Memorandum — San Jose City Council, March 15, 2022

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: Christopher Burton

AND CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: February 28, 2022

Approved Date
3/3/2022

COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4

SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS HEARING ON THE INITIAL

STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE 1436 STATE STREET PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

(a) Conduct an Administrative Hearing to consider the Appeals of the Planning Director:
(1) Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 1436 State Street Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) Approval of Site Development Permit No. H21-049 for the State Street Corporation Yard Project to allow the reconfiguration of an existing vacant building to warehouse and incidental office use, the addition of an outdoor materials storage pad, a propane tank, and a utility building with staff locker rooms and a trash enclosure, for a new corporation yard on an approximately

0.97-gross acre site located at 1436 State Street.

(b) Adopt a resolution denying the environmental appeal and adopting the 1436 State Street Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, for which an Initial Study was prepared, and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), in accordance with CEQA, as amended and finding that:
(1) The City Council has read and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 1436 State Street Project and related administrative record in connection with Site Development Permit No. H21-049; (2) The 1436 State Street Project IS/MND was prepared in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, together with State and local implementation guidelines;
(3) Adoption of the 1436 State Street Project MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San José; and
COUNCIL AGENDA: 03/15/22
FILE: 22-316
ITEM: 10.2

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
February 28, 2022
Subject: File No. H21-049 - Administrative Appeals Hearing on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site Development Permit for the 1436 State Street Corporation Yard Project

Page 2 ends

(4) Preparation of a new environmental document is not required because the IS/MND thoroughly and adequately analyzed the project and the environmental appeal does not raise any new significant impacts that have not already been analyzed or addressed in the IS/MND in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073 and 15185.

(c) Adopt a resolution denying the permit appeal and approving, subject to conditions, a Site Development Permit to allow the reconfiguration of an existing vacant building to warehouse and incidental office use, the addition of an outdoor materials storage pad, a propane tank, and a utility building with staff locker rooms and a trash enclosure, for a corporation yard on an approximately 0.97-gross acre site located on the north side of State Street, approximately 290 feet easterly of Essex Street (1436 State Street; APNs:
015-11-056, 015-11-085, and 015-11-094).

OUTCOME

The hearing before the City Council is an appeal of the CEQA environmental determination pursuant to Section 21.06.030 of the Environmental Clearance Ordinance and a de novo Site Development Permit appeal hearing pursuant to Section 20.100.280 of the City of San Jose’s Zoning Ordinance. “De novo” means that the Council considers the permit request anew, along with the Site Development Permit Resolution (Exhibit F), MND Resolution and MMRP (Exhibit G), the environmental documents including the Initial Study, MND, Technical Reports, and Responses to Comments (Exhibit D), comments from the appellant and applicant, and the totality of the administrative record.

According to 21.06.030(B), there are two environmental appeal outcomes:

1. Deny the appeal and uphold the adoption of the MND, or

2. Grant the appeal and require that additional environmental review be conducted, resulting in a new or revised environmental document prior to consideration of the Site Development Permit, or the applicant not moving forward with the project.

If the environmental appeal is denied, the Council may then consider the permit appeal and make the required findings to approve or deny the Side Development Permit. If the permit appeal is denied and the Site Development Permit approved, the project applicant would be able to move forward with the building permit phase of the project to allow a corporation yard on an approximately 0.97-gross acre site.

Page 3 ends

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The project site located at 1436 State Street is currently developed with an approximately 3,100- square foot vacant building. The Site Development Permit, H21-049, and environmental document for the project were considered and approved at the Planning Director’s Hearing on December 8, 2021. The project scope includes 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 enclosure (a total of 3,735 square feet of development), for a new corporation yard on an approximately 0.97- gross acre site.

A timely Appeal of the Environmental Determination (Exhibit A) was filed on December 10, 2021, by Marcos Espinoza. The environmental appeal raised concerns about the adequacy of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in terms of air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and any other environmental impact category. Other concerns include existing street damages that would be exacerbated by this project, unsafe conditions for existing residents, outdated thresholds used in the IS/MND, and the project did not consider the existing conditions of the area. As discussed in this memorandum, the IS/MND was thoroughly prepared, based on facts and reasoned analysis, and provides adequate details and information for the decision makers to consider the project. The comments in the environmental appeal did not raise any new issues about the project’s environmental impacts, nor do they provide information indicating the project would result in new environmental impacts or impacts substantially greater in severity than disclosed in the supporting IS/MND.

A timely Appeal of the Site Development Permit (Exhibit B) was filed on December 14, 2021, by Manuel Martinez who lives within 1,000 feet of the project site. The appeal cited truck traffic issues, noise and nuisance, effects to sensitive receptors, hours of operation clarity, and conflict with Alviso Master Plan Goals and Policies.

The appealed Site Development Permit resolution and analysis in this memorandum outline the project’s conformance with the General Plan policies, Municipal Code requirements, and City Council policies which address the appeal issues.

Staff recommends denial of the environmental appeal and permit appeal. The comments in the Environmental Appeal (Exhibit A) do not raise new information that would result in a new analysis, significant impacts, or mitigation measures, as compared to those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices. Therefore, the IS/MND and associated documents are adequate in their analyses of the proposed project. The comments raised in the Permit Appeal (Exhibit B) do not negate any of the Site Development Permit findings and the proposed project continues to be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, Planned Development Zoning District, and City Council policies.

Page 4 ends

BACKGROUND

Site Location
The 0.97-gross acre site is generally located north of State Street between Essex Street and Pacific Avenue. The subject site is currently developed with a 3,100 square foot vacant building and is surrounded to the east, north, and west by light industrial uses and to the south by single- family residential uses.

Proposed Project
The subject Site Development Permit application was filed by the applicant, Clay Laucella, on behalf of Laucella Holdings LLC, on October 24, 2018, to allow the reconfiguration of an existing vacant building to warehouse and incidental office use, the addition of an outdoor materials storage pad, a propane tank, an enclosed asphalt sealant tank, and a utility building with staff locker rooms and a trash enclosure for a new corporation yard on an approximately

0.97-gross acre site.

Operations of the corporation yard would 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.

Pursuant to CEQA, the 1436 State Street Project Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review for 31 days from September 3, 2021 to October 4, 2021. During the circulation period, the City of San José received seven comments. Responses to Comments (RTC) were completed and posted on the City’s Environmental webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing on November 18, 2021.

Planning Director’s Hearing
On December 8, 2021, the Planning Director approved the proposed Site Development Permit.

The item was on the Consent Calendar (Item 3.E). Prior to the Planning Director approving the Site Development Permit, Marcos Espinoza and Ada Marquez requested to speak, so the item was moved to the public hearing portion of the agenda. Staff gave a brief verbal presentation, followed by a project introduction by Clay Laucella, the project applicant. The hearing was then opened to public comment.

Mr. Espinoza commented that the project’s MND was not sufficient to analyze the impacts of the project, and a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to address site-specific concerns including air quality, noise, and traffic. Mr. Espinoza was especially concerned about

Page 5 ends

asphalt as a carcinogen being located near existing residents. The project includes an asphalt sealant tank but does not include asphalt storage or manufacturing.

Ada Marquez requested that staff implement discretion to be more stringent than the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards. Ms. Marquez stated the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and California Attorney General’s websites have tools and maps that show that the Alviso community experiences disproportional cumulative environmental impacts, including air quality. She stated that Alviso has been identified as subject to Senate Bill (SB) 1000, Assembly Bill (AB) 535, and AB 1554 as a disadvantaged, low-income community.

The applicant deferred to staff for responses. In response to Mr. Espinoza’s concerns about asphalt, staff clarified that corporation yards are defined as providing storage of construction materials to dispatch those materials using vehicles to an offsite location. This project meets that definition. The applicant confirmed that the project site will not store or distribute asphalt, and further clarified that the tank onsite is for asphalt sealant, not asphalt, and the tank includes secondary containment walls with a spill collection funnel, over-fill alarm, and other safety features as required by the Fire Code. Please see additional discussion on the health effects of asphalt sealant in the Environmental Appeal section below.

In response to Ms. Marquez’s concerns about air quality, staff clarified that the City uses BAAQMD guidelines for review of the CEQA documents. Although these guidelines are in the process of being updated, staff uses the current standards for review and analysis in the absence of updated guidelines. Staff maintains that the CEQA document was reviewed and analyzed appropriately concerning air quality impacts. The project has not been identified as having any cumulatively considerable impacts, and therefore the MND is the appropriate CEQA document for this project.

Environmental Determination Appeal and Permit Appeal
Pursuant to Section 21.04.140 of the San José Municipal Code, any interested person can submit a timely request to appeal to the City Council the determination made by the Planning Director, the Planning Commission, or a non-elected decision-making body regarding the appropriate environmental clearance for a project. At the Appeal Hearing, the City Council may uphold the Planning Director’s adoption of the IS/MND or require the preparation of new environmental documents in accordance with Title 21 of the Municipal Code.

The Appeal of the Environmental Determination (Exhibit A) was filed on December 10, 2021, by Marcus Espinoza. The appeal cited the following issues:
• The IS/MND is vague and does not thoroughly and accurately explain what activities will occur over the project’s lifetime that might affect air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and any other environmental impact category.

Page 6 ends

• Streets in the community, including Wabash Street and Grand Boulevard, have been damaged by heavy truck traffic.
• Asphalt production and diesel fumes, cumulatively from this project and other projects in the area, pollute the air, making it unsafe for residents. • The CEQA thresholds of the BAAQMD are outdated, and staff responded that the absence of a comment letter from BAAQMD after they had been sent the MND for review does not provide substantial evidence that this project will not have any significant impacts.
• The IS/MND did not adequately disclose that Alviso is designated as SB 1000, AB 535 Disadvantaged Community, and an AB 1550 Low-Income Community. Alviso residents are disproportionately affected by contamination, air pollution, and many cumulative environmental issues, including the former South Bay Asbestos Area on the National Priority List, 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 Microsoft San Jose Data Center, the Regional Wastewater Facility Cogeneration Project for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, and numerous unpermitted business with diesel trucks, Topgolf Entertainment Center’s traffic impacts, and other proposed projects.

A timely Appeal of the Site Development Permit (Exhibit B) was filed on December 14, 2021, by Manuel Martinez who lives within 1,000 feet of the project site. The appeal cited the following issues:
• Truck traffic issues
o Impacts to vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety
o Street and road damage caused by truck traffic
o Alviso infrastructure not adequate for truck traffic
o Increased diesel particulate matter caused by truck traffic o Construction debris falling from trucks
• Noise and nuisance
• Impacts to sensitive receptors
• Hours of operation
• Conflict with Alviso Master Plan Goals and Policies

The Environmental Determination Appeal and Permit Appeal issues are analyzed and further clarified below.

Page 7 ends

ANALYSIS

Environmental Determination Appeal
The IS/MND appeal referred to the vague project description, the lack of operational air quality analysis and health implications to nearby residences, noise discrepancies, the request for additional project conditions for best management practice for warehouse projects for overburdened communities, and additional impacts to existing infrastructures such as roadways.

Below is a summary of the issues and staff’s responses. A more detailed Response to the Environmental Appeal is available in Exhibit E of this document. • Project Description: The appellant claims the project description is too vague and does not fully describe the full scope of the proposed project and proposed recirculation of the IS/MND. The IS/MND disclosed that the 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 re-paving 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 this proposed corporation yard which include, “The corporation yard would be used for vehicle parking and equipment storage. During the 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 for asphalt sealants and would not constitute the introduction of a new asphalt batch plant.” Changes to the IS/MND have been made as part of the revised formal RTC posted prior to the Planning Director’s Hearing to clarify the project description in Section 2.11 Project Description of the IS/MND. Also, as disclosed in Exhibit E, Response to ESPINOZA-2 comment, the project use is parking company vehicles, equipment, and materials such as new wood, rebar, non-hazardous materials packaged. The site would have approximately five employees and does not propose late-night uses. These clarifications do not change the proposed already analyzed operation of the project.
• Air Quality and Health: The appellant claims that the project did not fully analyze the operation air quality. As stated in the IS/MND, the potential sources for pollutants of this proposed operation are diesel particulate matter emissions from the operation and movement of construction equipment and vehicles. However, the operation of these vehicles would be limited to transportation in and out of the site, and therefore would not be operating onsite for an extended period. Therefore, a qualitative operational Health Risk Analysis (HRA) was not required, consistent with BAAQMD guidance. However, for informational and full disclosure, a quantitative operational HRA was prepared as part of the response to this environmental appeal as supplemental information and to provide further evidence to the administrative record of the adequacy of the findings provided in the IS/MND and is available as part of the Response to the Environmental

Page 8 ends

Appeal document (Exhibit E). 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 represents a less than significant impact that is within acceptable levels.
• Noise: The appellant claims that the noise assessment was based on another facility and not representative of this particular location and environment. As stated on page 74 of the Final IS/MND, continuous recordings of the 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 and February 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. The analysis then modeled the typical noise of similar use to the information measured to model the noise increase from the project as the proposed project is not yet in operation. This is consistent with industry practice for a combination of utilizing existing data with modeling to predict operation level impacts.

Consistent with Section 3.5.1 in the IS/MND, 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 remain “Normally Acceptable” or 3 dBA DNL or more where noise levels would equal or exceed the “Normally Acceptable.” • Overburdened Communities: The appellant claims that the Alviso community is in an area with existing air quality pollutants, with many construction-type uses, and is overburdened with environmental impacts. Therefore, additional consideration should be applied to projects that add to this impact such as applying a condition requiring the applicant to implement 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 IS/MND and associated document determined that the incremental impacts of this proposal to the overall existing environment are not cumulatively considerable under Air Quality and therefore, is less than significant under CEQA thresholds.

None of the comments by the appellant raised any new issues about the project’s environmental impacts, nor do they provide information indicating the project would result in new environmental impacts or impacts substantially greater in severity than disclosed in the supporting IS/MND. Please refer to Exhibit E for an additional detailed Response to the Environmental Appeal. Therefore, the IS/MND and associated documents are adequate in its analysis of the proposed project.

Page 9 ends

Permit Appeal Analysis
The permit appeal referred to truck traffic issues, noise and nuisance issues, impacts to sensitive receptors, hours of operation, and conflict with Alviso Master Plan Goals and Policies, as stated above in the Background section. Below is a summary of the issues and staff’s response.

Truck Traffic Issues
Per the Operation Plan prepared by the applicant, truck traffic for the operator, Pacific Surfacing, Inc. (PSI) will use the routes designated by the yellow arrows. Commercial vehicles will not travel on any roads other than State Street (east of 1436 State Street), Spreckles Avenue, and Los Esteros Road. See reference map below.

The project’s impacts to transportation and traffic were analyzed in the IS/MND prepared for the project. Impacts caused by increased diesel particulate matter are addressed in the Air Quality section of the project’s environmental document, and appropriate mitigation measures were applied to the project (see the MMRP).

Noise and Nuisance
The appeal made general allegations related to noise and nuisance but failed to provide any specific data or information to the City to further investigate the claim. The Noise Assessment Study, prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., dated June 13, 2019, was analyzed in the IS/MND and summarized above in the Environmental Appeal section. 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

Page 10 ends

levels would remain “Normally Acceptable” or 3 dBA DNL or more where noise levels would equal or exceed the “Normally Acceptable.”

Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
The appeal made general allegations related to sensitive receptions but failed to provide any specific data or information to the City to further investigate the claim. Therefore, no further response is required. It is unclear what impacts are in question. Sensitive receptors include hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. These are areas where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

Hours of Operation
The appeal made general allegations related to hours of operation but failed to provide any specific data or information to the City to further investigate the claim. Per the project’s Operations Plan, the hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and noise-generating activities will not begin prior to 7:00 a.m. Additionally, a permit condition has been included in the Resolution to limit the outdoor activities on the project site to these hours.

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.

Conflict with Alviso Master Plan Goals and Policies
Again, there are no specifics identified in this item. It is unclear which goals and policies of the Alviso Master Plan are in question. This project is consistent with the Alviso Master Plan Goals and Policies as analyzed in the attached Site Development Permit Resolution (Exhibit F).

Specifically, the subject site is shown within the Light Industrial area in Figure 8, Land Use Plan, of the Alviso Master Plan. This area is described on page 24 as “a mix of industrial supply services, metalworking, equipment manufacturing, trucking companies, warehouses, marina and boat storage, and other open storage businesses.” The proposed corporation yard use is consistent with the Master Plan land use designation.

The project is also consistent with the policies of the Alviso Master Plan. Specific 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: Industrial uses located adjacent to or across the street from residential, school, or other sensitive uses should:

Page 11 ends

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.

The project design includes several trees and shrubs along the frontage of State Street to create compatibility 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., which is outside the hours between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. that could be considered a potential nuisance for the residences across State Street from the project. Commercial vehicles will not travel on any roads other than State Street, Spreckles Avenue, and Los Esteros Road on a direct route to Highway 237. The parking is consistent with the Zoning Code requirements per the analysis provided in the Site Development Permit resolution.

Summary
The comments in the Environmental Determination Appeal neither represent substantial evidence that raises a fair argument under CEQA nor raise new information that would result in a new analysis, significant impacts or mitigation measures, as compared to those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices. Therefore, the IS/MND and associated documents are adequate in their analyses of the proposed project.

The comments raised in the Permit Appeal do not negate any of the Site Development Permit findings and the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Light Industrial General Plan land use designation, the Alviso Master Plan, the Light Industrial Zoning District, and City Council development policies.

CONCLUSION

The IS/MND has been prepared in full compliance with CEQA and the Site Development Permit also conforms with the Site Development Permit findings set forth in San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.630. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution denying the environmental appeal and adopting the 1436 State Street Project MND and associated MMRP and adopt the proposed resolution denying the appeal and approving Site Development Permit No. H21-049 based on this memorandum, the resolution, and evidence in the administrative record. The subject project conforms to the applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code, and City Council development policies.

Page 12 ends

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW UP

If the City Council denies the environmental determination appeal and adopts the IS/MND and MMRP and denies the permit appeal and approves the Site Development Permit, the applicant may move forward with grading and building permits for the project to allow the reconfiguration of an existing vacant building to warehouse and incidental office use, the addition of an outdoor materials storage pad, a propane tank, and a utility building with staff locker rooms and a trash enclosure, for a new corporation yard on an approximately 0.97-gross acre site. The project would be required to adhere to the project’s conditions of approval and MMRP.

CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSE

The recommendation in this memorandum aligns with one or more Climate Smart San José energy, water, or mobility goals. The development of the project would:
• Facilitate job creation within City limits

POLICY ALTERNATIVES

The Council has two distinct decisions to make:

1. For the Environmental Appeal, the Council can either:
a. Deny the appeal and uphold the adoption of the MND, or b. Grant the appeal and require that additional environmental review be conducted, resulting in a new or revised environmental document prior to consideration of the Site Development Permit, or the applicant not moving forward with the project.

2. For the Site Development Permit appeal, if the Council denies the environmental appeal, then it can consider the Site Development Permit. In such circumstances, the Council may:
a. Approve the Site Development Permit as approved by the Planning Director, or b. Approve the Site Development Permit with additional modifications to the conditions, or
c. Deny the Site Development Permit.

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the environmental appeal and adopt the MND and deny the permit appeal and approve the Site Development Permit.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

Staff followed City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy to inform the public of the proposed project. Following Policy 6-30, the on-site sign has been posted at the site since

Page 13 ends

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.

COORDINATION

The preparation of this memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT

No commission recommendation or input is associated with this action; the project was considered at a Planning Director’s Hearing on December 8, 2021.

CEQA

1436 State Street Project Mitigated Negative Declaration.

/s/
CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Director
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

For questions, please contact Deputy Director, Robert Manford, at (408) 535-7900.

Attachments:

Exhibit A: Appeal of the Environmental Determination
Exhibit B: Appeal of the Site Development Permit
Exhibit C: Appealed Site Development Permit H21-049 Plan Set Exhibit D: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Technical Reports, and Responses to Comments
Exhibit E: Response to the Environmental Appeal
Exhibit F: Site Development Permit Resolution
Exhibit G: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Resolution and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit H: Letter to City Council from Applicant
Exhibit I: Public Comments
Exhibit J: Operations Plan

San Jose City CouncilMarch 15, 2022

San Jose City Council
March 15, 2022