Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
INITIAL STUDY
Environmental Checklist and Evaluation for Santa Clara County
File Number: 10302-13P-13A-13G Date: 5/6/2015
Project Type: Use Permit, ASA, Grading APN(s): 652-08-006
Project Location /
Address 2532 Klein Road, San Jose GP Designation: Rural Residential
Owner’s Name Canh Thai Temple Zoning: Rural Residential
Applicant’s Name: MH Engineering Urban Service Area: N/A
Project Description This application is for a Use Permit (UP) with Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) and Grading Approval for construction
and operation of a new 7,000 square foot, two story, religious institution with detached garage and pastor’s residence for
Canh Thai Temple at 2532 Klein Road in an unincorporated area east of the City of San Jose (Figure 1). The first floor will
consist of a 2,160 square foot pastor’s residence with 3 bedrooms/3 bathrooms, kitchen, dining/living room, and laundry
room. An attached 1,340 square foot area will be used as a storage room, mechanical room, and public bathrooms for the
religious facility. The 3,500 square foot second story will consist of a chapel with 100 fixed seats and perimeter altars. A
1,764 square foot detached garage will provide 6 covered vehicle parking spaces. While the property address is on Klein
Road, vehicle access to the site will be provided by a shared private driveway from Murillo Avenue. No classrooms, school,
nursery/day care, commercial kitchen, or outdoor use is proposed.
All proposed religious activities will take place inside the second floor chapel and consist of the following:
Individual Prayer: Daily (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.); 5 attendees at one time; total daily attendees: 15.
Group Prayer: Sunday (10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.); 50 attendees at one time; total daily attendees: 50.
Lunar Days: The 15th and 30th day of each month (5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.); 50 attendees at one time; total daily
attendees: 100.
In addition, the following three (3) special events (5 days total) are proposed annually, with 100 attendees at one time (total
of 300 attendees each event day). All special events will take place inside the chapel and no outdoor amplified music or
activities are proposed.
Chinese New Year; 3 days (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.).
Birth of Buddha; 1 day (10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.).
Mother’s Day; 1 day (10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.).
As shown on the site plan (Figure 2), primary parking is located at the front of the property with 44 parking spaces, including
2 handicap accessible spaces, and 4 additional parking spaces located at the rear of the property, adjacent to the detached 6-
vehicle garage (total 54 parking spaces). Transportation service will be provided during the Chinese New Year event (3
days) by two (2) 30-seat buses for attendees from designated locations. Bus loading/unloading will be provided on-site in the
parking lot.
Associated site improvements include a freestanding entry trellis (portal) with signage, trash enclosure, septic system,
driveway improvements, bioretention drainage ponds, removal of 2 trees (12-inches diameter or greater). Proposed
landscape plantings include native and non-native screening trees, shrubs, ground covers, grasses, bamboo, and bonsai
plantings. In addition, decorative landscape sculptures and gravel walking paths are proposed. An existing water well will be
abandoned and domestic and fire emergency water will be provided by San Jose Water Company.
Grading includes approximately 1,307 cubic yards cut and 642 cubic yards fill (total 1,949 cubic yards) for the building pads,
parking lot, landscaping, bioretention ponds, and shared driveway improvements.
2
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The 1.8-acre subject property is located on Murillo Road, approximately 400-feet south of Klein Road, in unincorporated
County of Santa Clara, outside the City of San Jose urban service area. The rectangular shaped property gently slopes up
from Murillo Road to the rear of the property (west to east) (Figure 3a and 3b). Ruby Creek, which runs parallel to Klein
Road, is located approximately 400 feet north of the subject property and Flint Creek is located approximately 3,000 feet
east of the site.
Land cover maps (USDA) identify the property as Developed (Open Space and Low Intensity) with wildlife habitat
designated as Urban (FRAP). The property was previously developed with a single-family residence, which was
subsequently demolished, and an unpermitted modular home converted for storage is located on the site. Several small (less
than 12 inch diameter) citrus/nut trees, one (1) 12-inch pine tree, and one (1) 15-inch eucalyptus trees are scattered
throughout the property. The property is located in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Area and is not under a Williamson
Act contract. No watercourse, creek, wetland, oak woodland, serpentine soils or rock outcrops are located on or adjacent to
the subject property.
Surrounding land uses, as shown in Figure 1, consist of urban two-story single-family residential to the west, across Murillo
Avenue, in the City of San Jose. Rural properties of similar size to the subject property are located to the north, east and
south, in unincorporated County of Santa Clara, and primarily developed with low intensity rural residential single-family
homes. Primary vehicle access is provided by a shared private driveway from Murillo Avenue on the north portion of the
site that serves both the subject property and the adjacent single-family residence located east (2526 Murillo Avenue) of the
subject property.
Other agencies sent a copy of this document:
City of San Jose
Figure 1 – Project Location
3
Figure 2 – Site Plan
Figure 3a – Existing Site
4
Figure 3b – Existing Site
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Aesthetics Agriculture / Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Geology / Soils
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use Noise Population / Housing
Public Services Resources / Recreation Transportation / Traffic
Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
None
5
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS WITH NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Some proposed applications that are not exempt from CEQA review may have little or no potential for
adverse environmental impact related to most of the topics in the Environmental Checklist; and/or
potential impacts may involve only a few limited subject areas. These types of projects are generally
minor in scope, located in a non-sensitive environment, and are easily identifiable and without public
controversy. For the environmental issue areas where there is no potential for significant environmental
impact (and not checked above), the following finding can be made using the project description,
environmental setting, or other information as supporting evidence.
Check here if this finding is not applicable
FINDING: For the following topics, there is no potential for significant environmental impact to
occur either from construction, operation or maintenance of the proposed project, and
no further discussion in the Environmental Checklist is necessary.
EVIDENCE: Agricultural and Forest Resources:
The 1.8 acre property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with soils consisting of Alo-
Altamont complex (9 to 15 percent slopes) and classified as non-prime for agricultural
uses. Permitted uses in the Rural Residential district include religious institutions with
Use Permit with Architectural Site Approval. Construction of the religious facility
with pastor’s residence would not convert more than 10 acres of Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses and
would not affect existing agricultural operations on adjacent properties. The property
is not under a Williamson Act contract and would not result in the loss of conversion
of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impacts to agricultural
resources. (Project Description; Reference # 1, 3, 4, 9, 17a, 17q, 23, 24, 26, 28, 32)
EVIDENCE: Biological Resources: The 1.8 acre property is located in the Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan Area and the Private Development Area is designated “Rural
Development Equal to or Greater Than Two Acres Covered”. The proposed
development will be less than 2 acres and does not affect any Habitat Plan covered
wildlife and/or plant species, or sensitive land covers on the property. In addition, the
CA Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) does not
identify any rare or endangered species on the site. The nearest creek (Ruby Creek) is
located approximately 400-feet north of the subject property. Additionally, there are
no serpentine soils, wetlands, or riparian habitat on the project site, which are
associated with a number of special status species. Two (2) trees greater than 12
inches diameter are proposed to be removed. As part of the ASA approval process,
replacement trees will be required, per the County Tree Protection Ordinance. Therefore, there would be no impacts to biological resources. (Project Description;
Reference # 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8a, 17b, 17e, 17o, 17l, 17n, 22d, 22e, 31, 32, 33)
EVIDENCE: Geology and Soils: The proposed site is located approximately 3.2 miles northeast of
the Calaveras fault and outside Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The property is
located in the County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone and the northwest portion of the
property is located in the County Landslide Hazard Zone and State Seismic Hazard
Zone. A Geologic Hazards Study (Earth Systems Pacific, dated 3/26/2014) was
prepared for this application, reviewed and accepted by the County Geologist. The
site could be subject to strong seismic ground shaking and earthquake induced
6
landslides, but would not be subject to liquefaction and is not located on unstable
geologic units or soils. The foundations for the proposed temple would be designed to
withstand ground acceleration. Best management practices used during construction
would prevent substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The proposed project site
is not located on expansive soils. (Project Description; Reference # 2, 3, 6, 14, 17c,
17l, 17n, 17j, 18b, 23, 24, 42, 43)
EVIDENCE: Population and Housing: The proposed project is a temple with pastor’s residence and
detached garage located on a rural residential property. No commercial or industrial
uses are proposed. Development of a religious institution with pastor’s residence with
the proposed uses would not induce population growth or displace existing housing or
people. (Project Description; Reference #1, 2, 3, 4, 9)
EVIDENCE: Public Services: The proposed temple with pastor’s residence and detached garage
would not significantly increase the need for additional fire or police protection in the
area. No commercial or industrial use is proposed. Other public services, such as
provided by schools or parks, would not be involved. (Project Description; Reference
# 1, 3, 6, 17h)
EVIDENCE: Resources/Recreation: The proposed project site is not located in an area where
mineral resources of value to the region or state have been identified or a locally
important mineral resource recovery site. The proposed project is for a temple with
pastor’s residence and detached garage and would not involve either the use or
construction of recreational facilities. (Project Description; Reference # 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
8a, 17h, 27, 44)
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
________________________________________
Signature
___________________________
Date
________________________________________
Printed name
___________________________
For
7
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
A. AESTHETICS
IMPACT
SOURCES
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2,3,4,17f
b) Substantially damage scenic resources along a designated scenic highway?
3, 8a, 17f
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
2,3, 17f, 17m
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
3,4
e) If subject to ASA, be generally in non-compliance with the Guidelines for Architecture and Site Approval?
3, 11
f) If within a Design Review Zoning District for purposes of viewshed protection (d, -d1, -d2), conflict with applicable General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance provisions?
2,3, 8a, 9, 17f
SETTING:
The subject property is located on Murillo Avenue, east of Klein Road, in the east foothills of
unincorporated County of Santa Clara. Murillo Avenue is not a State- or County- designated
scenic road or highway. In addition, the property is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning
district and is not located within any Design Review district, including the Santa Clara Valley
Viewshed Design Review Combining District (-d1). Therefore, the project would not damage
scenic resources along a designated scenic road or highway and County Design Review
requirements and guidelines are not applicable to the project.
The 1.8-acre property gently slopes up from Murillo Road to the rear of the property (west to
east) with land cover consisting of urban wildlife habitat. The property was previously
developed with a single-family residence, which was subsequently demolished, and an
unpermitted modular home converted for storage is located on the site. Several small (less than
12 inch diameter) citrus/nut trees, one (1) 12-inch pine tree, and one (1) 15-inch eucalyptus trees
are scattered throughout the property. Surrounding land uses consist of urban residential located
west of the site and rural residential development on parcels typical of rural areas located north,
east, and south of the site.
The proposed 2-story temple will be 35-feet in height and set back approximately 155-feet from
the front (west) property line, 90-feet from the rear (east) property line, 30-feet from the north
(side) property line ingress/egress easement, and 50-feet from the side (south) property line. The
7,000 square foot temple includes approximately 1,300 square feet of first and second story
decks/patios around the building perimeter.
8
Figure 4. Color Perspective
The proposed temple will primarily consist of exterior stucco walls, tile roofing, and wood eave
and fascia trim. Primary access from the parking lot to the second floor chapel will be provided
by an exterior stairway at the front of the structure, with secondary access provided by exterior
stairs located on both the north and south building side. Exterior covered decks will located
along the building second floor with wood guardrails and columns. Architectural elements,
including dragon sculptures and wheel symbol, are proposed to project approximately 3-feet 6-
inches across the top of the roof ridge and on the hip eaves. Proposed colors consist of red tile
roof, yellow earth toned exterior walls, and red columns, eaves, guardrails, and trim.
DISCUSSION:
Visual Character
The proposed temple building will be 35-feet tall with 3- foot 6-inch tall religious architectural
elements, such as dragons and wheels, projecting from the roof ridge, as shown in Figure 4. The
temple structure will be located at the rear portion of a gently sloped lot, with the building pad
approximately 10-feet above street frontage grade elevation, in the east foothills of
unincorporated County of Santa Clara. Surrounding uses include single family residential on
rural properties to the north, east, and south, as well as urban residential development across
Murillo Avenue, in the City of San Jose. The proposed 2-story temple will be in conformance
with County development regulations, but may be visible to neighboring properties.
According to the preliminary Landscape Plan, proposed screening trees include Strawberry tree
(Arbutus marina), Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia x fauriel hybrids), Chinese pistache (Pistacia
chinensis), and Water Gum (Tristaniopsis laurina). These trees are not native or naturalized to
the Bay Area east hills microclimate. In addition, the proposed row of screening trees south of
the driveway and at the rear of the property (valley oak, chinese pistache, crape myrtle, and red
9
maple) are deciduous and experience annual foliage drop during the fall and winter months. The
proposed screening trees may not provide adequate screening of the site due to tree habits, height
at maturation, microclimate conditions, and water requirements for establishment of trees.
Light and Glare
Surrounding uses adjacent to the north, east, and south of the subject property include single-
family residential development on rural properties and urban residential development across
Murillo Avenue to the west. Proposed lighting for the religious facility includes approximately
four (4) lights on the perimeter of the parking lot and exterior wall mounted door lights on the
temple and detached garage. As proposed, exterior lighting has the potential to cause glare when
seen from off-site. However, as part of the ASA conditions of approval, a lighting plan shall be
submitted and approved by the County that identifies the type of fixture (pole, bollard, wall
mounted) and demonstrates that light shields (full cutoff lighting fixtures), to minimize off-site
glare, will be installed to ensure visual impacts of the development.
Use Permit/Architecture and Site Approval
The proposed temple requires both the issuance of a Use Permit and Architectural and Site
Approval by the County. A Use Permit is a discretionary land use approval, which authorizes
uses that are not allowed as a matter of right in zoning districts. The subject property is located
in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district that permits religious institution uses when a Use
Permit is granted.
Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) is a discretionary permit which purpose is to ensure that
proposed development (such as a proposed religious facility) maintains the character and
integrity of districts by promoting quality development in harmony with the surrounding area
through consideration of site configuration and design. According to the County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 5.40.040, required findings for ASA approval include “The appearance of
proposed site development and structures, including signs, will not be detrimental to the
character of the surrounding neighborhood or district.”
Approval of an Architecture and Site Approval requires that proposed development is in
conformance with ASA Guidelines and Standards, such as signage, parking lot design,
landscaping, and outdoor lighting guidelines. The intent of ASA Guidelines and Standards is to
maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood by promoting excellence of
development, preventing undue traffic hazards or congestion, and encouraging the most
appropriate development and use of land in harmony with the neighborhood. The proposed
project will be conditioned to ensure all plans are in compliance with applicable land use
regulations and agency requirements. The conditions of approval shall incorporate conditions,
such as signage, landscaping, and outdoor lighting, which will lessen potential visual impacts of
the development.
As discussed below, part of the ASA process, the project is required to substantially meet the
requirements of the ASA Guidelines for new development, including landscaping to provide
adequate visual screening of the site from surrounding properties. As a condition of approval for
the ASA, a revised Landscape and Irrigation Plan is required that provides tree species that
ensure adequate visual screening of the site from surrounding properties. The Landscape and
Irrigation Plan will require drought tolerant and disease/pest resistant California native or
naturalized tree species, as well as ongoing maintenance and irrigation schedule to ensure long-
term survival and growth potential of the screening trees.
10
IMPACT:
The proposed development has potential to potentially degrade the existing visual character of
the site and its surroundings and create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. However, the proposed development is
required to substantially meet the requirements of the ASA Guidelines for new development,
including landscaping to provide adequate visual screening and lighting requirements to prevent
light spill onto surrounding properties. Therefore, impacts to the existing visual character or
quality and day or nighttime views in the area would be less than significant.
FINDING: The impact to the visual character of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.
B. AGRICULTURE / FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Convert 10 or more acres of farmland classified as prime in the report Soils of Santa Clara County (Class I, II) to non-agricultural use?
3,23,24,26
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use?
9,17a
c) Conflict with an existing Williamson Act Contract or the County’s Williamson Act Ordinance (Section C13 of County Ordinance Code)?
d) Conflict with existing zone for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
e) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1, 17q, 28
9
3, 32
f) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
3,4,26
DISCUSSION:
See Section II; Agriculture and Forest Resources
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Agriculture and Forest Resources.
11
C. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
3,29, 30
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
3,29, 30
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
29, 30
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
3,29, 30
SETTING:
The proposed project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), which regulates air pollutants, including those that may be generated by
construction and operation of development projects. These so-called criteria pollutants include
reactive organic gases, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM).
BAAQMD also regulates toxic air contaminants (fine particulate matter), long-term exposure to
which is linked with respiratory conditions and increased risk of cancer. Major sources of toxic
air contaminants in the Bay Area include major automobile and truck transportation corridors
(e.g., freeways and expressways) and stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants).
The subject property is located on Murillo Road, approximately 400-feet south of Klein Road, in
the east foothills of unincorporated County of Santa Clara. The closest expressway or freeway is
Capitol Expressway located approximately 10,000-feet west of the project site. The subject
property is not located within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Air
Hazard (Cancer; PM2.5) area.
DISCUSSION:
Operation
The proposed project would involve construction of a new temple with pastor’s residence and
detached garage. The temple would generate additional vehicle trips that would contribute
emissions of criteria pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide and reactive organic gases. BAAQMD
has published screening criteria for operational criteria pollutants for different land use types.1
The land use type applicable to the proposed project is “Place of Worship.” The operational
1Although the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines that contain these screening level sizes have been overturned in court,
the County has determined that these thresholds are based on substantial evidence, as identified in Appendix D of
the Guidelines, and has therefore incorporated them into this Initial Study.
12
screening threshold for criteria pollutants for this land use type is 439,000 square feet. The
proposed project would construct approximately 7,000 square feet of new space, which is well
under this threshold. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment.
Construction
Fugitive dust will be created during the construction of the new temple and associated site
improvements. However, dust emissions would be controlled through standard Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) control measures, as stipulated by County Land Development
Engineering and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, as a condition of the project.
Dust control measures will be employed which will ensure that any air quality impacts remain
insignificant during construction, including fugitive dust from NOx (oxides of nitrogen) and
PM10 (particulate matter with aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers) emissions.
Construction and operation of the facilities will not exceed BAAQMD maximum thresholds.
Therefore, impacts of construction activity on air quality would be less than significant.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING: The impact to air quality from construction activity would be less than significant.
13
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT
SOURCES
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 7, 17b, 17o,
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
3,7, 8a, 17b, 17e, 22d, 22e, 33
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or tributary to an already impaired water body, as defined by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Have a substantial adverse effect on oak woodland habitat as defined by Oak Woodlands Conservation Law (conversion/loss of oak woodlands) – Public Resource Code 21083.4?
3, 7, 17n, 33
1, 3, 31, 32
e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1,7, 17b, 17o
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
2, 3,4, 17l
g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources:
i) Tree Preservation Ordinance [Section C16]? 1,3,31, 32
ii) Wetland Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 25-30]? 3, 8a
iii) Riparian Habitat [GP Policy, R-RC 31-41]? 3, 8a,
DISCUSSION:
See Section II. Biological Resources.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Biological Resources.
14
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, or the County’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 17 of County Ordinance Code) – i.e. relocation, alterations or demolition of historic resources?
3, 16, 19, 40
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
3, 19, 40
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
3, 4, 40
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
3, 40
e) If within New Almaden Historic area, conflict with General Plan policies of this designated special policy area?
3, 8a
DISCUSSION:
The California Historical Resources Northwest Information Center (NWIC) reviewed the
proposal and determined that there is a low possibility of historical and archaeological resources
on the property. The property was previously developed with a single-family residence, which
was subsequently demolished. Further study for historical resources was not recommended.
Therefore, based on the Northwest Information Center’s review, there would be no impact to
cultural resources. Additionally, there are no cultural resources listed in the County Historic
Resources Database on the subject property or surrounding area.
In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered, the applicant is required by County
Ordinance No. B6-18 to immediately notify the County Coroner. Upon determination by the
County Coroner that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California
Native American Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the
Health and Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian affairs. No further disturbance of
the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in
accordance with the provisions of state law and this chapter. If artifacts are found on the site, a
qualified archaeologist shall be contacted along with the County Planning Office. No further
disturbance of the artifacts may be made except as authorized by the County Planning Office.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Cultural Resources.
15
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
6, 17c, 42, 43
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6, 17c, 42
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
6, 17c, 17n, 18b, 42
iv) Landslides? 6, 17L, 18b, 42
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
6, 14, 23, 24
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
2, 3, 17c, 23, 24, 42
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the report, Soils of Santa Clara County, creating substantial risks to life or property?
14, 23
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
3,6, 23
f) Cause substantial compaction or over-covering of soil either on-site or off-site?
3, 6
g) Cause substantial change in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
2, 3, 6,17j, 42
DISCUSSION:
See Section II. Geology and Soils.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to geology and soils.
16
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
3, 8a, 29
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8a, 29
SETTING:
Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single
development project would have an individually discernible effect on global climate change. It is
more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed
project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively
contribute to global climate change. The primary Greenhouse Gas (GHG) associated with
development projects is carbon dioxide, which is directly generated by fuel combustion (vehicle
trips, use of natural gas for buildings) and indirectly generated by use of electricity.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would involve construction and operation of a 7,000 square foot temple,
which would generate additional vehicle trips, which would contribute GHG emissions.
BAAQMD has published screening criteria for operational criteria pollutants for different land
use types.2 The land use type applicable to the proposed project is “Place of Worship” and the
operational screening threshold for criteria pollutants for this land use type is 61,000 square feet.
The proposed project would add approximately 7,000 square feet of new space, which is well
under this threshold. Construction emissions are also considered to be less than significant when
the development is below the operational screening level size. Therefore, construction and
operation of the facility would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in GHG
emissions.
MITIGATION:
None required.
FINDING:
The project would not have any significant impacts for greenhouse gas emissions.
2Although the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines that contain these screening level sizes have been overturned in court,
the County has determined that these thresholds are based on substantial evidence, as identified in Appendix D of
the Guidelines, and has therefore incorporated them into this Initial Study.
17
G. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
1, 3, 4, 5
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
2, 3, 5
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?
3, 46
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
3, 47
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
3, 17a, 22a
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
3, 5, 48
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
4, 17g
h) Provide breeding grounds for vectors? 1, 3, 5, 6
i) Proposed site plan result in a safety hazard (i.e., parking layout, access, closed community, etc.)?
3, 6, 52
j) Involve construction of a building, road or septic system on a slope of 30% or greater?
1, 3, 17n
k) Involve construction of a roadway greater than 20% slope for a distance of 300' or more?
1, 3, 17n
DISCUSSION:
The property is located in the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District. At the time of
site development, the applicant shall meet all requirements of the County Fire Marshal's Office
for fire protection and fire prevention which may include, but not be limited to, providing on-site
fire flow, a fire hydrant, an automatic fire sprinkler system, and appropriate driveway turnouts
and turnarounds for firefighting equipment. The project would not involve the use or
transportation of any hazardous materials, it would not interfere with any emergency response
18
plan, and it is not located within any airport land-use referral area or near any airstrip or airport.
The proposed access driveway would conform to all requirements of the Fire Marshal’s Office
for emergency vehicle access. Fire protection water would be provided by San Jose Water
Company
At the time of site development the applicant shall meet all requirements of the Fire Marshal's
Office for fire protection and fire prevention. These requirements may include, but are not
limited to, providing on-site fire flow, a fire hydrant, an automatic fire sprinkler system, and
appropriate driveway turnouts and turnarounds for fire-fighting equipment.
Shared Driveway Access
A shared private driveway from Murillo Avenue provides existing vehicle access to the subject
property and the adjacent residential property located east of the site. Proposed uses of the
temple include daily and Sunday prayer, Lunar day prayer service, and 3 special events (total of
5 days). The proposed uses would increase vehicle use of the shared access driveway. Access to
the proposed parking lot on the shared driveway is approximately 96-feet from Murillo Avenue
and the driveway will be improved to 24-feet width. The County Parking Ordinance ingress and
egress standards for access to parking areas require a minimum width of 22-feet for all two-way
driveways (multi-family residential and non-residential uses). According to the Traffic Impact
Analysis (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 3/27/2014), the on-site circulation for automobiles is
adequate for the anticipated use during daily activities and events. In addition, the Traffic
Impact Analysis determined the minimum site distance to allow for safe operating conditions at
the Murillo Avenue/Project Driveway intersection meets the Caltrans standard for acceptable
sight distance. Therefore, the impact to safety hazards would be less than significant.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The impact to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant because of the
above reasons.
19
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
3, 6, 36, 37, 38
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?
3, 4, 6
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
3, 6, 17n,
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Note policy regarding flood retention in watercourse and restoration of riparian vegetation for West Branch of the Llagas.)
3, 6. 17p
e) Create or contribute increased impervious surfaces and associated runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
1, 3, 6
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 3, 6
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
3, 17p, 18d
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
3, 17p, 18b, 18d
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
2, 3, 4, 17p
j) Be located in an area of special water quality concern (e.g., Los Gatos or Guadalupe Watershed)?
3, 6
k) Be located in an area known to have high levels of nitrates in well water?
4, 20b, 20c
l) Result in a septic field being constructed on soil where a high water table extends close to the natural land surface?
3, 6
m) Result in a septic field being located within 50 1, 3, 6, 17e
20
feet of a drainage swale; 100 feet of any well,
water course or water body or 200 feet of a
reservoir at capacity?
n) Conflict with Water Collaborative Guidelines
and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams?
3, 17e, 22d,
22e
DISCUSSION:
The proposed development is located approximately 400-feet south of Ruby Creek and FEMA
Flood Zone D (Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard), which is not a designated 100-year flood
zone. The existing water well is proposed to be removed and domestic and emergency water
will be provided to the site by the San Jose Water Company. Therefore, the proposed project
will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or quality, would not place people or
structures within a 100-year flood zone, not alter the course of a stream, or conflict with the
Water Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. The subject
property is not located in an area of high levels of nitrates in well water.
The proposed development would result in approximately 31,588 square feet of new impervious
surface for a new temple and detached garage with associated site improvements that include a
parking lot, driveway improvements, fire turn around, and hardscape. Three (3) bioretention
areas and 36,759 square feet of undeveloped/landscape areas are proposed to ensure onsite
retention of stormwater. In addition, the project would be conditioned to ensure Best
Management Practices will be required during construction to minimize erosion. The project and
a Preliminary Drainage Analysis (MH Engineering, dated September 6, 2013) was reviewed by
County Land Development Engineering and determined it is in conformance with all County
standards for adequate drainage per the County Drainage Ordinance. Therefore, the increased
impervious surfaces and associated runoff water would not exceed the stormwater drainage
system.
A proposed septic system is proposed that would serve the proposed religious facility, which
includes 3 restrooms for the pastor’s residence and 6 public restrooms during religious
services/activities. The proposed septic system will not be located within 50-feet of a drainage
swale, 100-feet of any well or watercourse, or 200-feet of a reservoir. In addition, portable
toilets will be brought onsite during the proposed events to augment septic system capacity. As
part of the building permit review process, the County Department of Environmental Health
(DEH) will review the application for conformance of the proposed septic system with all
County Septic Ordinance requirements.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality.
21
I. LAND USE
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 2, 3, 8a, 9
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
3, 8a, 9
c) Conflict with special policies:
i) San Martin &/or South County? 1, 3, 8a, 20
ii) Los Gatos Specific Plan or Lexington Watershed?
1, 3, 8a, 22b, 22c
iii) Guadalupe Watershed? 1, 8a
iv) Stanford? 8a, 21
v) City of Morgan Hill Urban Growth Boundary Area?
8a, 17a
vi) West Valley Hillsides Preservation Area?
vii) Water Collaborative (Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams)
1, 8a
3, 22d, 22e
DISCUSSION:
The application is for a new 7,000 square foot, two story, temple for Canh Thai Temple that will
consist of a 2,160 square foot pastor’s residence, attached 1,340 square foot storage/mechanical
room and public bathrooms, and 3,500 square foot second story chapel with 100 fixed seats. No
classrooms, school, nursery/day care, commercial kitchen, or outdoor use is proposed. Proposed
religious activities include daily and Sunday worship services, Lunar Service, and 3 annual (5
one-day) events.
The 1.8-acre property is located on Murillo Road, approximately 400-feet south of Klein Road,
in unincorporated County of Santa Clara, outside the City of San Jose urban service area.
Surrounding land uses include rural residential development north, east, and south of the subject
property. Single-family residential urban development is located west of the site, across Murillo
Avenue, in the City of San Jose. The proposed project is located on a parcel previously
developed and therefore would not physically divide an established community. The proposed
project would not conflict with any of the special land use policy areas listed in question C of the
Land Use section since the project is not located in any of these specific land use plan areas.
The property is located in the County Rural Residential (RR) zoning district and General Plan
Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR). The Rural Residential zoning districts allow for
a religious institution use subject to obtaining a Use Permit with Architectural and Site Approval.
The project shall comply with the County Zoning Ordinance and General Plan policies.
Occupancy limits and other conditions are incorporated into the conditions of approval per
compliance with the County Zoning and General Plan requirements.
22
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING: The project will be in conformance with the County Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The
proposed temple would have no impact with regards to land use policies.
J. NOISE
IMPACTS
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 8a, 13, 22a, 45, 53
b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
13, 45, 53
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
1, 2, 45, 53
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
1, 2, 45, 53
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan referral area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
1, 3, 17
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is for the construction of a 7,000 square foot temple with pastor’s residence
and detached garage. The first floor will consist of a 2,160 square foot pastor’s residence and
attached 1,340 square foot storage / mechanical room and public bathrooms for the religious
facility. The 3,500 square foot second story will consist of a chapel with 100 fixed seats and
perimeter altars. Proposed religious services include daily prayer (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.),
Sunday prayer (10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), Lunar prayer service 2 days each month (5:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m.), and 3 annual events (5 days total). No classrooms, school, nursery/day care,
commercial kitchen, or outdoor use is proposed. In addition, the proposed activities, including
annual events, will take place inside the temple.
Sound is measured logarithmically in decibels (dB) using a sound level meter that meets the
requirements for Type S2A meters in the American National Standards Institute specifications.
Noise from all uses and events must comply with the County Noise Ordinance and General Plan
thresholds.
23
The County General Plan Noise Element measures noise levels in Day-Night Average Sound
Level (DNL), a 24-hour time weighted average, as recommended by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for community noise planning. Noise Compatibility Standards for
exterior noise specify three (3) classifications of compatibility between ambient noise levels at
the site and various land uses: satisfactory, cautionary, and critical. According to the Noise
Element Noise Compatibility Standards for Land Use in Santa Clara County, the satisfactory
exterior noise compatibility standard for residential land uses is 55 dB (Ldn value in dBs).
The County Noise Ordinance restricts exterior noise limits, for a cumulative period not to exceed
more than 30 minutes in any hour, for one and two family residential land uses at 45 dBA
between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. In addition,
specifically prohibited acts include amplified sound, such musical instruments, radios, and
loudspeakers, between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., or construction activity during weekdays and
Saturdays hours from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m, or at any time on Sundays or holidays.
A Noise Assessment Study (Edward Pack, Associates, 12/9/2014) was prepared for this project
to determine the levels of noise at the adjacent residential properties during the most intensive
uses: Sunday Prayer service and 3 special events annually (5 days total; Chinese New Year, Birth
of Buddha, and Mother’s Day). Noise measurements were obtained prior to cease of
unpermitted religious activities, which included outdoor activities, on February 1, 2014, during a
Chinese New Year event, and on February 16, 2014, during a Sunday service. Noise
measurement locations include the north property line along the shared driveway (Location 1),
east property line contiguous with the residential neighbor (Location 2), and property line on the
west side of Murillo Avenue (Location 3). Measurements were not taken at the south property
line due to the significant distance from the proposed temple (approximately 85 feet).
Project Generated Noise Exposure
Project generated noise exposures were calculated for Sunday prayer service and a “worst case
scenario” event. The noise exposures were based on the assumption that charter buses will be
30-passanger, gasoline or natural gas powered type vehicles and not diesel-powered buses, as use
of diesel-powered vehicles will likely cause violations of the Noise Ordinance at the north
property line.
According to the Noise Assessment, project generated exterior noise levels from Sunday prayer
services will most impact the north and east property lines, with noise levels of 33 dBA at the
north property line and 16 dBA at the east property line. In addition, project generated noise
levels for special events (300 attendees) will be 48 dBA (with bus service) or 33 dBA (without
bus service) at the north property line, and 34 dBA (with bus service) or 16 dBA (without bus
service), at the east property line. The project generated noise levels will be below the County
maximum 55 dBA at the north and east property lines. However, the Noise Assessment based
the noise levels on use of 30-passenger Therefore, the impact of project generated noise levels
from proposed uses on adjacent properties would be less than significant.
As previously discussed, the Noise Assessment determined that use of diesel powered buses
would likely cause violations of the Noise Ordinance at the north property line. This would
potentially result in a temporary or periodic increase in noise levels above existing levels that
would be a significant impact. Therefore, in order to ensure noise generated from bus
transportation for special events does not exceed the maximum 55 dBA noise level, mitigation
measures prohibiting diesel engine charter buses and requiring use of gasoline, natural gas, or
24
electric transport buses for annual events will be required. In addition, all activities will occur
inside the temple and no loudspeakers or amplified sound will be permitted as conditions of
approval. The project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
and, with the above mitigation, exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of
applicable standards in the County General Plan or Noise Ordinance will be reduced to less than
significant with mitigation.
Construction Noise
The noise levels created during the grading and demolition/construction of this project could
create a temporary disturbance. The project is required to conform to the County Noise
Ordinance at all times for construction, during hours of operation, and during annual events.
Construction noise (including noise generated by truck traffic to and from the project site) is
regulated by time-of-work restrictions and decibel maximum specified in the County Noise
Ordinance. Thus, it is anticipated that short-term noise resulting from the grading and
demolition/construction will not present a significant impact to neighboring property owners.
Therefore, the project would not create any significant noise impacts.
MITIGATION:
In order to ensure potential noise generated from diesel engine bus transportation at special
events does not exceed noise requirements, no diesel powered transport buses shall be permitted
during annual events. Transport buses used for events shall be smaller 30-passenger type
gasoline, natural gas, or electric vehicles.
FINDING:
Noise impacts of the proposed project with the mitigation measures discussed above would be
reduced to less than significant.
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
1, 3, 4, 9
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 2, 3, 4
DISCUSSION:
See Section II; Population and Housing.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Population and Housing.
25
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire Protection? 1, 3, 6
ii) Police Protection? 1, 3
iii) School facilities? 1, 3
iv) Parks? 1, 3, 17h
v) Other public facilities? 1, 3, 6
DISCUSSION:
See Section II; Public Services.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Public Services.
26
M. RESOURCES AND RECREATION
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state?
1, 2, 3, 6, 44
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
1, 2, 3, 6,8a
c) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1, 2, 4, 17h
d) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 3, 4,
e) Be on, within or near a public or private park, wildlife reserve, or trail or affect existing or future recreational opportunities?
3, 17h
f) Result in loss of open space rated as high priority for acquisition?
27
DISCUSSION:
See Section II; Resources and Recreation.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Resources and Recreation.
27
N. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
IMPACT SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1, 4, 6, 7, 49, 52
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
6, 50, 52
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
6, 7, 52
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
3, 6, 7, 52
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 3, 6, 52
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
8a
g) Not provide safe access, obstruct access to nearby uses or fail to provide for future street right of way?
3, 6, 7, 52
DISCUSSION: The subject property is located on Murillo Avenue, approximately 400-feet south of Klein Road,
in unincorporated County of Santa Clara, outside the City of San Jose urban service area.
Murillo Avenue is maintained by the City of San Jose and the portion of Klein Road north of the
project site is a County maintained road.
Primary vehicle access to the subject property is currently provided by a shared private driveway
from Murillo Avenue that serves both the subject property and the adjacent single-family
residence located east (2526 Klein Road) of the subject property.
The project would construct a new 7,000 square foot 2-story building with a pastor’s residence
on the first floor and 3,500 square foot religious service area with 100 fixed seats on the second
floor. The building would be located in a rural residential area primarily developed with single-
28
family homes. Proposed uses of the temple include daily and Sunday worship services, Lunar
Day services, and 3 annual events (total of 5 days). No classrooms, school, nursery/day care, or
commercial kitchen are proposed.
As shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2), proposed access to the site would remain at the existing
shared private driveway from Murillo Avenue. Vehicle parking would be located at the front of
the property with 44 parking spaces, including 2 handicap accessible spaces, and 4 additional
parking spaces located at the rear of the property, adjacent to the detached 6-vehicle garage (total
54 parking spaces). Transportation during the Chinese New Year event (3 days) will include two
(2) buses to transport attendees from designated locations to the subject property.
Conformance with Regulations
The County Fire Marshal’s Office requires adequate emergency access, including minimum
driveway widths and turnarounds for emergency vehicles. In addition, County on-site parking
requirements for the proposed temple with pastor’s residence is 29 parking spaces. The County
Fire Marshal’s Office reviewed the application and determined the project, as conditioned, will
meet minimum Fire requirements for a 40-foot by 48-foot turnaround, all weather driving surface
capable of sustaining 65,000 pound fire apparatus weight, and clear drivable surface width of 20-
feet,. Proposed parking will consist of 54 parking spaces, including 2 handicapped spaces, sized
to meet the County Off-Site Parking Regulations minimum design requirements for parking
space dimensions and aisle width. Therefore, the proposed parking and emergency access meet
the County requirements to accommodate all the proposed uses of the project.
Due to potential traffic impacts associated with the project, a Traffic Impact Analysis to assess
the project traffic impacts to Klein Road / Murillo Avenue intersection, private access driveway,
and community of San Jose was required.
A Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by Hatch Mott MacDonald (3/27/2014), based traffic
analysis on the project description, dated 3/28/2014, at 128 daily (total) attendees for Sunday
Group Prayer, 300 daily (total) attendees for Chinese New Year event, and 500 daily attendees
for Birth of Buddha and Mother’s Day events. Subsequently, the project description was revised
to 50 daily attendees for Sunday Group Prayer and 300 daily attendees for the 3 events. The
submitted Traffic Impact Analysis was reviewed by the City of San Jose and County Roads &
Airports and determined to be adequate.
The Traffic Impact Analysis assessed Level of Service (LOS) for the Klein Road / Murillo
Avenue and the Project Driveway / Murillo Avenue intersections, project trip generation and
distribution, project driveway sight distance, and on-site circulation. In addition, study scenarios
included Existing No Project, Existing plus Typical Project, Background No Project,
Background plus Project Events, Cumulative No Project, and Cumulative plus Project Events.
Trip Generation and Distribution
The traffic analysis submitted for the project was based on an earlier project description, dated
3/28/2014, that assumed a larger number of attendees (500) for proposed events and made the
following findings for new trip generation/distribution:
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system, the project is estimated to generate 50 daily trips on a typical weekday, with 10
29
occurring during the PM peak hour (10 in, 0 out). On a typical Sunday, the project is estimated
to generate 170 daily trips, with 51 occurring during the Sunday midday peak hour (9 in; 42 out).
Chinese New Year (3-day event): Based on estimated attendance at 300 visitors per day, the
largest traffic impact from Chinese New Year activities would occur when Chinese New Year
falls on a weekday. Trips generated by Chinese New Year activities were analyzed during the
weekday PM peak hour. The project is estimated to generate 312 daily trips during Chinese New
Year with 54 occurring during the PM peak hour (27 in; 27 out).
Birth of Buddha and Buddhism Mother’s Day (One-day events): Based on the previous project
description estimated attendance at 500 visitors per day, the largest traffic impact from the
special events would occur when these events fall on a Sunday. Trips generated were analyzed
during the Sunday midday peak hour. Trips generated by these events are estimated to generate
608 daily trips with 118 occurring during the Sunday midday peak hour (59 in; 59 out).
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of an intersection and roadway’s operation,
ranging from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A represents free flow uncongested traffic conditions and
LOS F represents highly congested traffic conditions with unacceptable delay to vehicles. The
County of Santa Clara and City of San Jose have established Level of Service (LOS) D as the
minimum acceptable LOS for overall intersection operations. Existing Level of Service for the
Murillo Avenue / Klein Road and Project Driveway / Murillo Avenue study intersections operate
at LOS A (Exhibit 7; Traffic Impact Assessment, Hatch Mott MacDonald, 3/27/2014) .
The Traffic Impact Analysis made the following findings regarding Level of Service (LOS) at
the following intersections:
Murillo Avenue / Klein Road Intersection: Based on the Background No Project
Conditions and Background plus Project Special Event Conditions, the Level of Service
would remain at LOS A.
Project Driveway / Murillo Avenue Intersection: Based on the Background No Project
Conditions and Background plus Project Special Event Conditions, the Level of Service
would remain at LOS A.
According to the Congestion Management Program standards, as overseen by the Valley
Transportation Authority, an increase of traffic would be considered a significant impact if the
estimated traffic with the project increases at least one entire LOS level (i.e., E to F). The
project's LOS results (Exhibit 7) show the LOS levels at the 2 intersections will remain at LOS
A. Therefore, the project's estimated traffic generation impacts are less than significant.
Circulation/Site Access
Primary vehicle access to the subject property is provided by an existing shared private
driveway, approximately 96-feet from Murillo Avenue, on the north portion of the site. The
gravel driveway serves both the subject property and the adjacent single-family residence located
east (2526 Murillo Avenue) of the subject property. Access to the project site will be provided
from the existing shared private driveway from Murillo Avenue.
The Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated potential impacts of the proposed site access and onsite
circulation. The shared driveway will be designed to operate as a 2-way inbound and outbound
driveway to serve as the primary access entrance/exit to and from the project site. Access to the
30
parking lot and detached garage will be provided by 3 separate vehicle aisles from the shared
driveway. Bus circulation will occur from the access aisle closest to Murillo Avenue, continue
through the parking area, and exit the second access aisle to the shared driveway and Murillo
Avenue. The Traffic Impact Analysis determined the on-site circulation plan is satisfactory for
the anticipated use during regular activities.
In addition, the sight distance at the project driveway was evaluated to determine if a clear line of
sight is available between the driver of a vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian waiting to cross the
project driveway and the driver of an approaching vehicle in either direction on Murillo Avenue.
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, existing sight distance is 375 feet (east and west) and
the average speed on Murillo Avenue is 20 miles per hour. Based on the prevailing traffic
speeds on Murillo Avenue and Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards, the minimum sight
distance to provide for safe operation conditions at the Murillo Avenue / Project Driveway
intersection is 200 feet. Based on existing site conditions, the Traffic Impact Analysis
determined the proposed the sight distance at the project driveway meets the minimum Caltrans
standards. Therefore, the proposed design of onsite circulation and site access would be no
impact.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis by Hatch Mott MacDonald (3/27/2013), trips generated by
the proposed project would not significantly impact the study intersections, transportation
system, increase pedestrian, bicycle, or transit volume capacity, will provide adequate parking to
accommodate projected demand, and the driveway meets Caltrans standards for sight distance.
Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact to traffic/transportation and circulation.
31
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
1, 3
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
1, 3, 38
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
1, 3, 6
d) Require new or expanded entitlements in order to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project?
1, 3, 6
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
1, 3, 6
f) Not be able to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1, 3, 6
g) Be in non-compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
6
DISCUSSION:
The proposed religious temple includes a pastor’s residence with 3 bathrooms, public bathrooms
with 6 stalls, septic system, and new landscaping. The existing water well will be abandoned
and domestic and fire emergency water will be provided to the site by San Jose Water Company.
As part of the Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval process, the property owner will be
required to provide a will-serve letter from San Jose Water Company and documentation of
adequate garbage service to the Department of Environmental Health as a condition of approval.
In addition, the proposed landscape plantings include native and non-native screening trees,
shrubs, ground covers, grasses, bamboo, and bonsai plantings. According to water budget
calculations used to evaluate the proposed Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and
Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU), the proposed irrigation calculations demonstrate the
proposed landscaping meets the water requirements of the County Water-Efficient Landscaping
Regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded entitlements in
order to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project.
The proposed septic system was reviewed by the County Department of Environmental Health
and determined the septic system meets the County On-Site Waste Water Treatment System
32
Ordinance. In addition, bioretention areas are proposed and County Land Development
Engineering will review the grading plans for conformance with stormwater regulations.
Therefore, the proposed project will not, exceed wastewater treatment requirements, or result in
the construction of new or expanded wastewater or stormwater treatment facilities.
The proposed temple would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded
government facilities for wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Construction
activities would involve minimal amounts of debris that would need be removed and disposed of,
and existing landfill capacity would be sufficient to accommodate it.
MITIGATION:
No mitigation is required.
FINDING:
The project would have no impacts to Utilities and Service Systems.
33
P. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE
IMPACT
SOURCE
WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
1 to 52
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
1 to 52
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
1 to 52
DISCUSSION:
As previously discussed, the proposed project is for a new 2- story temple with pastor’s
residence, detached garage, and site improvements that include a parking lot, septic system, and
landscaping. Uses of the temple include daily and Sunday service, Lunar Day service, and 3
annual (5 one-day) events.
This project would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory. As previously discussed in the biological resources section of this initial
study, tree replacement for the removal of 2 trees would be addressed through the ASA review
process. As previously discussed in the cultural resources section of this initial study, there are
no cultural resource impacts.
FINDING:
The proposed project would not have a significant impact to any environmental resource. On the
basis of this Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared for this project.
The project will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, or have substantial
adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly or have any cumulatively considerable
impacts. As discussed, Level of Service for intersections will not degrade, on-site circulation
and safe vehicle access is adequate, and no additional water, stormwater, or wastewater facilities
are required.
34
Adequate tree screening and site lighting will be required as a condition of approval of the
Architectural and Site Approval and will not significantly degrade the existing visual character
of the site and its surrounding or create a new source of substantial light or glare. Mitigation
measures include prohibiting the use of diesel powered transportation buses and requiring the use
of gasoline, natural gas, or electric powered transportation buses during events will avoid
generation of noise levels in excess of County standards and creation of permanent or temporary
ambient noise impacts.
35
References
Transportation/Traffic
“Canh Thai Temple – Traffic Impact Analysis Santa Clara County” by Hatch Mott
MacDonald, March 27, 2014.
Noise
“Noise Assessment Study for the Planned Expansion of the Canh Thai Temple, 2532 Klein
Road, Santa Clara,” by Edward L. Pack Associates, January 27, 2015.
Attachments
Project Description
Location Map
Site Plan
Initial Study Source List
1. Environmental Information Form 2. Field Inspection 3. Project Plans 4. Working knowledge of site and conditions 5. Experience With Other Projects of This Size and
Nature 6. County Expert Sources: Geologist, Fire Marshal,
Roads & Airports, Environmental Health, Land Development Engineering, Parks & Recreation, Zoning Administration, Comprehensive Planning, Architectural & Site Approval Committee Secretary
7. Agency Sources: Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Midpeninsula Openspace Regional District, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, Caltrans, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Public Works Depts. of individual cities, Planning Depts. of individual cities,
8a. Santa Clara County (SCC) General Plan
8b. The South County Joint Area Plan 9. SCC Zoning Regulations (Ordinance)
10. County Grading Ordinance 11. SCC Guidelines for Architecture and Site
Approval 12. SCC Development Guidelines for Design Review
13. County Standards and Policies Manual (Vol. I - Land Development)
14. Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (expansive soil regulations) [1994 version]
15. Land Use Database 16. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource (including
Trees) Inventory [computer database] 17. GIS Database
a. SCC General Plan Land Use, and Zoning b. USFWS Critical Habitat & Riparian Habitat c. Geologic Hazards d. Archaeological Resources e. Water Resources f. Viewshed and Scenic Roads g. Fire Hazard h. Parks, Public Open Space, and Trails i. Heritage Resources - Trees j. Topography, Contours, Average Slope k. Soils l. HCP Data (habitat models, land use coverage
etc) m. Air photos n. USGS Topographic o. Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Diversity Data p. FEMA Flood Zones q. Williamsosn Act r. Farmland monitoring program s. Traffic Analysis Zones Base Map Overlays & Textual Reports (GIS)
18. Paper Maps a. SCC Zoning
b. Barclay’s Santa Clara County Locaide Street Atlas
c. Color Air Photos (MPSI)
d. Santa Clara Valley Water District - Maps of Flood Control Facilities & Limits of 1% Flooding
e. Soils Overlay Air Photos
f. “Future Width Line” map set 19. CEQA Guidelines [Current Edition]
Area Specific: San Martin, Stanford, and Other Areas
San Martin 20a.San Martin Integrated Design Guidelines
20b.San Martin Water Quality Study 20c.Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Santa Clara County & Santa Clara Valley Water District
Stanford 21a. Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP), Community Plan (CP), Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
21b. Stanford Protocol and Land Use Policy Agreement
Other Areas 22a.South County Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan and Palo Alto Airport comprehensive Land Use Plan [November 19, 2008]
22b.Los Gatos Hillsides Specific Area Plan 22c.County Lexington Basin Ordinance Relating to Sewage Disposal 22d. User Manual Guidelines & Standards for Land Uses Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, August 2005 – Revised July 2006. 22e. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: Streamside Review Area – Summary prepared by Santa Clara County Planning Office, September 2007. 22f. Monterey Highway Use Permit Area
Soils 23.USDA, SCS, “Soils of Santa Clara County
24.USDA, SCS, “Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County”
Agricultural Resources/Open Space 25. Right to Farm Ordinance 26. State Dept. of Conservation, "CA Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model" 27. Open Space Preservation, Report of the Preservation
2020 Task Force, April 1987 [Chapter IV] 28. Wiliamson Act Ordinance and Guidelines (current
version)
Air Quality 29. BAAQMD Clean Air Plan, and BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines (2010) 30. BAAQMD Annual Summary of Contaminant Excesses
& BAAQMD, “Air Quality & Urban Development - Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects & Plans” [current version]
Biological Resources/ Water Quality & Hydrological Resources/
Utilities & Service Systems" 31. Site-Specific Biological Report
Initial Study Source List
32. Santa Clara County Tree Preservation Ordinance Section C16, Santa Clara County Guide to Evaluating Oak Woodlands Impacts, Santa Clara County Guidelines for Tree Protection and Preservation for Land Use Applications
33. Clean Water Act, Section 404 34. Riparian Inventory of Santa Clara County, Greenbelt
Coalition, November 1988 35.CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water
Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region [1995]
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District, Private Well Water Testing Program [12-98]
37. SCC Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Urban Runoff Management Plan [1997]
38.County Environmental Health / Septic Tank Sewage Disposal System - Bulletin “A” 39.County Environmental Health Department Tests and
Reports
Archaeological Resources 40.Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State
University 41. Site Specific Archaeological Reconnaissance
Report
Geological Resources 42. Site Specific Geologic Report
43.State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #42 44. State Department of Mines and Geology, Special Report #146
Noise 45. County Noise Ordinance
Hazards & Hazardous Materials 46.Section 21151.4 of California Public Resources Code 47. State Department of Toxic Substances, Hazardous
Waste and Substances Sites List 48. County Office of Emergency Services Emergency
Response Plan [1994 version]
Transportation/Traffic 49. Transportation Research Board, “Highway Capacity Manual”, Special Report 209, 1995. 50. SCC Congestion Management Agency, “Monitoring
and Conformance report” (Current Edition) 51. Official County Road Book 52. Site-specific Traffic Impact Analysis Report