INITIAL STUDY - Santa Clara County, California4 Figure 3b – Existing Site The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least

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



Impact


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



Impact


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:


FINDING: The impact to air quality from construction activity would be less than significant.

13

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

IMPACT

SOURCES



Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to Biological Resources.

14

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

IMPACT

SOURCE

WOULD THE PROJECT YES NO


Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to Cultural Resources.

15

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

IMPACT

SOURCE



Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to geology and soils.

16

G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

IMPACT

SOURCE



Impact


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



Impact


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:


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



Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality.

21

I. LAND USE

IMPACT

SOURCE



Impact


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:


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



Impact


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



Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to Population and Housing.

25

L. PUBLIC SERVICES

IMPACT



Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to Public Services.

26

M. RESOURCES AND RECREATION

IMPACT

SOURCE



Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to Resources and Recreation.

27

N. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC

IMPACT SOURCE



Impact


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:


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



Impact


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:


FINDING:

The project would have no impacts to Utilities and Service Systems.

33

P. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE

IMPACT

SOURCE



Impact


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

Documents

INITIAL STUDY - Santa Clara County, California4 Figure 3b – Existing Site The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least