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate reference exposure limit. Available reference exposure limits 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.

December . Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/permit‐ modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean‐pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2021. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. August. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617‐community‐health/facility‐risk‐ reduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol_august_2020‐pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2021.

Appendix A
Page-3
promulgated by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) were considered in the assessment.

Risk characterization for non‐cancer health hazards from toxic air contaminants (TAC) is expressed as a Hazard Index. The Hazard Index is a ratio of the predicted concentration of the project’s emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to publ ic health professionals, termed the reference exposure limit.

The Hazard Index assumes that chronic sub‐threshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint). For each discrete chemical exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used. To calculate the Hazard Index, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate to
xicity reference exposure level. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds 1, a health hazard is presumed to exist. For purposes of this assessment, the TAC of concern is DPM for which the OEHHA has defined a refe
rence exposure limit for DPM of 5 g/m3. The principal toxicological endpoint assumed in this assessment was through inhalation.

Estimation of Diesel Particulate Matter
Operational Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions—represented as PM2.5 exhaust—were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. Operation of the project is expected to begin in 2022. Operational emissions for the project were assumed to be distributed over the project area, resulting primarily from on‐site mobile emissions. Table 1 displays the DPM emission rates experienced both on‐site and off‐site during project operat
ion.

Table 1: Project DPM Operational Emissions
Scenario
On‐site DPM—Area
(tons/year)
Off‐site DPM—Road
Segments
(tons/year)1
Total Local DPM Emissions
(tons/year)
Project Operational DPM <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
1 The off‐site emissions are adjusted to represent operational vehicle travel routes from within approximately 1,00 0 feet of the proje ct site. Off‐site emissions shown here reflect the 1,000‐foot adjustment. 2 Emissions herein do not reflect the application of any operational mitigation measures.

Source:

CalEEMod Output and Operational Health Risk Assessment Calculations; see Appendix A.

To assess pot
ential health risk impacts to off‐site sensitive receptors, the AERMOD air dispersion model was used to estimate the DPM emission concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site.

Estimation of Diesel Particulate Matter
Table 2 summarizes the cancer risk and hazard index results for the residential MIR. The residential MIR represents a single‐family residence approximately 65 feet southeast of the project site. It should be noted that cancer risk and chronic non‐cancer hazards shown in Table 2 do not account for the implement
ation of any operational mitigation.

Appendix A
Page-4
Table 2: Estimated Cancer Risks and Chronic Non‐Cancer Hazards (Proposed Project) Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk1
(risk per million)
Chronic Non‐Cancer
Hazard Index2
TAC Concentration3
(g/m3)
Residential MIR Impact
Project Operation (30‐Year Exposure) 0.47 <0.01 <0.01 Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:
1 Cancer risk is identified by multiplying the risk sum from HARP2 by 1,000,000. 2 Chronic non‐cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust) by the DPM reference exposure level of 5 µg/m3.
3 TAC concentration taken from AERMOD is always at the MIR identified from the project air dispersion models. The residential MIR was located at 37.43031°N ‐121.96987°E.

REL = reference exposure level
MIR = maximally impacted sensitive receptor
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Emissions Source: Appendix A.

Thresholds Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐ research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 15, 2021.

As shown in Table 2, implementation of the project would emit DPM emissions that would result in TAC concentrations below the BAAQMD’s recommended cancer risk threshold. As demonstrated therein, DPM emissions generated during operation of the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of BAAQMD cancer risk thresholds at the MIRs.

Cumulative Health Risk Assessment
The BAAQMD recommends assessing the potential cumulative impacts from sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a project. For a project‐level analysis, BAAQMD provides several tools for use in screening potential sources of TACs. The BAAQMD‐provided tools used to assess the potential cumulative impacts from TACs are described below:
 Health Risks for Local Roadways. The BAAQMD pre‐calculated concentrations and the associated potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentration increases for each county within their jurisdiction for roadways that carry at least 30,000 average daily trips. For certain areas, the BAAQMD also includes local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria of 10,000 vehicles or 1,000 trucks per day. The latest available screening tool is in the form of a Geographic Inf ormation System (GIS) raster file.
 Freeway Screening Analysis Tool. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool that contains pre‐estimated cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration increases for highways within the Bay Area.

Appendix A
Page-5
 Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared a web‐based tool4 with the location of permitted stationary sources. For each emissions source, the BAAQMD provides conservative estimates of cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations. Based on information from the web‐ based tool, one BAAQMD‐permitted stationary source exists within 1,000 feet of the project site.  Rail Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared GIS tools that contains estimated cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from railroad operations at any point within the Air Basin.

A cumulative Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed that examined the cumulative impacts of the project’s emissions and existing sources of TAC emissions principally within 1,000 feet of the project site.

The cumulative health risk results, including health risks from the existing stati onary source, are summarized during project operation in Table 3. Cumulative health risk results shown therein are representative of the health risks to the residential MIR, which would experience the highest concentration of pollutants.

Table 3: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Operation Source/Impact Scenario Source Type
Distance
from MIR1
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(g/m3)
Project MIRs
Project Operation
Truck Fleet, Building
Emissions, and
Passenger Vehicles
65 0.47 <0.01 <0.01
Existing Stationary Sources (BAAQMD Facility Number)2
Facility ID 9207: Rebar Spacer
Block Company Unknown 180 6.78 <0.01 0.00
Roadways
Existing Local Roadway Network ‐ 1.09 ND 0.02
Rail
Existing Rail Lines (Amtrak/Unknown Ownership) 1,670 3.84 ND <0.01 Freeways
Existing Freeways (Highway 237) 4,165 5.24 ND 0.11
Cumulative Health Risks
Cumulative Maximum with Project DPM Emissions 17.42 <0.01 0.15 BAAQMD’s Cumulative Thresholds of Significance 100 10 0.8 Threshold Exceedance? No No No
Notes:

4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2018. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Website:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65. Accessed April 16, 2021.

Appendix A
Page-6
Source/Impact Scenario Source Type
Distance
from MIR1
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(g/m3)
1 The maximum impacted sensitive receptor (MIR) above represents the residential MIR approximately 65 feet southeast of the project site.
2 Assumes emissions remain constant with time.

ND = no data available
Source: Appendix A.

As noted in Table 3, the cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed project and existing sources of TACs would be less than the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds of significance. Thus, the cumulative health risk impacts from project operation would be less than significant.

Appendix A
Page-7
Emission Source PM2.5 Exhaust
(Tons) Mitigation Applied
Area (Onsite) 0.000000000 None
Energy (Onsite) 0.000100000
Mobile (Onsite) 0.000000003
Total Onsite 0.000100003
Mobile (Offsite) 0.001980000
Total Offsite 0.001980000 Operation Hours 2,920.00
Elapsed Hours 8,760.00
Variable Factor 3.00                          (24/8 Hours) File Name: Pacific Surfacing Operation Only ‐ Santa Clara County, Annual (Non‐Mobile Sources) Timestamp: Date: 4/10/2021 9:59 AM
Variable Factor 0.50                          (1/2 Occurrences) (Mobile Sources)
State Street                                                                        0.2 100.00% 1.326E‐06 On‐Site Emissions 0.20                          pounds Totals                                                                       0.2 100.00% 1.326E‐06 (Non‐Mobile) 90.72                        grams

1.036E‐02 grams/hours

2.877E‐06 grams/sec
On‐Site Emissions 0.00                          pounds (Mobile) 0.00                          grams
Off‐Site Roadway Activity Weighted Travel Distances per Trip Adjusted for 1,000 ft 2.698E‐07 grams/hours Passenger Vehicles 7.67 Miles 2.47% 7.494E‐11 grams/sec Trucking Fleet 8.60 Miles 2.20%
Off‐Site Emissions 3.96                          pounds On‐Site Roadway Activity Weighted Travel Distances per Trip Adjusted for 0.1 mi 1,796.22                   grams Passenger Vehicles 0.1 Miles 100.00% 2.05E‐01 grams/hour Trucking Fleet 0.1 Miles 100.00% 5.70E‐05 grams/sec
Project Operational Emissions
Exhaust PM2.5 AERMOD Inputs
(8 hours/day,
365 workdays)
Notes:
1  Conversion factor of 453.592 grams/pound was used to convert daily emissions expressed in pounds to daily emissions expressed in grams.
2  Off‐site emissions used in the AERMOD air dispersion model were reduced to account for the proportion of emissions occurring within 1,000 feet of the project site
Annual Operational Emissions (tons/year)
Mitigation Description
Off‐Site AERMOD Input Adjustments
Roadway Segment
Length
(Miles) Proportion of Total
PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Emission Rate (g/sec)
Note: Please refer to On‐Site Mobile Source Emission Calculations Sheet contained in this Appendix.

Appendix A
Page-8
Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Santa Clara
Calendar Year: 2022
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX, RESTLOSS and DIURN Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Bin Fuel PM2.5_RUNEX PM2.5_IDLEX PM2.5_STREX SANTA CLARA 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel ‐ 0.033469986 0 SANTA CLARA 2022 HHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 0.056707699 ‐‐ Vehicle
Population Vehicle Trips
Project
Estimates: 7 14
PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams/mile)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams/vehicle)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams/trip)
PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams)

0.056707699 0.033469986 0 0.08 0.23 ‐ Totals (grams/day): 0.08 0.23 ‐ Daily PM2.5 Emissions (grams): 0.313680679
Daily PM2.5 Emissions (pounds): 0.000691548
Daily PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.000000346
Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.000000001
Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Bin Fuel PM2.5_RUNEX PM2.5_IDLEX PM2.5_STREX SANTA CLARA 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel ‐ 0.01553751 0 SANTA CLARA 2022 MHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 0.059870467 ‐‐ Vehicle
Population Vehicle Trips
Project Estimates: 9 18
PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams/mile)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams/vehicle)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams/trip)
PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams)

0.059870467 0.01553751 0 0.11 0.14 ‐ Totals (grams/day): 0.11 0.14 ‐ Daily PM2.5 Emissions (grams): 0.247604435
Daily PM2.5 Emissions (pounds): 0.000545875
Daily PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.000000273
Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.000000001
Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Bin Fuel PM2.5_RUNEX PM2.5_IDLEX PM2.5_STREX SANTA CLARA 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel ‐ 0.02686935 0 SANTA CLARA 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate 5 Diesel 0.053877953 ‐‐ SANTA CLARA 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel ‐ 0.027131258 0 SANTA CLARA 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate 5 Diesel 0.052375458 ‐‐ Vehicle
Population Vehicle Trips
Project Estimates: 7 14
EMFAC Fleet Mix Proportions:

PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams/mile)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams/vehicle)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams/trip)
PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams)
Light‐Duty Truck Vehicle Classes 0.053490569 0.026936877 0 0.07                      0.19                       ‐ LHD1 74%
LHD2 26% Totals (grams/day): 0.07                      0.19                      ‐ Daily PM2.5 Emissions (grams): 0.263444935
Daily PM2.5 Emissions (pounds): 0.000580797
Daily PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.000000290
Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.000000001
Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Bin Fuel PM2.5_RUNEX PM2.5_IDLEX PM2.5_STREX SANTA CLARA 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline ‐ 0 0.001748488 SANTA CLARA 2022 LDA Aggregate 5 Gasoline 0.009125938 ‐‐ SANTA CLARA 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline ‐ 0 0.002226434 SANTA CLARA 2022 LDT1 Aggregate 5 Gasoline 0.011641412 ‐‐ SANTA CLARA 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline ‐ 0 0.001683785 SANTA CLARA 2022 LDT2 Aggregate 5 Gasoline 0.009109222 ‐‐ SANTA CLARA 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline ‐ 0 0.001911787 SANTA CLARA 2022 MDV Aggregate 5 Gasoline 0.009654694 ‐‐ SANTA CLARA 2022 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline ‐ 0 0.002977865 SANTA CLARA 2022 MCY Aggregate 5 Gasoline 0.010589959 ‐‐ Vehicle
Population Vehicle Trips
Project Estimates: 7                              14
EMFAC Fleet Mix Proportions:

PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams/mile)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams/vehicle)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams/trip)
PM2.5_RUNEX
(grams)
PM2.5_IDLEX
(grams)
PM2.5_STREX
(grams)
Passenger Vehicle Classes 0.009288751 0 0.001779907 0.01 ‐ 0 LDA 65%
LDT1 4% Totals (grams/day): 0.01 ‐ 0.02 LDT2 19% Daily PM2.5 Emissions (grams): 0.0379229563
MDV 11% Daily PM2.5 Emissions (pounds): 0.0000836059
MCY 1% Daily PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.0000000418
Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons): 0.0000000001
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)

1.40 On‐Site Mobile Emission Calculations
(Trucks and Passenger Vehicles)
EMFAC2017 Default Values and Daily Project Values for HHDT Truck Trips EMFAC2017 Default Values and Daily Project Values for MHDT Truck Trips

1.40 1.80
EMFAC2017 Default Values and Daily Project Values for LHDT Truck Trips Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)

1.40 EMFAC2017 Default Values and Daily Project Values for Passenger Vehicles Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
Appendix A
Page-9
Control Pathway
AERMOD
Flat & Elevated Terrain
No Stack-Tip Downwash (NOSTD)
Run in Screening Mode
Conversion of NOx to NO2 (OLM or PVMRM)
No Checks for Non-Sequential Met Data
Fast All Sources (FASTALL)
Fast Area Sources (FASTAREA)
Optimized Area Source Plume Depletion
Gas Deposition
BETA Options:

Capped and Horizontal Stack Releases
Adjusted Friction Velocity (u*) in AERMET (ADJ_U*)
Low Wind Options
SCIM (Sampled Chronological Input Model)
Ignore Urban Night / Daytime Transition (NOURBTRAN)
Total Deposition (Dry & Wet)
Dry Deposition
Wet Deposition
Output Type
Concentration
Regulatory Default Non-Default Options
Dispersion Options
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Operational HRA
Titles
Dispersion Options
Population:

Name (Optional):

Roughness Length:

Plume Depletion
Dry Removal
Wet Removal
Output Warnings
No Output Warnings
Non-fatal Warnings for Non-sequential Met Data
Dispersion Coefficient
Urban
Pollutant / Averaging Time / Terrain Options
TG: Meters
RE: Meters
SO: Meters1 2 3 4 6 8 12 24
ElevatedFlat
Hours Terrain Height Options
Averaging Time Options
Yes No
Exponential DecayPollutant Type
Annual
Month Period
PM2.5
Flagpole Receptors
NoYes
Default Height = 1.50 m
1/10/2022CO - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Appendix A
Page-10
Control Pathway
AERMOD
Optional Files
Re-Start File Multi-Year Analyses Event Input File Error Listing File Init File
Detailed Error Listing File
Filename: Pacific Surfacing DPM.err
1/10/2022CO - 2 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Appendix A
Page-11
Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Polygon Area Sources
Source Type: AREA POLY
Source: ONSITE1 (Project Site - Building Emissions Only) X Coordinate
for Vertices
[m]
Y Coordinate
for Vertices
[m]
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Emission
Rate
[g/ (s-m^2)]
Release
Height
[m]
Initial
Vertical
Dim. [m]
Number of
Vertices
(or sides)

0.73 3.33 4 591094.16 4143218.616.65E-10
591149.50 4143159.536.65E-10
591111.85 4143123.336.65E-10
591054.64 4143181.386.65E-10
Source Type: AREA POLY
Source: ONSITE2 (Project Site - On-site mobile sources) X Coordinate
for Vertices
[m]
Y Coordinate
for Vertices
[m]
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Emission
Rate
[g/ (s-m^2)]
Release
Height
[m]
Initial
Vertical
Dim. [m]
Number of
Vertices
(or sides)

1.00 3.33 9 591054.71 4143181.332.66E-14
591093.80 4143218.462.66E-14
591105.99 4143206.132.66E-14
591096.74 4143198.842.66E-14
591141.72 4143152.052.66E-14
591125.74 4143136.912.66E-14
591097.30 4143165.642.66E-14
591083.71 4143152.192.66E-14
591054.28 4143181.472.66E-14
Line Area Sources
Source Type: LINE AREA
Source: OFFSITE (Truck Traffic - State Street 1,000 ft) Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Initial Vertical
Dimension
[m]

9.00 3.77E-10 591118.23 4143118.35 1.00 2.272.11
591406.79 4143382.59 0.00 2.27
1/10/2022SO1 - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Appendix A
Page-12
Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Area Sources Generated from Line Sources
Line
Source
ID
Area
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Release Height
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Angle
[deg]
Base Elevation
[m]
Initial Sigma Z
[m]
OFFSITE A0000001 591121.26 4143115.03 2.27 78.25 317.52 2.11 1.00 A0000002 591178.98 4143167.88 2. 27 78.25 317.52 2.11 1.00 A0000003 591236.69 4143220.73 2. 27 78.25 317.52 2.11 1.00 A0000004 591294.40 4143273.57 2. 27 78.25 317.52 2.11 0.00 A0000005 591352.11 4143326.42 2. 27 78.25 317.52 2.11 0.00 1/10/2022SO1 - 2 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Appendix A
Page-13
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (If applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (If applicable) Discrete Receptors
Discrete Cartesian Receptors
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
591093.66 4143062.25 1.001
591095.83 4143047.56 1.002
591104.39 4143074.14 1.003
591115.38 4143061.49 1.004
591116.66 4143085.77 1.005
591129.31 4143093.95 1.006
591139.16 4143107.88 1.007
591151.87 4143116.35 1.008
591161.37 4143127.66 1.009
591171.95 4143137.31 1.0010
591186.90 4143125.80 1.0011
591185.62 4143144.21 1.0012
591196.74 4143156.48 1.0013
591206.97 4143168.49 1.0014
591217.70 4143178.84 1.0015
591217.06 4143156.73 1.0016
591230.96 4143189.34 1.0017
591239.55 4143195.62 1.0018
591269.20 4143222.55 1.0019
591286.34 4143242.40 0.4820
591297.47 4143251.42 0.1821
591295.82 4143226.91 0.9922
591308.30 4143238.49 0.6123
591310.10 4143260.29 0.0024
591320.03 4143248.11 0.2925
591321.08 4143270.22 0.0026
591331.36 4143277.11 0.0927
591355.25 4143299.94 0.0028
591364.98 4143311.26 0.0029
591370.99 4143320.99 0.0030
1/10/2022RE1 - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Appendix A
Page-14
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
591374.53 4143299.05 0.0031
591385.90 4143333.24 0.0032
591409.06 4143351.74 0.0033
591422.60 4143361.07 0.0034
591400.19 4143341.67 0.0035
591052.51 4143030.35 1.0036
Plant Boundary Receptors
Cartesian Plant Boundary
Primary
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
591054.59 4143181.39 1.001 FENCEPRI
591094.17 4143218.65 0.732 FENCEPRI
591149.52 4143159.54 1.003 FENCEPRI
591111.85 4143123.26 1.004 FENCEPRI
Receptor Groups
Group DescriptionGroup IDRecord
Number
FENCEPRI Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors1
1/10/2022RE1 - 2 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Appendix A
Page-15
Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met Input Data
Surface Met Data
Profile Met Data
C:\Users\lpark\OneDrive - ADEC Solutions USA, Inc\Desktop\01. Project Files\5377.0001 PS Comments\7450 Default AERMET format
Filename:

Format Type:

Filename:

Format Type:

C:\Users\lpark\OneDrive - ADEC Solutions USA, Inc\Desktop\01. Project Files\5377.0001 PS Comments\745 Potential Temperature Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower): 8.00 [m] Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]:

Meteorological Station Data
Upper Air
Station No. Year Station Name
Surface
Stations X Coordinate [m] Y Coordinate [m]
2009
2009 OAKLAND/WSO AP
Default AERMET format
Wind Speed
Wind Speeds are Vector Mean (Not Scalar Means)
Data Period
Start Date: End Date:1/1/2009 1/2/2014Start Hour: End Hour: 241 Data Period to Process

10.8 8.23

5.14 3.09

1.54 No Upper Bound
Wind Speed [m/s]Stability CategoryWind Speed [m/s]
F
E
D
C
B
A
Stability Category
Wind Speed Categories
ME - 1 1/10/2022AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Appendix A
Page-16
Sensitive Receptor Summary
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Operational HRA
PM2.5 - Concentration - Source Group: ALL
Averaging
Period Rank Peak
X
(m)
Y
(m)
ZELEV
(m)
ZHILL
(m)
Peak Date,
Start Hour
ZFLAG
(m)Units
Receptor
ID
PERIOD 0.00026 591093.66 4143062.25 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R1 PERIOD 0.00021 591095.83 4143047.56 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R2 PERIOD 0.00039 591104.39 4143074.14 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R3 PERIOD 0.00035 591115.38 4143061.49 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R4 PERIOD 0.00059 591116.66 4143085.77 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R5 PERIOD 0.00071 591129.31 4143093.95 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R6 PERIOD 0.00080 591139.16 4143107.88 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R7 PERIOD 0.00063 591151.87 4143116.35 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R8 PERIOD 0.00045 591161.37 4143127.66 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R9 PERIOD 0.00025 591171.95 4143137.31 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R10 PERIOD 0.00016 591186.90 4143125.80 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R11 PERIOD 0.00013 591185.62 4143144.21 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R12 PERIOD 0.00008 591196.74 4143156.48 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R13 PERIOD 0.00005 591206.97 4143168.49 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R14 PERIOD 0.00004 591217.70 4143178.84 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R15 PERIOD 0.00005 591217.06 4143156.73 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R16 PERIOD 0.00003 591230.96 4143189.34 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R17 PERIOD 0.00003 591239.55 4143195.62 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R18 PERIOD 0.00002 591269.20 4143222.55 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R19 PERIOD 0.00002 591286.34 4143242.40 0.48 1.50 0.48ug/m^3 R20 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software 1/10/2022
Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc RS - 1 of 2
Appendix A
Page-17
Sensitive Receptor Summary
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Operational HRA
PM2.5 - Concentration - Source Group: ALL
Averaging
Period Rank Peak
X
(m)
Y
(m)
ZELEV
(m)
ZHILL
(m)
Peak Date,
Start Hour
ZFLAG
(m)Units
Receptor
ID
PERIOD 0.00002 591297.47 4143251.42 0.18 1.50 0.18ug/m^3 R21 PERIOD 0.00001 591295.82 4143226.91 0.99 1.50 0.99ug/m^3 R22 PERIOD 0.00001 591308.30 4143238.49 0.61 1.50 0.61ug/m^3 R23 PERIOD 0.00002 591310.10 4143260.29 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R24 PERIOD 0.00001 591320.03 4143248.11 0.29 1.50 0.29ug/m^3 R25 PERIOD 0.00001 591321.08 4143270.22 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R26 PERIOD 0.00001 591331.36 4143277.11 0.09 1.50 0.09ug/m^3 R27 PERIOD 0.00001 591355.25 4143299.94 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R28 PERIOD 0.00001 591364.98 4143311.26 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R29 PERIOD 0.00001 591370.99 4143320.99 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R30 PERIOD 0.00001 591374.53 4143299.05 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R31 PERIOD 0.00001 591385.90 4143333.24 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R32 PERIOD 0.00001 591409.06 4143351.74 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R33 PERIOD 0.00001 591422.60 4143361.07 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R34 PERIOD 0.00001 591400.19 4143341.67 0.00 1.50 0.00ug/m^3 R35 PERIOD 0.00007 591052.51 4143030.35 1.00 1.50 1.00ug/m^3 R36 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software 1/10/2022
Project File: C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc RS - 2 of 2
Appendix A
Page-18
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.iscAERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software SCALE:
0 0.1 km
1:4,788
PROJECT NO.:

DATE:
1/10/2022
MODELER:

COMPANY NAME:

COMMENTS:PROJECT TITLE:

C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\Pacific Surfacing DPM\Pacific Surfacing DPM.isc Operational HRA
SOURCES:
3 RECEPTORS:
1380
OUTPUT TYPE:

Concentration
MAX:

1.7E-03 ug/m^3
Appendix A
Page-19
HARP2 ‐ HRACalc (dated 19044) 1/10/2022 10:29:37 AM ‐ Output Log GLCs loaded successfully
Pollutants loaded successfully
**********************************
RISK SCENARIO SETTINGS
Receptor Type: Resident
Scenario: Cancer
Calculation Method: HighEnd
**********************************
EXPOSURE DURATION PARAMETERS FOR CANCER
Start Age: ‐0.25
Total Exposure Duration: 30
Exposure Duration Bin Distribution
3rd Trimester Bin: 0.25
0<2 Years Bin: 2
2<9 Years Bin: 0
2<16 Years Bin: 14
16<30 Years Bin: 14
16 to 70 Years Bin: 0
**********************************
PATHWAYS ENABLED
NOTE: Inhalation is always enabled and used for all assessments. The remaining pathways are only used for cancer and noncancer chronic assessments.

Inhalation: True
Soil: False
Dermal: False
Mother's milk: False
Water: False
Fish: False
Homegrown crops: False
Beef: False
Dairy: False
Pig: False
Chicken: False
Egg: False
**********************************

INHALATION
Daily breathing rate: RMP
**Worker Adjustment Factors**
Appendix A
Page-20
Worker adjustment factors enabled: NO
**Fraction at time at home**
3rd Trimester to 16 years: ON
16 years to 70 years: ON
**********************************
TIER 2 SETTINGS
Tier2 adjustments were used in this assessment. Please see the input file for details.

Tier2 ‐ What was changed: DBRs changed|FAH changed|
Calculating cancer risk
Cancer risk saved to: C:\Users\lpark\OneDrive ‐ ADEC Solutions USA, Inc\Desktop\01.

Project Files\5377.0001 PS Comments\HARP2\Pacific Surfacing MIR_CancerRisk.csv HRA ran successfully
Appendix A
Page-21

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San José—1436 State Street Project
Responses to Project Appellant Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix B:

Operations Plan

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 OPERATIONS PLAN
1436 State Street
San Jose, CA
Pacific Surfacing, Inc. (PSI) corporation yard is used for parking company vehicles, equipment and light materials (new wood, rebar, and various other non-hazardous materials packaged in factory sealed containers.) An office staff of 5 is present in this yard as well. PSI does not operate during night hours. Our crew members arrive at times designated/staggered by operations staff, and park their personal vehicles in the allocated parking area vacated by the assigned PSI vehicle. PSI vehicles park only in the corporation yard to ensure minimal disruption to the surrounding area. All vehicles travel on a designated site-specific route provided daily by the operations staff. This is to ensure adherence to all safety, environmental and municipal protocols.

PSI is registered with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). PSI is ahead of the requirement for reduction of toxic air contaminants (TACs.) We have zero registered complaints against our fleet in the history of the program. Designating routes of travel for our drivers is our continued support and commitment to the State’s diesel risk reduction plan. PSI uses fleet tracking software to monitor speed, idle and hours traveled for adherence to California Department of Transportation standards.

The attached map will describe site specific detail for your review.

Listed below are the details requested for our fleet:

Light Duty Vehicles – (5) i.e., non-commercial ½ ton pickup trucks. These vehicles are used for miscellaneous support tasks in the bay area. 5,000 – 7,500 miles per vehicle annually.

Medium Duty Vehicles – (9) i.e., non-commercial flatbeds with crew cab for transport of crew, tools and materials. These vehicles travel directly from the corporation yard to designated jobsites throughout the bay area. Once on designated jobsites the remain turned off and parked until the end of the workday. 10,000 – 12,500 miles per vehicle annually.

2 Heavy Duty Vehicles – (7) i.e., Commercial vehicles used to transport equipment and materials. These vehicles travel directly from the corporation yard to designated jobsites throughout the bay area. Once equipment is delivered to the designated jobsite, these vehicles travel on designated routes to material suppliers and return material as needed. 25,000 – 30,000 miles per vehicle annually.

Clarification of Truck Restricted Areas – PSI commercial vehicles will not travel on any roads other than State Street (east of 1436), Spreckles Ave, and Los Esteros. Please reference the above map for clarification.

Hours of Operations – Heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, and other onsite commercial/industrial noise will be only take place between 6:00AM and 6:00PM.

NVF:JVP:JMD
2/11/2022

1 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE

DENYING THE PERMIT APPEAL AND APPROVING , SUBJECT

TO CONDITIONS, A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW

THE RECONFIGURATION OF AN EXISTING APPROXIMATELY
3,100-SQUARE FOOT VACANT BUILDING TO WAREHOUSE

AND INCIDENTAL OFFICE USE, THE ADDITION O F AN

OUTDOOR MATERIALS STORAGE PAD, AND CONSTRUCTION
OF AN APPROXIMATEL Y 675-SQUARE FOOT UTILITY

BUILDING WITH STAFF LOCKER ROOMS , FOR USE AS A
CORPORATION YARD ON AN APPROXIMATELY 0.97 -GROSS

ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE NO RTH SIDE OF STATE
STREET, APPROXIMATELY 290 FEET EAST ERLY OF ESSEX
STREET (1436 STATE STREET ; APNS: 015-11-056, 015-11-085, AND 015-11-094)

FILE NO. H21-049

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provi sions of Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code, on October 24, 201 8, an application (File No. SP18-058, converted to File No. H21 -049) was filed by the applicant, Clay Laucella, on behalf of Laucella Holdings LLC, with the City of San J osé for a Special Use Permit (converted to a Site Development Permit) to allow the reconfiguration of an existing approximately 3,100- square foot vacant building to warehouse and incidental office use, the addition of an outdoor materials storage pad, a pr opane tank, an enclosed asphalt sealant tank, and construction of an approximately 635- square foot utility building with staff locker rooms and a trash enclosure, for use as a corporation yard on an appr oximately 0.97- gross acre site, on that certai n real property situated in the LI Light Industri al Zoning District and located on the north side of State Street , approximately 290 feet easterly of Essex Street (1436 S tate Street; APNS: 015-11-056, 015-11-085, and 015-11-094, which real property is sometimes referred to herein as the “subject property”); and

WHEREAS, the subject property is all that real property more particularly described in Exhibit "A," e ntitled “Legal Description ,” and depicted in Ex hibit “B,” entitled “ Map of RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

2 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

New Chicago at Port of Alviso,” which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as if fully set forth herein; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with Cha pter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code, the Hearing Officer for the Directo r o f Planning, Building and Code Enforcement conducted a hearing on said application on December 8, 2021, notice of which was duly given; and

WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Hearing Officer gave all persons full oppor tunity to be heard and to present evidence and testimony respecting said matter; and

WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Director of P lanning, Building and Code Enforcement approved the requested Site Development Permit , for which decision an appeal to the City Council was timely filed by a neighbor of the subject property; and

WHEREAS, on December 10, 2 021, a timely appeal of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement ’s approval of the Environmental Determination was filed by appellant Mark Espinoza, being a member of the Alviso community, citing the reasons for the appeal being insufficient a nalysis within the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, specifically in the areas of air quality and traffic; and

WHEREAS, on December 14 , 2021, a timely appeal of the Di rector of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement’s approval of the Site Development Permit was filed by appellant Manuel Martinez , being a property owner within 1,000 feet of the subject project site, citing the reasons for the app eal being truck traffic impacts, hours of operation, and consistency with the Alviso Master Plan; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to and in a ccordance with Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code, this City Council conducted a de novo administrative hearing on RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

3 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
said appli cation and the appeal of the Di rector of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement’s decision, notice of which was duly given; and

WHEREAS, at said hearing, City Council gave all persons full opportunity to be he ard and to present evidence and testimony respecting said matter; and

WHEREAS, at said hearing, this City Council r eceived and considered the reports and recommendations of the City’s Di rector of Planning, Building and Code E nforcement; and

WHEREAS, at said hearing, this City Council received in evidence a development plan for the subject property entitled, “ Improvements to an Existing Site for Pacific Surfacing, Inc.” dated May 1 7, 2021, said plan is on file in the Depart ment of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and is available for inspection by anyone interested herein, and said plan is incorporated herein by this reference, the same as if it were fully s et forth herein; and

WHEREAS, said public hearing before this City Council was conducted in al l respects as required by the San José Municipal Code and the rules of this City Council; and

WHEREAS, this City Council has heard and considered the testimony presented to it at the public hearing, and has further consid ered written materials submitted on behalf of the project applicant, City staff, and other interested parties;

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

After considering all of the ev idence presented at the Public Hearing, the City Council finds that the following are the relevant facts regarding this proposed project:

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

4 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

1. Site Description and Surrounding Uses . The subject site is located on the north side of State Street ( 1436 State Street ), approximately 290 feet easterly of Essex Street within the Alviso Master Plan area and is currently developed with an approximately 3,100-square foot vacant buildi ng. Access to the site is via a 32- foot wide driveway from State Street, and a secondary one-way exit from the site is 19 feet wide along the westerly property line, also exiting to State Street . T he site is surrounded to the east, north, and west by light industrial uses and to the south by single-family residential uses.

2. Project Description. The project is a Site Deve lopment Permit to allow the reconfiguration of the existing 3,100- square foot vacant building to warehouse and incidental office use, the addition of an outdoor materials storage pad, a propane tank, and an enclosed asphalt sealant tank, and the construction of an approximately 635- square foot utility building with staff locker rooms and a trash enc losure (a total o f 3,735 square feet of development) , for a n ew corporation yard on an approximately

0.97-gross acre site.

Operations of the corporation yard include parking company vehicles and storing equipment and light materials (new wood, rebar, and various other non- hazardous materials packaged in factory sealed containers). An office staff of five employees will oversee the site during working hours. Heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, and other onsite commercial/industrial activities will take place between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The corporation yard will not operate during evening hours.

3. General Plan Consistency. The subj ect si te is designated Light Industrial on the Land Use/Transportation Diagram of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. This designation supports the management of land uses to provide and enhance economic development and job gr owth in San Jose and is i ntended for a wide variety of industrial uses and excludes uses with unmitigated hazardous or nuisance effects .

This designation allows a FAR of up to 1.5.

Analysis: The project is a corporation yard, which is a light industrial use, and encompasses a total of 3,735 square feet of development over 0.97 gross acre, resulting in a FAR of 0.09, which is below the maximum of 1.5 FAR. Corporation yard uses are allowed within the Light Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation. Since the project does not include any unmitigated or hazardous nuisances, the project is consistent with the land use designation.

General Plan Policies
The following items are goals, pol icies, and design gui dance ite ms outlined in the General Plan and applicable to the project site and the proposed project.

Land Use and Employment Policy IE -1.1 – To retain land capacity for employment uses in San José, protect and improve the quantity and quality of all lands designated exclusively for industrial uses, especially tho se that are vulnerable to conversion to non-employment uses.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

5 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Fiscal Sustainability Policy FS-4.5 – Maintain and expand the total amount of land with either a Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial designation. Do not add overlays or other designations that would allow for non-industrial, employment uses.

Industrial Lands Policy LU-6.8 – Reserve industrial areas for industrial and compatible support uses, while recognizing that industrial uses come in a v ariety o f types and forms.

Transportation Policy TR -6.5 – D esign freight loading and unloading for new or rehabilitated industrial and commercial developments to occur off public streets.

Analysis: The project is retaining the light industrial use of the existing site and is not being rezoned for non-employment use. The freight and loading areas have been well designed for the project activities to occur off the public streets, and are located at the rear of the site, farthest from the public right-of-way. The project is therefore consistent with the policies of the General Plan.

4. Alviso Master Pl an Consistency . The subject site is show n w ithin the Light Industrial area in Figur e 8, Land Use Plan, of the Alviso Master Plan. This area is described on page 24 of the Master Plan as “a mix of industrial supply services, metal working, equi pment manufacturing, truck ing companies, warehouses, marina and boat storage, and other open storage businesses.”
Analysis: The operation of the corporat ion yard includes parking company vehicles and storing equipment and light materials on the site to be transported to construction sites as necessary. This use is consistent with the Master Plan land use designation.

The project is also consistent with the policies of the Alviso Ma ster P lan. S pecific policies applicable to this site include the following:
a. Landscaping and screening along State Street should create a more compatible edge with the adjacent residential neighborhood.
b. Industrial/Non-Industrial Relationships Policy 3: Indust rial uses located adjacent to or across the street from residential, school, or other sensitive uses should:
1) Use attractive walls and landscaping to screen parking, loading, storage, and other outdoor activity areas.
2) Not take access from Wilson Way or Tony P. Santos Street. 3) Provide sufficient on-site parking to avoid street parking of vehicles. 4) Limit hours of operation for any activities that may be considered a nuisance.

Analysis: The project design includes several trees and shrubs along the frontage of State Street to create compa tibility with the residences across the street and to screen activities within the project site from adjacent neighbors. Per the Operations Plan submitted with the application, the site will operate from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

6 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

This is consistent with Section 20.50.220 of the Zoning Code for projects within Industrial Zoning Districts, which states, “No outdoor activity, including loading, sweeping, landscaping or maintenance shall occur within one hundred fifty feet of any residentially zoned property between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m.” Since this project does not propose any work after 6:00 p.m., and will not begin work until 6:00 a.m., the project is consistent with the Zoning Code. C ommercial vehicles will not travel on any r oads other t han State Street, Spreckles Ave nue, and Los Esteros Road on a direct route to Highway 237. The parking is consistent with the Zoning Code requirements, as discussed below.

5. Zoning Ordinance Consistency. The project site is located within the LI Ligh t Industrial Zoning District. This zone is intended for a wide variety of industrial uses and excludes uses with unmitigated hazardous or nuisance effects. The development standards for this zone are discussed below:
a. Use: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.50.100, corporation yards are allowed within the LI Zoning District with a Site Development Permit. b. Setbacks and Height : Per Section 20. 50.200 of the Zoning Code, properties located in the LI zoning district shall be s ubject to the following set backs a nd height regulations:

Regulation Required Provided
Front Setback to Building Minimum 15 feet 24 feet
Front Setback to Parking Minimum 20 feet 20 feet
Front Setback to Truck Parking Minimum 30 feet 170 feet Side Setback 0 feet 5 feet
Rear Setback 0 feet 30 feet
Height Maximum 50 feet 18.7 feet
Analysis: As shown above, the project’s setbacks and height are consistent with the requirements.
c. Vehicle Parking: The parking required for Industrial Services use per Table 20-190 of the Zoning Code is one space per 350 square feet of net floor area. With a net floor area of 3,175 square feet (85% of gross 3,735 square f eet), the required parking is nine spaces.

Analysis: The project is providing nine parking spaces and is consistent with the requirement.
d. Motorcycle Parking : Per S ection 20.90.350.B, a minimum of three motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

7 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Analysis: The project is providing three motorcycle parking spaces and is consistent with the requirement.
e. Bicycle Parking: For Industrial Services use, one bicycle space per 5,000 sf of net floor area is required. Since the project proposes less than 5,000 s quare feet of floor area, Section 20.90.060.B.3 applies, which requires a minimum of two short- term bicycle parking spaces and one long-term bicycle parking space.

Analysis: The project is providing one long-term bicycle locker and one bicycle rack with three short-term spaces provided. This is consistent with the requirement. f. Noise. Section 20.50.300 of the Zoning Ordinance describes performance standards for projects within the LI Light Industrial Zoning District relating to noise and nuisance, as follows:

Section 20.50.300.A.3. – In the LI zoning district, no primary, secondary, incidental or conditional use or activity related thereto shall be conducted or permitted in a manner that creates a public or private nuisance.

Section 20.50.300.B.4. – Without limiting the generality of the preceding subsection, the following specific standards shall apply in the industrial zoning districts: Noise. The sound pressure level generated by any use or combination of uses shall not exceed the decibel level at any property line as shown in Table 20-135, except upon issuance and in compliance with a special use permit as provided in Chapter 20.100.

Table 20-135 Noise Standards Maximum Noise Level in Decibels at Property Line
Industrial use adjacent to a property
used or zoned for residential purposes
55 Industrial use adjacent to a property
used or zoned for commercial purposes
60 Industrial use adjacent to a property
used or zoned for industrial or use
other than commercial or residential
purposes
70 Analysis: The Noise Assessment Study, prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., dated June 13, 2019, concluded that no on-site noise exceeding 55 dBa was identified, and t he project is consistent with the noise standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, per Section 3.5.1 of the environmental document, the project would be consistent with the General Plan policies governing noise and would not result in an increase of 5 dBA DNL or more where the noise levels would RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

8 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
remain “Normally Acceptable” or 3 dBA DNL or more where noise levels would equal or exceed the “Normally Acceptable.”

6. Industrial Design Guidelines Consistency. T he project was analyz ed for consistency with applicable Industrial Design Guidelines. The project compl ies with the key guidelines below:
a. Section 3.C.1.e. Provide a minimum four -foot high parking screen when residential uses are located across the street. Attractive walls, berms, den se landscaping or depressed parking are acceptable screening solutions.

Analysis: As shown in the approved project pla ns, t he project is providing attractive, dense landscaping adjacent to the right -of-way of State Street and a gated entry to s creen the project ’s o n-site activities from the residential uses across the street. This is consistent with the requirement. b. Section 3.D.4. A minimum five -foot wide l andscape bulb should be provided at the ends of each parking aisle.

Analysis: As sho wn in the approved project plans, there are five- foot wide landscape bulbs at the end of each parking aisle within the project site. This is consistent with the requirement.
c. Section 3.D.6. A minimum of one tree should be planted at four parking space intervals in a parking lot aisle to help shade the pavement.

Analysis: As shown in the approved project p lans, two trees are planted adjacent to the parking aisle with eight spaces, and six trees are planted adjacent to the parking aisle with thirteen truck parking spaces . This i s co nsistent with the requirement.
d. Section 4.C .6. Two -way driveways to loading areas and service yards should have a minimum width of 26 feet. One-way aisles should be at least 12 feet wide.

Dimensions and minimum turning radiuses for tru cks / trailers sho uld be considered in the design of loading facilities.

Analysis: The main entrance to the site is located on State Street and is 32 feet wide. The secondary one-way exit from the site is 19 feet wide along the westerly property line, also exiting to State Street. This is consistent with the requirement. e. Section 4.D.1. Outdoor storage areas should be identified, planned and included in the site and building design of the project. Outdoor storage should only occur within approved storage areas which are permanently screened from view.

Analysis: The project includes an outdoor storage area and outdoor propane tank. The outdoor storage area is at the rear of the site and is screened from view from the public right-of-way by landscaping and from adjacent properties by a proposed six-foot high fence. This is consistent with the requirements.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

9 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

7. City Council Policy Consistency. Under City Council Policy 6 -30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Development Proposals, the project is considered to be a standard development. Standard development projects are required to provide Early Notification by website, email, and by on-site signage. Following City Council Policy 6- 30, the on -site sign has been posted at the site since December 29 , 2018 to inform the neighborhood of the project. Public Notices of the public hearing were distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 feet of the project site and posted on the City website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.

8. California Environmental Quality Act. An Initial Study (IS) in support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 1436 State Street Project was prepared in compliance wit h the CEQA Statute and Guidelines and reflects the independent judgement of the City.

The Initial Study identified relevant mitigation measure s for potential impacts to air quality and hazardous materials. In addition, standard permit conditions are made part of the permit approval. These standard permit conditions include best m anagement practices for controlling dust and exhaust during constru ction, compliance with the Habitat Plan, uncovering buried archaeological or historic resources and human remains during construction activities, preventing stormwater pollution during construction, managing mechanical equipment noise, and interior noi se levels. The mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and both the mitigation measures and standard permit conditions are made a part of this permit.

The IS c oncluded that the proposed project would not r esult in a significant and unavoidable impact and an MND is the appropriate level of CEQA clearance for the project.

The MND was circulated for public review from September 3, 2021 through October 4, 2021. Comment letters were received from PG&E, Preservation Action Council of San José, Valley Water, and a resident. The letters identified application process for PG&E review, m inor corrections to the water facilities names, a request for further information regarding the project’s conformance to General Plan Land Use Policies LU14,4 and LU -14.6, and comments on the project’s design and programming. A response to comments wa s pre pared to respond to these public comments. The comments received do not id entify new is sues about the project’s environmental impacts requiring corrections or revisions to the IS/MND, nor did they provide information indicating that the project w ould result in new environmental impacts or impacts substantially greater in severity than disclosed in the IS/MND. All comments have been fully responded to in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The Final MND, supporting IS, associated technical studies (in appendices to the IS), and responses to comments are all available on the Planning Division environmental RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

10 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
review webpage at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/negativedeclarations.

9. Site Development Permit Findings. Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San J osé Municipal Cod e establishes required findings for issuance of a Site Development Permit, as follows:
a. The site development permit, as approved, is consistent with and will fu rther the policies of the general plan and applicable specific plans and area develo pment policies; and
Analysis: As analyzed above, the corporation yard project is consistent with the Light Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation and G eneral Plan Policies.

The use is allowed within the land use designation, and t he project is pro viding

0.09 FAR. The project is also c onsistent with the Alviso Master Plan land use designation and complies with the Master Plan Policies. b. The site development permit, as approved, conforms with the zoning code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and Analysis: Corporation yard uses are permitted within the LI Light Industrial Zoning District. The project is consistent with the parking, height, setbacks, and all other requirements of the LI Zoning District, as analyzed above. Therefore, the project is consistent with the municipal code development standards. c. The site development permit, as approved, is consi stent with applicable city council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency.

Analysis: The project is subject to and conforms to the Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use and Development Proposals. The on-site sign has been posted at the site since December 29, 2018 to inform the neighborhood of the project .

Public Notices of the public hearing were distributed to the owners and tenants of all properties located within 500 feet of the project site and posted on the Cit y website. Staff has been available to respond to questions from the public. d. T he interrelationship between the orientation, location, and elevations of proposed buildings and structures and other uses on- site are mutually compatible an d aesthetically harmonious.

Analysis: The project consists of two buildings. One building is a n existing 3,100 square foot b uilding being reconfigured for the purposes of warehouse, vehicle repair, and incidental office use with restrooms. The second building is a new 635 square foot utility building with a trash enclosure, equipment storage, and locker room. There is a single use of corporation yard on the site. Improvements include parking, landscaping, and a gated e ntry to screen the use from the residences across the street. Theref ore, the project is h armonious and mutually compatible with the on-site uses.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

11 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
e. The orientation, location and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatibl e with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood.

Analysis: As described above, the project is surrounded by similar light industrial uses to the north, east, and west of the site. The project architecture is compatible with the surrounding light industrial architecture. The project design i s consistent with the Industrial Design Guidelines in regard the provision of landscaping and gating to screen project activities from adjacent existing residences. f. The environmental impacts of the projec t, including but not li mited to noise, vibration, dust, drainage, erosion, storm water r unoff, and odor which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative effect on adjacent property or properties.

Analysis: The project incorporates mitigation measures to add ress air quality and hazardous materials. The project will be required to adhere to all applicable standard permit conditions and mitigation measures related to reducing temporary and operational sources of noise and vibration, dust, and erosion. The project will be required to comply with all City permits and policies related to erosion and storm water runoff. For these reasons the project is not anticipated to ha ve an unacceptable negative effect on adjacent properties.
g. Landscaping, irrigation systems, walls and fences, features to conceal outdoor activities, exterior heating, ventilating, plumbing, utility and trash facilities are sufficient to maintain or upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood.

Analysis: Landscaping is provided along the sidewalk , along the parking aisles, and within parking bulbs at the ends of each parking aisle. Utilities associated with the buildings are shielded from view. The trash enclosure is located inside the new utility building and is shielded from the view from all adjacent public space. h. Traffic access, pedestrian access and parking are adequate, in that the project is subject to construction of public improvements and sidewalk access.

Analysis: As describe d above, the project meets the requirements for parking, curb cu ts, and street access per the San Jo sé Municipal Code. The main vehicular site access and the main pedestrian access are from State Street.

In accordance with the findings set forth ab ove, the appeal of the S ite Development Permit is denied, and a Site Development Permit to use the subject property for said purpose specified above and subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth is hereby granted. This City Council expressly declares that it would not have grante d this Permit except upon and subject to each and all of said conditions, each and all of which conditions shall ru n with the land and be binding upon the owner and all subsequent owners of the subject property, and all persons who use the subject property for the use permitted hereby.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

12 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

CONDITIONS

1. Acceptance of Permit. Per San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.290( B), should Permittee fail to file a timely and valid appeal of this Site Development Permit (referred to as “ Permit” herein) within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Permittee shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Permittee:
a. Acceptance of the Permit by the Permittee; and
b. Agreement by the Permittee to be b ound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Permittee pursuant to all of the terms, p rovisions, and conditions of this permit or other approval and the provisions of Title 20 applicable to such Permit.

2. Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically expire four (4) years from and after the date of issuance hereof by the City Council, if within such time period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, pursuant to and in accordance with the prov ision of this Permit. The date of issuance is the date this Permit is approved by the City Council. However, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement may approve a Permit Adjustment/Amendment to extend the validity of this Permit in accordance with Title 20. The Permit Adjustment/Amendment must be approved prior to the expiration of this Permit.

3. Building Permit/Certi ficate of O ccupancy. Procurement of a Building Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy f rom the Bui lding Official for the structures described or contemplated under this Permit shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions specified in this Permit and the Permittee's agreement to fully comply with all of said conditions. No change in the char acter o f occupancy or change to a different group of occupancies as described in the Building Code shall be made without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official, as required under San José Municipal Code Section 24.02.610, and any such change in occupancy must comply with all other applicable local and state laws.

4. Sewage T reatment Demand . Pursuant to Chapter 15.12 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, acceptance of this Permit by Permittee shall constitute acknowledgement of receipt of notice by Permittee that ( 1) no vested right to a Building Permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of this Permit when and if the City Manager makes a determination that the cumulative sewage treatment demand of the San José- Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility represented by approved land uses in the area served by said Facility will cause the total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility to treat such sew age adequately and within the discharge standards imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region; (2) substantive conditions RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

13 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
designed to decrease sanitary sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by the approval authority; (3) issuance of a Building Permit to implement this Permit may be suspended, conditioned or denied where the City Manager is necessary to remain within the aggregate operational capacity of the sanitary s ewer system available to the City of San José or to meet the discharge standards of the sanitary sewer system imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region.

5. Conformance to Plans. Development of the site and all associated improvements shall conform to the approved Site Development Permit plans entitled, “Site Development Permit for: Pacific Surfacing, Inc.” dated May 17, 2021, on file with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement as may be amended and approved by the Director of Planning, Building, an d Code Enforcement, and to the San José Building Code (San José Municipal Code, Title 24). The plans are referred to herein as the “approved plans” or the “Approved Plan Set.”.

6. Lot Line Adjustment . Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the Permittee shall secure approval and provide proof of recordation of a Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate the existing three lots.

7. Operations Plan. Permittee shall fully comply with the approved Management and Operations Plan, dated January 6, 2022, as may be amended.

8. Hours of Operation. As provided in the O perations Plan, outdoor activities at the project site shall be l imited to the hours between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. , and noise- generating activities will not begin prior to 7:00 a.m.

9. Recycling. Scrap construction and demoli tion material shal l be recycled.

Integrated Waste Manage ment staff at (408) 535- 8550 can provide assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on available haulers and processors.

10. Nuisance. This use shall be operated in a manner which does not create a public or private nuisance. Any such nuisance must be abated immediately upon notice by the City.

11. Compliance with Local, State, and Federal Laws. The subject use s hall be conducted in full compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.

12. Discretionary Review. The City maintains the right of discretionary review of requests to alter or amend structures, conditions, or restrictions of t his Permit incorporated by reference in accordance with Chapter 20.100 of th e San José Municipal Code.

13. Refuse. All trash and refuse storage areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the trash or refuse container(s). Trash areas shall be m aintained in a man ner t o discourage illegal dumping.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

14 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

14. Anti-Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed from buildings and wall surfaces, including job sites for projects under construction, within 48 hours of defacement.

15. Anti-Litter. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained free of litt er, refuse, and debris. Cleaning shall include keeping all publicly used areas free of litter, trash, cigarette butts, and garbage.

16. No Sign A pproval. Any signage shown on the Approved Plan Set are c onceptual only. No signs are approved at this time. Any signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning through a subsequent Permit Adjustment.

17. Building and Property Maintenance. The propert y shall be maintained i n good visual and functi onal condition. This shall include, but no t be limited to, all exterior elements of the buildings such as paint, roof, paving, signs, lighting, and landscaping.

18. Street Number Visibi lity. Street numbers of the buildings shall be easily vis ible from the street at all times, day and night.

19. Required Vehicular and Bicycle Parking . This project shall conform to the vehicular, motorcycle, and bicycle parking requirements of the Zoning Or dinance, as amended. Any changes to the required vehicular , motorcycle, or b icycle parking requires the issuance of a Permit Adjustment or Amendment to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

20. Mechanical Equipment. The location and type of mechanical equipment shall be as shown on the Appro ved Plans and shall be screened from view. Changes to the mechanical equipment requires the issuance of a Permit Adjustment or Amendment to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

21. No Generators Approved. This Permit does not include the approval of any stand- by/backup electrical power generation facility. Any future st and-by/backup generators shall secure appropriate permits and shall conform to the regulations of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.

22. Construction Disturbanc e Co ordinator. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities a nd limitations identifi ed in this Permit, along with the name and telephone number of a Permittee- appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.

23. Landscaping. Planting and irrigation are to be provided by the Permittee, as indicated, on the f inal Approved Plans. Changes to the landscaping requires the issuance of a Permit Adjustment or Amendment to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

24. Irrigation Standards. Irrigation shall be installed in accordance with Part  3 of Chapter 15.11 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape Standards for New and Rehabilitated Landscaping, the City of San José Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and the Zonal Irrigation Plan in the Approved Plans. The RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

15 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
design of the system shall be approved and stamped by a California Registered Landscape Architect.

25. Certification. Pursuant to San José Municipal Code, Section 15.11.1050 certificates of substantial completion for landscape and irrigation installation shall be completed by a licensed or certified professional and prov ided to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to approval of the final inspection of the project.

26. Street Trees. Street trees, as shown on Approved Plans, shall be planted on the street frontage, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department . A permit for planting street trees shall be obtained from the City Department of Transportation, Trees and Landscaping Section, (408) 794-1900.

27. Building Division Clearance for Issuing Permits. Prior to the issuance of a ny Building Permit, the following requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official:
a. Lot Line Adjustment. Refer to Condition No. 6.
b. Construction Plans. This permit file number , H21-049, shall be printed on all construction plans submitted to the Building Division.
c. San Jose’s Natural Gas Infrastructure Prohibition and Reach Code Ordinances .

The City’s Natural Gas Infrastructure Prohibition and Reach Code Or dinances apply to this project and all requirements shall be met. For more i nformation, please visit www.sjenvironment.org/reachcode
.
d. Americans with Disabilities Act. The Permittee shall provide appr opriate access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). e. Construction Plan Conformance. A project construction plan conformance review by the Planning Division is required. Planning Division review for project conformance begins with the i nitial plan check submittal to the Building Division.

Prior to any building per mit issuance, building permit plans shall conform to the approved Planning development permits and applicable conditions.

28. Bureau of Fire Department Clearance for Issuing Permits. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the project must comply with the 2019 California Fire Code, or as amended and adopted by the City.

29. Public Works Clearance for Building Permit(s) or Map Approval: Prior to the approval of the Tract or Parcel Map (if applicable) by the Director of Public Works, or the issuance of B uilding permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant will be required to have satisfied all of the following Public Works conditions. The applicant is strongly advised to apply for any necessary Public Works permits prior to applying for Building permits . Standard review timelines and submittal instructions for Public Works permits may be found at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/devresources.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

16 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
a. Construction Agreement: The public improvements con ditioned as part of this permit require the execution of a Construction A greement that guarantees the completion of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. This agreement includes privately engineered plans, bonds , insurance, a completion deposit, and engineering and inspection fees. b. Transportation:
i. In alignment with State of California Senate Bill 743 (SB743), the City of San Jose Policy, Transportation Impact Policy - Council Policy 5 -3 has been replaced with a new Transportation Analysis Policy - Council Policy 5 -1.

Council Policy 5-1 replaced the transportation impacts threshold from Level of Service (LOS) under Council Policy 5-3 to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). ii. This project would not require a detailed CEQ A t ransportation analysis because the project is expected to res ult in less-than-significant VMT impacts based on Table 1 (Screening Criteria for CEQA Transportation Analysis for Development Projects) of the Transportation Analysis Handbook 2018, industrial use of 30,000 square feet of gross floor area or less. However due to community concerns, a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) has been performed for this project to evaluate the project’s effect on transportation, access, and related safety elements in the proximate area of the project. See separate Transportation Analysis Me mo dat ed 10/26/21 for additional information.
c. Grading/Geology:
i. A grading permit may be required prior to the issuance of a Public Works Clearance. The construction operation shall control the discharge of pollutants (sediments) to the storm drai n system from th e site. An erosion control plan may be required with the grading application.
ii. All on-site storm drainage conveyance facilities and earth retaining structures 4 feet in height or greater (top of wall to bottom of footing) or is being surcharged (slope of 3:1 or greater abutting the wall) shall be reviewed and approved under Public Works grading and drainage permit prior to the issuance of Public Works Clearance. The drainage pl an should include all underground pipes, building drains, area drains and inlets. The project shall provide storm drainage calculations that adhere to the 2013 California Plumbing Code or submi t a stamped and signed engineered design alternative for Public W orks discretionary approval and must be designed to convey a 10-year storm event. iii. The Project site is within the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone. A geotechnical investigation report addressing the potential hazard of liquefaction must be submitte d to, reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to issuance of a gradin g p ermit or Public Works Clearance. The report should also include, but not limited to: foundation, earthwork, utility trenching, retaining RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

17 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
and drainage recommendations. The inv estigation should be consistent with the guidelines published by t he State of C alifornia (CGS Special Publication 117A) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC, 1999). A recommended depth of 50 feet should be explored and evaluated in the investigation.
d. Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Measures: This project must comply with the City’s Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (Policy 6-29) which requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which includes site design measu res, sour ce controls and numerically sized Low Impact Development (LID) sto rmwater treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges.
i. The project’s Stormwater Control Plan and numeric sizing calculations have been reviewed and this project will be in conformance with City Policy 6-29. ii. Final inspection and ma intenance i nformation on the post -construction treatment control measures must be submitted prior to issuance of a Public Works Clearance.
e. Stormwater Peak Flow Control Measures: The projec t is locate d in a non- Hydromodification Management area and is not required to comply with the City’s Post-Construction Hydromodification Management Policy (Council Policy 8-14). f. Sewage Fees: In accordance with City Ordinance all storm sewer area fees, sanitary sewer connection fees, and sewage treatment plant connection fees, less previous credits, are due and payable prior to Public Works Clearance. g. Municipal Water: In accordance with City Ordinance #23975, Major Water Facilities Fee is due and payable. C ontact Department of Public Works at (408) 794-6769 for further information.
h. Undergrounding: The In-Lieu Undergrounding Fee shall be paid to the City for the frontage adjacent to State Street prior to issuance of a Public Works clearance.

Twenty-five percent (25%) of the base fee in place at the time of pay ment will be due. Currently, the 2022 base fee is $574 per linear foot of frontage and is subject to change every January 31st based on the Engineering News Record’s City Average Cost Index for the previous year. The project will be required to pay the current rate in effect at the time the Public Works Clearance is issued. i. Street Improvements:
i. Remove existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk and construct 10 -foot wide attached sidewalk with tree wells.
ii. Construct 32-foot wide central driveway.
iii. Construct 20-foot wide westerly driveway.
iv. Close any unused driveway cuts.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

18 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
v. Permittee shall be responsible to remove and replace curb, gutter, and sidewalk damaged during construction of the proposed project. vi. Permittee shall be responsible for adjusting e xisting utility boxes/vaults to grade, locating and protecting the existing communication conduits (fiber optic and copper) along the project frontage.
vii. Dedication and improvement of the public streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
j. Electrical: Existing electroliers along the project frontage will be evaluated at the public improvement stage and any street lighting requirements will be included on the public improvement plans.
k. Street Trees: The locations of t he street trees will be dete rmined at the street improvement stage. Contact the City Arborist at (408) 794-1901 for the designated street tree. Install street trees within public right -of-way along entire project street frontage per City standards; refer to the current “Guidelines fo r Planning, Design, and Construction of City Streetscape Projects”. Street trees shall be installed in tree wells at back of curb along the project frontage on State Street. If street tree locations conflict with existing utilit ies, developer shall be solely responsible for relocating or adjusting utilities as necessary to resolve conflict. Obtain a DOT street tree planting permit for any proposed street tree plantings. Street tr ees shown on this permit are conceptual only.

30. Conformance to MMRP. This project shall conform to all applicable requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved for this development by City Council Resolution No. ______.

31. Applicant Volunteered Condition, Cultural Awareness Training. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Permittee shall be required to submit evidence that a Cultural Awareness Training will be provided to construction personnel prior to ground disturbances. The training shall be facilitated by a Nat ive American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commissions for the C ity of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.

32. Applicant Volunteered Condition, N ative American Monitor . A qualified Native American monitor, registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San Jose and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, shall also be present during applicable earthmoving activities such as, but not limited to, trenching, initial or full grading, or boring on site.

33. Standard Permit Conditions
a. Air Quality. The p ermittee shall i mplement the followin g measures during all phases of construction to control dust and exhaust at the project site.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

19 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
i. Water active construction areas at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.
ii. Cover trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and/or ensure that all trucks hauling such materials maintain at least two feet of freeboard. iii. Remove visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. Th e use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
iv. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non- toxic soil binde rs to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
v. Pave new or improved roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible.
vi. Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
vii. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. viii. Install sandbags or other eros ion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
ix. Minimize idling times eit her by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by t he California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Provide clear signage for construction worke rs at all ac cess points.
x. Maintain and property tune construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Check all equipment by a certified m echanic and record a determination of running in proper condition prior to operation. xi. Post a publicly visible sign with the te lephone number and contact person regarding dust complaints.
b. Greenhouse Gas. Prior to the iss uance of any grading and building permi ts for the project, the Permi ttee shall provide documentation demons trating that the project will participate in commun ity solar programs (such as San Jose Clean Energy) to support development of renewable energy in the community to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee for review and approval.
c. Cultural Resources
i. Subsurface Cult ural Resources. If prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

20 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planni ng, Building and Code Enforcement or the Dir ector's des ignee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for t he City of San José that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic shall examine the find. The archaeologist shall 1) evaluate the find(s) to determine if they meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource; and 2) make appropriate rec ommendations regarding the disposition of such finds 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 shall be submitted to Director of Planning, Bui lding and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer and the Northwest Information Center (if applicable). Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural materials.
ii. Human Remains. If any human remains are found during any fi eld investigations, grading, or other construction activities, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Secti ons 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641 , shall be followed. If human remains are discovered during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie a djacent remains.

The Permittee shall immediately notify the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee and the qu alified archaeologist, who shall then notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. The C oroner will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the remains are b elieved to be Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American Herit age Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD will inspect the remains and make a recommendation on the treatment of the remains and associated artifacts. If one of the following conditio ns occurs, the landowner or his authorized representati ve shall work with the Coro ner t o reinter the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
a) The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site. b) The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

21 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
iii. Paleontological R esources. If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work o n the site shall stop immediately, the Director of Planning or Director’s d esignee of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall be n otified, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but i s not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropri ate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a re port for publication describing the finds. The project applicant shall be res ponsible for implemen ting the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee. d. Tribal Resources
i. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Permittee shall be required to submit evidence that a Cultural A wareness Training will be provided to construction personnel prior to ground disturbances. The trainin g shall be facilitated by the project archaeologist in coordination with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Com missions for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3. ii. A qualified Nati ve American monitor , registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San Jose and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Publ ic Resources Code Section 21080.3, shall also be present during applicable earthmoving activities such as, but no t lim ited to, tr enching, initial or full grading, or boring on site.
e. Geology and Soils.
i. To avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking, the project shall be constructed using standard engineering and seism ic safety design techniques. Building design and construction at the site shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of an approved geotechni cal investigation. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San José Department of Public Works as part of the building permit review and issuance process. The buildings shall meet the requirements of applicable Building and Fire Codes as adopted or updated by the City. The project shall be designed to withstand soil hazards identified o n the site and the project shall be des igned to reduce the risk to life or property on site and off site to the extent feasible and in compliance with the Building Code. ii. All excavation and grading work shall be scheduled in dry weather months or construction sites shall be weatherized.

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

22 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
iii. Stockpil es and excavated soils shall be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting.
iv. Ditches shall be installed to divert runoff around excavations and graded areas if necessary.
v. The project shall be constructed in accordan ce with the standard engineering practices in the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of San José.

A grading permit from the San José Department of Public Works shall b e obtained prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance. These standar d practices would ensure that the future building on t he site is designed to properly account for soils-related hazards on the site. f. Hydrology and Water Quality
i. Construction-related water quality.
a) Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sediment and other debris away from the drains.
b) Earthmoving or other dust -producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high winds.
c) All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary
d) Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be watered or covered.
e) All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be required to cover all trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. f) A ll paved access roads, parking areas, s taging areas and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers).
g) Vegetation in disturbed areas shall be replanted as quickly as possible. h) All unpaved en trances to the site shall be filled with rock to knoc k mud from truck tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system may also be employed at the request of the City.
ii. The Permittee shall comply with the City of San José Gradin g Ordinance, including implementing erosion and dust cont rol during site preparation and with the City of San José Zoning Ordinance requirements for keeping adjacent streets free of dirt and mud during construction. g. Noise. The Permittee shall implement the fol lowing measures during all phases of construction to control noise at the project site:

RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

23 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
i. Limit construction hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless permissi on is granted with a development permit or othe r planning approval. N o construction activities are permi tted on the weekends at s ites with in 500 feet of a residence. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site -specific “construction noise mitigation plan” and a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the construction noise m itigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses. ii. Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or oth er noise-sensitive land uses.
iii. Equip all internal combustion engine- driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. iv. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. v. Locate stati onary noise-generating eq uipment su ch as air compresso rs or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors.

Construct temporary noise barr iers to screen stationary noise- generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. vi. Utilize “quiet” air compress ors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
vii. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. viii. Notify all adjacent businesses, residences, and other noise -sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of “noisy” construc tion acti vities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences.
ix. If complaints are received or excessive noise levels cannot be r educed using the measures above, erect a temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites. x. Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any c omplaints about cons truction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise c omplaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implement ed to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

34. Revocation, Suspension, Modification. This Site Development Permit may be revoked, suspended or modified by the City Council at any time regardless of who is the owner of the subject property or who has the right to possession thereof or who RD:VMT:JMD
7/23/2019

24 T-51004.001 /1896564
Council Agenda: _____
Item No.: _______
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
is using the same at such time, whenever, after a noticed hearing in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 20.100, Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code it finds:
a. A violation of any conditions of the Site Development Permit was not abate d, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or b. A vi olation of any City ordinance or State law was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or c. The use as presently conducted creates a nuisance.

In accordance with the findings set forth above, a permit to develop the subject property for said purpose specified above is hereby approved.

ADOPTED this ________day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

_____________________________

SAM LICCARDO
Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________
TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk

NOTICE TO PARTIES
The time within which judicial review must be sought to review this decision is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

NVF:JVP:JMD
2/11/2021

1 T-51008.005/1896752
Council Agenda: ____
Item No.: _____
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or CityClerk@s anjoseca.gov for final document.

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

JOSE DENYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL OF AND
UPHOLDING THE PLA NNING DIRECTOR’S ADOPTION
OF THE 1436 STATE STREET PROJECT MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR WHICH A N INITIAL

STUDY WAS PR EPARED, ALL I N ACCORDANCE WITH

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS

AMENDED, AND ADOPTING A RELATED MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the City of San Jos é prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 1436 State Street Project under Planning File No. H21-049 (the “Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declarat ion”), all in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with state and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, the 1436 State Street Project (the “Project”) analyzed un der the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration consists of a Site Development Permit to improvements to the interior of the existing approximately 3,100-square-foot metal building, construction of a new 635- square-foot utility b uilding, installation of two new storage tanks, the addition of an outdoor storage area, re-paving, and landscaping for a corporation yard use on a 0.97-gross acre site located at 1436 State Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 015-11-056, 015-11-085, 015-11- 094), San José, California; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the Project could result in certain significant effect s on the NVF:JVP:JMD
2/11/2021

2 T-51008.005/1896752
Council Agenda: ____
Item No.: _____
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or CityClerk@sanj oseca.gov for final document.
environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and

WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial study /mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA require s the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level; and

WHEREAS, whenever a lead agency approves a proje ct requiring the impl ementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during proj ect implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision- maker of the City of San José as lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”); and

WHEREAS, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the City of San José made an Environmental Determination approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a related mitigation monitoring and report program , on December 8, 2021, all pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; and

WHEREAS, o n December 10, 2021, Mark Espinoza, a neighbor to the project site, submitted a timely appeal of the Environmental Determination for the 1465 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration, concerning the adeq uacy of the CEQA documents and impacts on air quality , greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials/public health, noise; and
NVF:JVP:JMD
2/11/2021

3 T-51008.005/1896752
Council Agenda: ____
Item No.: _____
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or CityClerk@sanj oseca.gov for final document.

WHEREAS, notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing before the City Council on the appeal was duly and proper ly given pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions and requirements of Title 21 of the San José Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, at the date, time, and place provided in said notice, or the date to which such hearing was deferred or continued by the City Council, the City Council of the City of San José conducted a public hearing de novo on the appeal and provided all persons with an opportunity to be heard and provide testimony or evidence on the matter of the appeal to the City Council;

WHEREAS, the City of San José is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval to undertake the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declarati on and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are on file in the Office of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, located at 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San José, California, 95113, are avail able for inspection by any interested person at that location and electronically on the City of San José’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement website, and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:

NVF:JVP:JMD
2/11/2021

4 T-51008.005/1896752
Council Agenda: ____
Item No.: _____
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or CityClerk@sanj oseca.gov for final document.

THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings: (1) it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and other informat ion in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, (2) the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance wi th CEQA and is consistent with state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and (3) the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San Jos é, as lead agency for the Project. The City Counc il designates the Direc tor of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, at the Director’s Office at 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San Jos é, California, 95113, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based.

THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it and all information received that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and does hereby deny the environmental appeal and uphold the Planning Director’s adoption of the Mitigated Negative Decl aration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project (Planning File No . H21-049). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and fully incorporated herein. The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are: (1) on file in the Office of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enfor cement, located at 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San José, California, 95113, and electronically on the City of San José’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement website, and (2) available f or inspection by any interested person.

NVF:JVP:JMD
2/11/2021

5 T-51008.005/1896752
Council Agenda: ____
Item No.: _____
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or CityClerk@sanj oseca.gov for final document.

ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

SAM LICCARDO
Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk

Page | 1 File No.: H21-049

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

1436 State Street Project
File No. H21-049
February 2022

Page | 2 File No.: H21-049

PREFACE

Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the 1436 State Street Project concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of project approval. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

This document does not discuss those subjects for which the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the impacts from implementation of the project would be less than significant.

I, Pacific Surfacing, Inc., the applicant, on the behalf of the City of San Jose, hereby agree to fully implement the mitigation measures described below which have been developed in conjunction with the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for my proposed project. I understand that these mitigation measures or substantially similar measures will be adopted as conditions of approval with my development permit request to avoid or significantly reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level.

Project Applicant’s Signature _____________________________________________ Date___________________________________________________________

02/06/2022
Page | 3 File No.: H21-049

1436 State Street Project
File No. H21-049

AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Diesel Particulate Materials (DPM) emissions related to project construction would result in an exceedance of BAAQMD cancer risk thresholds of 10 cancer risk cases per million.

MM-AIR-1: All off-road equipment equal to or
greater than 50 horsepower shall meet either United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final
off-road emission standards during all construction
activities. The Project Applicant shall submit a
construction management plan to the Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the
Director’s designee for review and approval, prior to
issuance of any demolition, grading or building
permits. The construction management plan shall
demonstrate that the off-road equipment used on-site
to construct the project would comply with Tier 4
Final off-road emission standards. Off-road
equipment descriptions and information included in
the construction management plan may include but
are not limited to equipment type, equipment
manufacturer, equipment identification number,
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating),
horsepower, and engine serial number.

Submit a construction
management plan to the
Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement or the
Director’s designee for review
and approval.

Prior to issuance of
any demolition,
grading or building
permits.

Director of
Planning, Building
and Code
Enforcement or
Director’s
Designee
Receive and
review
construction
operations plan
and verification
letter.

Prior to issuance of
any demolition,
grading, or building
permits.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1: Potential contamination from previous historical presence of machine shop and metal recycling facility could be discovered during the course of grading activities.

MM-HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of any demolition,
grading or building permits, a Site Management Plan
(SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified
environmental professional to reduce or eliminate
Submit a Site Management
Plan (SMP) prepared by a
qualified environmental
Prior to issuance of
any demolition,
grading, or building
permits.

Director of
Planning, Building
and Code
Receive and
review the SMP.

Prior to issuance of
any demolition,
grading, or building
permits.

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
Page | 4 File No.: H21-049

1436 State Street Project
File No. H21-049

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility
Actions/Reports Monitoring Timing
or Schedule
exposure risk to human health and the environment
and construction worker health. The SMP will
specifically address potential risks associated with
the potential presence of contaminated soils
associated with the site’s history.

At a minimum, the SMP shall include the following:
• Stockpile management including dust control,
sampling, stormwater pollution prevention and
the implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs).
• Proper disposal procedures of contaminated
materials
• Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight
notifications
• A health and safety plan for each contractor
working at the site that addresses the safety and
health hazards of each phase of site operations
with the requirements and procedures for
employee protection
• The health and safety plan shall also outline
proper soil/ and or groundwater handling
procedures and health and safety requirements to
minimize worker and public exposure to
contaminated soil/and or groundwater during
construction.

The SMP shall be submitted to the City of San José
Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement or Director’s designee and the
Environmental Compliance Officer of the
professional to reduce or
eliminate exposure risk to
human health and the
environment and construction
worker health to the Director
of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement or
Director’s designee and the
City of San José
Environmental Compliance
Officer.

Enforcement or
Director’s designee

Environmental
Compliance
Officer in the City
of San José’s
Environmental
Services
Department

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
Page | 5 File No.: H21-049

1436 State Street Project
File No. H21-049

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility
Actions/Reports Monitoring Timing
or Schedule
Department of Environmental Services Department
for review prior to issuance of any grading,
demolition or building permits.

Source: 1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, September 3, 2021

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
4853-7519-8220v1
ALF\26778005

[VIA EMAIL ONLY]

Mayor Sam Liccardo
and Members of the San Jose City Council
200 E. Santa Clara St.

San José, CA 95113

Re: City Council Meeting March 15, 2022
Appeal of Site Development Permit
1436 State Street Project
File No. H21-049

Dear Mayor Liccardo and Councilmembers:

We urge the Council to reject the permit and environmental appeals of our project. The project went through a rigorous review and will be a very positive asset for Alviso and San Jose.

There are no legitimate grounds for the appeal.

Pacific Surfacing, Inc. is a small, family-owned company that has a niche pavement maintenance business repairing parking lots. We are not a street paving company, nor do we manufacture asphalt or other paving products. We have been based in Fremont since 1992, but our lease is expiring. We needed a new light industrial location for vehicle staging in the South Bay with good access to our customers.

There are not many such sites, but on State Street in Alviso, we found a site that fit our needs and had the proper zoning. When we purchased it, the prior unpermitted contractor had left the site in an unsightly and displeasing condition visible to residents. We spent months just clearing the site, to make it more appealing, even as a vacant lot.

Our projected use will have minimal effect on the environment and the neighborhood for the following reasons:

• The site is a little under one acre in size
• We are proposing minimal construction: improvements to an existing small (3,000 sf) building, and construction of another (635 sf); paving and landscaping • Our operation will feature drivers (typically less than a dozen) coming to the site in the morning, parking their cars and driving our company vehicles off site, then returning in the late afternoon. Travel routes are regulated in the permit operations plan. • There will be no manufacturing or storing of hot asphalt or other such materials on site (this is not an “asphalt batch plant”).
• The project is consistent with all San Jose codes and policies.

4853-7519-8220v1
ALF\26778005

In working on our site, we have done everything “by the book.” We have applied for and received our Site Development Permit. The City prepared an elaborate Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that showed there would be no unmitigated environmental impacts (as you would expect with a conforming use on a one-acre site).

This has been a long and very costly process for such a small project for a small-business user. The permit process has taken us 40 months. We have had to pay approximately $63,000.00 in fees to the City (including, to our surprise, $23,000.00 for this appeal alone, even though we are not the appellant). The costs paid to prepare the environmental documents for the City are currently $120,000.00 (including $13,000.00 related to this appeal).

In summary, this is a small project that has been extensively analyzed. There are no legitimate environmental or any other issues. We urge your approval so we can begin upgrading our new business location.

If you have any questions or need further information, please let us know.

Very truly yours,

Clay Laucella, President,
Pacific Surfacing, Inc.,
Cc:

City Clerk
Timothy Scott Rood
Thai-Chau Le
Andrew L. Faber, Esq.

Exhibit I – Public Comments

[External Email]

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Richard Santos
To: Meiners, Laura
Subject: In support of porject at 1436 State St, Alviso Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 5:43:14 PM

#H21-049 – The Alviso Community Master Plan supported, along with the San Jose city Council, that the area west on State St, would be commercial/industrial. This is an existing area, with commercial/industrial and our Community needs more jobs and tax revenue to support benefits for our community.

1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Schmitz, Lori@Waterboards <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 2:42 PM
To: Le, Thai-Chau
Cc: Seth Martinez
Subject: RE: 1436 State Street Project (SP18-058/ER21-110), Reservoirs Question to Understand the Project

Thanks for the quick reply! That was the information I needed. It clarifies no water supply permit would be needed. (The two tanks mentioned in the document must have been in reference to the asphalt sealant tank and the propane tank.)

Thanks again!

Lori Schmitz

Lori Schmitz
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Financial Assistance
Special Project Review Unit
[email protected]

From: Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 2:25 PM
To: Schmitz, Lori@Waterboards <[email protected]> Cc: Seth Martinez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1436 State Street Project (SP18-058/ER21-110), Reservoirs Question to Understand the Project

EXTERNAL:

Hi Lori,

Attached is the plan set for the project. Furthermore, we receive clarifications that the project is not storing any water.

The bio-retention areas are required by the Department of Public Works. The applicant also confirmed that the project would be utilizing the existing water service connection for on-site water and would not be installing the reservoirs to provide their own drinking water on the site.

I have added the project applicant’s representative, Seth Martinez, to this email as well in the case you require more project information.

Best regards,
Thai
[External Email]
2 From: Le, Thai-Chau
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 12:39 PM
To: Schmitz, Lori@Waterboards <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1436 State Street Project (SP18-058/ER21-110), Reservoirs Question to Understand the Project

Hi Lori,

Let me check in with the project manager and project applicant on this information and connect you with them.

Best regards,
Thai

From: Schmitz, Lori@Waterboards [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 12:09 PM
To: Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]>
Subject: 1436 State Street Project (SP18-058/ER21-110), Reservoirs Question to Understand the Project

Thai-Chau,

I was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some information on the 1436 State Street Project (SP18-058/ER21-110). I am screening for projects that may need a water supply permit form our Division of Drinking Water. The 1436 State Street Project includes the installation of new storage tanks, but does not indicate what they will be used for. It appears that the site falls within the City of San Jose- NSJ/Alviso
boundary water system area (4310019), so I would think Pacific Surfacing, Inc. would be connected to that water system and would not be installing the reservoirs to provide their own drinking water for their workers on the site, but I wanted to confirm this.

When screening the document, I didn’t find any information on the purpose of the reservoirs and the designs included in the document didn’t seem to include them either. If they are creating their own water system for serving water and other uses on the property, we would need to know the number of connections and people served to understand if the County of Santa Clara is the regulating agency, the State Water Board is the regulating agency, or if it is small enough it may be unregulated. If the reservoirs are for another purpose, and they are provided drinking water by the city, please let me know.

Given the deadline for comments on the document, the sooner you can provide this information the better, so we know our regulatory authority regarding the Project and if we need to have more information regarding this authority addressed in the document.

Thanks for any information on this!

Lori Schmitz

Lori Schmitz
State Water Resources Control Board
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [External Email]
3 Division of Financial Assistance
Special Project Review Unit
[email protected]

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Mark Espinoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 11:49 AM
To: Le, Thai-Chau
Cc: District4; Shani Kleinhaus; Eileen McLaughlin
Subject: Re: 1436 State street Alviso

Hi Thai

I’d like this article to be added to the comment period for the 1436 State street project.

I believe the studies have not addressed the cumulative impact associated with this project. There are many other PM sources that are present within a 1000 feet of the project but have yet to be considered when the analysis generated their reports. Thereby producing a flawed inaccurate report.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21555471/

On Sep 28, 2021, at 10:54 AM, Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Public request received.

I have also added Laura Meiner who is the PM as she will be coordinate any notices for the project in the future.

I will keep you on our list for any CEQA notices.

Best regards,
Thai

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Espinoza [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: 1436 State street Alviso

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]

[External Email]
2 [External Email]

Hi Thai Chau

I like to be noticed on any new updates or changes to project here in Alviso.

Thanks
Mark Espinoza
OCA President
408-624-7660

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51110674 Understanding The Cumulative Impacts Of Inequalities In Environmental Health: Implications For Policy
Article in Health Affairs · May 2011
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS
254
READS
472
5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A novel method for combining phthalates in a cumulative framework: Implications for exposure disparities and intervention opportunities View project TAPAS programme View project
Rachel Morello-Frosch
University of California, Berkeley
245 PUBLICATIONS 7,115 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
Miriam Zuk
University of California, Berkeley
31 PUBLICATIONS 1,398 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
Michael Jerrett
University of California, Los Angeles
346 PUBLICATIONS 33,350 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
Bhavna Shamasunder
Occidental College
17 PUBLICATIONS 500 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Bhavna Shamasunder on 18 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

At the Intersection of Health, Health Care and Policy
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153

, 30, no.5 (2011):879-887Health Affairs
Implications For Policy
Understanding The Cumulative Impacts Of Inequalities In Environmental Health:

D. Kyle
Rachel Morello-Frosch, Miriam Zuk, Michael Jerrett, Bhavna Shamasunder and Amy Cite this article as:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/5/879.full.html available at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

For Reprints, Links & Permissions:
http://healthaffairs.org/1340_reprints.php
http://content.healthaffairs.org/subscriptions/etoc.dtlE-mail Alerts :
http://content.healthaffairs.org/subscriptions/online.shtmlTo Subscribe:
written permission from the Publisher. All rights reserved. mechanical, including photocopying or by information storage or retrieval systems, without prior may be reproduced, displayed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic orAffairs HealthFoundation. As provided by United States copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code), no part of by Project HOPE - The People-to-People Health2011Bethesda, MD 20814-6133. Copyright © is published monthly by Project HOPE at 7500 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 600,Health Affairs Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from By Rachel Morello-Frosch, Miriam Zuk, Michael Jerrett, Bhavna Shamasunder, and Amy D. Kyle Understanding The Cumulative
Impacts Of Inequalities
In Environmental Health:

Implications For Policy
ABSTRACT Racial or ethnic minority groups and low-income communities have poorer health outcomes than others. They are more frequently exposed to multiple environmental hazards and social stressors, including poverty , poor housing quality , and social inequality .

Researchers are grappling with how best to characterize the cumulative effects of these hazards and stressors in order to help regulators and decision makers craft more-effective policies to address health and environmental disparities. In this article we synthesize the existing scientific evidence regarding the cumulative health implications of higher rates of exposure to environmental hazards, along with individual biological susceptibility and social vulnerability . We conclude that current environmental policy , which is focused narrowly on pollutants and their sources, should be broadened to take into account the cumulative impact of exposures and vulnerabilities encountered by people who live in neighborhoods consisting largely of racial or ethnic minorities or people of low socioeconomic status.

T
he persistence of health disparities
and environmental inequalities in
the United States has placed envi-
ronmental health science and pol-
icy at a crossroads. Innovative sci-
entific and regulatory approaches are needed to
understand and address the cumulative, and po-
tentially synergistic, effects of environmental
and social stressors on the health of commun-
ities whose populations are mostly composed of
racial or ethnic minorities or people of low socio-
economic status.

Advocates for such communities have long ar-
gued that their neighborhoods are beset by
multiple environmental stressors, which could
include air and water pollution and substandard
housing. These community leaders also contend
that existing regulations fail to protect residents
adequately because the regulations are focused
narrowly on pollutants and their sources.
1 Grow-
ing evidence shows that social stressors— includ-
ing poverty, racial discrimination, crime, malnu-
trition, and substance abuse — also affect these
communities.2 Research is beginning to show
how the cumulative effects of social and environ-
mental stressors can work in combination to
produce health disparities.
3 With encouragement from scientists, policy
makers, and environmental justice groups, regu-
latory agencies are beginning to consider the
methodological challenges of addressing cumu-
lative impacts in science and decision making.
4–6
These methodological challenges include how to
evaluate and characterize the combined health
effects of multiple environmental and social
stressors on vulnerable populations, including
the stressors ’ sources and the pathways of dis-
eases. For example, the US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has proposed a model for includ-
ing psychological and social factors as integral
components of cumulative risk assessment for
predicting the potential health effects of pollu-
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153
HEALTH AFFAIRS 30,
NO. 5 (2011): 879 –887
©2011 Project HOPE —
The People-to-People Health
Foundation, Inc.

Rachel Morello-Frosch (rmf@
berkeley.edu) is an associate
professor in the Department
of Environmental Science,
Policy, and Management and
in the School of Public Health
at the University of California
(UC), Berkeley.

Miriam Zuk is a graduate
student in city and regional
planning at UC Berkeley.

Michael Jerrett is an
associate professor in the
Division of Environmental
Health Sciences at the School
of Public Health, UC Berkeley.

Bhavna Shamasunder is a
graduate student in the
Department of Environmental
Science, Policy, and
Management at UC Berkeley.

Amy D. Kyle is an associate
adjunct professor in the
Division of Environmental
Health Sciences, School of
Public Health, UC Berkeley.

May 2011 30:5 Heal th Affairs 879
Racial & Ethnic Disparities
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from tion exposures in vulnerable populations. 7
This article presents a synthesis of relevant
research from the fields of social and environ-
mental epidemiology, exposure assessment, and
environmental justice. We believe that four key
concepts underlie the emerging knowledge
about the cumulative impacts of exposure to
environmental hazards and social stressors.

First, health disparities between groups of dif-
ferent racial or ethnic makeup or socioeconomic
status are significant and persistent, and exist
for diseases that are linked to social and environ-
mental factors. Second, inequalities in expo-
sures to environmental hazards are also signifi-
cant and persistent, and are linked to adverse
health outcomes. Third, intrinsic biological
and physiological factors — for example, age or
genetic makeup— can modify the effects of envi-
ronmental factors and contribute to differences
in the frequency and severity of environmentally
related disease. And fourth, extrinsic social vul-
nerability factors at the individual and commu-
nity levels— such as race, sex, and socioeconomic
status— may amplify the adverse effects of envi-
ronmental hazards and can contribute to health
disparities.

We highlight the evidence for these four con-
cepts and conclude with a discussion of how this
scientific foundation can help reshape regula-
tory science and decision making to reduce envi-
ronmental health disparities and promote envi-
ronmental justice among diverse communities.

Health Disparities
Research has documented systemic disparities in
the incidence and severity of diseases between
socioeconomic and racial or ethnic groups. A
wide range of material, behavioral, psychosocial,
environmental, and biological factors have been
proposed to explain why social status is persist-
ently linked to health.
2 Three health outcomes
have been shown to be associated with both so-
cial and environmental stressors: adverse peri-
natal outcomes such as low birthweight and pre-
maturity, cardiovascular disease, and self-rated
health.

Perinatal Outcomes African American in-
fants are more likely to be delivered preterm
and have low birthweight than white infants.

These differences can result in higher risks of
long-term health problems such as cognitive def-
icits, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
8 Socioeconomic and behavioral factors such as
the mother’s education, access to prenatal care,
and substance use have been shown to contrib-
ute to poor perinatal outcomes— again, low
birthweight and prematurity among them.
8 Re-
search also indicates that prenatal stress result-
ing from maternal perceived discrimination,
neighborhood deprivation, segregation, and in-
come inequality are also linked to these poor
perinatal outcomes, which suggests the impor-
tance of psychosocial pathways in the produc-
tion of these racial or ethnic disparities.
9,10
Cardiovascular Disease African Americans
and people of low socioeconomic status have
significantly higher rates of hypertension, heart
disease, and stroke than whites and people of
higher socioeconomic status.
11 Cardiovascular
disease disparities have been linked to differenc-
es in biological risk factors such as diabetes,
behavior such as physical inactivity, and the
availability and use of primary and secondary
preventive services.
12 Neighborhood environ-
ments have been linked to both the prevalence
of heart disease and its risk factors.
13 Environ-
mental pollutants, such as lead and ambient par-
ticulate matter— for example, extremely fine par-
ticles released into the air by vehicles and
industrial plants that burn fossil fuels — have
been linked to higher risk of cardiovascular
disease.
14,15
Emerging research has also linked the risk of
developing cardiovascular disease in adulthood
to early life events such as prenatal stress, which
can disrupt development and cause heritable
changes in gene expression. These so-called epi-
genetic changes can affect which genes are
switched “on” or “off,” which in turn can be
associated with heightened disease risk.
16 Self-Rated Heal th Self-rated health — a
well-validated predictor of mortality, physical
disability, chronic disease status, and health
behavior
17— is lower among racial and ethnic
minorities and people of low socioeconomic sta-
tus than others.
18 Researchers have found that
racial disparities in self-rated health persist even
after differences in socioeconomic status are
controlled for.
19 The neighborhood people live
in has been found to account for a large portion
of the disparities between the way African Amer-
icans and whites rate their own health status.
20 This difference may be related to factors such as
individual socioeconomic status, perceptions of
neighborhood quality, health behavior, environ-
mental quality, and psychosocial stress.
21 Environmental Hazard Inequalities
Greater exposure to environmental hazards is
one driver of health disparities found among
communities of racial or ethnic minorities and
those of low socioeconomic status. Research in
this field has expanded from an initial focus on
how close residents live to an environmental
hazard, such as a highway or a major industrial
facility, to encompass a broader investigation of
Racial & Ethnic Disparities
880 Heal th Affairs May 2011 30:5
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from the role that place plays in health. For example, a
poor community populated by racial or ethnic
minorities may also lack healthy food options,
22 high-quality green spaces, and recreational pro-
grams.
23 The lack of these positive factors can
contribute to poor health.

Proximity To Polluting Land Uses And
Toxic Emissions Numerous studies have docu-
mented the disproportionate location of hazard-
ous waste sites, industrial facilities, sewage treat-
ment plants, and other locally undesirable and
potentially polluting land uses in communities
of racial or ethnic minorities and in socially dis-
advantaged neighborhoods.
24–26 Residents living
near such facilities can be exposed to more pol-
lutants than people who live in more affluent
neighborhoods located farther from these sour-
ces of pollution.
27 The residents of communities near industrial
and hazardous waste sites experience an in-
creased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, res-
piratory and heart diseases, psychosocial stress,
and mental health impacts.
28,29 Members of ra-
cial or ethnic minority groups and people of low
socioeconomic status are also more likely than
others to live near busy roads, where traffic-
related air pollutants concentrate.
30 Research
has linked a wide array of adverse health out-
comes to residential proximity to traffic, includ-
ing asthma,
31 low birthweight, 32 cardiovascular
disease,33 and premature mortality. 34
Exposures To Pollutants The poor and ra-
cial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately
exposed to ambient air pollutants, which have
been linked to respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, adverse perinatal outcomes, diabetes,
premature mortality, and other adverse ef-
fects.
35–38 Indoor environments also contribute
to exposure disparities. Studies have found
higher levels of indoor pollutants such as lead-
based paint39 and pollutants from industrial and
transportation sources40 in poor, African Ameri-
can, and Hispanic households than in other
households.

Occupational exposures also constitute a
source of environmental inequalities. For in-
stance, Mexican American farm workers experi-
ence heightened exposure to organophosphate
pesticides, which are associated with increased
risk of cancer; preterm birth; and neurological,
cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases.
41 Neighborhood Environments Poor com-
munities have an excess of health-damaging fac-
tors and a shortage of health-promoting amen-
ities.42 For example, residents of disadvantaged
neighborhoods are exposed to more fast-food
restaurants
43 and liquor stores than members
of other communities. In particular, the pres-
ence of neighborhood liquor stores can influ-
ence health behavior and violence and can affect
health both directly and indirectly.
44 As noted above, poor communities also suffer
from a dearth of health-promoting resources
such as healthy food,
22 green spaces, and recrea-
tional programs,23 whose lack can contribute to
disparities in obesity rates and stress levels. 45,46
The confluence of these and other place-based
factors contribute to the association between
neighborhood socioeconomic status and adverse
health outcomes.
20 Intrinsic Factors: Biological
Susceptibility
We use the term susceptibility to refer to intrinsic
biological traits related to age, genetics, or pre-
existing health conditions that can create much
variability in response to environmental stress-
ors within a population.

Age Children and the elderly experience
heightened risk of pollution-related morbidity
and mortality. The elderly are more susceptible
to pollutant exposures because of their altered
immune response and weakened respiratory and
cardiovascular systems.
47 Children’s susceptibil-
ity is associated with differences in rates of ab-
sorption, distribution, metabolism, and excre-
tion of chemicals.
48 Exposure to stressors
during childhood can greatly affect the develop-
ment and functioning of organ systems well into
adulthood.
49 Children have the potential for in-
creased exposures to pollution because of their
physical and behavioral activities, such as play-
ing outside and frequent hand-to-mouth activity.

Thus, their biological susceptibility combined
with greater exposure to potentially toxic sub-
stances may put them at increased risk.

Genetics And Gene Expression Studies have
found that certain genetic variants increase the
effect of air pollution on respiratory symptoms,
lung functioning, and asthma.
50 Where a child
lives early in life, and the substances he or she is
exposed to, can affect the development of disease
in later life. These exposures may modify the
patterns of gene expression — that is, turn genes
“on” or “off”— which in turn triggers physiologic
Poor communities
suffer from a dearth
of health-promoting
resources.

May 2011 30:5 Heal th Affairs 881
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from changes and can potentially launch disease proc-
esses such as asthma or cancer. 16
Preexisting Heal th Conditions Preexisting
health conditions including diabetes, obesity,
and cardiovascular disease can increase individ-
ual susceptibility to pollutant exposures. Studies
have found that people with diabetes or a history
of myocardial infarction are at heightened risk of
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associ-
ated with exposure to particulate matter.
51,52 In
the United States, African Americans, Hispanics,
and people of low socioeconomic status have
higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease,
and type 2 diabetes and are therefore more sus-
ceptible to environmental stressors.
11,53 Research
is just beginning to link these disparities in pre-
existing conditions with neighborhood con-
ditions.
45 Extrinsic Factors: Social
Vulnerability
We use the term vulnerability when describing
how social constructs of race and class can am-
plify the effects of environmental exposures,
with a focus on the pathway of psychosocial
stress. We classify race as a social construct
and not as a proxy for biological differences be-
cause research has consistently shown that race
is a poor indicator for genetic variation in human
populations and therefore should be understood
as a social rather than biological category.
54 Studies are uncovering the heightened vulner-
ability of people who belong to racial or ethnic
minority groups or are of low socioeconomic
status to environmental agents — a disparity that
is not attributable to biological factors. Extrinsic
factors that are socially related — such as race,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and sex — can
enhance the adverse effects of environmental
exposures, such as short- and long-term expo-
sures to air pollution.
55 Low neighborhood-level
socioeconomic status may also amplify the risk
of air pollution –related preterm births,
56 lower
birthweight,57 and adult mortality. 58
Psychosocial pathways may link race and
socioeconomic measures at the individual and
area levels with the increased adverse impacts
of environmental stressors. For example, studies
indicate that exposure to violence and family
stress increases the effects of traffic-related air
pollution exposures on childhood asthma.
59,60
Low socioeconomic status and race or ethnicity
have been linked to perceived stress as well as to
biological markers of chronic stress.
61 In addition to the direct effects of discrimina-
tion, social exclusion, and low socioeconomic
status, the social and physical conditions of dis-
advantaged neighborhoods are also thought to
contribute to psychosocial stress levels. 3 Re-
searchers have proposed that the cumulative bio-
logical burden exacted by ongoing disruption of
the body ’s stress-response system may explain
the self-reinforcing effects or synergies observed
among environmental and psychosocial stress-
ors and may produce health disparities.
62,63
The cumulative physiological “wear and tear ”
resulting from chronic overactivity of the body ’s
stress-response system may impair immune
functioning and increase vulnerability to stress-
ors
64 by increasing the absorption of toxicants
into the body through increased respiration, per-
spiration, and consumption; 65 compromising
the body ’s defense systems against toxicants;
affecting the same physiological processes as
environmental agents; and directly causing
illness.
62 Discussion
We have synthesized the scientific evidence
underlying the cumulative impacts of environ-
mental and social stressors and the multiple
ways they can have a greater impact on commun-
ities of people who belong to racial or ethnic
minority groups or are of low socioeconomic
status. The four concepts of cumulative impacts
that we outlined above have complex interrela-
tionships and feedback loops (see the Ap-
pendix).
66 Regulatory science and decision making must
better integrate these four elements of cumula-
tive impacts as a result of combined exposures,
possible overlapping mechanisms and pathways
for adverse health effects, and the potential for
synergistic effects.
7 The National Research Coun-
cil has also supported expanding scientific ef-
forts to understand and address the multiple
environmental and social stressors affecting
community health.
67 Cumulative Impa ct Assessments Regula-
tory agencies at the federal, state, and local levels
are beginning to incorporate elements of cumu-
lative impacts such as those described above into
Preexisting health
conditions can
increase individual
susceptibility to
pollutant exposures.

Racial & Ethnic Disparities
882 Heal th Affairs May 2011 30:5
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from assessment and planning procedures. 4,6 Never-
theless, the complexity of the task and the scar-
city of scientific information and specific meth-
odologies for assessing these cumulative effects
have limited the scope of this work to date.
67 One important challenge is how to character-
ize and mathematically model the interactions
among environmental and social stressors,
sources, pathways, and routes. Researchers are
beginning to develop indices for aggregating
environmental and social stressors. For exam-
ple, Jason Su and colleagues developed an index
to characterize social inequities in the cumula-
tive effects of multiple air pollutants from both
mobile and stationary sources at the regional
level.
68 Still, the work to develop more sophisti-
cated tools for assessing cumulative impacts and
environmental disparities is in its infancy, and
investigators are uncertain about the best way to
cumulate and deal with interactions and over-
lapping components or pathways.

Fundamental to further work in this area is the
need to better incorporate vulnerability into
environmental health research, assessments,
policies, and actions.
1 Current risk assessment
practices address differential susceptibility for
certain intrinsic biological factors (for example,
age) by applying safety or default factors to pro-
tect biologically sensitive populations (such as
children) in limited cases. However, the environ-
mental risk assessment process does not apply
such approaches to extrinsic factors — including
neighborhood poverty, unemployment, lack of
food security, and other psychosocial stressors—
that can contribute to the heightened vulnerabil-
ity of disadvantaged communities).
1,7,67 One po-
tential reason for this omission is the persistent
debate over pathways linking social vulnerability
to environmental exposures. Researchers have
established many dimensions of social vulner-
ability such as human and political capital, dis-
crimination, and features of the built environ-
ment,
2 which should be taken into account in
environmental health research and assessment
practices.

Health impact assessment is an interdiscipli-
nary approach to assessing the consequences of
proposed policies, plans, and projects. This type
of assessment features an explicit concern for
socially excluded or vulnerable populations
and uses a combination of quantitative, qualita-
tive, and participatory techniques.
68–70 Health
impact assessment may provide a promising
path for incorporating cumulative impacts into
assessments to guide decision making.

By considering together the baseline environ-
mental conditions, health status, and vulnerabil-
ities of the communities potentially affected by
decisions, health impact assessments have the
potential to address the complex causal path-
ways through which decisions can affect health.
71 Compared to risk assessment, which is mostly
quantitative, health impact assessment is better
able to deal with a scarcity of scientific informa-
tion because it uses a diverse array of evidence
for analysis — for example, epidemiological evi-
dence along with qualitative observations of
neighborhood social conditions and physical
environments.

The inclusion of a broader array of evidence
may result in more efficient and proactive mea-
sures than risk assessments, which rely heavily
on toxicological evidence.
71,72 A key challenge,
however, will be systematically integrating the
health impact assessment process into environ-
mental regulation and decision making.

Policies To Address Cumulative Impacts
The evidence that environmental and social
stressors converge in disadvantaged commun-
ities and that residential context plays an impor-
tant and independent role in health disparities
indicates the need for targeted place-based and
proactive approaches to policy making. One ap-
proach is to use cumulative impact screening to
map, characterize, and target vulnerable com-
munities for interventions that improve existing
conditions and prevent future harm.
1 The burden of proof is now placed on com-
munities to demonstrate cumulative impacts,
yet many disadvantaged neighborhoods may
lack political clout or the capacity for civic en-
gagement to push for regulatory action. The use
of cumulative impact screening could remove
this burden of proof from vulnerable commun-
ities and increase the likelihood that disadvan-
taged neighborhoods will receive focused regu-
latory attention.

Several agencies, such as the Environmental
Protection Agency, are beginning to develop
such tools to target enforcement and compliance
activities nationally,
73 guide land use planning in
California,74 and inform regulatory programs at
the California Air Resources Board. 75 As with
health impact assessments, a critical issue will
The burden of proof is
now placed on
communities to
demonstrate
cumulative impacts.

May 2011 30:5 Heal th Affairs 883
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from be the linkage between assessments and the de-
cision making authorities of the agencies.

Progressive approaches coming from local
governments can provide some guidance for
ways to systematically address cumulative im-
pacts in vulnerable communities. The Environ-
mental Justice Ordinance in Cincinnati, Ohio,
for instance, requires new or expanding indus-
trial facilities to demonstrate that they will not
cause a “cumulative adverse impact” to the
health and environment of the community in
order to receive a permit.
76 Similarly, Los Angeles is considering a “green
zones” ordinance, which would use cumulative
impact screening to guide municipal planning,
the issuing of permits, and enforcement strate-
gies to mitigate and reduce environmental haz-
ards in disproportionately affected neighbor-
hoods.
77,78 Such strategies could provide a
more place-based, holistic, and proactive ap-
proach to environmental protection.

Conclusion
Communities of racial or ethnic minorities or
people of low socioeconomic status are particu-
larly vulnerable to environmental and social
stressors. More holistic and transparent ap-
proaches to the regulatory science underlying
decision making that affects such communities
are needed. Screening methods can help regula-
tors and policy makers more efficiently target
efforts to remediate the cumulative effects of
these exposures and environmental inequities,
and to focus regulatory action at the neighbor-
hood and regional levels. Because industrial and
transportation development, as well as other
land-use planning decisions, are often rooted
within metropolitan regions and neighbor-
hoods, regulatory interventions to mitigate the
cumulative impact of environmental and social
stressors on the health of disadvantaged com-
munities will require multilevel, placed-based
strategies.
79 ▪
This work was funded in part by the
California Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (07-E0009,
Understanding and Acting on Cumulative
Impacts on California Communities) and
the Superfund Research Program of the
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences. The authors thank
Valerie Tran for assistance with
preparing this manuscript.

NOTES
1 National Environmental Justice Ad-
visory Council. Ensuring risk re-
duction in communities with multi-
ple stressors: environmental justice
and cumulative risks/impacts.

Washington (DC): The Coun-
cil; 2004.
2 Adler NE, Rehkopf DH. US dispar-
ities in health: descriptions, causes,
and mechanisms. Annu Rev Public
Health. 2008;29:235 –52.
3 Clougherty J, Kubzansky L. A
framework for examining social
stress and susceptibility in air pol-
lution and respiratory health. Envi-
ron Health Perspect. 2009;117(9):
1351–8.
4 Environmental Protection Agency.

Framework for cumulative risk as-
sessment. Washington (DC):

EPA; 2003.
5 National Environmental Justice Ad-
visory Council. Nationally consistent
environmental justice screening ap-
proaches. Washington (DC): The
Council; 2010.
6 Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment. Environmental
justice activities at OEHHA: cumu-
lative impacts and precautionary
approaches [Internet]. Sacramento
(CA): California Environmental
Protection Agency; 2007 [cited 2011
Mar 31]. Available from: http://
oehha.ca.gov/ej/index.html
7 DeFur PL, Evans GW, Cohen Hubal
EA, Kyle AD, Morello-Frosch RA,
Williams DR. Vulnerability as a
function of individual and group
resources in cumulative risk assess-
ment. Environ Health Perspect.
2007;115(5):817–24.
8 Giscombe CL, Lobel M. Explaining
disproportionately high rates of ad-
verse birth outcomes among African
Americans: the impact of stress,
racism, and related factors in preg-
nancy. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(5):
662–83.
9 Mustillo S, Krieger N, Gunderson
EP, Sidney S, McCreath H, Kiefe CI.

Self-reported experiences of racial
discrimination and black-white dif-
ferences in preterm and low-birth-
weight deliveries: the CARDIA study.

Am J Public Health. 2004;94(12):
2125–31.
10 Huynh M, Parker JD, Harper S,
Pamuk E, Schoendorf KC. Contex-
tual effect of income inequality on
birth outcomes. Int J Epidemiol.
2005;34(4):888–95.
11 Mensah GA, Mokdad AH, Ford ES,
Greenlund KJ, Croft JB. State of
disparities in cardiovascular health
in the United States. Circulation.
2005;111(10):1233–41.
12 Kaplan GA, Keil JE. Socioeconomic
factors and cardiovascular disease: a
review of the literature. Circulation.
1993;88(4):1973–98.
13 Diez-Roux AV, Nieto FJ, Muntaner
C, Tyroler HA, Comstock GW,
Shahar E, et al. Neighborhood
environments and coronary heart
disease: a multilevel analysis. Am J
Epidemiol. 1997;146(1):48 –63.
14 Navas-Acien A, Guallar E, Silbergeld
E, Rothenberg SJ. Lead exposure and
cardiovascular disease — a systematic
review. Environ Health Perspect.
2007;115(3):472–82.
15 Pope CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Krewski D,
Jerrett M, Shi Y, Calle EE, et al.

Cardiovascular mortality and expo-
sure to airborne fine particulate
matter and cigarette smoke: shape of
the exposure-response relationship.

Circulation. 2009;120(11):941 –8.
16 Kuzawa CW, Sweet E. Epigenetics
and the
embodiment of race: devel-
opmental origins of US racial dis-
parities in cardiovascular health. Am
J Human Biol. 2009;21(1):2 –15.
17 Idler E, Benyamini Y. Self-rated
health and mortality: a review of
twenty-seven community studies. J
Health Soc Behav. 1997;38:21 –37.
18 Yao L, Robert SA. The contributions
of race, individual socioeconomic
status, and neighborhood socioeco-
nomic context on the self-rated
health trajectories and mortality of
older adults. Res Aging. 2008;
30(2):251–73.
19 Subramanian SV, Acevedo-Garcia D,
Osypuk TL. Racial residential segre-
gation and geographic heterogeneity
in black/white disparity in poor self-
rated health in the US: a multilevel
statistical analysis. Soc Sci Med.
2005;60(8):1667–79.
20 Do DP, Finch BK, Basurto-Davila R,
Bird C, Escarce J, Lurie N. Does place
Racial & Ethnic Disparities
884 Heal th Affairs May 2011 30:5
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from explain racial health disparities?
Quantifying the contribution of res-
idential context to the black/white
health gap in the United States. Soc
Sci Med. 2008;67(8):1258 –68.
21 Wen M, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT.

Objective and perceived neighbor-
hood environment, individual SES
and psychosocial factors, and self-
rated health: an analysis of older
adults in Cook County, Illinois. Soc
Sci Med. 2006;63(10):2575 –90.
22 Morland K, Filomena S. Disparities
in the availability of fruits and veg-
etables between racially segregated
urban neighbourhoods. Public
Health Nutr. 2007;10(12):1481 –9.
23 Dahmann N, Wolch J, Joassart-
Marcelli P, Reynolds K, Jerrett M.

The active city? Disparities in pro-
vision of urban public recreation
resources. Health Place. 2009;
16(3):431–45.
24 Mohai P, Lanz PM, Morenoff J,
House JS, Mero RP. Racial and
socioeconomic disparities in resi-
dential proximity to polluting in-
dustrial facilities: evidence from the
Americans’ Changing Lives Study.

Am J Public Health. 2009;
99(Suppl 3):S649 –56.
25 Mohai P, Saha R. Racial inequality in
the distribution of hazardous waste:
a national-level reassessment. Soc
Probl. 2007;54(3):343 –70.
26 Morello-Frosch R, Pastor M Jr.,
Porras C, Sadd J. Environmental
justice and regional inequality in
southern California: implications for
future research. Environ Health
Perspect. 2002;110(Suppl 2):
149–54.
27 Morello-Frosch RA. Discrimination
and the political economy of envi-
ronmental inequality. Environ
Planning C: Govern Policy. 2002;
20(4):477–96.
28 Vrijheid M. Health effects of resi-
dence near hazardous waste landfill
sites: a review of epidemiologic lit-
erature. Environ Health Perspect.
2000;108:101–12.
29 Downey L, Willigen MV. Environ-
mental stressors: the mental health
impacts of living near industrial ac-
tivity. J Health Soc Behav. 2005;
46(3):289–305.
30 Gunier RB, Hertz A, von Behren J,
Reynolds P. Traffic density in Cali-
fornia: socioeconomic and ethnic
differences among potentially ex-
posed children. J Expo Anal Environ
Epidemiol. 2003;13(3):240 –6.
31 Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Lurmann F,
Kuenzli N, Gilliland F, Peters J, et al.

Childhood asthma and exposure to
traffic and nitrogen dioxide. Epi-
demiology. 2005;16(6):737 –43.
32 Wilhelm M, Ritz B. Residential
proximity to traffic and adverse birth
outcomes in Los Angeles County,
California, 1994 –1996. Environ
Health Perspect. 2003;111(2):
207–16.
33 Künzli N, Jerrett M, Garcia-Esteban
R, Basagaña X, Beckermann B,
Gilliland F, et al. Ambient air pollu-
tion and the progression of athero-
sclerosis in adults. PLoS ONE. 2010;
5(2):e9096.
34 Jerrett M, Finkelstein M, Brook J,
Arain M, Kanaroglou P, Stieb D,
et al. A cohort study of traffic-related
air pollution and mortality in
Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. Environ
Health Perspect. 2009;117(5):772 –7.
35 Brook RD, Jerrett M, Brook JR, Bard
RL, Finkelstein MM. The relation-
ship between diabetes mellitus and
traffic-related air pollution. J Occup
Environ Med. 2008;50(1):32 –8.
36 Brunekreef B, Holgate ST. Air pol-
lution and health. Lancet. 2002;
360(9341):1233–42.
37 Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Kanaroglou P,
Eyles J, Finkelstein N, Giovis C, et al.

A GIS-environmental justice analysis
of particulate air pollution in Ham-
ilton, Canada. Environment and
Planning A. 2001;33:955 –73.
38 Woodruff TJ, Parker JD, Kyle AD,
Schoendorf KC. Disparities in expo-
sure to air pollution during preg-
nancy. Environ Health Perspect.
2003;111(7):942–6.
39 Jones RL, Homa DM, Meyer PA,
Brody DJ, Caldwell KL, Pirkle JL,
et al. Trends in blood lead levels and
blood lead testing among US chil-
dren aged 1 to 5 years, 1988 –2004.

Pediatrics. 2009;123(3):e376 –85.
40 Brody JG, Morello-Frosch R, Zota A,
Brown P, Pérez C, Rudel RA. Linking
exposure assessment science with
policy objectives for environmental
justice and breast cancer advocacy:
the Northern California Household
Exposure Study. Am J Public Health.
2009;99(Suppl 3):S600 –9.
41 Eskenazi B, Bradman A, Castorina R.

Exposures of children to organo-
phosphate pesticides and their po-
tential adverse health effects. Envi-
ron Health Perspect. 1999;107:
409–19.
42 Teutsch S, Fielding J. Applying
comparative effectiveness research
to public and population health ini-
tiatives. Health Aff (Millwood).
2011;30(2):349–55.
43 Kwate NO, Yau CY, Loh JM, Williams
D. Inequality in obesigenic environ-
ments: fast food density in New York
City. Health Place. 2009;15(1):
364–73.
44 Wright RJ, Steinbach SF. Violence:
an unrecognized environmental ex-
posure that may contribute to
greater asthma morbidity in high
risk inner-city populations. Environ
Health Perspect. 2001;109(10):
1085–9.
45 Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page
P, Popkin BM. Inequality in the built
environment underlies key health
disparities in physical activity and
obesity. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):
417–24.
46 Hartig T. Green space, psychological
restoration, and health inequality.

Lancet. 2008;372(9650):1614 –5.
47 Sandström T, Frew AJ, Svartengren
M, Viegi G. The need for a focus on
air pollution research in the elderly.

Eur Respir J Suppl. 2003;40:92s –5s.
48 Faustman EM, Silbernagel SM,
Fenske RA, Burbacher TM, Ponce
RA. Mechanisms underlying chil-
dren’s susceptibility to environ-
mental toxicants. Environ Health
Perspect. 2000;108:13 –21.
49 Gavidia TG, Pronczu
k de Garbino J,
Sly PD. Children ’s environmental
health: an under-recognised area in
paediatric health care. BMC Pediatr.
2009;9:10.
50 Yang IA, Fong KM, Zimmerman PV,
Holgate ST, Holloway JW. Genetic
susceptibility to the respiratory ef-
fects of air pollution. Thorax. 2008;
63(6):555–63.
51 Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. Are dia-
betics more susceptible to the health
effects of airborne particles? Am J
Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;
164(5):831–3.
52 Zanobetti A, Schwartz J, Gold D. Are
there sensitive subgroups for the
effects of airborne particles? Environ
Health Perspect. 2000;108(9):
841–5.
53 Wang Y, Beydoun MA. The obesity
epidemic in the United States —
gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/
ethnic, and geographic characteris-
tics: a systematic review and meta-
regression analysis. Epidemiol Rev.
2007;29:6–28.
54 Krieger N. Stormy weather: race,
gene expression, and the science of
health disparities. Am J Public
Health. 2005;95(12):2155 –60.
55 O’Neill MS, Jerrett M, Kawachi I,
Levy JI, Cohen AJ, Gouveia N, et al.

Health, wealth, and air pollution:
advancing theory and methods. En-
viron Health Perspect. 2003;111(16):
1861–70.
56 Ponce NA, Hoggatt KJ, Wilhelm M,
Ritz B. Preterm birth: the interaction
of traffic-related air pollution with
economic hardship in Los Angeles
neighborhoods. Am J Epidemiol.
2005;162(2):140–8.
57 Morello-Frosch R, Jesdale B, Sadd J,
Pastor M. Ambient air pollution ex-
posure and full-term birth weight in
California. Environ Health. 2010;
9:44.
58 Finkelstein MM, Jerrett M, DeLuca
P, Finkelstein N, Verma DK,
Chapman K, et al. Relation between
income, air pollution, and mortality:
a cohort study. CMAJ. 2003;169(5):
397–402.
59 Clougherty JE, Levy JI, Kubzansky
LD, Ryan PB, Suglia SF, Canner MJ,
et al. Synergistic effects of traffic-
related air pollution and exposure to
violence on urban asthma etiology.

Environ Health Perspect. 2007;
115(8):1140–6.
60 Shankardass K, McConnell R, Jerrett
M, Milam J, Richardson J, Berhane
K. Parental stress increases the effect
May 2011 30:5 Heal th Affairs 885
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from of traffic-related air pollution on
childhood asthma incidence. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(30):
12406–11.
61 Goodman E, McEwen BS, Huang B,
Dolan LM, Adler NE. Social in-
equalities in biomarkers of cardio-
vascular risk in adolescence. Psy-
chosom Med. 2005;67(1):9 –15.
62 Gee G, Payne-Sturges D. Environ-
mental health disparities: a frame-
work integrating psychosocial and
environmental concepts. Environ
Health Perspect. 2004;112(17):
645–53.
63 Morello-Frosch R, Shenassa ED. The
environmental “riskscape” and so-
cial inequality: implications for ex-
plaining maternal and child health
disparities. Environ Health Perspect.
2006;114(8):1150–3.
64 McEwen BS. Protective and damag-
ing effects of stress mediators. N
Engl J Med. 1998;338(3):171 –9.
65 Gordon CJ. Role of environmental
stress in the physiological response
to chemical toxicants. Environ Res.
2003;92(1):1–7.
66 To access the Appendix, click on the
Appendix link in the box to the right
of the article online.
67 National Research Council Commit-
tee on Improving Risk Analysis Ap-
proaches Used by the US EPA. Sci-
ence and decisions: advancing risk
assessment. Washington (DC): Na-
tional Academies Press; 2009.
68 Su J, Morello-Frosch R, Jesdale B,
Kyle AD, Shamasunder B, Jerrett M.

An index for assessing demographic
inequalities in cumulative environ-
mental hazards with application to
Los Angeles, California. Environ Sci
Technol. 2009;43(20):7626 –34.
69 Cole BL, Wilhelm M, Long PV,
Fielding JE, Kominski G,
Morgenstern H. Prospects for health
impact assessment in the United
States: new and improved environ-
mental impact assessment or some-
thing different? J Health Polit Policy
Law. 2004;29(6):1153 –86.
70 Corburn J, Bhatia R. Health impact
assessment in San Francisco: incor-
porating the social determinants of
health into environmental planning.

J Environ Plann Man. 2007;50(3):
323–41.
71 Bhatia R. A guide for health impact
assessment [Internet]. San Fran-
cisco (CA): Department of Public
Health; 2009 [cited 2011 Apr 1].
(Working draft provided for review
and use by the California Depart-
ment of Public Health). Available
from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
ab32publichealth/meetings/
091409/hia_guidelines_
sept_04_09.pdf
72 Levy J. Is epidemiology the key to
cumulative risk assessment? Risk
Anal. 2008;28(6):1507 –13.
73 Environmental Protection Agency.

The Environmental Justice Strategic
Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJ-
SEAT) [Internet]. Washington (DC):

EPA; 2011 Mar 15 [cited 2011 Apr 1].

Available from: http://www.epa
.gov/environmentaljustice/
resources/policy/ej-seat.html
74 California Air Resources Board. Air
quality and land use handbook: a
community health perspective. Sac-
ramento (CA): The Board; 2005.
75 Pastor M Jr., Morello-Frosch R, Sadd
J. Air pollu
tion and environmental
justice: integrating indicators of cu-
mulative impact and socio-economic
vulnerability into regulatory deci-
sion-making [Internet]. Sacramento
(CA): California Air Resources
Board; 2010 [cited 2011 Apr 1]. (Fi-
nal Report, Contract No.: 04-308).

Available from: http://www.arb.ca
.gov/research/apr/past/04-308.pdf
76 City of Cincinnati. Ordinance 210 —
2009 [Internet]. Cincinnati (OH):

City of Cincinnati; 2009 Jun 29
[cited 2011 Apr 29]. Available from:
http://www.vorysenergy.com/
uploads/file/26337.pdf
77 Osborn B. News from the frontlines:

L.A. poised to deal with hidden
hazards. Liberty Hill [blog on the
Internet]. 2011 Jan 21 [cited 2011
Apr 1]. Available from: http://
libertyhill.typepad.com/main/2011/
01/la-poised-to-deal-with-hidden-
hazards.html
78 Sahagun L. Turning toxic hotspots
green. Los Angeles Times. 2011
Jan 21.
79 Pastor M, Dreir P, Grigsby J, Lopez-
Garza M. Regions that work: how
cities and suburbs can grow to-
gether. Minneapolis (MN): Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press; 2000.

Racial & Ethnic Disparities
886 Heal th Affairs May 2011 30:5
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from ABOUT THE AUTHORS: RACHEL MORELLO-FROSCH, MIRIAM ZUK,
MICHAEL JERRETT, BHAVNA SHAMASUNDER & AMY D. KYLE
Rachel Morello-
Frosch is an
associate professor
at the University of
California, Berkeley.

In this issue of Health Affairs ,
Rachel Morello-Frosch and
coauthors make the case that
regulators need to consider the
cumulative effects of various
environmental and social stressors
on poorer communities or those
populated by racial and ethnic
minorities. It ’s not enough to look
just at the impact of exposure to a
particular chemical, for example.

Studies have found that chronic
social stress, such as being poor or
being discriminated against
racially, can make individuals and
communities more vulnerable to
environmental hazards.

Yet “policy makers have been
slow to respond to the scientific
evidence, ” Morello-Frosch says.

She hopes that this article will
encourage them to take a broader
view of the causes of health
concerns and look into the
cumulative effect of various
stressors.

Morello-Frosch is an associate
professor at the University of
California (UC), Berkeley, in both
the Department of Environmental
Science, Policy, and Management
and the School of Public Health.

She received both her doctoral
degree in environmental health
sciences and her master of public
health degree in epidemiology and
biostatistics from UC Berkeley. In
2010 she was awarded the
American Public Health
Association ’sD a m uS m i t h
environmental health achievement
award.

Miriam Zuk is a
graduate student in
city and regional
planning at UC
Berkeley.

Miriam Zuk is a doctoral
candidate in city and regional
planning at the University of
California, Berkeley.

Michael Jerrett is an associate
professor in the Division of
Environmental Health Sciences at
the UC Berkeley School of Public
Health. He received both his
doctorate in geography and his
master ’s degree in political science
from the University of Toronto. In
2010 he was appointed to the
National Academies Committee on
Human and Environmental
Exposure Science in the Twenty-
First Century.

Bhavna
Shamasunder is a
graduate student in
the Department of
Environmental
Science, Policy, and
Management at UC
Berkeley.

Bhavna Shamasunder expects to
receive her doctoral degree from
the Department of Environmental
Science, Policy, and Management
at UC Berkeley in May 2011.

A m yK y l ei sa na s s o c i a t ea d j u n c t
professor in environmental health
sciences at the UC Berkeley School
of Public Health. She received both
her doctorate in environmental
health sciences and her master of
public health degree from UC
Berkeley.

May 2011 30:5 Heal th Affairs 887
at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
on May 11, 2011Health Affairs by content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from View publication statsView publication stats
1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Mark Espinoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 8:49 PM
To: Le, Thai-Chau
Subject: project proposal @1436 State Street

Download full resolution images
Available until Oct 31, 2021

I can already identify disparities given we are a low income community a community of minorities.

Thanks
OCA President
[External Email]
2 MarK Espinoza

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Marcos Espinoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 7:12 PM
To: Le, Thai-Chau
Subject: Proposed project in Alviso
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]

[External Email]

Dear Thai,
My name is Marcos Espinoza and I am a resident of Alviso Ca. I’m am opposed to the proposed project at the site of 1436 State Street Alviso Ca 95002. I oppose this project due to many reasons. The first being the environmental impact this will cause to Alviso residents. Allowing diesel trucks to operate within a small community impacts the health and well being of the community. There are multiple student bus stops close to this site and this will affect the kids who use the bus service. Also the site will operate as an asphalt company. Asphalt produces toxic air with is known to be carcinogenic. To allow an asphalt company to operate literally in front of people houses is wrong. There are many other businesses that operate on state street that are illegal and any study that may be done does not take into account the overall impact of all of those businesses plus the new proposed project.

Thanks,
Marcos Espinoza
[email protected]
408-600-6328

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Mark Espinoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 5:40 PM
To: Le, Thai-Chau
Subject: Re: 1436 State street project in Alviso

Hi Thai,

Please submit this into the record for additional comments:

- The IS/MND is vague about what activities will be taking place at the site once construction is complete. The IS/MND repeatedly describes the project as “interior improvements of the existing building on the site, repaving and striping the site, rebuilding an existing utility building, a new exterior storage equipment area and the reconfiguration of the gates.” This is an inadequate project description. The IS/MND must be revised and recirculated to thoroughly and accurately explain what activities will occur over the project’s life time that might affect air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and any other environmental impact category.

- The IS/MND appears to evaluate potential health impacts to local residents from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions during project construction, which will be of short duration, but does not do so for emissions during project operation, which will be long-term. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust can cause serious health problems, especially in children. This is especially true when there are already significant levels of toxic air pollutant emissions in the area, which is the case for Alviso. The IS/MND needs to consider health risks from adding this project’s emissions to existing pollution levels.

- The noise assessment simply reports sound measurements taken at the applicant’s Fremont facility on 2 days in 2019. There is no indication or explanation to establish that these measurements are in any way representative of what would occur at the Alviso site.

The City should revise the IS/MND to address the deficiencies described above before it can approve this project.

Thank You
Mark Espinoza
OCA President
[External Email]
2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Le, Thai-Chau
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 12:06 PM
To: Mark Espinoza
Subject: RE: State Street paving development in Alviso
Hi Mark,

This has been submitted for record. Thank you for your comments.

Best regards,
Thai

From: Mark Espinoza [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 3:09 PM
To: Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: State Street paving development in Alviso

[External Email]

Hi Thai

I’d like to submit these images for the director hearing on Monday the 29, 2021. These photos depict the conditions of the applicants current property that is occupied by his business equipment. It would be unacceptable and an environmental injustice for a community of color to be subjected to being forced to be burdened by the applicants business practices such as the use for stock piling solid waste including hazardous materials, not to mention the years of oil stains. I also like to mention Alviso is in a flood zone and storing large tanks with hazardous liquids is a recipe for an environmental disaster in the event Alviso experiences another flood.

Will the city take the responsibility for environmental clean up by approving such a business with hazardous materials? The analysis never take into account worst case scenario in the event of flood.

Please submit this for the record.

Thank you
Mark Espinoza
OCA President
408-624-7660

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 2 3

4 5

6 7

1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Le, Thai-Chau
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 11:23 AM
To: Mark Espinoza
Cc: Meiners, Laura
Subject: RE: Automatic reply: State Street paving development in Alviso Hi Mark,

I received your additional comments on the project in the previous email. This item is to be heard at Director’s Hearing on 12/8 at 9:00am now. The draft permit and agenda will be posted a week before the hearing here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning- division/commissions-and-hearings/planning-director-hearings/agendas-minutes-2021/-fsiteid-1

Best regards,
Thai

From: Mark Espinoza [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 11:14 AM
To: Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: State Street paving development in Alviso

Hi Thai

Can you update me on the new hearing date?
Also I’ve submitted photos and comments for planning director and staff.

On Nov 26, 2021, at 3:09 PM, Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
Thank you for your email! I am out of the office and will return on Monday 11/29/2021. Please contact your Environmental Project Manager for any questions about projects.

The City is also closed on Thursday 11/25/2021 and Friday 11/26/2021 in observance of Thanksgiving holiday.

Best regards,
Thai

[External Email]
2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Ada Marquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 8:00 AM
To: Le, Thai-Chau; Ada Marquez
Subject: ALVISO-State Street IS/MND COMMENT LETTER
Attachments: StateStreetMND_Comment-12-8-2021_Marquez.pdf

Dear Thai,
Please accept my attached comment letter for today's Planning Hearing.

Thank you,
Ada

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 1 December 8, 2021
Thai-Chau Le
CEQA Planning Supervisor
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]

Re: 1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FILE NOS: H21-049 (FORMERLY SP18-058) AND ER21-110)

Dear Ms. Thai-Chau Le:

This comment letter includes both the ethical, but non-CEQA issues and potential CEQA impacts inadequately analyzed in the Initial Study/MND. Currently the community of Alviso has at least a dozen construction type of land-uses. This proposed corporation yard/ warehouse project with 5 light duty trucks (10 daily), 9 medium duty trucks (18 daily), 7 heavy duty trucks (14 daily), and 5 personal vehicles (52 daily) trucks will have approximate 94 daily vehicle trips. Although this project incrementally is less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the small community of Alviso is cumulatively and disproportionately burden with environmental impacts.

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts for Sensitive Receptors and MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
As you know, the BAAQMD is in the process of updating their CEQA thresholds. o The BAAQMD thresholds have not been updated since 2010. The 2017 version solely reflects the California Supreme Court’s 2015 opinion in Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n vs. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 62 Cal.4th 369. Per BAAQMD’s website: “The Guidelines for implementation of the thresholds are for information purposes only to assist local agencies. Recommendations in the Guidelines are advisory and should be followed by local governments at their own discretion.

These Guidelines may inform environmental review for development projects in the Bay Area, but do not commit local governments or the Air District to any specific course of regulatory action.”12 On page 2-39 of the State Street IS/MND CEQA Comments and Responses:
“Furthermore, the BAAQMD was notified of the circulation of the Draft Initial Study and did not provide comments.” The absence of a comment letter from BAAQMD does not provide substantial evidence that this project will not have any significant impacts.

1 CEQA Guidelines Update (baaqmd.gov) date accessed December 8, 2021. 2 Per (2021) CEQA 15064. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A PROJECT (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. (b) (2) Thresholds of significance, as defined in Section 15064.7(a), may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold mea ns that the project's impacts are less than significant. Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.

2 CalEPA’s top 30% percentile vulnerability rank of cumulative impacts via the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 screening tool (Figure 2).3 The Alviso residents are disproportionately affected by contamination, air pollution, and many cumulative environmental issues: the former South Bay Asbestos Area on the National Priority List (NPL), the Union Pacific Railroad, Highway 237, methane vapor from the Newby Island Landfill and Zanker Recycling Zero Waste Energy, the Calpine Energy Plant, facilities with hazardous wastes, large Google warehouses, the (Approved Development)Microsoft San Jose Data Center, the RWF Cogeneration Project for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), and numerous unpermitted business with diesel trucks, Topgolf Entertainment Center’s traffic impacts, and other proposed projects.4 With this evidence, an additional project condition should require a monitoring report that the truck traffic for the State Street Project does not use residential streets and do not exceed their daily vehicle trips. In addition, this project must implement per the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau) “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act”.5
Land-Use
Although the proposed project’s zoning is consistent with the Alviso Master Plan and the General Plan, it does not environmentally reflect the significant changes and amendments to the General Plan over many years. Since the adoption of the General Plan in 2011, significant legislative laws have been approved such as SB 1000.6 As a City of San Jose resident, I hope City leaders and the Manager’s Office of Racial Equity7 will soon implement SB 1000.8 Ethically, the City has an obligation to consider the disproportionate impacts to the Alviso residents.

Thank you,

Ada E. Márquez
3189 Salem Drive
San Jose, CA 95127

3 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 | OEHHA
4 RWF Cogeneration Project | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov) San Jose City Data Center, Licensing Case - Docket # 2019-SPPE-04 5 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act 6 Envision San José 2040 General Plan | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov) 7 Racial Equity | City of San Jose (sanjoseca.gov)
8 Per CA State Attorney General “In 2016, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1000, codified at Government Code section 65302, subdivision (h), to incorporate environmental justice into the local land use planning process. SB 1000 requires local governments to address pollution and other hazards that disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color in their jurisdiction. If a local government adopts or updates two or more elements of its general plan after January 1, 2018, SB 1000 requires the local government to identify any “disadvantaged communities” within its planning area. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subds. (h)(1)–(2).) The law defines “disadvantaged communities” to include two identification methods: (1) “an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code”; or (2) “an area that is low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(4)(A).) If a local government identifies one or more disadvantaged communities in its planning area, its general plan must have either an “environmental justice element” or “related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements” (collectively, “EJ policies”) that “reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities” by addressing eight different topics, such as reducing pollution exposure, promoting public improvements, promoting safe and sanitary homes, and promoting public engagement in the local decision making process. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h)(1).)” SB 1000 - Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

3 [email protected]

Figure 1: Alviso is designated as SB1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and AB1550 Low-Income.9

9 Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards (arcgis.com)

4 The results for each indicator range from 0-100 and represent the percentile ranking of census tract 6085504602 relative to other census tracts.

5 Hazardous Waste 93
Impaired Waters 92
Solid Waste 100
Sensitive Populations
Asthma 38
Low Birth Weight 99
Cardiovascular Disease 40
Socioeconomic Factors
Education 73
Linguistic Isolation N/A
Poverty 28
Unemployment 36
Housing Burden 24

Figure 2: Alviso’s cumulative pollution burden per CalEPA’s screening tool.

From: Marcos Espinoza
To: PlanningSupportStaff; Le, Thai-Chau; Meiners, Laura Subject: No. H21-049 (SP18-058)
Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:08:17 AM
[External Email]
Dear planning commission and directors,
I am opposed to this proposed project. After reading through the responses from the developer I found the answer inadequate. They were simple answer that didn’t give deep explanation of the project. One response mentioned there will be no asphalt on the lot. What are the steps of action to enforce this if there ends up being asphalt stored on the lot. There needs to be a full study of the effects this project will cause on the community. This project should not be approved without a proper eir. By doing a simple google image search of the business’s current location, they have over 25 large trucks and many other items that look like they are stored there. Without a proper eir the effects of all these trucks and other items being store can not be understood fully. As a community member I rely on my city officials to protect us from any and all harm that this project and any proposed project may cause.

Sincerely,
Marcos Espinoza
[email protected]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. 1 Le, Thai-Chau
From: Mark Espinoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 12:03 AM
To: Le, Thai-Chau
Subject: Re: Alviso projects

[External Email]

Please provide me with zoom link

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 1, 2021, at 3:26 PM, Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> There is a planning commission meeting today with a couple of projects. The agenda is available here:
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fhome%2Fshowpublished document%2F80088%2F637733705815870000&data=04%7C01%7CThai- Chau.Le%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cde10d16949414cb15d4208d9ba211a07%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1% 7C0%7C637745473610263767%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=rCrOoz42uN2VPaXl1CiT0Zv7LM%2B%2FJ8RO%2BQhB1fAN4TE%3D&r eserved=0
>
> The State Street project is going next week on 12/8/21 at 9:00AM at Director's Hearing. The agenda and project permits will be posted here:
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fyour- government%2Fdepartments-offices%2Fplanning-building-code-enforcement%2Fplanning-division%2Fcommissions- and-hearings%2Fplanning-director-hearings%2Fagendas-minutes-2021&data=04%7C01%7CThai- Chau.Le%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cde10d16949414cb15d4208d9ba211a07%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1% 7C0%7C637745473610263767%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=zST%2BI%2FFlXPVXNVvZ3JgkQQ7zZ%2FIYmg2G0UEXjydh%2F90%3D& reserved=0
>
> No hearing date for second harvest yet.
>
> Best regards,
> Thai
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Espinoza [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3:08 PM
> To: Le, Thai-Chau <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Alviso projects
>
2 >
>
> [External Email]
>
>
>
> Is there any hearing today?
> State street or second harvest? Meetings?
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. >
>

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

1 December 8, 2021
Thai-Chau Le
CEQA Planning Supervisor
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]

Re: 1436 State Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FILE NOS: H21-049 (FORMERLY SP18-058) AND ER21-110)

Dear Ms. Thai-Chau Le:

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts for Sensitive Receptors and MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

Thank you,

Ada E. Márquez
3189 Salem Drive
San Jose, CA 95127

3 [email protected]

Figure 1: Alviso is designated as SB1000, SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and AB1550 Low-Income.9

9 Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards (arcgis.com)

4 The results for each indicator range from 0-100 and represent the percentile ranking of census tract 6085504602 relative to other census tracts.

Figure 2: Alviso’s cumulative pollution burden per CalEPA’s screening tool.

Tribal (Muwekma Ohlone) Comments

MODERN CHRONOLOGY OF THE MUWEKMA OHLONE TRIBE

1900 Two Federal Indian Censuses - Direct ancestors of the Muwekma Ohlone membership were identified as Mission San Jose Indians or Costanoan on the 1900 Indian Population Schedules for Washington Township (Niles rancheria) and Murray Township (Pleasanton/Sunol rancheria).

1904/05 While delivering a memorial and schedule of landless Indians to the 58 th Congress in Washington D.C., Secretary of Northern Cal ifornia Indian Association Charles E. Kelsey and a clerk discover the 18 unratified California Treaties of 1851 -1852 in the Senate secret archives. Kelsey later named Special Indian Agent in 1905 for California Indians by the Indian Service Bureau.

1905/06: Special Indian Agent C. E. Kelsey’s ( BIA) Indian C ensus of landless Indians of Northern California identifies “Verona Band” in Alameda County setting the stage for the 1906 Congressional Appropriation Bill for Landless California Indians [34 Stat. 333, 3. 3504; 35 Stat. 76 -77, c.153}; also see Acts of March 4, 1913, June 30, 1919, September 21, 1922, January 29, 1925 and March 10, 1928 in regar ds to Indians occupying railroad lands; Acts of August 1, 1914, May 18, 1916, March 2, 1917, May 25, 1918, June 30, 1919, February 14, 1920, March 3, 1921 May 24, 1922, January 23, 1923. June 5, 1924, March 3, 1925, May 10, 1926, January 12, 1927, March 7, 1928, March 4, 1929, and August 9, 1937 which provided funds for purchase of lands for homeless California Indians.,

1910 Federal Census - Direct ancestors of the Muwekma Ohlone membership were identified on the 1910 Indian Population Schedule for Plea santon Township residing at “Indian Town” (Alisal rancheria).

1910: Special Indian Agent C. E. Kelsey formally designated the combined Niles/Sunol/Pleasanton/Livermore ancestral Muwekma communities as the Verona Band of Alameda County on his 1910 map identifying “Indian Rancherias” under his jurisdiction and the Indian Service Bureau.

1913 Kelsey’s Map is published for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the US Congress (California Congressman John Raker’s inquiries on the status of California Indi an and any settlements under the unratified treaties. (Verona Band of Alameda County again listed)

12/7/1914: Listed under “Land Allotments,” Reno Agency Special Indian Agent C. H.

Asbury (BIA) identifies Verona Band as one of twenty -five landless tribal bands eligible for land purchases under his jurisdiction. In this report the Ione and Lower Lake bands are similarly situated along with the Verona Band.

1914-1920 World War I - Six Muwekma men enlist and served overseas during WWI in Army, Navy and Marine Corps.
1923: 1923 Annual Report, Reno Agency , Superintendent James E. Jenkins identified Verona Band under the agency’s “jurisdiction, but not occupying Government lands.” [pages 4-5 RG 75 Reno Agency]

7/8/1926 -4/19/1927 Repeated formal requests issued to Superintendent L. A. Dorrington by Commissioner on the “matter of purchasing land during this fiscal year for homeless California Indians, but no response received to date.” (Letter from Second Assistant Indian Commissioner Hauke 3/7/1927).
“When presenting to Congress estimates for the appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1929, it will be necessary to show in detail … in the matter of purchasing land for homeless Californi a Indians; to give the approximate number of Indian still to be provided with land. … [y]ou are requested to submit answers to the following, as applying to Indians under your supervision:
(1) Total number of bands under your jurisdiction, giving the name of each band, .” (Letter from Assistant Commissioner E. B. Meritt to Dorrington 1/8/1927).

“Since that time letters have been addressed to the Superintendent on September 29, and December 30, 1926, February 1 and March 7, 1927, but no reply or acknowledgme nt has been received to any.” (letter to Special Inspector Roberts from Commissioner C. H. Burke regarding Dorrington’s dereliction of duty and response 4/19/1927)

6/23/27 Sacramento Superintendent Dorrington identified the Verona Band under his jurisdiction, however, without benefit of any on -site visitation he writes “It does not appear at the present time that there is need for the purchase of land for the establishment of their homes.” (page 1). Dorrington also determined without benefit of v isitation that an additional 134 California Indian bands under his jurisdiction also did not need land in this report.

12/8/28: Dorrington declines to purchase land for Verona Band unless and until funding is provided for maintenance and improvement of lands already purchased for tribes in California.

“…In my opinion, we should not give consideration to the purchase of additional for landless Indians, unless we are assured that funds will be available for improvements thereon, and also for improvements of the tracts already purchased.” (Letter Dorrington to Commissioner Hauke)

3/26/1930 In addressing Dorrington’s dereliction of duties and lack of response to Office requests, another memorandum is issued which states:

In the manner and on the dates set out below, Superintendent Dorrington was corresponded with respecting the purchase of land for landless California Indians during the fiscal year 1930, for which there is available $16,200.

Letter June 28, 1929
“ August 8, 1929
Card Oct. 1, “
“ Nov. 1, “
Letter Dec. 6, “
Card Jan. 7, 1930
Letter Feb. 17, 1930

Not one response has been received from Mr. Dorrington upon the correspondence listed above. …

This is an important matter, and the Superintendent’s failure to make resp onse to the Office is not understood. I have constantly kept after the reports but without results. What would you suggest?”

4/23/1930 In a letter to Commissioner Rhoads, Dorrington wrote:

“…Kindly be respectfully advised that the matter of land purch ase for homeless Indians has really been given constant and diligent attention throughout the current fiscal year to date and an earnest effort has been made to fully meet the needs of the Indians to the fullest extent without unnecessary or unjustified ex penditure of funds, believing that to be the spirit of the law and your wishes in the premises. …

It has been my opinion, and therefore my belief, for several years that the best interests of the Indians will be served through an arrangement whereby those concerned may be settled on the already acquired land instead of procuring additional which cannot be turn to beneficial use and occupancy by the Indians in mind because of their inability financially to establish themselves thereon.

… In its final anal ysis, Mr. Commissioner, kindly understand and know that additional land for homeless Indians of California is not required and therefore further demands on the appropriation for the fiscal year 1930 are not warranted or justified.”

7/1931 Dorrington had either quit, transferred or was replaced by O. H. Lipps as Superintendent of the Sacramento Agency. Lipps responded to Assistant Commissioner J. Henry Scattergood with specific concerns about the conditions of the homeless California Indians for whom land was purchased:
“Receipt is acknowledged of your letter, dated June 30, 1931, relating to the matter of purchasing land for homeless Indians of California.

I am addressing this letter to you personally and calling the subject matter thereof to your special attention for the reason that there appears to be a grave lack of understanding in the Office regarding this whole matter of providing homes for homeless California Indians. … I think it is all the more important that this matter be brough t to your personal attention at this time in view of your recent visit to California with the Senate Committee and your familiarity with the sentiment and feeling in this State with respect to the past administration of the affairs of the California Indians.

The conditions on some of these rancherias are simply deplorable. No one can view many of them and observe the conditions under which the Indians are trying to exis t without the feeling that some one is guilty of gross neglect or inefficiency and that a cruel injustice has been meted out to a helpless people under the name of beneficent kindness. …

Now it seems to me that the thing for us to do is to look at the facts in the face and admit that in the past the Government has been woefully negligent and inefficient, and then start out with the determination, as far as possible, to rectify our past mistakes. It is difficult to locate the blame, but somewhere along the line there appears to have been gross negligence or crass indifference. If Congress has been honestly and fully advised of conditions and has refused or failed to give relief asked for, then the Indian Bureau is not responsible for the neglect of the Indians. On the other hand, if Congress believed and intended by app ropriating funds for the purchase of lands for homeless Indians and improvements thereon that good and suitable lands would be purchased and houses constructed and improvements made, then we have neglected to do our duty.”

1928 1928 California Indian Jur isdictional Act and Approved Muwekma BIA Enrollment Applications - Between 1929 and 1932 direct ancestors and families of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe enroll under the 1928 California Indian Jurisdictional Act completing 18 BIA applications containing the names of 55 members of the tribe. All of the enrollment Muwekma families identified as Mission San Jose Tribe or Ohlone (or variation thereof). Note none of the other 17,000 California Indians were identified as “ Tribe:

Mission San Jose.”

1931-1940 Verona Band tribal member Domingo Larry Marine attends Indian Boarding School at Sherman Institute. January 1940, enlisted in US Marine Corps. 1 st Marine Division, sergeant, campaigns: Guadalcanal to the Ryukyu Islands.

1940-1948 World War II - Almost al l of the Muwekma men enlist and served overseas in the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy, and Marine Corps including the 101st and 82nd Airborne and Patton’s Tank 3rd Army Division.

1944-1947 Chemawa BIA Boarding School . Two of the children of Verona Band members John Guzman and Flora Munoz John Guzman and Reyna Guzman attended the Chemawa Indian Boarding School in Oregon.

May 1947 Muwekma Elder Ernest G. Thompson along with other members of the Tribe join the Bay Area California Indian Council:

1950-1957 Second BIA Enrollment . Between 1950 and 1957 at least 21 Muwekma Ohlone heads of households and families enrolled with the BIA and were approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

1950s-Present Service in the U.S. Armed Forces – Muwekma men and women continuously serve overseas in U.S. Armed Forces (Army, Navy, marine Corps, and Air Force) during the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and are still in uniform today.

7/23/1966 Letter to Congressman D on Edwards from Rupert Costo, AIHS and Philip Galvan

“Enclosed please find a statement of the Ohlone Indians as to their history and present status, copy of the deed to the present official Ohlone Indian Cemetery. . We request that you sponsor legislation designating the.98 of an acre adjacent to the Ohlone Indian Cemetery and the cemetery itself as a national historic site. A provision that the Government place this area in the care of the Ohlone Indians and the American Indian Historical Society… .

7/29/1966 Letter from Congressman Edwards to Mrs. Jeanett e Vieux of Fremont, California stating that:

“I also contacted the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They informed me that they do not have jurisdiction in this matter since the Ohlone Indians are not officially recognized as an American Indian Tribe.”

1968-1970 Third BIA Enrollment . Between 1969 -1971 nineteen (19) Muwekma Ohlone heads of households enroll ed with the BIA and were approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

1/1982 Committee to Establish the Tribal Council of the Costanoan Indians “Committee to Establish the Tribal Council of Costanoan Indians Manuel Martinez, Vice-Chairman
Rosemary Cambra, Sec./Tres.

9/21/1982 Letter from Karen Parsons East Bay Regional Park District to Nancy Evans Native American Heritage Commission

“Ardenwood Regional Preserve Native American Input concerning Ohlone Village and Burial Site Ala-392
Phil Galvan (Fremont)
Rosemary Cambra (San Jose) Ohlone Tribal Council

3/1989 Resolution of Intent to Petition (#111 ) Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Council petitions the United States Government for Recognition.

4/25/1989 Letter from the DOI, BIA Tribal Government Services to Chairwoman Rosemary Cambra stating”

“Acknowledgment of a petitioning group as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law establishes a permanent special relationship with the United States.

… Because of the significance and permanence of acknowledgment as a tribe, the process of evaluation is a lengthy and thorough one.” [Emphasis added]

6/16/1989 Letter from the BIA’s Acting Deputy to the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs Operations, Hazel E. Elbert to Chairwoman Rosemary Cambra stating:

“This letter is to acknowledge our receipt, on May 9, 1989, of the undocumented petition for Federal acknowledgment of the Ohlone /Costanoan Muwekma.

… The evaluation process is deliberately lengthy and painstaking because the decision to acknowledge an Indian tribe establishes a perpetual government-to-government relationship with the United States.” 1992-1998 In the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy Act of 1992, P .L. 102-416 § 2(2) Congress found "due to the unique historical circumstances of the Indians of California, Federal law and policies have often dealt specifically with California Indians." In Footnote 75 of the ACCIP Recognition Report under the subheading The Federal Acknowledgement Process – A Continuing Injustice , the report noted that:

L.A. Dorrington, Superintendent of the Sacramento Indian Agency during the late 1920s, prepared a report for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on the land needs of numerous California Indian bands living at the margins of non -Indian society, often concentrated in the rural and mountainous areas of the state on scattered public domain allotments, with little or no contact with the Indian agency. …

The Dorrington report provides evidence of previous federal acknowledgment for modern -day petitioners who can establish their connection to the historic bands identified therein. Clearly, the BIA "recognized" its trust obligations to these Indian bands when it undertook - pursuant to the authority of the Homeless California Indian Acts and the Allotment Act-to determine their living conditions and their need for land.

The fact that some were provided with land and other s were not did not diminish that trust.

Among those California Indian groups that have petitioned for federal acknowledgment, there are several who that can trace their origins to one or more of the bands identified in the Dorrington report. The Muwekma Tribe is one whose connection to the Verona Band (id. at 1) has been recently confirmed in a letter from the BAR, but there are at least eight others: Dunlap Band of Mono Indians (see Dorrington, at pp. 6 -7, reference to the "Dunlap band"); … (page 30).

1994 Passage of HR 4180) “An Act to provide for the annual publication of a list of federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes.)

“Title I – Withdrawal of Acknowledgment or Recognition.

SEC. 101 Short Title. “ Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List of 1994.” ….

SEC 103 Findings …
(3) Indian tribes presently may be recognized by Act of Congress; by the administrative procedures set forth in part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations denominated “Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe; or by decision of a United States court;
(4) a tribe which has been recognized in one of these manners may not be terminated except by an Act of Congress;
(5) Congress ha s expressly repudiated the policy of terminating recognized Indian tribes, and has actively sought to restore recognition to tribes that previously have been terminated; …. Title II Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
…SEC. 202. Findings
The Congress finds and declares that—
(1) the Secretary does not have the authority to terminate the federally recognized status of an Indian Tribe as determined by Congress; (2) the Secretary may not administratively diminish the privileges and immunities of federally recognized Indian tribes without the consent of Congress;

1/24/95: Tribe submits Petition for F ederal Acknowledgement at White House meeting.

5/24/96 BIA acknowledges that Muwekma was recognized as late as 1927 as the “Verona Band of Alameda County.”

12/08/99 Tribe sues BIA, claiming length of BAR process violated APA.

April 13, 2000 Congressman George Miller (D) Pleasant Hill introduces legislation in committee as a follow-up to the ACCIP report titled California Indian Act of 2000 specifically naming the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe for Recognition.

1/16/01 Court orders BIA to issue Final Determination by 3/11/02

9/6/02 BIA issues Final Determination declining to Acknowledge Tribe.

6/6/03 Tribe files complaint in DC alleging violation of Equal Protection Clause and Administrative Procedures Act.

9/28/11: District Court grants summary judgment for BIA

6/2013: AS-IA begins regulatory fix for “broken Acknowledgement Process”

1 OPERATIONS PLAN
1436 State Street
San Jose, CA
Pacific Surfacing, Inc. (PSI) corporation yard is used for parking company vehicles, equipment and light materials (new wood, rebar, and various other non-hazardous materials packaged in factory sealed containers.) An office staff of 5 is present in this yard as well. PSI does not operate during night hours. Our crew members arrive at times designated/staggered by operations staff, and park their personal vehicles in the allocated parking area vacated by the assigned PSI vehicle. PSI vehicles park only in the corporation yard to ensure minimal disruption to the surrounding area. All vehicles travel on a designated site-specific route provided daily by the operations staff. This is to ensure adherence to all safety, environmental and municipal protocols.

The attached map will describe site specific detail for your review.

Listed below are the details requested for our fleet:

Light Duty Vehicles – (5) i.e., non-commercial ½ ton pickup trucks. These vehicles are used for miscellaneous support tasks in the bay area. 5,000 – 7,500 miles per vehicle annually.

Hours of Operations – Heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, and other onsite commercial/industrial noise will be only take place between 6:00AM and 6:00PM.

San Jose City CouncilMarch 15, 2022

San Jose City Council
March 15, 2022