San Jose City Council
February 28, 2023

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

1 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
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 CERTIFYING THE 1881 WEST SAN CARLOS

PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(FILE NOS. BURBANK 44, C20-011), MAKING CERTAIN

FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,

MITIGATION MEASURES, AND ALTERNATIVES,

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ALL IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, the proposed project at 1881 West San Carlos includes the demolition of all existing structures on the 0.895-gross-acre site and the construction of a 7-story, 227,617-square-foot mixed-use development consisting of a 246-bed, 125,262-square- foot residential care facility for the elderly, 61 multi-family residential units, and 6,000 square feet of ground floor retail space with alternative parking on the ground floor and in the basement (the “Project”) located on the northeast corner of West San Carlos Street and Brooklyn Avenue (APNs 274-16-050, 052, 053, 069 & 070) in the City of San José (the “subject property”); and

WHEREAS, approval of the Project would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State and local implementation guidelines and policies promulgated thereunder, all as amended to date (collectively, "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, the City, acting as lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for the 1881 West San Carlos Project (Planning File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, and T20-016) dated June 2022; and

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

2 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

WHEREAS, a First Amendment to the Draft EIR was prepared to include responses to comments received during the public comment period and to make any technical or text changes to the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, the First Amendment and the Draft EIR together comprise the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Project; and

WHEREAS, the FEIR concluded that implementation of the Project could result in certain significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant impacts but not to a less than significant level; and

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of San José reviewed the FEIR and recommended the City Council find the FEIR was completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and further recommended the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the FEIR; and

WHEREAS, as required under CEQA, a program to monitor and report on the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment has been prepared for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”); and

WHEREAS, the decision-making body of a public agency is required under CEQA to make certain findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts and adopt a statement of overriding considerations for any impact that may not be reduced to a less than significant level;

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

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

3 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein as if set forth in the body of this Resolution.

2. The City Council finds and certifies the FEIR has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA.

3. The FEIR was presented to the City Council, the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving the Project, and, as lead agency for the Project, the City Council finds the FEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San José and designates the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement at 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San José, California 95113 as the custodian of records on which the decision of the City is based.

4. The City Council recognizes the FEIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other information in response to comments on the Draft EIR or obtained after the Draft EIR was issued and circulated for public review and hereby finds such changes and additional information would not result in: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact not already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR, (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project.

5. The City Council finds and determines that recirculation of this FEIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under CEQA.

6. The City Council makes the following findings with respect to potentially significant environmental impacts, as identified in the FEIR, with the understanding that all the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the FEIR.

1881 WEST SAN CARLOS PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Through project scoping and the environmental analysis contained within the FEIR, it was determined that the Project would not result in a potential significant effect on the environment with respect to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, energy, geology and soils and minerals, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

4 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
service systems, wildfire, and unplanned growth. A summary of the reasons for this determination can be found in Chapters 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.14,

3.15, 3.16, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, and 4.0 of the Draft EIR. No further findings are required for these subject areas.

Findings for Significant but Mitigated Impacts

Air Quality

Impact: Impact AIR-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would expose the project’s off-site maximum exposed individual (MEI) to a cancer risk of 18.87 cases per one million (for infants) which exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 10 cases per one million for infants.

Mitigation: MM AIR-1.1: Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and/or building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the project applicant shall implement the following control measures to reduce toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions.

 All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total, use equipment that meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).  If Tier 4 equipment is not available, all construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall use equipment that meet U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 50 percent reduction in diesel particulate matter emissions.
 Use of alternatively fueled or electric equipment.

The project applicant shall submit a construction operations plan prepared by an air quality professional that outlines how the construction contractor will achieve the measures outlined above. The plan shall be submitted 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, and/or building permits (whichever occurs earliest).

Finding: With implementation of the Standard Permit Conditions and Mitigation Measure AIR-1.1, the MEI infant residential cancer risk would be reduced NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

5 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
to 4.05 per one million cases which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 cases per one million for infants. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant TAC impact to nearby sensitive receptors. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Facts in Support of the Finding: As detailed in the Air Quality discussion in Section

3.3.2.2 of the Draft EIR, the residential exposure of the off-site maximally exposed individual for the proposed project would be 18.87 parts per million which exceeds the BAAQMD single-source threshold of 10.0 per million for cancer risk. Mitigation Measure MM AIR-1.1 includes control measures which would reduce the cancer risk to 4.05 cases per one million, which is below the BAAQMD single-source threshold.

Biological Resources
Impact: Impact BIO-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment, which would constitute a significant impact under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800.

Mitigation: MM BIO-1.1: Tree removal and construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area, extends from February 1st through August 31st, inclusive.

If tree removals and construction cannot be scheduled outside of nesting season, a qualified ornithologist shall complete pre-construction surveys to identify active raptor nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February 1st through April 30th, inclusive) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May 1st through August 31st, inclusive), unless a shorter pre-construction survey is determined to be appropriate based on the presence of a species with a shorter nesting period, such as Yellow Warblers. During this survey, the qualified ornithologist will inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in and immediately adjacent to the construction areas for nests. If an active nest is found in an area that will be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist will designate a construction- free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) to be established around the nest. The buffer would ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests will not be disturbed during project construction.

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

6 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any demolition or grading permits (whichever occurs first), the qualified applicant shall submit an ornithologist’s report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee.

Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1, the Project would not result in an adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species including nesting birds and raptors. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Facts in Support of the Finding: As described in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Nesting birds are considered special-status species and are protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800. The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance. Construction activities on the project site could result in the loss of eggs or nests to surrounding trees and in nest abandonment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1.1 will ensure that if construction cannot avoid the nesting season, any nesting birds on the project site and immediately adjacent to the project site are identified, and buffer zones around the trees with nests are established to ensure that the nests are protected during construction activities.

Noise and Vibration

Impact: Impact NOI-1: Construction noise would exceed ambient levels by 5.0 dBA or more for a period of more than one year.

Mitigation: MM NOI-1.1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit and implement a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting and notification of construction schedules, equipment to be used, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. In addition, the noise disturbance coordinator shall respond to neighborhood complaints and shall be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

7 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. The noise logistic plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits.

As part of the noise logistic plan, construction activities for the proposed project shall include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:

 Limit construction hours to between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday for any on-site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit. 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 mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential use.
 Use “new technology” power construction equipment with state-of- the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. Equip all internal combustion engines with adequate mufflers and maintain all equipment in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components.  Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Locate staging areas and stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors (a minimum of 200 feet, where feasible).
 Notify the surrounding neighborhood within 500 feet early and frequently of the construction activities.
 Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” to respond to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.  Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

8 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
 Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located within 200 feet of adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps. Typically, a minimum height of eight feet would be adequate.
 Stationary noise-generating equipment that must be located near receptors shall use adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate). Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.
 Ensure that generators, compressors, and pumps are housed in acoustical enclosures.
 Locate cranes as far from adjoining noise-sensitive receptors as possible.
 Substitute graders for bulldozers, where feasible, during final grading. Use wheeled heavy equipment, where feasible. Wheeled heavy equipment are quieter than track equipment.
 Substitute nail guns for manual hammering, where feasible.  Substitute electrically powered tools for noisier pneumatic tools, where feasible.

Finding: With implementation of the Standard Permit Condition identified in the Draft EIR and Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1, the Project would have a less than significant impact from the increase in ambient noise levels in the project area from construction. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Facts in Support of Finding: Policy EC-1.7 of the City’s General Plan requires that all construction activities within the City use best available noise suppression devices and techniques and limit construction hours near residential uses per the Municipal Code, which are between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays when construction occurs within 500 feet of a residential use.

Further, the City considers a significant construction noise impact to occur if a project is located within 500 feet of a residential use or 200 feet of a commercial or office use and would involve substantial noise-generating activities continuing for a period of more than 12 months. The proposed project would be located approximately 105 feet south and 175 feet west of the nearest residential uses, and 175 feet east and 200 feet north of NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

9 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
commercial uses, respectively. Project construction is expected to last for a period of approximately two years.

Because project construction would exceed 12 months in duration and the project site is located within 500 feet of residential uses, there will be a significant construction noise impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 includes best management practices such as limiting hours of construction, implementing measures to minimize noise and vibration, and using equipment with noise shielding and muffling devices that will lessen the construction noise to less than significant levels.

Impact: Impact NOI-2: Construction vibration levels would exceed the 0.08 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold for nearby historical buildings within 55 feet of the project site.

Mitigation: MM NOI-2.1: The project applicant shall implement a Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan (Plan) to document conditions of 24 Brooklyn Avenue, 19 Boston Avenue, and 12 Boston Avenue prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities. All Plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry- accepted standard methods. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, whichever occurs earliest. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:

 A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (e.g., tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building or Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds.
 Place operating equipment on the construction site at least 30 feet from vibration-sensitive receptors.
 Use the smallest equipment available to complete the task and minimize vibration levels as low as feasible.
 Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.  Select demolition methods not involving impact tools.

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

10 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
 Modify/design or identify alternative construction methods to reduce vibration levels below the limits.
 Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.
 Identify sensitivity to ground-borne vibration of the property. A vibration survey (generally described below) would need to be performed.
- Perform a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each historic structure within 60 feet of construction activities. Surveys shall be performed and documented prior to any construction activity, in regular intervals during construction, and after project completion. The surveys shall include internal and external crack monitoring in the structure, settlement, and distress, and shall document the condition of the foundation, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of the structure.
- Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. Construction contingencies shall be identified for when vibration levels approached the limits. If vibration levels approach limits, construction shall be suspended and
contingency measures shall be implemented to lower vibration or secure affected structures.
- Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site. - Conduct a post-survey on the structure where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage. Make appropriate repairs in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.
- The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of each phase identified in the project schedule. The report shall include a description of measurement methods, equipment used,
calibration certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration-monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

11 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
exceeded vibration limits shall be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims.

Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1, the Project would have a less than significant construction vibration impact. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Facts in Support of Finding: Table 3.13-4 of the Draft EIR shows typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at 25 feet. Vibration levels during construction activities could exceed the General Plan threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV at the adjacent historic buildings located within 55 feet of the project site. Because historic buildings are typically fragile and exposure to excessive vibration levels could potentially damage these buildings, Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1 includes measures to ensure that the Project-generated vibration levels would not exceed the General Plan threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV and any potential damage could be minimized.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Transportation

Impact: Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is calculated to be 12.84, which would exceed the VMT per the employee threshold of 12.21 by 5.2 percent.

Mitigation: MM TRANS-1.1: (a) The applicant shall identify a transportation demand management (TDM) coordinator who shall be responsible for implementing a ride-sharing program for at least 15 percent of future employees who have similar commutes. If the TDM coordinator changes, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee and tenants of the project shall be notified of the name and contact information of the new designated TDM coordinator.

(b) The TDM coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring that the project meets the City’s annual monitoring requirements. Monitoring shall include the following:

 Annual Vehicle Trip Generation Counts (conducted by a third party). Only the vehicle trip generation counts at the Brooklyn Avenue and Boston Avenue driveways entering the assisted-living surface parking area shall be counted. If the counts show that the NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

12 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
project trip generation is higher than expected, then the TDM plan shall be altered or enhanced.
 Annual Mode Share Surveys. A survey shall be administered to all employees. This would provide qualitative data regarding employee perceptions of the alternative transportation programs and perceptions of the obstacles to using an alternative mode of transportation. The survey also would provide quantitative data regarding the number of employees who utilize alternative modes of transportation (e.g., bike-to-work, carpool, or use public transit) to commute to work, including the frequency of use. The mode share survey results should measure the relative effectiveness of individual TDM program components and facilitate the design of possible program enhancements in order to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips.
 Annual Monitoring Report. The TDM coordinator shall be responsible for submitting the monitoring reports to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee for three years, and then upon request of the Zoning Administrator for the life of the project.

Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1.1, the Project VMT would be reduced to 11.79 per employee which is below the threshold of

12.21 per employee. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the transportation system based on the City’s VMT impact criteria. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed project would result in a significant impact if it results in a VMT that exceeds 10.12 per capita or 12.21 VMT per employee. The City’s VMT Evaluation Tool indicates that the Project would have a VMT per capita of 7.95 and 12.84 VMT per employee. While the Project would not exceed the VMT per capita threshold, it would exceed the VMT per employee threshold by 5.2 percent. Implementation of a ride sharing program for at least 15 percent of future employees as outlined in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1.1, would reduce Project VMT to 11.79 per employee which would be below the threshold of 12.21 per employee.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

13 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Cultural Resources

Impact: Impact CUL-1: The buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street are eligible for listing in the San José Historic Resources Inventory as Candidate City Landmarks. Demolition of these buildings would result in a significant unavoidable impact.

Mitigation: MM CUL-1.1: Documentation: The buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street shall be documented in accordance with the guidelines established for the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and shall consist of the following components:

1. Drawings – Prepare sketch floor plans.

2. Photographs – Digital photographic documentation of the interior, exterior, and setting of the buildings in compliance with the National Register Photo Policy Fact Sheet. Photos must have a permanency rating of approximately 75 years.

3. Written Data – HABS written documentation in short form.

An architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall oversee the preparation of the sketch plans, photographs and written data. The existing DPR forms shall fulfill the requirements for the written data report.

The City of San José’s Historic Preservation Officer shall review the documentation, and then the applicant shall file the documentation with the San José Library’s California Room and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the repository for the California Historical Resources Information System prior to the issuance of any demolition permits. All documentation shall be submitted on archival paper.

Relocation by a Third Party: The buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street shall be advertised for relocation by a third party. The project applicant shall be required to advertise the availability of the buildings for a period of no less than 30 days.

The advertisements must include a newspaper of general circulation, a website, and notice on the project site. The project applicant must provide evidence (i.e., receipts, date and time stamped photographs, etc.) to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

14 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
designee that this condition has been met prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, whichever comes first.

If a third party does agree to relocate the buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street, the following measures shall be completed:

1. The City’s Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee, based on consultation with the City’s Historic Preservation Officer, must determine that the receiver site is suitable for the building.

2. Prior to relocation, the project applicant or third party shall hire an historic preservation architect and a structural engineer to undertake an existing condition study. The purpose of the study shall be to establish the baseline condition of the building prior to relocation. The documentation shall take the form of written descriptions and visual illustrations, including those character-defining physical features of the resource that convey its historic significance and must be protected and preserved. The documentation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Historic Preservation Officer prior to the structure being moved. Documentation already completed shall be used to the extent possible to avoid repetition in work.

3. To protect the building during relocation, the third party shall engage a building mover who has experience moving similar historic structures. A structural engineer shall also be engaged to determine if the building needs to be reinforced/stabilized before the move.

4. Once moved, the building shall be repaired and restored, as needed, by the project applicant or third party in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In particular, the character-defining features shall be restored in a manner that preserves the integrity of the features for the long-term preservation of these features.

Upon completion of the repairs, a qualified architectural historian shall document and confirm that renovations of the structure were completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and that all character-defining features were preserved. The project applicant shall submit a report to the City’s Historic Preservation Officer documenting the relocation.

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

15 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Salvage: If no third party relocates the buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street, they shall be made available for salvage to salvage companies facilitating the reuse of historic building materials. The time frame available for salvage shall be established by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee, together with the City’s Historic Preservation Officer.

The project applicant must provide evidence to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee, that this condition has been met prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, whichever comes first.

MM CUL-1.2: A qualified historian shall create a permanent interpretive program, exhibit, or display of the history of the property including, but not limited to, historic and current condition photographs, interpretive text, drawings, video, interactive media, or oral histories. Any exhibit or display shall be placed in a suitable publicly accessible location on the project site.

The final design of the commemorative interpretive program, exhibit, or display shall be determined in coordination with the City’s Historic Preservation Officer.

Finding: Even with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, demolition or salvage of these buildings would be a significant unavoidable impact because they would be permanently lost. Relocation, while preserving the buildings in a different location, would also result in a loss of connection to their current location in the Burbank community. (Significant Unavoidable Impact)

Facts in Support of the Finding: The building at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street does not meet any of the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). However, the building is representative of the interwar period in Burbank, which was largely located in unincorporated Santa Clara County.

The building is a remnant of the early retail district and was conducted circa 1925 by John and Cornelia Klitsch. It is one of the few remaining commercial buildings on West San Carlos Street that represent the early 20th century development of Burbank prior to the rapid industrialization of San José in the Post World War II era. Therefore, the City concluded that this building is eligible for listing in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) as a Candidate City landmark.

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

16 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Likewise, the building at 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street does not meet the criteria for listing under the NRHP or the CRHR. However, the building is similarly eligible for listing in the HRI as a Candidate City Landmark as one of the few remaining commercial buildings on West San Carlos Street that represent the early 20th century development of Burbank. While the building is not an example of "high-style" architecture, the modest interpretations of the architectural styles popular at the time are representative of the era of history and the people that lived in the Burbank community in the early 20th century.

Based on the above, relocation of the buildings would take away from the buildings’ association with the development of the surrounding Burbank area and create a significant impact. Demolition of the buildings would destroy the few remaining buildings of the post-World War II era. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES

To comply with CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce any anticipated significant impacts from the Project and try to meet as many of the Project’s objectives as possible. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a common-sense approach, meaning the alternatives should be reasonable, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts.

The alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR were developed with the goal of being at least potentially feasible, given Project objectives and site constraints, while avoiding or reducing the Project’s identified environmental effects.

The objectives for the Project are as follows:

1. Provide a project that meets the Envision San José 2040 General Plan goals of providing housing at higher densities and the City’s West San Carlos Urban Village Plan by increasing employment and residential capacities.

2. Provide housing that responds to the needs of the community including seniors and families in keeping with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan policies for social equity and diversity and the development of multi-generational housing.

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

17 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

3. Support San José’s Environmental Stewardship goals by providing a modern LEED building with sustainable energy and water usage, natural ventilation, and electric vehicle (EV) parking.

4. Create a senior care facility and ground floor retail to emphasize economic development within the City to support San José’s growth as a center of innovation and regional employment. Growing San José’s role as an employment center; increase use of the regional transit systems and supporting the City’s fiscal health.

5. Promote the development of Urban Villages to provide active, walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed-use urban settings for new housing and job growth activity to an innovative workforce and consistent with the General Plan’s environmental goals.

6. Intensify an existing low-density land use into high-density, mixed-use urban commercial and residential per the Urban Village Plan.

7. Provide bicycle parking for residents to help support the goals of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.

8. Per the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, create “new commercial and mixed uses to enhance the circulation within the village”, to reflect Goal UD-1 and UD-3.3 by creating active retail on the ground floor uses along West San Carlos Street.

The following alternatives were considered and rejected for the reasons stated below:

 Location Alternative: The applicant does not have ownership or control over other locations in the project area that are of the size required for the Project.  Preservation Alternative 1 – Relocation and Preservation of Historic Resources Off-Site: The applicant hired a broker to determine the availability of land to relocate the historic buildings but was unable to find a viable receiver site.

The following are evaluated as alternatives to the proposed Project:

1. No Project Alternative

2. Preservation Alternative 2 – Preservation of Historic Resources On-Site

3. Preservation Alternative 3 – Preservation of 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street Building On-Site

4. Preservation Alternative 4 – Preservation of 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street Building On-Site

NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

18 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

1. No Project Alternative
A. Description of Alternative: The No Project Alternative would retain the existing uses on-site. The significant impacts of the Project would not occur.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Under this alternative, none of the impacts of the Project would occur. This alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. It is possible that in the future an alternative development proposal may be presented for the project site. Based on the land use for the parcel, any future project would likely be similar to the proposed project with similar impacts.

C. Findings: While this alternative would have no new significant impacts because there would be no development on the site, the alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. Additionally, the City would lose this opportunity to redevelop an underutilized site to meet the strategies and goals of the City’s General Plan and the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

2. Preservation Alternative 2
Preservation of Historic Resources On-Site
A. Description of Alternative: Under Preservation Alternative 2, Buildings 1 and 2 (totaling 10,738 square feet) would be retained on-site. Building 1 would be used as retail space while Building 2 would be retail and office space. The two historic resources that would be preserved on-site would be required to be maintained and reused in an appropriate manner consistent with applicable standards to maintain their historic significance. Under this alternative, the proposed senior care component would have the same height and massing and have the same number of units as the proposed project. The proposed residential units of the condominium component would be reduced from 61 units to 20 units.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Preservation of both historic structures would result in a less than significant project-level and cumulative cultural resources impact when compared to the proposed project. All other impacts would remain the same and this alternative would be required to implement all mitigation measures (AIR-1.1, BIO-1.1, NOI-1.1, NOI-2.1, and TRANS-1.1), Standard Permit Conditions, and Conditions of Approval identified for the proposed project.

Therefore, the impacts to air quality, biological resources, noise, and transportation would be reduced to a less than significant level.

C. Findings: Preservation Alternative 2 would meet almost all Project objectives except objectives 1 and 6. As mentioned above, the proposed residential units would be reduced from 61 units to 20 units (a loss of 41 residential units). This NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

19 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
alternative would result in a less than significant project-level and cumulative cultural resources impact when compared to the proposed project, but all other impacts would remain the same or less than the proposed project because the alternative would still result in a ground disturbance and major construction activities would still occur for a period of greater than one year due to the size of the Project. While this alternative would slightly increase residential capacity on- site, it would not intensify the land use to a high-density, mixed-use project compared to the proposed project.

3. Preservation Alternative 3
Preservation of 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street Building On-Site A. Description of Alternative: Under Preservation Alternative 3, Building 2 (totaling approximately 6,914 square feet) would be retained on-site while Building 1 would be demolished. Any historic resources that would be preserved on-site would be required to be maintained and reused in an appropriate manner. Similar to Preservation Alternative 2, the proposed senior care component would have the same height and massing and have the same number of units as the proposed project. Under this alternative, the proposed condominium component would be split into two with Building 2 located in between. One of the condominium buildings would consist of 20 residential units while the other building would consist of 10 units.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: While preservation of Building 2 would reduce the impact to less than significant for that structure, demolition of Building 1 would still have a significant unavoidable project-level and cumulative cultural resources impact. All other impacts would remain the same and this alternative would be required to implement all mitigation measures (AIR-1.1, BIO-1.1, NOI-

1.1, NOI-2.1, and TRANS-1.1), Standard Permit Conditions, and Conditions of Approval identified for the proposed project. Therefore, the impacts to air quality, biological resources, noise, and transportation would be reduced to a less than significant level.

C. Findings: Preservation Alternative 3 would meet almost all Project objectives except objectives 1 and 6. The proposed residential units would be reduced from 61 units to 30 units (a loss of 31 residential units). This alternative would still result in a significant project-level and cumulative cultural resources impact when compared to the proposed project, and all other impacts would remain the same or less than the proposed project because the alternative would still result in a ground disturbance and major construction activities would still occur for a period of greater than one year due to the size of the Project. Similar to Preservation Alternative 2, while this alternative would slightly increase residential capacity on- NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

20 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
site, it would not intensify the land use to a high-density, mixed-use project compared to the proposed project.

4. Preservation Alternative 4
Preservation of 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street Building On-Site A. Description of Alternative: Under Preservation Alternative 4, Building 1 (approximately 3,824 square feet) would be retained on-site. Similar to Preservation Alternatives 2 and 3, the proposed senior care component would have the same height and massing and have the same number of units as the proposed project. Under this alternative, an additional 2,176 square feet of ground floor retail space would be proposed for a total of 6,000 square feet of retail space.

The residential units of the proposed condominium component would be reduced from 61 units to 35 units.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: While preservation of Building 1 would reduce the impact to less than significant for that structure, demolition of Building 2 would still have a significant unavoidable project-level and cumulative cultural resources impact. All other impacts would remain the same and this alternative would be required to implement all mitigation measures (AIR-1.1, BIO-1.1, NOI-

1.1, NOI-2.1, and TRANS-1.1), Standard Permit Conditions, and Conditions of Approval identified for the proposed project. Therefore, the impacts to air quality, biological resources, noise, and transportation would be reduced to a less than significant level.

C. Findings: Similar to Preservation Alternatives 2 and 3, Preservation Alternative 4 would meet almost all Project objectives except objectives 1 and 6. The proposed residential units would be reduced from 61 units to 35 units (a loss of 26 residential units). This alternative would still result in a significant project-level and cumulative cultural resources impact when compared to the proposed project, and all other impacts would remain the same or less than the proposed project because the alternative would still result in a ground disturbance and major construction activities would still occur for a period of greater than one year due to the size of the Project. Similar to Preservation Alternative 2 and 3, while this alternative would slightly increase residential capacity on-site, it would not intensify the land use to a high-density, mixed-use project compared to the proposed project.

Environmentally Superior Project

The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. Based on the discussion of project alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative to the Project is the No Project Alternative because it would avoid all of the NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

21 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Project’s significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Therefore, in addition to the No Project Alternative, the Preservation Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative because it would preserve both historic structures on-site and would not result in a significant project-level and cumulative impacts to cultural resources.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council of the City of San José hereby adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining significant and unavoidable impact of the Project as outlined above and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project.

A. Significant Unavoidable Impact. With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included in the administrative record, the City has determined the Project has significant unmitigated or unavoidable impacts, as set forth above, associated with buildings that are Candidate City Landmark structures which would be demolished under the proposed project.

B. Overriding Considerations. The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations that this Project, has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining significant, unavoidable impact of the Project are acceptable in light of the economic, legal, environmental, social, technological or other considerations noted below, because the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and adverse impacts of the Project. The City Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are supported by evidence in the administrative record that includes, but is not limited to, the Envision San José 2040 General Plan and the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

C. Benefits of the Proposed Project. The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed project and other written materials presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all hearings related to the Project and does hereby determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits:
 Develop approximately 61 housing units to achieve the Envision San José NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

22 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
2040 General Plan goals of providing housing at higher densities and the City’s West San Carlos Urban Village Plan by increasing employment and residential capacities.
 Provide 246 senior care beds that responds to the needs of the community including seniors and families in keeping with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan policies for social equity and diversity and the development of multi-generational housing.
 Create “new commercial and mixed uses to enhance the circulation within the village,” by creating active retail on the ground floor uses along West San Carlos Street as envisioned in the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.  Support the City’s environmental stewardship goals by providing a modern LEED building with sustainable energy and water usage, natural ventilation and electric vehicle parking.
 Create a senior care facility and ground floor retail to emphasize economic development within the City to support San José’s growth as a center of innovation and regional employment.
 Promote the development of Urban Villages to provide active, walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed-use urban settings for new housing and job growth activity to an innovative workforce and consistent with the General Plan’s environmental goals.
 Intensify an existing low-density land use into high-density, mixed-use urban commercial and residential per the Urban Village Plan.
 Provide bicycle parking for residents to help support the goals of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.
 Provide a Transit Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce vehicle trips and parking demand by promoting the use of multimodal transportation options including a ride-share program.

The City Council has weighed each of the above benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR, and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects of the Project and, therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable and overridden.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A” and incorporated and adopted as part of this Resolution herein is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the NVF:DHZ:JMD
2/14/2023

23 T-51008.001 \ 1982802_2
Council Agenda: 02-28-2023
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Project required under California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP identifies impacts of the Project, corresponding mitigation, designation for responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency responsible for the monitoring action.

LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS

The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council based the foregoing findings and approval of the Project are located at the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San José, CA 95113.

ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016
June 2022
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 1 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

PREFACE
S
ection 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the 1881 West San Carlos 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 MMRP addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

This document does not discuss those subjects for which the EIR concluded that the impacts from implementation of the project would be less than significant.

I, , the applicant, on the behalf of , hereby agree to implement the mitigation measures described below which have been developed in conjunction with the preparation of an EIR 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___________________________________________________________ DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 2 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016 1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
D ocumentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
M ethod of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility Actions/Reports
Monitoring
Timing or
Schedule

AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would expose the project’s off-site maximum exposed individual (MEI) to cancer risk in excess of the BAAQMD threshold of 10 cases per one million for infants.

MM AIR-1.1: Prior to the issuance of any demolition,
grading and/or building permits (whichever occurs
earliest), the project applicant shall implement the
following control measures to reduce toxic air
contaminant (TAC) emissions.

A ll construction equipment larger than 25
horsepower used at the site for more than two
continuous days or 20 hours total, use equipment
that meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Tier 4 emission standards for particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

I f Tier 4 equipment is not available, all construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the
site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours
total shall use equipment that meet U.S. EPA
emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include
particulate matter emissions control equivalent to
CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control
devices that altogether achieve a 50 percent
reduction in diesel particulate matter emissions.

U se of alternatively fueled or electric equipment.

Submit a construction
operations plan prepared by
the construction contractor
that outlines how the
measures will be achieved
as outlined in MM AIR-1.1.

Prior to issuance of
any demolition,
grading, or building
permits (whichever
occurs earliest).

Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or
Director’s designee.

Review/approve
construction
operations plan.

Prior to
issuance of any
demolition,
grading, or
building
permits
(whichever
occurs earliest).

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 3 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016 1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
D ocumentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
M ethod of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility Actions/Reports
Monitoring
Timing or
Schedule
The project applicant shall submit a construction
operations plan prepared by an air quality professional that outlines how the construction contractor will
achieve the measures outlined above. The plan shall be
submitted 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, and/or building permits (whichever occurs
earliest).

Implementation of the measures described above will
reduce the impacts below BAAQMD significance
thresholds of 10 cases per one million for cancer risk
and 0.3 µg/m3 for PM2.5, respectively.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment, which would constitute a significant impact under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800.

MM BIO-1.1: Tree removal and construction shall be
scheduled to avoid the nesting season. The nesting
season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area, extends from February 1st through
August 31st, inclusive.

If tree removals and construction cannot be scheduled
outside of nesting season, a qualified ornithologist shall Avoid construction
activities during nesting
seasons. If construction
activities cannot be
scheduled outside of
nesting season, conduct a
pre-construction nesting
Prior to issuance of
any tree removal,
grading, demolition,
and/or building
permit or activities.

Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or
Director’s designee.

Confirm that
demolition and
construction
activities are
scheduled outside
of the nesting
season, or
Prior to
issuance of any
tree removal,
grading,
demolition,
and/or building
permit or
activities.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 4 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016 1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
D ocumentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
M ethod of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility Actions/Reports
Monitoring
Timing or
Schedule
complete pre-construction surveys to identify active
raptor nests that may be disturbed during project
implementation. This survey shall be completed no
more than 14 days prior to the initiation of
demolition/construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February 1st through April 30th, inclusive) and no more than 30 days prior to the
initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May 1st through August 31st,
inclusive), unless a shorter pre-construction survey is determined to be appropriate based on the presence of a species with a shorter nesting period, such as Yellow
Warblers. During this survey, the qualified ornithologist will inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in and immediately adjacent to the construction areas for nests. If an active nest is found in an area that will be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist will
designate a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) to be established around the nest. The buffer would ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests will not be
disturbed during project construction.

Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any demolition or grading permits (whichever occurs first), the qualified applicant shall submit an ornithologist’s report
indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of
bird survey by a qualified
ornithologist in compliance
with the survey timing
defined in MM BIO-1.1,
designate a construction-
free buffer zone around any
discovered nest.

The ornithologist shall
submit a report indicating
the results of the survey
and any designated buffer
zones.
review report
indicating the
results of the
survey and any
designated buffer
zones.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 5 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s
designee.

Implementation of the measures described above will
reduce significant impacts to loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest abandonment.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1: The buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San Carlos Street are eligible for listing in the San José Historic Resources Inventory as Candidate City Landmarks. Demolition of these buildings would result in a significant unavoidable impact.

MM CUL-1.1: Documentation: The buildings at 1883-
1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San
Carlos Street shall be documented in accordance with
the guidelines established for the Historic American
Building Survey (HABS) and shall consist of the
following components:

1. Drawings – Prepare sketch floor plans.

2. Photographs – Digital photographic documentation of
the interior, exterior, and setting of the buildings in compliance with the National Register Photo Policy Fact Sheet. Photos must have a permanency rating of
approximately 75 years.

3. Written Data – HABS written documentation in short
form.

Documentation
Prepare and submit
documentation of the in
accordance with the
guidelines established for
the Historic American
Building Survey (HABS).

All documentation shall be
submitted on archival
paper.

An architectural historian
and historian meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification
Standards shall oversee the
Prior
to issuance of
any grading or
demolition permits,
whichever comes
first.

Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or the
Director’s designee

City’s Historic
Preservation Officer
Review and
approve
documentation.

Review evidence of
advertisements.

Coordinate with the
qualified historian
on the final design
of the
commemorative
interpretive
Prior
to
issuance of any
grading or
demolition
permits,
whichever
comes first.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 6 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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

An architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall
oversee the preparation of the sketch plans, photographs and written data. The existing DPR forms shall fulfill
the requirements for the written data report.

The City of San José’s Historic Preservation Officer
shall review the documentation, and then the applicant
shall file the documentation with the San José Library’s California Room and the Northwest Information Center
at Sonoma State University, the repository for the
California Historical Resources Information System
prior to the issuance of any demolition permits. All
documentation shall be submitted on archival paper.

Relocation by a Third Party: The buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West San Carlos
Street shall be advertised for relocation by a third party.

The project applicant shall be required to advertise the availability of the buildings for a period of no less than 30 days. The advertisements must include a newspaper
of general circulation, a website, and notice on the
project site. The project applicant must provide evidence (i.e., receipts, date and time stamped photographs, etc.) to the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement or the Director’s designee that this
preparation of the sketch
plans, photographs,
research and written data.

Relocation
Advertise the buildings at
1883-1887 West San
Carlos Street and 1891-
1895 West San Carlos
Street for relocation by a
third party. Advertise the
availability of the structure
for a period of no less than
30 days. Evidence (i.e.,
receipts, date and time
stamped photographs, etc.)
shall be provided to the
Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or the
Director’s designee that
this condition has been met
prior to the issuance of
demolition or grading
permits, whichever comes
first.

program, exhibit,
or display.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 7 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016 1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
D ocumentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
M ethod of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility Actions/Reports
Monitoring
Timing or
Schedule
condition has been met prior to the issuance of
demolition or grading permits, whichever comes first.

If a third party does agree to relocate the buildings at 1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West
San Carlos Street, the following measures shall be
completed:

1. The City’s Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement or the Director’s designee, based on
consultation with the City’s Historic Preservation
Officer, must determine that the receiver site is suitable for the building.

2. Prior to relocation, the project applicant or third party shall hire a historic preservation architect and a
structural engineer to undertake an existing condition
study. The purpose of the study shall be to establish the baseline condition of the building prior to relocation.

The documentation shall take the form of written
descriptions and visual illustrations, including those
character-defining physical features of the resource that convey its historic significance and must be protected
and preserved. The documentation shall be reviewed
and approved by the City’s Historic Preservation Officer prior to the structure being moved. Documentation
already completed shall be used to the extent possible to avoid repetition in work.

If a third party does agree
to relocate the buildings,
the project applicant or
third party shall complete
the measures identified
under MM CUL-1.1.

Salvage
If no third party relocates
the buildings, make the
structure available for
salvage to salvage
companies facilitating the
reuse of historic building
materials.

A qualified historian shall
create a permanent
interpretive program,
exhibit, or display of the
history of the property on-
site. The final design of the
commemorative
interpretive program,
exhibit, or display shall be
determined in coordination
with the City’s Historic
Preservation Officer.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 8 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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

3. To protect the building during relocation, the third party shall engage a building mover who has experience
moving similar historic structures. A structural engineer shall also be engaged to determine if the building needs to be reinforced/stabilized before the move.

4. Once moved, the building shall be repaired and
restored, as needed, by the project applicant or third
party in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In
particular, the character-defining features shall be
restored in a manner that preserves the integrity of the features for the long-term preservation of these features.

Upon completion of the repairs, a qualified architectural historian shall document and confirm that renovations of the structure were completed in conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and that all character-defining
features were preserved. The project applicant shall
submit a report to the City’s Historic Preservation
Officer documenting the relocation.

Salvage: If no third party relocates the buildings at
1883-1887 West San Carlos Street and 1891-1895 West
San Carlos Street, they shall be made available for
salvage to salvage companies facilitating the reuse of

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 9 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016 1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
D ocumentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
M ethod of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility Actions/Reports
Monitoring
Timing or
Schedule
historic building materials. The time frame available for salvage shall be established by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s
designee, together with the City’s Historic Preservation Officer.

The project applicant must provide evidence to the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
or the Director’s designee, that this condition has been met prior to the issuance of demolition or grading
permits, whichever comes first.

MM CUL-1.2: A qualified historian shall create a
permanent interpretive program, exhibit, or display of
the history of the property including, but not limited to, historic and current condition photographs, interpretive text, drawings, video, interactive media, or oral
histories. Any exhibit or display shall be placed in a
suitable publicly accessible location on the project site.

The final design of the commemorative interpretive
program, exhibit, or display shall be determined in
coordination with the City’s Historic Preservation
Officer.

Submit the proposed
interpretive program design
to the City’s Historic
Preservation Officer for
review and approval.

Submit the
interpretive
program design
prior to issuance of
occupancy permit.

City’s Historic
Preservation Officer.

Review the
interpretive
program design.

Prior to
issuance of
occupancy
permit.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impact NOI-1: Construction noise would exceed ambient levels by 5.0 dBA or more for a period of more than one year.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 10 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
MM NOI-1.1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or
demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit
and implement a construction noise logistics plan that
specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration
minimization measures, posting and notification of
construction schedules, equipment to be used, and
designation of a noise disturbance coordinator. The
construction plan shall identify a procedure for
coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize
noise disturbance. In addition, the noise disturbance
coordinator shall respond to neighborhood complaints
and shall be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise
impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. The
noise logistic plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the
Director’s designee prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits.

As part of the noise logistic plan, construction activities for the proposed project shall include, but are not
limited to, the following best management practices:

Limit construction hours to between 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM, Monday through Friday for any on-site or
off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit.

Construction outside of these hours may be
Submit and implement a
construction noise logistics
plan that specifies hours of
construction, noise and
vibration minimization
measures, posting and
notification of construction
schedules, equipment to be
used, and designation of a
noise disturbance
coordinator.

Submit the
construction noise
logistics plan for
review prior to the
issuance of any
grading or
demolition permits.

Implement plan
during all phases of
construction.

Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or
Director’s designee.

Review the noise
logistics plan.

Prior to the
issuance of any
grading or
demolition
permits.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 11 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
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
mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise
disturbance of affected residential use.

Use “new technology” power construction
equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and
muffling devices. Equip all internal combustion
engines with adequate mufflers and maintain all
equipment in good mechanical condition to
minimize noise created by faulty or poorly
maintained engines or other components.

Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines.

Locate staging areas and stationary noise-generating
equipment as far as possible from sensitive
receptors (a minimum of 200 feet, where feasible).

Notify the surrounding neighborhood within 500
feet prior to and during construction activities.

Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” to
respond to any complaints about construction noise.

The disturbance coordinator shall determine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g., beginning work
too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that
reasonable measures be implemented to correct the
problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number at

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 12 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.

Equip all internal combustion engine-driven
equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.

Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible,
to screen stationary noise-generating equipment
when located within 200 feet of adjoining sensitive
land uses. Temporary noise barrier fences would
provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise
barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise
source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed
in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps.

Typically, a minimum height of eight feet would be
adequate.

Stationary noise-generating equipment that must be
located near receptors shall use adequate muffling
(with enclosures where feasible and appropriate).

Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away
from sensitive receptors.

Ensure that generators, compressors, and pumps are
housed in acoustical enclosures.

Locate cranes as far from adjoining noise-sensitive
receptors as possible.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 13 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
Substitute graders for bulldozers, where feasible,
during final grading. Use wheeled heavy equipment,
where feasible. Wheeled heavy equipment are
quieter than track equipment.

Substitute nail guns for manual hammering, where
feasible.

Substitute electrically powered tools for noisier
pneumatic tools, where feasible.

Impact NOI-2: Construction vibration levels would exceed the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold for nearby historical buildings within 55 feet of the project site.

MM NOI-2.1: Prior to issuance of a demolition,
grading, or building permit, whichever occurs earliest, the project applicant shall implement a Construction
Vibration Monitoring Plan (Plan) to document
conditions of 24 Brooklyn Avenue, 19 Boston Avenue,
and 12 Boston Avenue prior to, during, and after
vibration generating construction activities. All Plan
tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a
licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry-accepted
standard methods. The plan shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or
the Director’s designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit,
whichever occurs earliest. The Plan shall include, but
not be limited to, the following measures:

Submit and implement a
Construction Vibration
Monitoring Plan (Plan) to
document conditions prior
to, during, and after
vibration generating
construction activities. All
Plan tasks shall be
undertaken under the
direction of a licensed
Professional Structural
Engineer in the State of
California and be in
accordance with industry-
accepted standard methods.

The plan shall be submitted
to the Director of Planning,
Submit the Plan for
review prior to
issuance of a
demolition, grading,
or building permit,
whichever occurs
earliest.

Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or
Director’s designee.

Review and
approval of the
Plan.

Prior to
issuance of a
demolition,
grading, or
building permit,
whichever
occurs earliest.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 14 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
A list of all heavy construction equipment to be
used for this project known to produce high
vibration levels (e.g., tracked vehicles, vibratory
compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be
submitted to the Director of Planning, Building or
Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee by the
contractor. This list shall be used to identify
equipment and activities that would potentially
generate substantial vibration and to define the level
of effort for reducing vibration levels below the
thresholds.

Place operating equipment on the construction site
at least 30 feet from vibration-sensitive receptors.

Use the smallest equipment available to complete
the task and minimize vibration levels as low as
feasible.

Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near
sensitive areas.

Select demolition methods not involving impact
tools.

Modify/design or identify alternative construction
methods to reduce vibration levels below the limits.

Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.

Identify sensitivity to ground-borne vibration of the
property. A vibration survey (generally described
below) would need to be performed.

Building and Code
Enforcement or the
Director’s designee for
review and approval prior
to issuance of a demolition,
grading, or building permit,
whichever occurs earliest.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 15 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
- Perform of a photo survey, elevation survey,
and crack monitoring survey for each historic
structure within 60 feet of construction
activities. Surveys shall be performed prior to
any construction activity, in regular intervals
during construction, and after project
completion. The surveys shall include internal
and external crack monitoring in the structure,
settlement, and distress, and shall document the
condition of the foundation, walls and other
structural elements in the interior and exterior
of the structure.
- Develop a vibration monitoring and
construction contingency plan to identify
structures where monitoring would be
conducted, set up a vibration monitoring
schedule, define structure-specific vibration
limits, and address the need to conduct photo,
elevation, and crack surveys to document
before and after construction conditions.

Construction contingencies shall be identified
for when vibration levels approached the limits.

If vibration levels approach limits, construction
shall be suspended and contingency measures
shall be implemented to lower vibration or
secure affected structures.
- Designate a person responsible for registering
an
d investigating claims of excessive vibration.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 16 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
The contact information of such person shall be
clearly posted on the construction site.
- Conduct a post-survey on the structure where
either monitoring has indicated high levels or
complaints of damage. Make appropriate
repairs in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards where damage has
occurred as a result of construction activities.
- The results of all vibration monitoring shall be
summarized and submitted in a report shortly
after substantial completion of each phase
identified in the project schedule. The report
shall include a description of measurement
methods, equipment used, calibration
certificates, and graphics as required to clearly
identify vibration-monitoring locations. An
explanation of all events that exceeded
vibration limits will be included together with
proper documentation supporting any such
claims.

By implementing the above measures, vibration from
construction activities would be reduced to below the
City’s vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold for nearby historical buildings within 55 feet of the
project site.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 17 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project would exceed the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per the employee threshold of 12.21 by 5.2 percent.

MM TRANS-1.1:
(a) Prior to the issuance of any certificates of
occupancy, the project applicant shall identify a
transportation demand management (TDM) coordinator
who shall be responsible for implementing a ride-
sharing program for at least 15 percent of future
employees who have similar commutes. If the TDM
coordinator changes, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee and
tenants of the project shall be notified of the name and contact information of the new designated TDM
coordinator.

(b)
The TDM coordinator shall be responsible for
ensuring that the project meets the City’s annual
monitoring requirements. Monitoring shall include the
following:

Annual Vehicle Trip Generation Counts
(conducted by a third party). Only the vehicle trip
generation counts at the Brooklyn Avenue and
Boston Avenue driveways entering the assisted-
living surface parking area shall be counted. If the
counts show that the project trip generation is
Identify a transportation
demand management
(TDM) coordinator who
shall be responsible for
implementing a ride-
sharing program that meets
the City’s annual
monitoring requirements
(as listed in MM TRANS-

1.1).

The monitoring reports
shall be submitted annually
to the Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or the
Director’s designee for
review.

Prior to issuance of
any certificates of
occupancy.

Three years, and
then upon request
of the Zoning
Administrator for
the life of the
project.

Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or
Director’s designee.

Director of Planning,
Building and Code
Enforcement or
Director’s designee.

Receive
confirmation that a
TDM coordinator
is identified.

Review the annual
monitoring reports.

Prior to
issuance of any
certificates of
occupancy.

Three years,
and then upon
request of the
Zoning
Administrator
for the life of
the project.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 18 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016

1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

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
higher than expected, then the TDM plan shall be
altered or enhanced.

Annual Mode Share Surveys. A survey shall be
administered to all employees. This would provide
qualitative data regarding employee perceptions of
the alternative transportation programs and
perceptions of the obstacles to using an alternative
mode of transportation. The survey also would
provide quantitative data regarding the number of
employees who utilize alternative modes of
transportation (e.g., bike-to-work, carpool, or use
public transit) to commute to work, including the
frequency of use. The mode share survey results
should measure the relative effectiveness of
individual TDM program components and facilitate
the design of possible program enhancements in
order to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips.

Annual Monitoring Report. The TDM coordinator
shall be responsible for preparing and submitting
the monitoring reports to the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s
designee annually for three years, and then upon
request of the Zoning Administrator for the life of
the project.

Implementation of the above measures would reduce the
project’s VMT by 5.2 percent to meet the per employee
VMT threshold of 12.21.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Page | 19 File Nos.: Burbank 44, C20-011, CP20-020, & T20-016 1881 West San Carlos Project
File Nos. Burbank 44, C20-011,
CP20-020, & T20-016

MITIGATIONS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
D ocumentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
M ethod of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight
Responsibility Actions/Reports
Monitoring
Timing or
Schedule
Source: City of San José. Draft EIR. 1881 West San Carlos Project. June 2022.

DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.