(a) Resolution — San Jose City Council, April 11, 2023

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

1 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

JOSE CERTIFYING THE GRANITEROCK CAPITOL SITE
MODERNIZATION PLAN PROJECT (FILE NOS. GP19-010,
PDC20-023, PD20 -013) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS

CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATION

MEASURES, AND ALTERNATIVES, AND ADOPTING A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,

ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, the proposed Graniterock Capitol Site Modernization Plan Project includes a General Plan Amendment request to change the General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation from Combined Industrial Commercial to Heavy Industrial , a Planned Development Rez oning from the IP Industrial Park and IP(PD) Industrial Park Planned Development Zoning District to HI(PD) Heavy Industrial Planned Development Zoning District, and a Planned Development Permit to allow the demolition of four buildings totaling approximately 15,000 square feet, and to allow the expansion and modernization of the existing Graniter ock facility, including lengthening the existing on - site rail infrastructure, construction of a new rail car offloading system to accommodate 55 railcars instead of 25 railcars to increase unloading capacity, nine 120 -foot high aggregate silos, continued use of the existing concrete and aggregate recycling, construction of a new concr ete facility, construction of a new warehouse and storage facility, installation of a truck wash system, construction of a quality assurance/quality control facility with office space, construction of an equipment storage facility, and relocation of an existing maintenance shop, and the removal of forty -seven trees, forty- three of which are ordinance-size trees, on an approximately 22.3-gross-acre site, located at the northern terminus of Granite Rock Way (120 Granite Rock Way) (A PNs 462-17- 024 and 462-17-025) in the City of San Jos é, which real property is sometimes referred NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

2 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
to herein as the “subject property”; and the proposed Graniterock Capitol Site Modernization Plan Project referred to herein as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, approval of the Graniterock Capitol Site Modernization Plan 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 (“CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, the City of San Jos é (“City”) prepared, completed, and adopted in accordance with CEQA the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Graniterock Capitol Site Modernization Plan Project (“Graniterock Capitol Site Modernization Plan Project FEIR”); and

WHEREAS, the City of San Jos é acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Graniterock Capitol Site Modernization Plan Project (Planning File Nos.

GP19-010, PDC20-023, PD20-013); and

WHEREAS, a First Amendment to the DEIR was prepared that included responses to comments received during the public comment period; 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 effects to a less-than-significant level; and

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of San Jos é reviewed the FEIR prepared for the Project and recommended to the City Council that it NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

3 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
finds that 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, whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementat ion, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-maker of the City of San José as lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”); and

WHEREAS, CEQA requires that, in connection with approval of a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project, the decision- making body of a public agency make certain f indings regarding those effects and adopt avoidance measures to minimize impacts consistent with City policies;

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

1. That the above recitals are true and correct; and

2. That the City does hereby f ind and certify that the FEIR has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA; and

3. The City Council was presented with, and has independently reviewed and analyzed, the FEIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, including the written and oral comments received at the public hearings on the FEIR and the Project, prior to acting upon and approving the Project, and has found that the FEIR represents the independent judgment of the City, as lead agency for the Project, and designates the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement at the Director’s Office at 200 E ast Santa Clara Street, 3 rd Floor Tower, San Jos é, California , 95113, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based; and NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

4 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

4. That the City does hereby find and recognize that the FEIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other information in its response to comments on the Draft EIR or obtained by the City after the Draft EIR was issued and circulated for public review and does hereby find that such changes and additional information are not significant new information as that phrase is described under CEQA because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any of the following would result from approval and implementation of the Project: (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 has been proposed and would not be implemented, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented, and

5. That the City does hereby find and determine that recirculation of the FEIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the provisions of CEQA; and

6. That the City does hereby make the following findings with respect to significant effects on the environment of the Project, 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, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting these findings.

GRANITEROCK CAPITOL SITE MODERNIZATION PLAN PROJECT

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Biological Resources

Impact: BIO-1: Development of the proposed project would result in impacts to nesting birds, if present on the site at the time of construction.

Mitigation: MM BIO-1.1: The project applicant shall avoid demolition and construction activities during 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.

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

5 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

MM BIO-1.2: If demolition and construction cannot be scheduled between September 1st and January 31st (inclusive), pre- construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests are disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of 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 ( February 1 st 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). During this survey, the qualified ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats immediately adjacent to the construction areas for nests.

MM BIO-1.3: If during the survey described in MM BIO -1.2, the qualified ornithologist finds an active nest sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the qualified ornithologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall determine the extent of a construction free buffer zone to be established around the nest , typically 250 feet, to ensure that bird nests shall not be disturbed during project construction.

MM BIO -1.4: Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any grading or demolition permits (whichever occurs first), the ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1.1 through BIO -1.4 would reduce impacts during construction to nesting birds on or adjacent to the site. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Facts in Support of the Finding: Avoiding construction during the nesting season would avoid impacts to nesting birds. If construction cannot be avoided during bird nesting season, however, c onducting pre -construction surveys and implementing a construction -free buffer zone around any migratory bird nests will ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests are not disturbed during project construction pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. The size of the buffer zones will be determined in consultation between the qualified or nithologist and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and based on scientific evidence and best management practices. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

6 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-1.4 will reduce or avoid construction- related impacts to nesting raptors, and other migrating and nesting birds to a less than significant level.

Cultural Resources

Impact: Impact CUL-1: Excavation and grading activities on the site could disturb and damage unrecorded subsurface resources.

Mitigation: MM CUL-1.1: Tribal Cultural Sensitivity Training : A qualified Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San José and that is traditionally affiliated with the geographic area, will provide at least one cultural sensitivity training to construction crew prior to the initial ground-breaking activities.

MM CUL -1.2: Tribal Monitoring. A qualified Native American monitor registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, shall be on-site to monitor for all major earthmoving activities, such as initial grading and foundation work. Evidence of a monitoring agreement shall be provided to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Finding: Implementation of MM CUL -1.1 and CUL- 1.2 would protect archaeological/cultural/tribal cultural resources, should any be encountered during construction and would therefore reduce potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Facts in Support of the Finding: As discussed in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR and the archaeological resources assessment prepared for the Project (confidential and limited to qualified reviewers), construction of the Project could encounter unknown subsurface resources due to the historic and prehistoric uses of the site and potentially impact these archaeological/cultural /tribal cultural resources. In addition to requiring a Cultural Sensitivity Training led by a Native American representative for the construction crew prior to ground disturbance and monitor during ground- disturbing activities, MM CUL-1.2 requires a tribal cultural monitor be on- site for all major earthmoving activities to ensure appropriate steps are taken to protect the unanticipated discovery . T herefore, the impacts of the Project on archaeological/cultural/tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

7 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact: Impact GHG-1: Full buildout of the project, starting with the commencement of Phase 3 of project operation, would result in an increase in non-stationary emissions from truck traffic that would exceed the significance threshold of 660 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) for non- stationary sources. Phase 3 of project operation would also result in stationary GHG emissions from the asphalt batch plant that exceed the significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e for stationary sources. Therefore, the project would have a significant GHG emissions impact.

Mitigation: MM GHG-1.1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for and operation of the asphalt plant (Phase 3 of the project), the project applicant shall retain a qualified consultant to complete a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory which shall be used to implement a GHG Reduction Plan that includes the proper elements to reduce emissions below the significance level of 660 metric tons CO2e for non-stationary sources and 10,000 metric tons CO2e for stationary sources for the lifetime of the project. The GHG Reduction 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 building permits for the asphalt plant (Phase 3 of the project).

Elements of this plan may include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Use of on- road and off -road vehicles and switching locomotives with lower GHG-emitting engines, such as electric or hybrid equipment. • Use of clean truck fleet.
• Commitment to use carbon-free electricity provided by San José Clean Energy.
• Installation of solar power systems or other renewable electric generating systems that provide electricity to power on- site equipment and possibly provide excess electric power.
• Limit annual production, as GHG emissions would be proportional to annual production in tons.
• Construct on-site or fund off-site carbon sequestration projects (such as a forestry or wetlands projects for which inventory and repor ting protocols have been adopted). If the project develops an off-site project, it must be registered with the Climate Action Reserve or otherwise be approved by BAAQMD in order to be used to offset project emissions. • Use of zero-emission off-road equipment, as available. • Use of off-road diesel equipment meeting Tier 4 emission standards.

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

8 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
• Use of medium and heavy -duty diesel on- road vehicles equipped with newer engine models (no more than eight years old) or powered by zero or near zero -emissions technology, as certified by the California Air Resources Board, as feasible.
• Install electric vehicle (EV) supply equipment and/or ‘EV Ready Spaces’ to service light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles and on-site solar power systems or other zero-emission electric generating systems that provide electricity to power on-site equipment.
• Use of carbon-free electricity.
• Purchase of carbon credits to offset project annual emissions. The project applicant shall demonstrate its reduction of GHG emissions through the retirement of carbon offset credits provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
o Registry Performance Standards: The project applicant shall provide proof to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee that the carbon offset credits were issued by a registry meeting the following requirements:
 The registry shall account for and quantify emission reductions using clear and defined standards and incorporating recognized principles of GHG emissions reduction accounting, including those set forth in the ISO 14064 and the World Resource Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting;
 The registry shall use clear information sufficient for reviewers to assess the credibility of GHG emission reductions underlying the carbon offset credits. Upon request by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee of the City of San Jos é, any governmental entity, or any person or agency with a vested interest in the project outcome, the registry shall provide the following information within a reasonable time period in connection with any carbon offset credit retired by the project applicant: (i) the applicable quantification protocol; and (ii) all third party confirmation or verification reports issued in connection with the carbon offset credits. Such information shall be sufficient to monitor compliance by the project applicant with this mitigation measure to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee of the City of San José.
o Carbon Offset Credit Performance Standar ds: The carbon offset credits retired by the project applicant for the purpose of mitigating GHG emissions shall represent GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, additional, quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable.

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

9 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

To demonstrate compliance with the offset requirements listed above, the developer shall provide the following to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee of the City of San Jos é: (i) the protocol used to quantify and issue such carbon offset credits, (ii) the third- party verification report(s) pursuant to which such carbon offset credits were issued, and (iii) the unique serial numbers of the carbon offset credits to be retired to ensure that the offset cannot be further used in any manner. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee of the City of San Jos é, shall reject any carbon offset credits that do not comply with these requirements, and where reductions are not direct reduc tions within a confined project boundary or provide opportunities for reversal of the avoided emissions. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee of the City of San Jos é shall reject any credits for a project that includes technology or GHG abatement practices that are already widely used and practiced in the industry. o Geographic Limitations: The carbon offset credits shall be from credit projects developed in the United States. Carbon offset credits resulting from international credit projects shall not be acceptable to satisfy this mitigation measure.
o T iming: The project applicant shall mitigate GHG emissions resulting from Phase 3 project operations by purchasing and retiring offset credits prior to each year’s emissions that exceed the threshold. The project applicant shall provide proof in the form of a compliance report to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee of the City of San José that carbon offset credits equal to the amount of project operational GHG emissions in excess of the threshold have been purchased and retired, prior to the operational year in which those emissions would occur. The project applicant shall also have the right, at any time, to purchase and retire carbon offset credits for some or all of the operational emissions of the project in advance of the issuance of certificates of occupancy, temporary or permanent.
o E
nforcement: The purchase and retirement of carbon offset credits required to mitigate the GHG emissions resulting from the operation of the project shall be a condition of the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, temporary or permanent, for Phase 3 of the project and shall be required for continual operation. Should the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee of the City of San Jos é determine that the offset credits are non - NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

10 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
compliant with the requirements of MM GHG-1, the City may issue a notice of non-consistency and cease permitting activities and/or stop project operations, until the City determines via an issued public notice that the offsets comply with the aforementioned standards. o Adjustment: The required amount of carbon offset credits may be adjusted to account for changes in climate science, GHG regulation, technology, and updated/refined project emissions, as follows:
 The project applicant may recalculate the project emissions in this EIR to update/refine the amount of carbon credits required to be purchased and/or demonstrate emissions achieve the year - specific threshold or an appliable quantitative threshold that may be adopted by the City or BAAQMD in the future. If the project applicant chooses to refine or recalculate project GHG emissions, the project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality/GHG professional to calculate the project’s GHG emissions, in accordance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as they may be updated from time to time. Re- evaluation of project GHG emissions could reflect additional on- site measures incorporated into the project (such as installing solar panels, cool roofs, charging for parking, providing free transit passes, etc.) or increased operational efficiencies (e.g., the state’s increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards and renewable energy por tfolio requirement). The calculation shall be summarized in a report and submitted as part of the documentation submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee of the City of San Jos é for review and approval.

Finding: Implementation of MM GHG-1.1 would address the exceedances of non- stationary and stationary sources greenhouse gas emissions generated above significance thresholds (660 metric tons of CO2e, and 10,000 metric tons of CO2e, respectively) identified with Phase 3 of the project operations.

Specifically, non-stationary GHG emissions would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 660 metric tons per year by 1,227 metric tons per year. Stationary GHG emissions from the asphalt batch plant would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year by 2,640 metric tons. Implementation of MM GHG -1.1 would require the implementation of a GHG Reduction Plan that includes proper elements to reduce emissions below the significance level of 660 metric tons CO2e for non-stationary sources and 10,000 metric tons CO2e for stationary sources for the lifetime of the project. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

11 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Facts in Support of the Finding: As stated in Section 3.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the Draft EIR, the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis is partly based on an Air Quality and GHG Emissions Assessment prepared for the project by Illingworth & Rodkin in May 2021 (Appendix B of the Draft EIR posted to the City’s Environmental Review Documents website). The existing facility produces emissions from a number of different sources, both directly and indirectly. These emissions from the existing concrete plant and from combustion sources on- site that include mobile and portable off -road equipment and truck activity. The GHG emissions thresholds identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year or 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year. Per BAAQMD guidance for stationary sources such as the proposed asphalt plant and portable equipment used at the recycle yard, the threshold to determine the significance of an impact from GHG emissions is 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. GHG emissions associated with the asphalt plant would make up 67 percent of the total emissions from the project. Of these emissions, 85 percent would be associated with the batch plant. With implementation of Phase 3, the asphalt plant would be operating, and non- stationary emissions would increase due to the increase in truck traffic. Non- stationary GHG emissions would exceed the significance threshold by 1,227 metric tons per year and stationary emissions from the asphalt batch plant would exceed the significance threshold by 2,640 metric tons per year.

Therefore, the project would result in a significant GHG emissions impact.

MM GHG-1 require the project applicant to retain a qualified consultant to complete a greenhouse (GHG) emissions inventory to inform a GHG Reduction Plan that includes elements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below the significance thresholds of 660 metric tons for CO2e for non-stationary sources and 10,000 metric tons for CO2e for stationary sources for the lifetime of the project prior to issuance of building permits for the asphalt plant (Phase 3 of the project). The elements included in MM GHG-1 are not exhaustive but are examples of effective methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project applicant must demonstrate to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the project’s greenhouse gas emissions do not exceed the identified thresholds.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact: Impact HAZ-1: Project construction could expose construction workers , neighboring uses, and the environment to hazardous materials, including residual concentrations of pesticides and contaminants from previous agricultural operations.

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

12 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Mitigation: MM HAZ-1.1: Prior to demolition or issuance of grading permits, a qualified environmental specialist shall collect shallow soil samples from the native soil layers within the areas of proposed construction activities and have the samples analyzed to determine if contaminated soil from previous agricultural operations is located on -site with concentrations above established construction/trench worker and residential thresholds. The soil shall be tested for organochlorine pesticides and pesticide- based metals, arsenic and lead. Once the soil sampling analysis is complete, a report of the findings will be provided to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee and the Municipal Compliance Officer of the City of San José Environmental Services Department for review.

Mitigation: MM HAZ -1.2: If contaminated soils are found in concentrations above established regulatory environmental screening levels, prior to the issuance of any grading permits the project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Site Cleanup Program of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) to provide regulatory oversight. The applicant shall meet with SCCDE H and perform additional soil and groundwater sampling and testing to adequately define the known and suspected contamination. A Remedial Action Work Plan and/or Soil Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the agency for their approval to demonstrate that cleanup standards shall be met for the development of the site and the site meets all applicable environmental screening levels. All measures identified in the plan(s) shall be implemented during all phases of construction, as applicable.

Evidence of regulatory oversight and approved plan(s) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee of the City of San Jos é for approval prior to the issuance of any grading permits.

Finding: Implementation of MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ -1.2, and project Standard Permit Conditions would reduce potential exposure impact to hazardous materials from the site’s historic pesticide use and agricultural operations to construction workers, adjacent uses, and nearby sensitive receptors and residences to a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Facts in Support of the Finding: As discussed in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Appendix D of the Draft EIR posted to the City’s Environmental Review Documents website) prepared for the Project by AEI Consultants in March 2022, due to the project site’s agricultural and industrial history, there is potential for the subsurface soils NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

13 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
to contain agricultural chem icals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers and/or be impacted by other volatile organic compounds. The project site would continue to be used for industrial purposes, including the storage and use of hazardous materials in the form of fuels and lubricants required for operation of mechanical equipment, as well as components of the concrete and asphalt manufacturing process. Per the Phase I ESA, previous soil contamination on the site was remediated by excavating the contaminated soil and replaci ng it with clean fill; however, contaminated soils may exist on the site as a result of historic agricultural activities and current on -site operations. The proposed project site expansion could disturb on-site soils with residual contamination and expose construction workers to hazardous materials. MM HAZ-1.1 and MM HAZ-1.2 would require the project applicant to retain a qualified environmental specialist to collect shallow soil samples from the native soil layers within the areas of proposed construction activities and have the samples analyzed to determine if contaminated soil from previous agricultural operations is located on-site with concentrations above established construction/trench worker and residential thresholds. If the results show concentrations above the acceptable thresholds, MM HAZ-1.2 would be implemented to address soil contamination with regulatory oversight.

Impact: Impact HAZ-2: Groundwater monitoring wells could be encountered during or after project construction. If encountered, these structures could pose a hazard to construction workers and future development on the site.

Mitigation: MM HAZ-2.1: Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall research well records from Valley Water to locate abandoned wells at the site. If the wells are identified, or subsequently encountered during earthwork activities, the wells shall be properly destroyed in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1.

Finding: With implementation of MM HAZ-2 and MM HAZ-2.1, the historic wells on site would be destroyed in accordance with Valley Water regulations and would not result in significant impacts. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)

Facts in Support of the Finding: As discussed in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR, two historic groundwater monitoring wells are located in the southwestern portion of the site. Abandoned wells can act as a conduit for the vertical migration of groundwater contamination, should it be present in groundwater beneath the site. If groundwater levels rise, an abandoned well can become an artesian well with uncontrolled water flow that can adversely NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

14 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
impact future development. Mitigation measure HAZ -2.1 requires the project applicant to identify historical on- site wells and destroy them per Valley Water requirements to reduce safety hazards to construction workers and prevent impediments to future development.

FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES

To comply with the purposes of CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce the significant impacts that are anticipated to occur if the project is implemented and to try to meet as many of the project’s objectives as possible. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a commonsense approach -- the alternatives should be reasonable, should “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and should focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts.

The alternatives analyzed in the DEIR were developed with the goal of being at least potentially feasible, given P roject objectives and site constraints, while avoiding or reducing the P roject’s identified environmental effects. The following are evaluated as alternatives to the proposed Project:

1. No Project Alternative

2. Reduced Throughput Alternative

Project Objectives

1. Modernize the existing recycling, manufacturing, and distribution facility for aggregate, asphalt, concrete, and other construction materials on the site to increase throughput and operational efficiency by constructing a new aggregate distribution facilit y, asphalt plant, cementitious distribution facility, and concrete plant.

2. Amend the General Plan land use designation on the site from CIC to HI and rezone the site from IP/IP(PD) to HI(PD) to facil itate the proposed modernization of the existing facility.

3. Minimize air quality, noise, and visual impacts by constructing state- of-the-art processing facilities that allow processing activities to occur within enclosed areas.

4. Reduce the number of truck trips associated with the delivery of aggregate to the site by constructing an expanded railcar spur track and increasing railcar unloading capacity and efficiency, allowing the facility to receive additional aggregate via rail.

5. Reduce environmental impacts associated with transporting asphalt and concrete in the region by increasing the supply of asphalt and concrete in a central location in close proximity to construction projects.

Selection of Alternatives
NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

15 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law on the subject have found that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. The CEQA Guidelines advise that such factors can include (but are not necessarily limited to) the suitability of an alternative site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with the general plan o r other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent can “reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site” (Section 15126.6[f][1]).

1. No Project – No Development Alternative

A. Description of Alternative: The No Project -No Development Alternative would retain the existing operations on the project site. If the project site were to remain as is, there would be no significant impacts related to biological resources since construction and tree removal would not occur. There would be no impacts related to cultural resources or hazards and hazardous materials because no ground- disturbing activities would occur that could encounter as -yet uncovered cultural resources, contamination, or groundwater monitoring wells. Under this alternative, the facility’s operations would remain the same and the corresponding greenhouse gas emissions would remain above the significance threshold.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Implementation of the No Project – No Development Alternative would avoid all the significant environmental impacts of the Project in the areas of biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources (historic and archaeologic), and hazards and hazardous materials .

Although this alternative would avoid an increase in GHG emissions, current operational emissions from the existing facility are above the relevant CEQA threshold and would be considered significant if associated with a new development proposal. As a result, this alternative would not avoid ongoing emissions that are currently above a level that would be considered significant but would lessen the severity of the significant GHG impact that would be associated with the proposed project.

C. Finding: This alternative does not achieve any of the project objectives .

Importantly, this alternative would not modernize the existing recycling, manufacturing and distribution facility to increase throughput and operational efficiency, would not allow processing activities to be enclosed to minimize air quality and noise and visual impacts associated with the current operations, would not reduce the number of truck trips associated with the delivery of aggregate to the site, and would not reduce environmental impacts associated with the transport of asphalt and concrete in the region. Therefore, this alternative is rejected.

2. Reduced Throughput Alternative
NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

16 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

A. Description of Alternative: This alternative would reduce the GHG emissions impact to a level that no longer requires mitigation to be considered less than significant.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Compared to the No Project - No Development Alternative, this alternative would avoid an increase in GHG emissions; however, current operational emissions from the existing facility are above the relevant CEQA threshold for non -stationary sources and would be considered significant if associated with a new development proposal. As a result, this project would not avoid ongoing emissions that are currently above a level that would be considered a significant GHG impact but would lessen the severity of the significant GHG emissions impact that would occur with the proposed project.

C. Finding: This alternative would meet most of the project objectives; however, it would be to a lesser degree than the proposed project and would reduce GHG emissions to a level that no longer requires mitigation to be considered less than significant. The net increase in GHG emissions associated with the project would exceed both the operational and stationary source thresholds. The net increase in operational emissions from non-stationary sources would be 1,887 metric tons of CO2e, exceeding the 660 metric tons of CO2e threshold by 1,227 metric tons CO2e. Similarly, stationary source emissions would total 12,240 metric tons of CO2e, exceeding the 10,000 metric tons CO2e threshold by approximately 21 percent. The stationary source emissions are all associated with the proposed asphalt plant. Therefore, reducing the throughput of the asphalt by 21 percent would reduce associated GHG emissions. The operational emissions are associated with all other operations on the site. Reducing throughput of the remaining operations by 13 percent would reduce associated GHG emissions in a corresponding manner. The mitigation proposed by the project would achieve the same reduction in emissions as this alternative. As a result, the net benefit of this alternative is negligible when compared to the proposed project and would come at the expense of achieving the project objectives to a lesser degree than the proposed project. Specifically, the alternative would reduce the throughput of the operations.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

The environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project - No Development Alternative, which would avoid the identified significant impacts of the proposed P roject.

CEQA requires that another alternative be chosen when the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior.

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

17 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Therefore, the Reduced Throughput Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce GHG emissions without mitigation.

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 Project required under Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Statute and Section 15097(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP identifies impacts of the Project, corresponding mitigation, designation of 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, Third Floor Tower, San José, CA 95113.

NVF:AXY:DJF
03/28/23

18 T-52008.001/2001922_2
Council Agenda: 4/11/23
Item No.: 10.3 (a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 593-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI J. TABER, CMC
City Clerk