PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION
Z 16‐02
PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy
March 27, 2018
PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy, Planning Division Susan O’Strander, Planning Manager 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Tel 408 846‐0451
PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Stuart Poulter, MCRP, Associate Planner [email protected]
March 27, 2018
This document was produced on recycled paper.
Community Development Department Planning Division (408) 846-0440
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna St. Gilroy, CA 95020 City File Number: Z 16‐02 Project Description: Name of Project: Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment – Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation Nature of Project: The proposed project includes four components: 1) Changing the planned Hecker Pass Highway and Third Street intersection from a standard intersection to a one-lane roundabout; 2) Addition of a Class I bike path south of Hecker Pass Highway (State Route 152); 3) Changes to specific plan language related to fencing within the Hecker Pass Highway setback corridor, as well as other fencing restriction modifications in the specific plan; and 4) Elimination/modification of two specific plan EIR transportation-related mitigation measures.
Project Location: Location: Hecker Pass Specific Plan area (Hecker Pass Highway – State Route 152)
Entity or Person(s) Undertaking Project: Name: Meritage Homes (c/o Mark Currington, Forward Planning Manager) Address: 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 140, San Ramon, CA 94583 Staff Planner: Stuart Poulter, Contract Planner Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (Z 16-02) 2 March 27, 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Initial Study: An initial study of this project was undertaken and prepared for the purpose of ascertaining whether this project might have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of this study is attached. Findings & Reasons:
The initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment. However, this project has been mitigated (see Mitigation Measures below which avoid or mitigate the effects) to a point where no significant effects will occur. On the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The following reasons will support these findings: The proposal is a logical component of the existing land use of this area. Identified adverse impacts are proposed to be mitigated and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been prepared. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan of the City of Gilroy and the Hecker Pass Specific Plan. City staff independently reviewed the Initial Study, and this Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Gilroy. With the application of the following Mitigation Measures the proposed project will not have any significant impacts on the environment. The Gilroy Planning Division is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.
Aesthetics
AES-1. The design of the fencing associated with the roundabout project must be in compliance with the fencing restrictions of the specific plan. The following changes shall be made to the plans: The six-foot high chain link fence proposed along the northern boundary of the roundabout must be eliminated from the plans. If some type of fencing is required here by Caltrans or requested by the adjacent property owner associated with the roundabout design, it must be in compliance with the fencing modifications proposed as part of this project, if the fencing modifications are approved by the City Council. If the fencing modifications are not approved by the City Council, the design of the fence shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Manager or her designee, and must meet the rural landscape design requirements associated with all development in the specific plan area. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (Z 16-02) 3 March 27, 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration
AES-2. The design of the fencing associated with the bike path project must be in compliance with the fencing restrictions of the specific plan. The following changes shall be made to the plans: Any new fencing proposed as part of the project, including but not limited to the proposed fencing along the southern boundary of the bike path, must be consistent with the fencing restrictions in the specific plan, subject to review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Manager or her designee. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Air Quality
AQ-1. The applicant shall specify in project plans the implementation of the following dust control measures during grading and construction activities for any proposed development. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust, subject to the review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division: The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; Replant vegetation in disturbed areas; Place a minimum of 100 linear feet of 6 to 8 inch average diameter cobble at all exit points to dislodge and trap dirt from vehicle tires; Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (Z 16-02) 4 March 27, 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour; and Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Biological Resources
BIO-1. (HPSP Policy 5-44) Pre-construction surveys for protected birds shall be conducted for improvements or development proposed in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat (i.e., riparian woodland) if development is proposed during the nesting and/or breeding season of loggerhead shrike (generally February through June) or raptors (generally March through August). If any active nests are found within the survey area, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-2. (HPSP Policy 5-40) Prior to construction of the roundabout and bike path, Meritage Homes will retain a qualified biologist to inform workers of potential presence of the special-status species, their protected status, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during construction activities. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-3. (HPSP Policy 5-43) For all proposed Class I bike path improvements adjacent to the Uvas Creek riparian corridor (westernmost limit of the bike path), which contains potential habitat for California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, yellow-breasted chat, and/or yellow warbler, construction related activities should be conducted outside of the rainy season. Meritage Homes will retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities occurring within 100 feet of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor. If any special-status species are observed at the site, a qualified biologist will salvage and relocate individual(s) to an appropriate area outside of the construction zone. If California red-legged frog, a federally listed threatened species, or California tiger salamander, a federally and state-listed threatened species, are observed at the site, construction activities will be halted and the USFWS and/or CDFW shall be contacted for further assistance. Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (Z 16-02) 5 March 27, 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-4. (Consolidated Landscaping Policy) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a tree replacement plan to mitigate for removing 39 trees. The final plan shall identify the species, size, numbers, and locations for the replacement trees, and will be subject to review and approval by the Planning Manager. The tree replacement plan shall be implemented with construction of the bike path. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-5. (HPSP Policy 7-9) Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the protected zone of any tree or group of trees to be retained should be fenced to prevent injury to the trees during construction under the supervision of an arborist. Soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and/or dumping of materials shall not be allowed within the protected zone. The fencing shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Cultural Resources
CR-1. The applicant shall plant two replacement deodar cedar trees: one within the southerly portion of the roundabout and one on the southwest “corner” of the roundabout intersection, as presented in Appendix G of this initial study, to ensure visual continuity in the historic tree row. These trees shall be incorporated into the roundabout landscape plans, prior to approval by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and Caltrans. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
CR-2 The applicant shall invite representatives of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, and the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, to be present during earth-moving activities associated with construction of the roundabout and the Class I bike path. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that all three tribes have been invited to be present, subject to review by the City of Gilroy Planning Division. Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (Z 16-02) 6 March 27, 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
CR-3 If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) at of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at Developer’s expense) to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
CR-4 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that this language is included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e): If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (Z 16-02) 7 March 27, 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Geology and Soils
GEO-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the roundabout and/or bike path, project applicants shall prepare an erosion control plan consistent with the City’s erosion control ordinance. The plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and its implementation by project applicant shall be monitored by the City. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division Noise
N-1. All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and to Saturdays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction is allowed on Sundays or city holidays. In addition, temporary berms or noise attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary. This requirement shall be attached as a contractor work specification for all projects. Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Utilities and Service Systems U-1. Storm water detention shall be designed to prevent an increase in the 2-year, 10- year and 100-year peak discharge for the project area (refinement of existing HPSP policy 8-6), and consistent with the City of Gilroy Storm Water Management Guidance Manual For Low Impact Development & Post- Construction Requirements (March 6, 2014). Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
Date Prepared: March 27, 2018 End of Review Period: April 30, 2018 Date Adopted by City Council:
Susan O’Strander Planning Division Manager [email protected]
INITIAL STUDY
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy, Planning Division Susan O’Strander, Planning Manager 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Tel 408 846‐0451
PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Stuart Poulter, MCRP, Associate Planner [email protected]
March 27, 2018
This document was produced on recycled paper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND ...... 1
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...... 28
C. DETERMINATION ...... 29
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 30
1. Aesthetics ...... 32
2. Agriculture ...... 44
3. Air Quality ...... 48
4. Biological Resources ...... 51
5. Cultural Resources ...... 62
6. Geology and Soils ...... 68
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 71
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 73
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 75
10. Land Use and Planning ...... 78
11. Mineral Resources ...... 79
12. Noise ...... 80
13. Population and Housing ...... 82
14. Public Services...... 83
15. Transportation/Traffic ...... 84
16. Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 87
17. Utilities and Service Systems ...... 88
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 90
E. SOURCES ...... 94
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Appendices CD included on inside back cover
Appendix A Proposed Text Amendments to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Zone Text Amendment Application – Z 16‐02, Submitted by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar, June 2016; revised August 2017
Appendix B Project Plans for Construction on State Highway in Santa Clara County in Gilroy at Future Autumn Drive Prepared by Bellecci & Associates, Inc., dated April 11, 2016
Appendix C Hecker Pass Highway Trail Trees Exhibit, City of Gilroy, California Prepared by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar, April 25, 2017 & Hecker Pass Cedar Preservation Arborist Report and Tree Survey Prepared by Moki Smith – Morgan Hill Tree Service, dated September 18, 2014, revised September 21, 2016
Appendix D Improvement Plans for Hecker Pass Highway Trail Prepared by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar, dated May 15, 2017
Appendix E Land Evaluation and Site Assessment LESA from Hecker Pass Specific Plan EIR 2004
Appendix F Locations for Deodar Cedar Tree Replacement Prepared by Vandertoolen Associates, February 2017
Appendix G 1 E‐mail Memo from City of Gilroy Traffic Engineer Gary Heap to EMC Planning Group regarding need for Traffic Improvements at Santa Teresa Boulevard and First Street dated March 15, 2018 ;
2 Traffic Impact Trigger Analysis Prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, dated January 10, 2018 ;
3 Hexagon response to Caltrans comment letter dated November 4, 2016 ;
4 Comment Letter from Caltrans District 4, Local Development – Intergovernmental Review dated October 26, 2016 ;
5 Reevaluation of the Need for Certain Traffic Mitigation Measures Associated with the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Project in Gilroy, California 2016 Prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants ; and
6 Analysis of Planned New Intersection on Hecker Pass Highway in Gilroy, California 2014
Appendix H Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Figures
Figure 1 Location Map ...... 3
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph ...... 5
Figure 3 Existing Conditions ‐ Roundabout Site Photographs ...... 7
Figure 4 Existing Conditions – Bike Path Site Photographs ...... 9
Figure 5 Hecker Pass Specific Plan Land Use Map ...... 11
Figure 6 Roundabout Site Plan ...... 13
Figure 7 Tree Removal Exhibit ‐ Roundabout Site ...... 17
Figure 8 Bike Path Site Plan ...... 21
Figure 9 Visual Simulation ‐ Viewpoint 1 ...... 37
Figure 10 Visual Simulation ‐ Viewpoint 2 ...... 39
Figure 11 Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Infrastructure ...... 91
Tables
Table 1 Hecker Pass Highway Roundabout Site – Tree Removal Information ... 16
Table 2 Hecker Pass Highway Bike Path – Tree Removal Information1 ...... 23
Table 3 Hecker Pass Class I Trail – Acreage & Farmland/Land Use Designations ...... 4 5
This side intentionally left blank.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment – Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation Z 16‐02 Lead Agency Contact Person Susan O’Strander, Planning Manager and Phone Number City of Gilroy Community Development Department Planning Division 408 846‐0219 Date Prepared March 27, 2018 Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal Sally Rideout, EMPA, Principal Planner Andrea Edwards, Senior Biologist, Certified Arborist Stuart Poulter, MCRP, Associate Planner Project Location Hecker Pass Specific Plan area Hecker Pass Highway – State Route 152 Project Sponsor Name and Address Mark Currington, Forward Planning Manager Meritage Homes 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 140 San Ramon, CA 94583 General Plan Designation Hecker Pass Special Use District Zoning HPSD ‐ Hecker Pass Special Use District
Setting
The proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan HPSP Amendment Z 16‐02 project hereinafter “proposed project” is located within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area located at the western edge of the City of Gilroy hereinafter “City” . State Route 152 also known as Hecker Pass Highway bisects the HPSP. Figure 1, Location Map, presents the regional location and project vicinity. Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, presents an aerial view of the project site and surrounding land uses. Figure 3, Existing Conditions Roundabout Site, and Figure 4, Existing Conditions Bike Path Site, present photographs of the existing conditions at the future Hecker Pass
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Highway/Third Street roundabout and along the Class I bike path route on the south side of Hecker Pass Highway, both of which are components of the HPSP Amendment. Figure 5, Hecker Pass Specific Plan Land Use Map, presents the specific plan land use designations.
Description of Project
The proposed project includes four components:
1. Changing the planned Hecker Pass Highway and Third Street intersection from a standard intersection to a one‐lane roundabout;
2. Addition of a Class I bike path south of Hecker Pass Highway State Route 152 ;
3. Changes to specific plan language related to fencing within the Hecker Pass Highway setback corridor, as well as other fencing restriction modifications in the specific plan; and
4. Elimination/modification of two specific plan EIR transportation‐related mitigation measures.
Approval of the proposed project would require text and mapping changes to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan, and to the specific plan development agreement. The proposed roundabout is intended to provide secondary access to the specific plan area, improve overall traffic circulation, and improve safety and access along Hecker Pass Highway. Both City staff and adjacent private property owners have determined that the roundabout is a more appropriate improvement for the intersection. All proposed text and mapping specific plan amendments are presented in Appendix A.
1. Hecker Pass (SR 152)/Third Street Intersection Change
The adopted specific plan and infrastructure master plans include a new standard intersection at State Route 152/Third Street. The intersection is now proposed as a single‐lane roundabout. Characteristics of the roundabout are discussed below. Figure 6, Roundabout Site Plan, presents the overall plan for the roundabout. Proposed specific plan modifications associated with the roundabout are presented in Appendix A. Roundabout project plans are presented in Appendix B.
Roundabout Characteristics
Per the Caltrans standard improvement plans prepared by Bellecci & Associates, Inc. dated April 11, 2016, the proposed single‐lane roundabout will have a 16‐foot wide lane approach from the west curb to curb and 16 foot wide lane approach from the east curb to curb .
2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. UV152
UV152
Hecker Pass Specific Plan area Roundabout Work Limit Source: City of Gilroy 2016, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar 2016 0 500 feet Bike Path Work Limit Figure 2 Aerial Photograph Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION
This side intentionally left blank.
6 CME PLANNING GROUP INC. Place photos within the orange borders Aerial: 5.0” W x 6.08” H Orange borders will not print
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
1 View toward Project Site Eastbound. Project Site
2 1 3
View South from Proposed 2 Roundabout Location.
Aerial Source: Google Earth 2016 3 View West near East Boundary Site. Photographs: EMC Planning Group, 4/21/2016
Figure 3 5 6 Existing Conditions - Roundabout Site Photographs Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment - Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Place photos within the orange borders Aerial: 4.0” W x 4.855” H Orange borders will not print
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Project Site
4 Northeastern view of trees and field south of 1 3 2 3 Western view of Syngenta Flowers site Hecker Pass Highway 1
2 Southeastern view of frontage and field Source: Google Earth 2016 4 Western view of adjacent agricultural land Photographs: EMC Planning Group 8/11/2016
1 2 3 4 Figure 4 Existing Conditions - Bike Path Site Photographs Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment - Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Use Arial Narrow Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Source: Hecker Pass Specific Plan 2015 0 1000 feet
Figure 5 Hecker Pass Specific Plan Land Use Map Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment - Rounabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Use Arial Narrow Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Source: Bellecci & Associates 2016 0 150 feet
Figure 6 Roundabout Site Plan Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment - Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
The roundabout will have a minimum 22 foot paved width within the roundabout segment. The 22 foot wide roundabout paved dimension will include an 18 foot wide lane with a 2 foot wide gutter along the right edge, and a 2 foot wide paved shoulder along the left edge. The materials used within the roundabout will be layers of hot mix asphalt over class 2 aggregate base. The center of the roundabout will include a mountable concrete curb, shrubs, a deodar cedar tree, and cobbles. Other improvements include laying cold plane asphalt concrete; laying 8" pipe sleeve; laying class 2 aggregate base for roadway and concrete; laying hot mix asphalt concrete and concrete pavement; installation of headwall; reinforcement of concrete storm drain pipe 12" to 18" diameter ; installation of concrete curb bike ramps; cobblestones; a six‐foot high chain linked fence along the entire northern boundary of the roundabout area from the Ousley Home to Two Oaks Lane; striping; pavement markers; lighting; flashing beacon; and an electrical pull box. The total project boundary for the roundabout site will comprise approximately 2.4 acres. The duration of the roundabout construction will be approximately six months. Tree Removal
A total of 15 trees will be removed within the proposed roundabout project site. Five trees two deodar cedars and three oaks at this future intersection were previously removed under a separate Caltrans encroachment permit to install utilities associated with approved and developing subdivisions south of the highway. Using the tree removal exhibit prepared by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar RJA and the arborist report and tree survey prepared by Moki Smith Morgan Hill Tree Service dated April 25, 2017, Table 1, Hecker Pass Highway Roundabout Site – Tree Removal Information, presents the trees to be removed associated with the proposed roundabout and including those removed in 2015 for the utility improvements, with corresponding identification species name, historic designation, and timing of removal. Two deodar cedar trees will be placed within the traffic roundabout project site as replacement for two historic deodar cedar trees to be removed associated with this project. Figure 7, Tree Removal Exhibit Roundabout Site, identifies the trees to be removed. Tree removal plans and exhibits are included in Appendix C. Right of Way
The approximate right of way acquisition required is 14,000 square feet.
Construction Activities
Per the Caltrans standard improvement plans prepared by Bellecci & Associates, Inc. dated April 2016, the list of activities to take place during the construction of the roundabout include the following: installation of construction area signs; temporary traffic striping; installation of portable changeable message signs; installation of temporary K railing; placement of temporary crash cushions; installation of erosion control devices; removal of existing fencing; removal of traffic stripes; removal of roadside signs; relocation of mailbox and signs; sawcutting the street; clearing and grubbing; roadway excavations; and removing paving and base from existing roadway.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 15 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Table 1 Hecker Pass Highway Roundabout Site – Tree Removal Information
Previously Removed under RJA‐GPS Tree Tag Historic Register Common Name Caltrans Encroachment Number SR 152 Tree Row Permit1
5116 Valley Oak 5118 Valley Oak 5120 Coast Live Oak 5121 Coast Live Oak 5122 Coast Live Oak 5123 Coast Live Oak 5124 Deodar Cedar 5125 Valley Oak 5126 Deodar Cedar 5127 Valley Oak2 5128 Deodar Cedar 5129 Valley Oak2 5130 Deodar Cedar 5131 Deodar Cedar 5132 Coast Live Oak2 5307 Deodar Cedar 5134 Valley Oak 5136 Deodar Cedar 5137 Deodar Cedar 5138 Deodar Cedar
Total Trees to be Removed 15 Total SR 152 Historic Tree Row Deodar Cedar Trees Current Project 3 Total SR 152 Historic Tree Row Deodar Cedar Trees Previous Caltrans Encroachment Permit 2
Source: RJA 2016; Moki Smith 2016
Notes: 1. Caltrans Encroachment Permit 0414‐6US1014 dated January 27, 2015 . 2. The whole historic tree row is described in the national historic registration's summary as "115 deodar cedar trees and 20 oak trees," though later in the same document the oak trees are noted to be volunteers that are noncontributing elements. Therefore, removal of these oak trees is not included when evaluating the level of significance of the loss of trees from the historic tree row.
16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Use Arial Narrow Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Source: RJA 2016 0 150 feet
Figure 7 Tree Removal Exhibit - Roundabout Site Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment - Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION
This side intentionally left blank.
81 CME PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Landscaping Landscaping within the roundabout include the following: planting a replacement deodar cedar tree at the lower left corner of the inner traffic circle; planting an inner ring of native Sonoma sage on top of a three inch layer of mulch; laying one ring of four to eight inch river rock cobble; and an additional outer ring of Sonoma sage. Another replacement deodar cedar will be planted at the southwest corner of the intersection adjacent to a pedestrian crossing, generally in alignment with the existing historic deodar cedar tree row. Irrigation for the roundabout site landscaping will utilize recycled water and will consist of an underground piping and sprinkler conveyance system.
2. Class I Bike Path The proposed project includes the addition of a Class I bike path in the specific plan to be developed by the property owners immediately south of State Route 152 Hecker Pass Highway . Characteristics of the Class I bike path are discussed below. Nearly all of the bike path will be outside of the Caltrans right‐of‐way, with the exception of a portion of the path east of the specific plan boundary, near Santa Teresa Boulevard. Figure 8, Bike Path Site Plan, presents the overall site plan for the bike path. Proposed specific plan modifications associated with the Class I bike path are presented in Appendix A. Improvement plans for the bike path are included in Appendix D.
Bike Path Characteristics Per improvement plans prepared for the proposed Class I bike path by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar dated October 28, 2016 , the proposed Class I bike path will consist of a 12‐foot wide paved path using three‐inch Asphaltic Concrete pavement over 7 inch class 2 aggregate base, at 95 percent relative compaction with two‐foot shoulders on each side and will measure in at approximately 7,665 /‐ lineal feet or approximately 1.45 miles . The bike path will extend the entire length of the specific plan from the planned Uvas Creek Trail to the west to the eastern boundary to the specific plan area to the east. Additionally, the bike path will be further extended east, outside of the specific plan boundary, approximately 560 feet to a future staging area, proposed under a separate application, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and Hecker Pass Highway. Other access points along the bike path include at the proposed Third Street roundabout, Cobblestone Court, and the as of yet undetermined future access points from Agri‐tourist Commercial uses along Hecker Pass Highway. The bike path will be separated from State Route 152 right‐of‐way for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists. Safety features for the bike path will include appropriate directional and safety signage, collapsible bollards, and ladder crosswalks at roadway crossings. The bike path will be completed over an approximately three month period. Construction is anticipated to begin shortly after project approval.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 19 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Tree Removal
The proposed Class I bike path will include the removal of 24 trees outside of the proposed roundabout project area described above . None of these 24 trees are included in the historic Highway 152 Tree Row. The trees to be removed as part of the bike path include: 19 coast live oaks, four valley oaks, and one deodar cedar, which is not included in the historic tree row. Table 2, Hecker Pass Highway Bike Path – Tree Removal Information, presents the trees to be removed outside of the proposed roundabout site, with corresponding identification species name, and timing of removal. Tree removal plans and exhibits are included in Appendix C.
Construction Activities
The following construction‐related activities will occur during implementation of the proposed Class I bike path: clearing and grubbing of the extent of the bike path area, as well as removal of some existing driveways, trees, and fencing. Demolition and removal of curbing at the Village Green property, immediately east of the specific plan area, will also be required to accommodate the bike path. No landscaping or lighting improvements are proposed for the extent of the bike path; however, the city will require tree replacement. In addition, a K‐rail will be installed on the north side of the Class I bike path, 11 feet from existing face of curb, for the approximately 560 feet immediately east of the eastern boundary of the specific plan, to separate bicyclists from motorists. Relocation of some existing utilities will occur to accommodate the bike path as well as the construction of storm drain crossings. 3. Text Amendments to Modify Fencing Restrictions
The applicant proposes text amendments to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan that would allow certain types of limited, open fencing within the Hecker Pass Highway setback corridor.
Changes to Policies 4‐4 and 4‐5 would allow open type fencing to be located within the 115‐foot setback corridor where appropriate for security. In addition, certain kinds of solid fencing would be allowed to screen unsightly agricultural production areas outside of the 115‐foot setback as described in Section 7.4.5 of the HPSP. Modifications also include a one‐foot increase in the maximum height of fencing from six to seven feet in specified areas of the specific plan under certain circumstances. Proposed specific plan modifications associated with the fencing restriction modifications are presented in Appendix A.
20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Use Arial Narrow Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Not to scale Source: Rugeri0Jensen-Azar 2016
Figure 8 Bike Path Site Plan Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment - Roundabout, Bike Path, Fence Language and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION
This side intentionally left blank.
22 CME PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Table 2 Hecker Pass Highway Bike Path – Tree Removal Information1
Number of Trees RJA‐GPS Tree Tag Number Common Name
1 5155 Valley Oak 2 5151 Coast Live Oak 3 5149 Coast Live Oak 4 5305 Valley Oak 5 5304 Valley Oak 6 5306 Valley Oak 7 5025 Coast Live Oak 8 5026 Coast Live Oak 9 5029 Deodar Cedar
10 5001 Coast Live Oak 11 5309 Coast Live Oak
12 5842 Coast Live Oak 13 5847 Coast Live Oak 14 5848 Coast Live Oak
15 5849 Coast Live Oak 16 5850 Coast Live Oak 17 5854 Coast Live Oak 18 5855 Coast Live Oak 19 5856 Coast Live Oak 20 5876 Coast Live Oak 21 5877 Coast Live Oak 22 5878 Coast Live Oak 23 5880 Coast Live Oak 24 5950 Coast Live Oak
Source: RJA 2016; Moki Smith 2016
Note:: 1. No trees listed in Table 2 are designated within the Historic Highway 152 Tree Row.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 23 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
4. Elimination/Modification of Hecker Pass Specific Plan Transportation‐Related Mitigation Measures
Consistent with the Hecker Pass Specific Plan mitigation measures see p. 2‐194 of HPSP EIR , as modified by Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, the following transportation‐related mitigation measures are required to be implemented prior to issuance of a building permit for the 75th dwelling unit:
. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure #18. Prior to issuance of the 75th building permit within the Specific Plan area, applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for improving Hecker Pass Highway immediately west of Santa Teresa Boulevard to include a second westbound travel lane. The second westbound travel lane on Hecker Pass Highway, and the appropriate lane‐drop taper consistent with Caltrans’ Standards, should extend as far as possible beyond west of Santa Teresa Boulevard as can be accommodated within the existing public right‐of‐way, with the design subject to approval by the City Engineer in his/her reasonable discretion. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy Engineering Division to design and implement the widening project. Removal of deodar cedar trees along the highway must be avoided wherever possible and improvements must be consistent with State scenic highway guidelines. Traffic signal modifications should be made to the intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and First Street/Hecker Pass Highway to add vehicle detection for the second eastbound through lane.
. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure #19. Prior to issuance of the 75th building permit within the Specific Plan area, applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for shoulder improvements to Hecker Pass Highway, per Caltrans’ standards, between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the easterly limits of the planned Caltrans Uvas Creek Bridge Improvement project. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy Engineering Division to design and implement the shoulder improvements. Removal of deodar cedar trees along the highway must be avoided wherever possible and improvements must be consistent with State scenic highway guidelines.
Implementation of these measures would not be feasible without either a removal of the deodar cedar tree row within the Caltrans right‐of‐way along the southern side of the highway, which is an historic resource listed on both the national and state registers, or b significantly cut into the hillside on the northern side of the highway, which would require construction of a retaining wall. The project applicant, city staff, and Caltrans staff believe that neither option is desirable for these reasons and therefore, would like to eliminate both of these mitigation measures.
24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
CEQA Compliance History 2004 Hecker Pass HPSP/South Valley Community Church (SVCC) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EMC Planning Group prepared this EIR for the City of Gilroy in 2004. This is the original program EIR for the HPSP. The Gilroy City Council certified the final EIR and adopted the HPSP in January 2005.
The HPSP EIR evaluated the potential effects of implementing the HPSP, as well as the effects of implementing a specific project church and related school planned within the HPSP area. A range of development types was proposed on 423 acres included within the HPSP boundary. Approved uses included open space, residential, agricultural uses including agricultural commercial uses, and community facilities – church and school. A total of 530 dwelling units were planned within the HPSP boundary. The HPSP EIR analysis was based on this residential development capacity.
The Community Facilities designation within the HPSP applied only to two parcels owned by the South Valley Community Church. The South Valley Community Church had proposed and submitted an application to the City of Gilroy for the development of a church and school on approximately 18 acres of its property, with the remainder of about 10 acres which crosses over Uvas Creek to the south proposed for dedication to the City as part of the Uvas Creek Park. It was this proposal that was evaluated at the “project level” in the HPSP EIR as noted above. When the HPSP was adopted, no action was taken on the South Valley Community Church development, as the South Valley Community Church was not ready to move forward with the project. 2006 HPSP Amendment (GPA 06‐02) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) EMC Planning Group prepared the Hecker Pass HPSP Amendment GPA 06‐02 MND for the City in 2006. This initial study/MND addressed the amendment to the HPSP that eliminated the “east intersection” on Hecker Pass Highway. This amendment was adopted by the City Council in 2006. 2006 Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan (A/S 05‐54) MND
EMC Planning Group prepared the Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan A/S 05‐54 Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2006. This initial study/mitigated negative declaration evaluated the specific impacts of the backbone infrastructure to support development within the HPSP. The details of the backbone infrastructure had not yet been planned when the HPSP was prepared and adopted. The master plan was adopted by the City Council in 2006.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 25 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
2008 HPSP Amendment (GPA 07‐05) EIR Addendum
EMC Planning Group prepared the Hecker Pass HPSP General Plan Amendment GPA 07‐05 EIR Addendum 2008 HPSP EIR Addendum in 2008. In November 2007, the South Valley Community Church submitted an application to the City to amend the HPSP GPA 07‐05 . The application requested that the HPSP be amended to allow a 15‐lot single‐family residential development on the southern seven acres of the South Valley Community Church parcel, with a redesignation from Community Facilities to Residential Cluster, and changing the maximum allowed residential lots within the HPSP area from 506 to 521, with 259 in the East Cluster. The amendment included revisions to specific plan land use diagram and modifications to specific HPSP text, tables and graphics to reflect changes to total acreage in residential land use, total dwelling units within the HPSP area, population changes, etc., that would result from the amendment. No changes to HPSP policies were proposed. The City decided to prepare an addendum to the HPSP EIR based on its determination that none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 which would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR were met pursuant to section 15164. Development plans were not submitted with the amendment application. The City Council later approved the tentative map for the 15‐ lot residential development under TM 10‐05, citing the addendum for CEQA compliance under the adopting Resolution No. 2011‐28.
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 d requires that the decision making body consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. As such, at its August 3, 2009 hearing, the Gilroy City Council considered the Final Hecker Pass HPSP EIR Addendum prepared by EMC Planning Group on December 8, 2008, and made CEQA findings associated with approval of GPA 07‐05 through adoption of Resolution No. 2009‐32.
2015 HPSP Amendment (GPA 14‐02)
In 2015, the City Council approved the third amendment to the specific plan Resolution No. 2015‐21 for which an EIR addendum was prepared and certified. This amendment changed the remaining land designated Community Facilities 12 acres to Residential Cluster, allowing for an additional 33 residential units. With this approval, the Community Facility designation was eliminated from the specific plan.
Approach and Methodology
The approach used in this initial study is to evaluate the environmental impacts of the currently proposed project and identify whether the currently proposed project would result in new significant environmental effects, or cause previously‐identified effects found less than significant to rise to a level of significance, as previously identified in the 2004 HPSP EIR or the
26 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
2006 Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
This initial study analyzes the impacts and viability of the proposed elimination of two transportation‐related mitigation measures; the addition of a Class I bike path that follows the length of Hecker Pass Highway from just east of the Uvas Creek Bridge to Santa Teresa Boulevard; proposed specific plan text amendments which would allow the inclusion of certain types of open fencing within the 115‐foot setback from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway which is not currently allowed , as well as other modifications to fencing restrictions in the specific plan area; and modifying the planned Hecker Pass Highway SR 152 and Third Street intersection from a standard intersection to a roundabout.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
1. Caltrans, District 4 Encroachment Permit
2. Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit
3. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Implementing Entity HCP permit
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2. Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3 c contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
In May 2016, a Tribal Consultation List Request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission NAHC by the city’s cultural resources consultant, William Self Associates WSA . The city has not received any requests for consultation from tribes that are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the specific plan project area listed on the Consultation List provided by NAHC. Therefore no additional consultation was required under Assembly Bill AB 52.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 27 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Population/Housing Emissions
Agriculture and Forestry Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Resources Materials
Air quality Hydrology/Water quality Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems
Geology/Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
28 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
C. DETERMINATION
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 the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2 has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1 have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2 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.
Susan O’Strander, Planning Manager Date
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 29 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed project is contained in the following series of checklists and accompanying narratives. The following notes apply to this section.
Notes
1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone . A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis .
2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐ site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less‐Than‐Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less‐Than‐Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures are described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less‐than‐significant level mitigation measures from section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross‐referenced .
5. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document or negative declaration. Section 15063 c 3 D In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following:
30 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
a. “Earlier Analysis Used” identifies and states where such document is available for review.
b. “Impact Adequately Addressed” identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. “Mitigation Measures”—For effects that are “Less‐Than‐Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” mitigation measures are described which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project.
6. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, etc. are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. “Supporting Information Sources”—A source list is included in Section E, Sources, at the end of this initial study, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue identifies:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than significant.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 31 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or degrade the existing visual character in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area GP Policy 1.07 or the hillside areas GP Policy 1.16, GP Policy 12.04 ? 1, 18‐20, 33‐38
b. Substantially damage scenic resources viewed from Hecker Pass Highway or Pacheco Pass Highway GP Policy 6.01, GP Policy 12.04 ? 1, 18‐20, 33‐38
c. Substantially damage scenic resources viewed from Uvas Park Drive, Santa Teresa Boulevard, or Miller Avenue from First Street to Mesa Road GP Policy 6.02 ? 14
d. Substantially damage scenic resources farmland and surrounding hills viewed from Highway 101 GP Policy 6.03, Action 1‐ H ? 14
e. Result in unattractive entrances at the principal gateways to the City north and south Monterey Street, Highway 152/Hecker Pass Highway, Highway 152/Pacheco Pass, north and south Santa Teresa Boulevard, and at the Highway 101 interchanges at Masten, Buena Vista, Leavesley, and Tenth Street GP Policy 1.10 and Action 1‐H ? 1, 18‐20, 33‐38
f. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 18, 19, 20, 29, 34, 35
g. Include or require a wall or fence higher than seven feet above the existing grade at the property line? 19
32 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Comments: a/b. Scenic Vistas, Scenic Resources, and Existing Visual Character Setting. The Gilroy 2020 General Plan identifies Hecker Pass as the “jewel of Gilroy” valued for its rural qualities and scenic views, agricultural lands, open spaces and limited residential and commercial development. Hecker Pass serves as Gilroy’s western gateway. The general plan identifies the general character of Gilroy’s key scenic resources including natural resource and wildlife habitat areas, such as the Uvas Creek riparian community, the heavily vegetated portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and natural features of high community value including the historic deodar cedar trees lining Hecker Pass Highway. Other identified scenic resources include farmland, surrounding hillsides, and areas viewed from the city’s principal gateway areas, including Hecker Pass Highway.
Hecker Pass Highway is the main vehicular corridor through the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area and provides the greatest opportunity for visitors to first experience the visual resources of this scenic gateway to the city. Residents and tourists traveling out of the city can also experience the views to Uvas Creek and the Gabilan Mountains. Within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area, the Uvas Creek corridor is one of the most distinct visual features within the specific plan area. The creek bed and banks are visible only from bridges on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard. The riparian vegetation growing on the creek bank and margins is of high visual value and visible from a variety of viewpoints within the specific plan area. The Hecker Pass Specific Plan also identities the visually distinctive row of mature deodar cedar trees that line the southern edge of Hecker Pass Highway along the entire length of the specific plan area. The Hecker Pass Specific Plan includes policies to maintain scenic views available from the highway as well as visual quality within the highway corridor. That quality stems from the rural agricultural nature of the area, its open space feel, and views across the corridor to the aesthetically valuable Uvas Creek riparian corridor, agricultural fields, nearby hills and distant mountains.
As noted in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan EIR, for much of its length through the specific plan area, the highway is approximately five feet to 20 feet higher in elevation than the area south of the highway. This enables views from the highway overlooking the southern specific plan area to the trees lining Uvas Creek and beyond. Many views to the south are blocked by trunks and foliage of the deodar cedar trees and other trees that line the south shoulder of the highway, as well as residential development that has occurred and is occurring within the specific plan area.
Policy Discussion. Gilroy General Plan Policy 1.07 calls for protection and enhancement of “the unique qualities and character of the Hecker Pass area as the City’s western
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 33 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
gateway and as a highly valued scenic resource for Gilroy residents and visitors.” General Plan Policy 1.16 protects the scenic quality of hillside areas and Policy 12.04 calls for the preservation of the scenic character and ecology of the hillsides to the west of Gilroy when designing circulation facilities.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Policy 7‐8 requires a field survey to be conducted by a certified arborist prior to the removal of any significant tree s , to determine the number and location of each significant tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of each significant tree, and the reason for removal. The policy requires that the findings be included in a written report that contains specifications for replacing significant trees to be removed and submitted to the Gilroy Planning Division for review and approval.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Policy 5‐61 prohibits parking areas and structures including buildings, and fences within the Hecker Pass Setback Corridor, which is 115‐feet from the existing centerline of Hecker Pass Highway, both north and south of the highway.
Solid fencing or taller walls are allowed in moderation to screen unsightly production areas from public view but may not be taller than six feet and must be constructed of natural looking materials specific plan, page 7‐40 .
Project Impacts. The proposed project includes construction of the roundabout and Class I bike path which includes the removal of 39 trees , as well as specific plan text modifications that would allow limited fencing within the specific plan 115‐foot setback corridor and increase the maximum height of fencing in specified areas of the specific plan under certain circumstances from six feet to seven feet. The project also includes the elimination of previously required widening of Hecker Pass Highway that would have required a substantial retaining wall along much of the northern side of the highway or removal of a significant number of the historic deodar cedar trees on the southern side.
Roundabout Impacts. Construction of the roundabout would require removing 15 trees according to the April 25, 2017 tree exhibit provided by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar, as well as placement of a six‐foot high chain linked fence along the entire northern boundary of the roundabout at the Caltrans ROW from the Ousley Home to Two Oaks Lane, well within the 115‐foot Hecker Pass Setback Corridor.
Tree Removal. Most of these trees have diameters larger than six inches and qualify for designation by the City of Gilroy as significant trees. These trees include native valley oak trees, native coast live oak trees, and non‐native deodar cedar trees. Removing these trees is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Vallier Design
34 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Associates prepared visual simulations of what the roundabout would look like from both eastbound and westbound locations along the highway. The visual simulations are presented in Figure 9, Visual Simulation View Point 1, presents the before and after views of the roundabout site from the westbound direction. Figure 10, Visual Simulation View Point 2, presents the before and after views of the roundabout from the eastbound direction. The simulations include the two replacement deodar cedar trees.
Although removing the trees would result in a significant adverse impact due to their size and species type, the proposed project also would increase the availability of views to the south, which currently are momentarily blocked by trunks and foliage of the deodar cedar trees and other trees that line the south shoulder of the highway. As a consequence, the proposed roundabout facility increases the availability of public views to the south. The proposed project further reduces visual clutter of the built environment by placing existing overhead utility lines underground and placing new visual landscaping within the current roadway alignment, which, with time would become more familiar and not appear out of place within the visual landscape.
Chain Link Fence. The six‐foot high chain link fence along the entire northern boundary of the roundabout at the Caltrans ROW from the Ousley Home to Two Oaks Lane is well within the 115‐foot Hecker Pass Setback Corridor. This fence is not allowed within the 115‐foot setback under existing policy language, and in fact, is not allowed anywhere within the specific plan area. Placing a six‐foot high chain link fence along the northern boundary of the roundabout is considered a significant adverse visual impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will eliminate the impact or reduce it to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
AES‐1. The design of the fencing associated with the roundabout project must be in compliance with the fencing restrictions of the specific plan. The following changes shall be made to the plans:
The six‐foot high chain link fence proposed along the northern boundary of the roundabout must be eliminated from the plans. If some type of fencing is required here by Caltrans or requested by the adjacent property owner associated with the roundabout design, it must be in compliance with the fencing modifications proposed as part of this project, if the fencing modifications are approved by the City Council. If the fencing modifications are not approved by the City Council, the design of the fence shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Manager or her designee, and must meet the rural
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 35 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
landscape design requirements associated with all development in the specific plan area.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
Class I Bike Path Impacts. The bike path facility itself would not affect views to visual resources in the vicinity. However, construction of the bike path would require removing 24 trees according to the April 25, 2017 tree exhibit. Most of these trees have diameters larger than six inches and qualify for designation by the City of Gilroy as significant trees. These trees include native coast live oak trees, native valley oak trees, and one non‐native deodar cedar tree. The removal of these trees is considered a significant adverse visual impact.
In addition to the removal of trees, a new fence is proposed along a portion of the southern boundary of the bike path, between the bike path and Syngenta’s agricultural production, and within the 115‐foot Hecker Pass Setback Corridor. If the fencing policy modifications, presented below, are approved as part of this project, this fencing design must be consistent with those modifications, as approved. If it is not, the adverse visual impact could be considered significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will eliminate the impact or reduce it to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
AES‐2. The design of the fencing associated with the bike path project must be in compliance with the fencing restrictions of the specific plan. The following changes shall be made to the plans:
Any new fencing proposed as part of the project, including but not limited to the proposed fencing along the southern boundary of the bike path, must be consistent with the fencing restrictions in the specific plan, subject to review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Manager or her designee.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
In addition to the adverse visual impacts, construction of the Class I bike path on the south side of the historic deodar cedar tree row would provide additional viewing opportunities of the Hecker Pass area scenic resources that are not otherwise available from the Hecker Pass Highway, due to the dense tree row.
36 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Use Arial Narrow Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Above: Existing view of Hecker Pass Highway/State Route 152 facing west.
Above: Visual simulation of proposed roundabout on Source: Vallier 2017 Hecker Pass Highway/State Route 152 facing west. Figure 9 Visual Simulation - View Point 1 Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
38 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Use Arial Narrow Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Above: Existing view of Hecker Pass Highway/State Route 152 facing east.
Above: Visual sumulation of proposed roundabout on Source: Vallier 2017 Hecker Pass Highway/State Route 152 facing east. Figure 10 Visual Simulation - View Point 2 Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
40 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Fencing Policy Modifications. The proposed policy modification would allow limited open fencing and screening of agricultural‐industrial areas within the 115‐foot Hecker Pass corridor setback and allow a one‐foot increase in the maximum height of fencing from six to seven feet in specified areas of the specific plan under certain circumstances.
Fencing is currently prohibited within the setback corridor. The only currently allowable uses within the Hecker Pass Setback Corridor, which extends 115 feet from the existing centerline of Hecker Pass Highway, are agriculture, natural landscaping, pedestrian pathways, limited signage and limited roadway improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service along Hecker Pass Highway specific plan pg. 7‐ 20 . As proposed, Section 7.4.5 of the specific plan would be amended to include language allowing open type fencing where appropriate for security subject to review and approval by the City. A previous variance Resolution No. 2011‐37 was granted by the City Council to Syngenta Flowers within the 115‐foot setback corridor in 2011 due to an exceptional use agricultural research and development . At that time the City Council believed a literal enforcement of the setback provision would prevent Syngenta from fully utilizing a portion of their research fields and it was believed the fencing would be at least as visible or more visible if it were located on the 115‐foot setback line. The City Council approved the variance. The type of open fencing proposed in this amendment would not affect the views into and beyond the specific plan area, as those traveling along Hecker Pass Highway could see through the fencing.
In addition, the amendment proposes to increase the maximum height of fencing throughout the specific plan under certain circumstances from six feet to seven feet. The seven‐foot maximum coincides with the existing Gilroy General Plan maximum, as well as in the Zoning Ordinance section 30.34.30, and also provides consistency in allowable fence heights within the specific plan. The specific plan notes that side yard and rear yard fencing shall not exceed the seven foot maximum pg. 7‐39 . The applicant proposes to modify the six‐foot wall height limitation to seven feet in order to allow for the screening of unsightly production areas of the agriculture‐related uses from public view. The proposed amendment would not result in fences/walls that are higher than currently allowed by the specific plan for residential privacy fencing, or that allowed throughout the city by the general plan and zoning ordinance.
Therefore, the fencing language policy modification would not significantly change what could be viewed from the highway, and therefore, the visual impact would be less than significant.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 41 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Elimination of Highway Widening Measures. The proposed elimination of the identified transportation mitigation measures also would not affect the availability of views to Hecker Pass Highway scenic resources. Therefore, this proposed component would not result in a substantial adverse change to the availability of scenic views from the Hecker Pass Highway corridor. However, implementing these measures and widening the highway would require either 1 cutting into the hillside along the northern side of the highway, requiring a substantial retaining wall, which would have an adverse visual impact on the natural hillside setting; or 2 removal of many of the historic deodar cedar trees along the southern side of the highway, which would have an adverse visual impact on the historic tree row. Therefore, this project component would eliminate future adverse visual impacts.
Tree Removal Mitigation Discussion
The City of Gilroy typically requires planting replacement tree onsite for native trees and trees that are identified as biologically or visually significant. Mitigation measures to protect the historic and visual significance of the non‐native deodar cedar tree row are discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources. Section 5 identifies environmental impacts to the historic tree row and includes mitigation measures that require the replacement planting of two deodar cedar trees within the proposed roundabout site one in the middle of the roundabout and one on the southwest corner of the intersection to mitigate the project’s individual and cumulative impact to the historic tree row. Implementation of these measures would reduce significant impacts to visually and historically significant trees.
Mitigation measures for replacement of significant native trees are addressed in Section 4, Biological Resources. Implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Sections 4 and 5, respectively, would reduce the significant impact of removing 39 trees coast live oak, valley oak, and deodar cedar , to a less‐than‐significant level. c/d. The roundabout, bike path, and other changes that may occur from project approval are not visible from Uvas Park Drive, Santa Teresa Boulevard, Miller Avenue, or U.S. Highway 101 and therefore, would have no impact on scenic resources visible from these roadways. e. Hecker Pass Highway serves as the city’s western gateway, and, as noted previously, is an important scenic resource highly valued by the community. Removal of trees and construction of the roundabout and Class I bike path would result in a significant impact to the visual character of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area, which will be mitigated
42 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
through tree replacement, as discussed earlier. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an unattractive entrance to Gilroy. f. The proposed project includes street lights for night time safety purposes within the roundabout. There is no lighting along the roadway in this location; therefore, the proposed project would create new sources of night time lighting that has the potential to affect nighttime views. No other lighting and no reflective materials that would result in substantial sources of daytime glare are proposed.
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan EIR concluded that light and glare impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable Hecker Pass Specific Plan policies limiting lighting adjacent to Uvas Creek. Compliance with Hecker Pass Specific Plan policies that call for shielding and orienting light fixtures downward to prevent light splay off the site would reduce effects of new sources of lighting to the extent that the impact of new lighting to visual quality is less than significant. No mitigation is required. g. The proposed project would allow limited fencing under certain circumstances to a height of seven feet, one foot over the six foot threshold. This impact is discussed in a. and b. above. The impact would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project would result in tree removal associated with the bike path, which was not anticipated in the previous specific plan CEQA documentation. This new significant visual impact is addressed in this section of the initial study and through mitigation measures in Section 4 Biological Resources and Section 5 Cultural Resources.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 43 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
2. AGRICULTURE
In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model LESA 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Convert prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to an urban use projects requiring a legislative act, such as zoning changes, annexation to the City, urban service area amendments, etc ? 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 34
b. Conflict with a Williamson Act contract? 18, 19, 20, 30, 32
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? 18, 19, 20, 32, 34 Comments: a/c. Based on the analysis conducted in the HPSP EIR and HPSP Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND, it was determined that build out of the specific plan area would have a less‐than‐significant impact associated with the conversion of agricultural land, less‐ than‐significant impacts associated with potential land use conflicts with residential uses noise, dust, etc. , and a less than significant impact associated with the conversion of land in a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project includes construction of a roundabout, which would have no effect on agricultural resources, and an approximately 142,665 square foot or 3.27 acres , 1.5 mile Class I bike path with an assumed 20‐foot wide easement . The bike path route includes land designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Prime, Statewide Importance, Unique, and Grazing Land. Table 3, Hecker Pass Class I Trail‐Acreage & Farmland/Land Use Designations, provides a breakdown of the parcels where the bike path is planned to traverse and the corresponding Farmland Map and Hecker Pass Specific Plan designations.
44 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Table 3 Hecker Pass Class I Trail – Acreage & Farmland/Land Use Designations
Property Trail Acreage/ Farmland Map Hecker Pass Property Owner Square Feet Designation Specific Plan Land Use Designation
Heartland Estates North 0.20 acres Grazing Residential Cluster Parcel A Meritage Homes 8,807 sq. feet Syngenta Flowers – 0.26 acres Statewide Importance Hecker Pass Parcel A Filice 11,469 sq. feet Prime Agriculture HPA Syngenta Flowers – 0.29 acres Statewide Importance Hecker Pass Parcel B Fratelli 12,467 sq. feet Prime Agriculture HPA Syngenta Flowers ‐ 0.38 acres Statewide Importance Agricultural Parcel C 16,543 sq. feet Prime Commercial AC Unique Syngenta Flowers ‐ 0.50 acres Statewide Importance Agricultural Parcel D 21,727 sq. feet Prime Commercial AC Grazing Unique Hoey Parcel A 0.52 acres Prime Hecker Pass 22, 623 sq. feet Agriculture HPA Agri‐Tourist Commercial Overlay Hoey Parcel B 0.18 acres Prime Agri‐Tourist 7,944 sq. feet Commercial AT Giacalone Northern CA 0.31 acres Prime Agri‐Tourist Land & Entitlement 13,419 sq. feet Commercial AT MDM Meritage Homes 0.63 acres Grazing Hecker Pass 27,665 sq. feet Farmland of Local Agriculture HPA Importance Total Acres 3.27 acres 142,665 sq. feet
Source: RJA 2016; CDC 2014; City of Gilroy 2005
Note: Syngenta Flowers parcels are all Williamson Act – Prime Agricultural Land per Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016
A Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model LESA was completed for the original specific plan project see Appendix E and determined that the loss of agricultural land to be less‐than‐significant based on a total LESA score of 38.8. The City of Gilroy uses the
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 45 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
LESA model to determine level of significance as relates to a project resulting in the loss of agricultural land. With a LESA modeling result of between zero and 39, the loss of agricultural land is considered not significant. The LESA evaluation for the HPSP EIR noted that many of the otherwise agriculturally capable soils of the HPSP area are of low agricultural capability because of the constraints of lack of suitable irrigation water supplies and restrictive land uses on surrounding parcels. The HPSP EIR therefore concluded that the loss of agricultural land would be less than significant as a result of buildout of the specific plan area. The proposed roundabout and 3.27 Class I bike path would not change this conclusion as the LESA model conducted for the HPSP EIR included the entirety of the specific plan acreage and assumes any development within that analysis.
In addition, the HPSP EIR noted that the specific plan includes a policy Policy 5‐7 that requires a permanent conservation easement or other instrument to be used to ensure that active agricultural activity within the Hecker Pass Agricultural land use designation is retained in perpetuity. The specific plan also includes additional policies that would promote agriculture by resolving potential land use incompatibility problems Policies 5‐3, 5‐4, 5‐5, 5‐8, 5‐12 . With the continued implementation of these specific plan policies, implementation of the bike path and roundabout would have a less than significant impact on the viability of the remaining agricultural land in the specific plan area and no additional mitigation measures are required. b. The HPSP EIR determined that buildout of the specific plan would result in a less than significant impacts associated with the conversion of land in a Williamson Act contract. The HPSP EIR further determined that the HPSP would not create a direct conflict with the then existing Williamson Act contracts for the former Arias and Goldsmith properties.
The proposed roundabout project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. However, the proposed bike path would pass through two parcels that are currently identified as under Williamson Act contract, per the Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2015‐ 2016 map. While the current Williamson Act map for Santa Clara County shows the 7.89‐acre Arias property APN 810‐20‐004 as under Williamson Act contract, a Certificate of Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract was filed in December 2014 with the County and City Clerk and approved by the City Council in January 2015 Resolution No. 2015‐02 . Syngenta Flowers also filed a Notice of Non‐Renewal with the City and County in June 2015 for its 17.85‐acre main facility property APN 810‐20‐ 005 . Therefore, the proposed bike path would not conflict with any existing Williamson Act contracts.
46 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Conclusion
The proposed project would result in the construction of a Class I bike path on roughly 3.27 acres of agricultural land and therefore convert a small amount of farmland. However, because the LESA model conducted for the original HPSP EIR accounted for the entirety of the specific plan acreage and assumes any development within that analysis, the loss of this agricultural land has previously been determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 47 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
3. 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. Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan BAAQMD CAP ? 15, 20, 31
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? BAAQMD indicates that any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. 15, 20, 31
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors ? 15, 20, 31
d. Expose sensitive receptors residential areas, schools, hospitals, nursing homes to substantial pollutant concentrations CO and PM10 , as determined in b. above? 13, 20, 31
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 19, 34
Comments: a‐d. Clean Air Plan Consistency. Air quality impacts with regard to implementation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan, which included the backbone infrastructure, were evaluated in the HPSP EIR and the Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND. The 2004 HPSP EIR concluded, at that time, that the HPSP was inconsistent with the population projections and vehicle miles traveled projections used
48 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
in preparing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD Clean Air Plan the “Clean Air Plan” . The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations when adopting the HPSP.
The proposed project does not increase the population within the specific plan, nor does it add vehicle trips to the roadway system. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan.
Long‐term Operational Impacts. The proposed project does not include any components that would have long‐term operation air quality impacts.
Short‐term Construction Impacts. The HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND identified potentially significant short‐term construction‐related air quality impacts and provided a mitigation measure HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 4 and Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 to reduce these impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. This mitigation measure is now reflected in the City’s standard conditions of approval for reducing short‐term construction air quality impacts.
HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 4 now City of Gilroy standard condition of approval
AQ‐1. The applicant shall specify in project plans the implementation of the following dust control measures during grading and construction activities for any proposed development. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust, subject to the review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division:
The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites:
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily;
. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non‐toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites;
. Sweep daily with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites;
. Sweep streets daily with water sweepers if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets;
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 49 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
. Hydroseed or apply non‐toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more ;
. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non‐toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles dirt, sand, etc. ;
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;
. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas;
. Place a minimum of 100 linear feet of 6 to 8 inch average diameter cobble at all exit points to dislodge and trap dirt from vehicle tires;
. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds instantaneous gusts exceed 25 miles per hour; and
. Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
The proposed roundabout and Class I bike path would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan or violate any air quality standards beyond short‐term construction‐related emissions that would be mitigated to a less than significant level by standard City construction guidelines. It is the intention of the proposed roundabout and Class I bike path to both improve circulation and pedestrian safety and access along Hecker Pass Highway as well as reduce overall emissions throughout the City of Gilroy. e. Odors. Operations of the proposed project would not result in any objectionable odors. However, construction equipment has the potential to emit objectionable odors during the project construction phase. Because of the small size of the project area, and the limited number of sensitive receptors within the project vicinity, along with the fact that limited areas would be under construction at any one time, objectionable odors that may occur during the construction process would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in new significant air quality effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in air quality related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant impacts on air quality that were identified for the original HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
50 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 34, 37
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 34, 37
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. , through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 12, 18, 19, 20, 34, 37
d. 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? 12, 18, 19, 20, 34, 37
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 12, 18, 19, 20, 2, 34, 36, 37
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 51 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 12, 18, 19, 20, 24, 34, 37
Comments:
EMC Planning Group senior biologist and certified arborist, Andrea Edwards, conducted a biological reconnaissance field survey on April 21, 2016 to document existing plant communities and wildlife habitats, and to evaluate the potential for special‐status species occurrence at the proposed roundabout and bike path project site areas. Prior to conducting the site visit, Ms. Edwards reviewed site plans, aerial photographs, biological resources database accounts, and scientific literature/project reports describing natural resources in the project vicinity.
The project site is located on the Gilroy and Mount Madonna U.S. Geological Survey USGS quadrangle maps. It is relatively flat with an approximate elevation range of 245‐255 feet. The site contains minor drainage culverts that allow water to flow under Hecker Pass Highway from north to south during rain events. The proposed project does not include any changes to these culverts. Also, see Section 17, Utilities and Service Systems, regarding storm drain issues.
The mostly linear project site along Hecker Pass Highway contains mainly disturbed, developed, and ornamental areas, including annual grassland patches. Vegetation along the southern side of Hecker Pass Highway is dominated by a row of sizable non‐native ornamental deodar cedar Cedrus deodara trees with a sparse and patchy understory of non‐native plants see below and thick leaf litter. The northern side of the highway contains a narrow strip of annual grassland and ruderal weedy patches, most of which is regularly mechanically disturbed. This vegetation is dominated by non‐native species including: slender wild oat Avena barbata , ripgut grass Bromus diandrus , soft chess Bromus hordeaceus , barley Hordeum murinum , rye grass Festuca perennis , annual blue grass Poa annua , radish Raphanus sativus , Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus , London rocket Sisymbrium irio , shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana , sourclover Melilotus indica , red‐stemmed filaree Erodium cicutarium , English plantain Plantago lanceolata , pineapple weed Matricaria discoidea , and lamb's quarters Chenopodium album .
On both sides of the highway, native coast live oaks Quercus agrifolia and valley oaks Quercus lobata are also present. Rural residences and other structures with associated non‐ native ornamental vegetation are also present on both sides of the highway adjacent to the site.
52 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
The proposed roundabout impact area on the northern side of the highway contains a small portion of a former English walnut Juglans regia orchard with a few remnant trees remaining, and on the southern side of the highway contains a few non‐native ornamental deodar cedar trees.
Scattered small to medium‐sized small mammal burrows are present adjacent to the project site on both sides of the highway. Though grasslands typically provide habitat for a diversity of common wildlife species, the project site only includes narrow strips of land along the sides of a busy highway, and is subject to regular vegetation disturbance for weed control and fire safety clearance. The highway is subject to high volume and high velocity vehicular traffic. These factors greatly limit wildlife movement and general wildlife use of the site in the vicinity of the roundabout project.
As explained below, the proposed project is consistent with the biological resource protection policies identified in the Specific Plan with incorporation of the associated EIR mitigation measures and with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. a. Special‐Status Species. A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDFW California Natural Diversity Database was conducted for the Morgan Hill, Mount Sizer, Mississippi Creek, Mount Madonna, Gilroy, Gilroy Hot Springs, Watsonville East, Chittenden, and San Felipe USGS quadrangles to generate a list of potentially occurring special‐status species in the project vicinity. Records of occurrence for special‐status plants were reviewed for those USGS quadrangles in the California Native Plant Society CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS Endangered Species Program threatened and endangered species list was also generated for Santa Clara County. Special‐status species in this report are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or Candidates for listing by the USFWS and/or CDFW; as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected species by the CDFW; or as special‐status Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B by the CNPS.
The Specific Plan contains several natural resource protection policies that apply to special‐status species:
. Policy 5‐27: Impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitats that occur in the Specific Plan Area shall be avoided whenever possible. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as necessary to reduce or eliminate impacts to special‐status species and their habitats.
. Policy 5‐28: Sensitive habitat areas should be designated as permanent open space to preserve the natural resources of the area.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 53 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
. Policy 5‐29: Wildlife corridors and connections to sensitive habitat should be preserved to the greatest extent possible to permit the free movement of wildlife through open space areas.
. Policy 5‐30: As a means of preserving wildlife corridors and habitat areas, development should be clustered on lands with less valuable habitat.
. Policy 5‐31: Developments should be designated in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts to native trees and habitats.
. Policy 5‐32: Promote environmental awareness and education for residents and visitors of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area.
Due to the absence of suitable habitat, no special‐status species are expected to occur in the proposed project development areas, with the exception of one species addressed separately in section f below, and protected nesting birds that may occur in trees and other vegetation on the site and in adjacent areas. In addition, several special‐status wildlife species potentially occur along Uvas Creek and may be affected to a minimal degree by construction of the western terminus of the proposed bike path that is located adjacent to Uvas Creek.
The following discussion regarding potential impacts to special‐status wildlife species is based on the survey in April 2016 and the certified Specific Plan EIR Section 2.4 Biological Resources . Implementation of the policies indicated below will reduce potentially significant project impacts to nesting birds/special‐status wildlife species to a less‐than‐significant level.
Nesting Birds. Trees located along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor have potential to provide nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus and several raptor species. Further, trees and other vegetation in and adjacent to the entire project site has potential to provide nesting habitat for birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, should they be present during project construction. If protected species are nesting in or adjacent to the project site during the bird nesting season, then noise‐generating construction activities and/or vegetation removal, including trees, could result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to abandonment of nests.
A Specific Plan policy see below requires pre‐construction surveys for protected nesting birds when development would occur in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat during the bird nesting season. The policy provides guidance to postpone construction activities and vegetation removal within 250 feet of any active bird nest until the nest is vacated.
54 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
. Policy 5‐44: Pre‐construction surveys for protected birds shall be conducted for improvements or development proposed in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat i.e., riparian woodland if development is proposed during the nesting and/or breeding season of loggerhead shrike generally February through June or raptors generally March through August . If any active nests are found within the survey area, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting.
Mitigation Measures
BIO‐1. HPSP Policy 5‐44 Pre‐construction surveys for protected birds shall be conducted for improvements or development proposed in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat i.e., riparian woodland if development is proposed during the nesting and/or breeding season of loggerhead shrike generally February through June or raptors generally March through August . If any active nests are found within the survey area, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
Special‐Status Wildlife. Breeding habitat for California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense , western spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondii , foothill yellow‐legged frog Rana boylii , California red‐legged frog Rana draytonii , western pond turtle Clemmys Emys marmorata , steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus , yellow‐ breasted chat Icteria virens , and yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri is potentially present in and/or adjacent to Uvas Creek. Further, USFWS‐designated critical habitat is present within Uvas Creek for steelhead.
The Specific Plan includes numerous policies to ensure the protection of special‐status species and the permanent preservation of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor. Open Space Land Use Policies 3‐5 and 3‐6 designate Uvas Creek as permanent open space and promote the use of buffers and setbacks along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor. Riparian Habitat Policy 5‐40 requires a qualified biologist to inform construction workers of potential presence of the special‐status species prior to construction. Riparian Habitat Policy 5‐43 requires a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities that occur within 100 feet of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor, which would apply to construction of the western terminus of the proposed bike path. The
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 55 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
monitoring would focus on protecting potential habitats for California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, yellow‐legged frog, California red‐legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, yellow‐breasted chat, and/or yellow warbler.
. Policy 3‐5: Designate Uvas Creek as permanent open space and provide buffers along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor.
. Policy 3‐6: Minimize encroachments into Uvas Creek buffers by establishing development setbacks.
The following specific plan policies apply to the proposed Class I bike path and roundabout project sites and therefore are included as mitigation measures for purposes of the proposed project:
Mitigation Measures
BIO‐2. HPSP Policy 5‐40 Prior to construction of the roundabout and bike path, Meritage Homes will retain a qualified biologist to inform workers of potential presence of the special‐status species, their protected status, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during construction activities.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO‐3. HPSP Policy 5‐43 For all proposed Class I bike path improvements adjacent to the Uvas Creek riparian corridor westernmost limit of the bike path , which contains potential habitat for California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, yellow‐legged frog, California red‐legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, yellow‐breasted chat, and/or yellow warbler, construction related activities should be conducted outside of the rainy season. Meritage Homes will retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities occurring within 100 feet of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor. If any special‐status species are observed at the site, a qualified biologist will salvage and relocate individual s to an appropriate area outside of the construction zone. If California red‐legged frog, a federally listed threatened species, or California tiger salamander, a federally and state‐listed threatened species, are observed at the site, construction activities will be halted and the USFWS and/or CDFW shall be contacted for further assistance.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
56 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY b. Sensitive Natural Communities. Although no sensitive natural communities occur on the project site, the Uvas Creek riparian corridor located immediately adjacent to the western terminus of the proposed bike path, where it will join with the Uvas Creek trail, is a sensitive natural community. Construction work adjacent to Uvas Creek could potentially disturb the sensitive riparian habitat; however, the improvements proposed are sufficiently outside of the riparian habitat and therefore, no impacts would occur. c. Wetlands. As mentioned earlier, the site contains minor drainage culverts that allow water to flow under Hecker Pass Highway from north to south during rain events; these culverts will not be affected by project implementation. No impacts to wetland/waterway resources potentially under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE , CDFW, or Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB are expected. d. Wildlife Movement. Wildlife movement corridors generally provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness and diversity, and usually also provide cover, water, food, and breeding sites. Uvas Creek facilitates regional wildlife movement for various aquatic and non‐aquatic species; this riparian corridor feature will not be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project would have no adverse impacts on wildlife movement and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; in fact, the project may have a beneficial impact on wildlife movement by locally common species by slowing the velocity of vehicular traffic at the proposed roundabout, and thereby reducing the potential for wildlife strike/mortality at the project site. e. Local Biological Resource Policies/Ordinances. As stated in the certified Specific Plan EIR, Section 6.0 of the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy states that the following trees are designated significant: existing native trees naturally occurring species in Gilroy six inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one half 4.5 feet above the ground. In addition, trees important to the historical or visual aspect of Gilroy such as hillside tree stands are also considered significant.
Appendix C contains the Hecker Pass Highway Trail Trees Exhibit, City of Gilroy, California prepared by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar on April 25, 2017, and the Hecker Pass/Cedar Preservation Arborist Report and Tree Survey prepared by Moki Smith – Morgan Hill Tree Service, dated September 18, 2014 and revised September 21, 2016. The arborist report contains detailed tree inventory data and observations, along with specific recommendations for retained trees including protective measures during construction and future maintenance/care methods for optimal tree health; however, it does not include a tree replacement plan.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 57 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Per the April 25, 2017 trees exhibit provided by Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar, 39 trees will be removed for the proposed project, 35 of which are likely City‐designated significant trees: six native valley oaks with diameter at breast height DBH of 6, 7, 7, 9, 14, and 18 inches ; 21 native coast live oaks with DBH of 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12, and 14 inches ; and eight non‐native deodar cedars, five of which are included as part of the Historic Highway 152 Tree Row with DBH of 6, 7, 10, 10, 12, 40, 42, and 42 inches and two of those five have previously been removed. The 27 native valley oaks and coast live oaks with DBH of six inches or more proposed for removal are significant trees; the eight deodar cedars will likely also be considered significant by the City for historical/visual purposes; however, they are not significant from a biological, CEQA perspective. Four additional native valley oaks and coast live oaks are proposed for removal, but are less than six inches in DBH.
The loss of significant trees per the City’s Consolidated Landscaping Policy due to the proposed project is a significant impact. Implementation of the policies and mitigation measures presented below will reduce this significant impact to a less‐than‐significant level.
The specific plan includes several policies that would minimize adverse impacts to significant trees. Natural Resource Protection Policy 5‐31 is a provision to design projects in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts to native trees and habitats. Landscaping Policy 7‐8 requires a certified arborist to prepare a written report that identifies the trees to be removed and the specifications for replacing trees. Landscaping Policy 7‐9 requires a tree protection zone to be established and fenced for trees to be retained prior to construction. A tree removal permit and replacement mitigation will be required as a condition of project approval, consistent with the City’s Consolidated Landscaping Policy.
. Policy 5‐31: Development should be designated in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts to native trees and habitats.
. Policy 7‐8: Prior to the removal of any significant tree s , a field survey shall be conducted by a certified arborist to determine the number and location of each significant tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of each significant tree, and the reason for removal. These findings shall be included in a written report that contains specifications for replacing significant trees to be removed and submitted to the Gilroy Planning Division for review and approval.
The following specific plan policy and the requirements of the Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy would apply to the proposed Class I bike path and roundabout
58 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
project sites and therefore is included as mitigation measures for purposes of the proposed project:
Mitigation Measure
BIO‐4. Consolidated Landscaping Policy Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a tree replacement plan to mitigate for removing 39 trees. The final plan shall identify the species, size, numbers, and locations for the replacement trees, and will be subject to review and approval by the Planning Manager. The tree replacement plan shall be implemented with construction of the bike path.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO‐5. HPSP Policy 7‐9 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the protected zone of any tree or group of trees to be retained should be fenced to prevent injury to the trees during construction under the supervision of an arborist. Soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and/or dumping of materials shall not be allowed within the protected zone. The fencing shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division f. Conservation Plans. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, a combined Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan incorporating the southern portion of Santa Clara County. The Habitat Plan regulates and protects biological resources within its permit area in order to contribute to the recovery of special‐status species. It contains a wealth of biological resource background information for the region, and its detailed conditions and requirements apply to covered activities to protect covered species and create new habitat reserves that are larger in scale, more ecologically valuable, and easier to manage than numerous individual mitigation sites. The City of Gilroy is an active partner in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, which is a Joint Powers Authority responsible for executing the requirements of the Habitat Plan.
The Habitat Plan was developed in association with the USFWS and CDFW. It is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in specific areas of Santa Clara County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts to 18 covered special‐status species.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 59 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Through this comprehensive program, the USFWS issues the six partner agencies a 50‐ year permit that authorizes incidental take of covered species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, while the CDFW issues a 50‐year permit that authorizes take of covered species under the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
The Habitat Plan partner agencies include Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Jose; County of Santa Clara; Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; and Santa Clara Valley Water District. Partner agencies began implementing the Habitat Plan in October 2013. The Habitat Plan allows the partner agencies to receive endangered species take authorization permits for activities and projects they conduct and to extend this take authorization to project applicants under their jurisdiction.
The Habitat Plan includes nine covered plant species: Tiburon Indian paintbrush Castilleja affinis var. neglecta , coyote ceanothus Ceanothus ferrisiae , Mount Hamilton fountain thistle Cirsium fontinale var. campylon , Santa Clara Valley dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii , fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea , Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina , smooth lessingia Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata , Metcalf Canyon jewel‐flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus , and most beautiful jewel‐flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus . It also includes nine covered wildlife species: Bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis , California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense , California red‐legged frog Rana draytonii , foothill yellow‐legged frog Rana boylii , western pond turtle Emys marmorata , western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia , Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus , tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor , and San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica .
According to the Habitat Plan “Geobrowser” data available online, the project site does not require focused special‐status species surveys for any plants or animals, and is not located in a priority reserve area or special fee zone. Only one special‐status species has the potential to occur on or adjacent to the project site, and the potential is very low: the California Species of Special Concern burrowing owl. Although this species has very low potential to occur in burrows in the former orchard on the northern side of the highway in and adjacent to the proposed roundabout , this species is fully covered by the Habitat Plan, and no project mitigation or surveys for burrowing owl are required.
Further, the Specific Plan includes urban residential and rural agricultural and park/recreational land uses. Specifically, the City of Gilroy has clarified that “the Hecker Pass Specific Plan is an urban development that incorporates rural features”. The proposed project is a “Covered Activity” pursuant to the Habitat Plan, Chapter 2 page 2‐39 , and is located inside the planning limits of urban growth pursuant to
60 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Figure 2‐2 of the Habitat Plan. Also, the Specific Plan includes open spaces near the project site as defined in Chapter 2 of the Habitat Plan, including the Uvas Creek preserve and buffer area, Hecker Pass agricultural area, and Hecker Pass open space area north of Hecker Pass Highway.
As a covered activity, a Habitat Plan permit, compliance with all permit conditions, and payment of applicable fees will be required, but the proposed project does not conflict with the Habitat Plan reserve system or conservation strategies.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would result in removal of trees that were not originally anticipated in the original HPSP EIR and Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND. Mitigation measures are presented to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. No other new, significant biological resources impacts were identified, and no other new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have other new or more significant impacts on biological resources than were identified for the original HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 61 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 15064.5? 19, 34, 38, 39, 40
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? 19, 34, 38, 39, 40
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 19, 34, 38, 39, 40
Comments:
This section summarizes the findings of the cultural resources reports prepared for the proposed project by WSA Inc. a. There are two historic resources in the immediately vicinity of the project site: The Highway 152 Tree Row and the Ousley Farm/Hoey Ranch.
Highway 152 Tree Row. The Highway 152 Tree Row consists of 115 deodar cedars trees stretching 1.39 miles along the southern right of way of SR 152 in Gilroy. The tree row was listed at the local level of significance under Criterion A, in the area of social history at the local level of significance. The period of significance is 1930‐1931. The town of Gilroy planted the deodar cedars at the height of the species’ use as a street tree in California. In celebration of California’s first Arbor Day, March 7, 1930, Gilroy’s Rotary led the planting project. Joining the Rotarians were members of the Elks, the American Legion Auxiliary, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, as well as school children and other Gilroyans. Similar events were going on simultaneously in other towns all around the state. By the end of the day, across California, about 25,000 trees were planted. Due to the success of the first Arbor Day a second celebration was held in 1931 and Gilroy planted additional trees along the highway.
The trees remain a significant landscape feature of SR 152. According to the listing of the property in Office of Historic Preservation's Directory of Properties in the Historic
62 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Properties Data File for Santa Clara County the property has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since July 3, 2007. The proposed project requires the removal of three trees within the historic tree row, adjacent to two that were previously removed associated with another activity.
In order to maintain visual continuity of this significant landscape feature, removal of more than two adjacent deodar cedar trees that are part of the Highway 152 Tree Row at any single location within the project area, would be considered a significant impact on the historic resource. Therefore, removal of the three trees within the historic tree row would be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less‐than‐significant level.
Mitigation Measure
CR‐1. The applicant shall plant two replacement deodar cedar trees: one within the southerly portion of the roundabout and one on the southwest “corner” of the roundabout intersection, as presented in Appendix F of this initial study, to ensure visual continuity in the historic tree row. These trees shall be incorporated into the roundabout landscape plans, prior to approval by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and Caltrans.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering and Planning Divisions
Ousley Farm/Hoey Ranch. The Ousley farm/Hoey ranch represents the remains of the historic Ousley farm, built in the mid‐1800s. The main house is north of SR 152. Other secondary buildings e.g. horse barn, hay barn, cold storage house, wood shed, wash house, a garage with former blacksmith shop, and some modern buildings are located around the house. Established in the 1850s, the main house represents the second home built at this location. An ornamental garden extends from the front of the house to the north side of SR 152. The Hoey ranch has been recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the basis of Criteria A and C. According to the listing of the property in Office of Historic Preservation's Directory of Properties in the Historic Properties Data File for Santa Clara County the property was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by the State Historic Preservation Officer in 1994.
Extended phase 1 testing was conducted on November 10, 2016 within a 222‐foot‐long strip of land‐22 foot wide at its widest and 11 foot wide at its narrowest‐‐ within the site boundary of the historic Ousley farm on the north side of SR 152. The strip of land is
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 63 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
3,181 square feet 0.073 acres in area. It is currently privately owned, but the land will be dedicated to Caltrans by the City of Gilroy, via an agreement to dedicate the property from the current owners to the city, to extend their current right‐of‐way to capture the new roundabout. Evidence from the testing indicated that there are no intact archaeological deposits in the tested area. These results indicate that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the historic Ousely farm/Hoey ranch.
Nine extant buildings and a garden are currently associated with the Ousley farm/Hoey ranch property. Portions of the National Register eligible Ousley farm/Hoey ranch are within the planned cut, fill, and tree removal areas of the project. However, none of the existing buildings on site will be impacted by construction activities associated with the roundabout or bike trail. Only portions of the garden facing the highway will be in the areas of disturbance identified in the project plans. As this portion of the garden was previously tested for potential historic resources by the City’s consultant, it was determined that no evidence of the former ranch house existed in this area of the property. Results from the Extended Phase 1 testing confirmed that no archeological or cultural resources existed in the project area, including the garden area to be disturbed by construction, and the City’s consultant concluded that the project would have no adverse effect on the Ousley farm/Hoey ranch site. b. A records search, consultation with local historical societies, consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission NAHC and consultation with interested Native American individuals/organizations were conducted in an effort to identify any known cultural resources within a one‐mile radius of the project area.
The NAHC consultation did not identify any known prehistoric or tribal cultural resources within the project area. Six potentially interested Native American parties identified by the NAHC were contacted via letter, telephone, and email for comment on this project. Valentin Lopez, speaking on behalf of Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, recommended that a Native American monitor be present for all subsurface disturbance, because there was "lots of Native American activity in that area, a lot of sites." Ms. Irene Zwierlein, of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista recommended construction crew training and an Archaeological and Native American monitor during ground disturbing activity. Ms. Ann Marie Sayers, representing the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan recommended that a Native American monitor be present for all subsurface disturbance. No other recommendations or concerns were provided.
Fourteen cultural resource studies have been previously conducted within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Thirty‐five archaeological studies have been
64 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
conducted within a one‐mile radius of the project area. No evidence of prehistoric cultural resources was found in the project area as a result of these investigations.
Archaeological Sites in the Survey Area. Shkurkin et al. 1974 produced the first site record for P‐43‐000103, which provides his description of the site is as it appeared in 1974. The site is described as a thin scatter with scattered chert tool making debris, two pieces of groundstone and fire‐cracked rock. Also described are midden sediments "so widely dispersed through the orchard" that no measurable data could be recovered from them. Since 1974 the site area has been heavily disturbed by construction activities associated with the widening of the Hecker Pass Road and Santa Theresa Blvd. intersection, so that as much as 75 percent of the recorded site boundary is now paved over. The remaining 25 percent has been graded and landscaped as part of the construction of a residential unit at this location.
When WSA visited the site area, no artifacts or features associated with the site were observed. There was no surfical visible evidence of any midden sediments. Visibility was good. The observed disturbance from the road expansion is substantial.
Original observations at the time the site was recorded suggest that substantial, intact subsurface deposits are not present. Disturbances to the site from intersection expansion and property development are substantial. The site does not appear to have any potential to address important questions regarding prehistory in the Gilroy region. Therefore WSA does not recommend that the site is eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 4. Also, WSA does not recommend that the site is eligible for the CRHR under Criteria 1‐3. The site has no associations with historic persons or events of importance Criteria 1 and 2 and contains no engineering, artistic, or design characteristics of historic importance Criterion 3 ,
At least 75 percent of the recorded site area is beneath the existing highway. The remaining 25 percent including the portion of the site reached by the bike path is located in an area that has been graded and landscape as part of a residential property. According to project plans the bike path will continue along the shoulder of the highway until it stops just within the recorded site area. Because this portion of the project area is highly disturbed by the expansion of the existing intersection and the nature of the site as it was recorded was a very thin and highly dispersed scatter, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the site. Also, the grading plans we have indicate that only the asphalt is being stripped in this area. WSA recommends that P‐43‐ 00103 is not eligible for listing in the CRHR and the project will have no significant impact on it. WSA recommends no further action with regard to the site.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 65 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Although there is no evidence of significant prehistoric cultural resources at the project site, the possibility of finding significant cultural resources during earth moving activities always exists. Implementation of mitigation measures CR‐2 and CR‐3 presented below would ensure potential impacts to resources accidentally discovered during grading activities would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant impact. CR‐3 is a City of Gilroy standard condition of approval. CR‐3 is also a mitigation measure in the specific plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures
CR‐2 The applicant shall invite representatives of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, and the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, to be present during earth‐moving activities associated with construction of the roundabout and the Class I bike path. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that all three tribes have been invited to be present, subject to review by the City of Gilroy Planning Division.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
CR‐3 If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth‐moving, grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters 165 feet at of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained at Developer’s expense to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division c. The project site is not known to contain any human remains; however, the possibility of accidently discovering human remains during earth moving activities always exists. As a standard condition of approval, the following language is included on city‐issued permits, including, but not limited to building permits for future development, subject to the review and approval of the Gilroy Planning Division. It is also a mitigation measure in the specific plan EIR.
66 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Mitigation Measures
CR‐4 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that this language is included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 e :
If human remains are found during earth‐moving, grading, or construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent MLD from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission; b the descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or c the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant cultural resource effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in cultural resources related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant impacts on cultural resources than were identified for the original HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 67 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1 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. 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 34
2 Strong seismic ground shaking? 1, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 34
3 Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 34
4 Landslides? 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 34
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 34
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? 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 34
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the California Building Code 2001 , creating substantial risks to life or property? 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 34
Comments: a. 1 The HPSP EIR and Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND noted the specific plan area was located within a seismically active area with three notable regional faults Sargent, San Andreas, and Calaveras running approximately 2, 4.5, and 6 miles, respectively, from the specific plan area. The specific plan area, however, is not located
68 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
within a State of California Fault Hazard Zone and no known faults along the Hecker Pass Highway or within the specific plan area have been identified.
2 City of Gilroy General Plan Policy 25.03 requires appropriate studies for all developments to assess potential hazards and assure that they are adequately mitigated. This requirement has been satisfied through the preparation of a series of preliminary geotechnical studies for the specific plan area and evaluated in the HPSP EIR. No additional studies are necessary for the roundabout and bike path.
3 Potential hazards due to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and/or lurching were considered to be less than significant impacts according to the HPSP EIR.
4 The entirety of the project site along Highway 152 is relatively flat and is not subject to risks from landslides. b. The HPSP EIR identified one geology related impact of the original HPSP project – potential soil erosion that could impact sensitive biological habitat within Uvas Creek. Preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan Policy 5‐24 , which is included below as mitigation measure applicable to the proposed project, would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level. This requirement is also a standard condition of approval.
Mitigation Measure
GEO‐1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the roundabout and/or bike path, project applicants shall prepare an erosion control plan consistent with the City’s erosion control ordinance. The plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and its implementation by project applicant shall be monitored by the City.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering and Planning Divisions
The proposed project includes grading and improvement plans to accommodate the roundabout at Hecker Pass Highway/Third Street as well as the construction of the proposed Class I bike path. According to the HPSP EIR, the soils within the specific plan area do not have a high erosion potential. However, during grading and construction activities, when soils are loosened and bare of vegetation, the risk of erosion would be increased over normal circumstances. Compliance with Policy 5‐24 in the adopted and amended HPSP would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. c. As noted in the specific plan, the specific plan area contains alluvial soils near Uvas Creek at the west end of the proposed bike path , which is less cohesive and more
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 69 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
susceptible to liquefaction, lurching, and lateral spreading. However, based on geological testing conducting at the time, it was determined that the risk of liquefaction was unlikely within the specific plan area beyond the immediate area of Uvas Creek 50 feet . Therefore, to avoid the potential for lurching and lateral spreading near Uvas Creek, the specific plan establishes a 50‐foot minimum improvement setback from top of bank of Uvas Creek. The western edge of the proposed Class I bike path would not fall within this 50‐foot setback. Compliance with specific plan policies 5‐24 and 5‐26 , which establish requirements for erosion control plans and establish appropriate setback requirements for all improvements, would reduce any potential impact from unstable soils along Uvas Creek to a less than significant level. d. According to the HPSP EIR, soils within the specific plan do not represent a hazard or limitation to development. The moderately expansive character of some of the soils can be addressed through standard foundation, grading, and excavation procedures.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in new significant geological effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in geologic related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant geologic impacts than were identified for the original HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
70 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 15
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 15, 31
Comments: a/b. The HPSP EIR did not evaluate impacts associated with greenhouse gas GHG emissions, as climate change had not yet been identified as a topic that required analysis in CEQA documents. Operations of the proposed roundabout and Class I bike path would not result in operational GHG emissions beyond that which would occur from vehicles traveling through a standard intersection. The Class I bike path is not anticipated to generate long‐term operational GHG emissions due to non‐motorized vehicular forms of transportation intended for the path.
The BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines state that there are currently no adopted thresholds of significance for construction‐related greenhouse gas emissions see page 8‐7 of the guidelines . However, it can be assumed that due to the size and duration, the proposed roundabout and bike path would result in some greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase. Construction emissions would be generated by construction equipment used during the site preparation and the roundabout and bike path construction processes. The proposed roundabout and Class I bike path would not generate cumulatively considerable amounts of greenhouse gases and would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, compliance with the mitigation measure identified in Section D.3, Air Quality, would help reduce short‐term, construction‐ related GHG emission impacts from the roundabout and bike path site to a less‐than‐ significant level.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 71 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Conclusion
GHG emissions were not evaluated in the original HPSP EIR and Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND. However, as presented above, the proposed project would not result in significant greenhouse gas emissions.
72 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 20
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? 20
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 20
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, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 10, 20
e. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 19, 20
f. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 19, 20
Comments: a/c. The proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b. The HPSP EIR identified a potential hazard due to exposure to residual agricultural chemicals. Only nominal amounts of hazardous material in the form of fuels and other
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 73 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
construction materials would be used during construction processes of the roundabout and bike path. These materials do not pose an elevated risk to the public and do not change the analysis contained in the HPSP EIR. d. According to the HPSP EIR, there are no sites within the HPSP area on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites Cortese List pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. A review of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Envirostor database confirmed that there are still no sites on the list. e. The proposed project includes the construction of a roundabout along Hecker Pass Highway and is intended to improve overall circulation throughout the Hecker Pass Highway corridor. The proposed project would therefore not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. During construction, traffic would move more slowly along this portion of the highway, which could result in slower response times for emergency personnel. However, the city will require preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan, to ensure adequate operations through the construction zone. There would be no environmental effect associated with a traffic control plan. f. The HPSP EIR concluded that the HPSP area is located in a high fire hazard area. The HPSP EIR concluded that projects consistent with policies relating to areas of high fire hazard areas, along with project specific mitigations defined as standard conditions of approval by the City of Gilroy Fire Department, would result in less than significant impacts related to exposure of future people or structures to significant risk from wildland fires. The proposed project would be consistent with policies and standard conditions of approval required by the City of Gilroy Fire Department.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in new significant hazards or hazardous materials effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in hazards or hazardous materials related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts than were identified for the original HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
74 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 18, 19, 20
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., would the production rate of preexisting nearby wells drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted ? 18, 19, 20, 34
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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐ site? 18, 19, 20, 34
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 run‐off in a manner that would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site? 18, 19, 20, 34
e. Create or contribute run‐off water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run‐off? 18, 19, 20, 34
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 18, 19, 20, 34
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 75 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact g. Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 18, 19, 20, 34
h. Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 18, 19, 20, 34
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? 18, 19, 20, 34
Comments: a. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. There is no water use associated with the roundabout and bike path, with the exception of water that may be necessary to minimize construction dust and to establish new tree plantings. Therefore, the impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. c‐e. Construction of the roundabout and bike path would result in a limited increase in impervious surfaces at the project site approximately five acres and minor alterations of the existing storm drain infrastructure of the area are necessary to accommodate construction of the facilities. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, result in erosions or siltation on‐ or off‐site, or result in flooding on‐ or off‐site. f. The proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality. g, h. The proposed project would not place housing or structures within the 100‐year flood hazard area. i. The proposed project would not 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.
76 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in new significant hydrological or water quality effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in hydrology or water quality related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant hydrology or water quality impacts than were identified for the HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 77 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? 19, 20, 34
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, zoning ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 19, 20, 34
Comments: a. The proposed project would not divide an established community. b. The proposed project is an amendment to the adopted Hecker Pass Specific Plan. With approval of the amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with the specific plan and its policies. All of the environmental effects associated with the proposed project are discussed throughout this initial study.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant land use effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in land use related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant land use impacts than were identified for the HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
78 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 18, 19, 20
Comments: a. While the HPSP EIR identified the entire segment of Uvas Creek and the adjoining margins of the creek located within the HPSP area as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ‐2 Page 2‐139 in the HPSP EIR , it was ultimately concluded that the inability to mine these resources in the future due to implementation of the HPSP was a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. The City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations finding the benefits of the HPSP outweighed the adverse impact associated with the loss of availability of this locally important mineral resource. However, the proposed project is not located within or adjacent to the creek and therefore, would have no effect on mineral resources.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in a change in availability of designated mineral resources relative to the original project. Therefore, this significant and unavoidable impact from the original HPSP EIR remains unchanged. However, the currently proposed project would not have an effect on mineral resources.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 79 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
12. NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan? 1, 13, 18, 19, 20, 34
b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground‐borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? 1, 13, 18, 19, 20, 34
c. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 13, 18, 19, 20, 34
Comments: a/c. Noise impacts associated with the Hecker Pass Specific Plan were evaluated in the certified HPSP EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the evaluation presented in the EIR.
Short‐term demolition and construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project, including demolition of the existing highway as well as construction of the bike path and the roundabout, could generate significant temporary noise impacts in keeping with the findings of the HPSP EIR. However, HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 11/Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measure N‐1, as reflected in the mitigation measure below, would still apply and would reduce any construction‐related noise impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.
Mitigation Measure
N‐1. All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and to Saturdays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction is allowed on Sundays or city holidays. In addition, temporary berms or noise attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary. This requirement shall be attached as a contractor work specification for all projects.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
80 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering and Planning Divisions b. The HPSP EIR concluded that development under the HPSP would not be a source of excessive groundborne vibration and no sources of such vibration are located within the project vicinity. The proposed roundabout and bike path would not change that conclusion.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in new significant noise effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no significant changes in noise related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant noise impacts than were identified for the HPSP EIR or the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 81 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure ? 18, 19, 20
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 18, 19, 20
Comments: a. Growth inducing impacts as a result of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan were evaluated in the certified EIR. The HPSP EIR found no significant environmental impacts associated with population growth, or displacement of a substantial number of people. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the evaluation presented in the HPSP EIR. b. The proposed project would not result in the displacement of people or housing.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in new population and housing related effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in population and housing related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant population and housing related impacts than were identified for the HPSP EIR or the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
82 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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 following public services:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Fire protection? 18, 19, 20, 34
b. Police protection? 18, 19, 20, 34
c. Schools? 18, 19, 20, 34
d. Parks? 18, 19, 20, 34
e. Other Public Facilities? 18, 19, 20, 34
Comments: a‐e. The HPSP EIR identified that build out of the HPSP area would not directly result in the need to construct new public services facilities fire protection facilities, police protection facilities, public school facilities or recreation facilities . The proposed project does is not population‐generating and therefore, would not require significant fire or police protection services. No impacts from construction of new fire, police or recreation facilities associated with the proposed project would occur.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in new significant public services effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in public services related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant public services impacts than were identified for the original HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 83 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact 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, 2, 18, 19, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37
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? 1, 2, 18, 19, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses e.g., farm equipment ? 19, 27, 28, 34
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? 19, 27, 28, 34
e. Result in inadequate parking capacity? 19, 27, 28, 34
f. Conflict with any City of Gilroy General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element policies? 1, 2, 27, 28, 34
Comments: a/b. The HPSP EIR identified a range of circulation impacts that would result from build out of the HPSP area. The circulation impacts of the buildout of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan were evaluated by Higgins Associates in 2004 in a report entitled Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Gilroy, California, Traffic Analysis Report for Proposed New Residential
84 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
Development and Agri‐Commercial Development. The report was included in a technical appendix to the HPSP EIR. The most significant of these impacts was generation of traffic that results in the City’s level of service standards being exceeded at several intersections and on several road segments. These impacts were mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level in the HPSP EIR through improvements proposed as part of the HPSP project and/or by payment of traffic impact fees. A condition of approval for the original HPSP project required the installation of a traffic signal at the future Hecker Pass Highway/Third Street intersection in order to mitigate projected traffic impacts at that location. Subsequently, the City has determined that a roundabout at this intersection was more appropriate for the circulation needs along Hecker Pass Highway, as roundabouts actually improve traffic flow and circulation on the highway when compare to a standard intersection.
The feasibility of the roundabout at the new planned intersection at Third Street was evaluated in the Analysis of Planned New Intersection on Hecker Pass Highway in Gilroy, California prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants in 2014 included in Appendix G . The report noted that the proposed roundabout is intended as a replacement mitigation measure for the approved HPSP project. The traffic study evaluated the operating conditions for a roundabout and a standard signalized intersection under various study scenarios. These study scenarios included: Existing Conditions, Existing Plus Project Conditions, Background Conditions, Background Plus Project Conditions, Cumulative Conditions, and General Plan Buildout Conditions. The results indicated that a signalized intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service under all study scenarios with the lane configuration and traffic control assumptions. A single‐lane roundabout would operate with acceptable levels of service through cumulative plus project conditions. However, with the additional traffic growth projected under General Plan buildout conditions, a single‐lane roundabout would not have sufficient capacity to maintain acceptable levels of service. The analysis shows that a two‐lane roundabout with two circulating lanes and two inbound lanes one left‐ turn/through and one through/right‐turn would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate projected General Plan traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service. At which time Caltrans and/or the City of Gilroy determine the second lane within the roundabout is necessary, additional environmental review may be necessary if the improvements would extend beyond the area already paved.
In January 2018, Hexagon prepared a traffic impact trigger analysis for the City of Gilroy also included in Appendix G to determine the required timing of traffic improvements at Santa Teresa Boulevard and First Street SR 152 . Upon review of the trigger analysis, the City Traffic Engineer concluded in an e‐mail memo to EMC Planning Group included
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 85 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
in Appendix G that developers within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan would not need to make any improvements to the Santa Teresa/First Street intersection based on projected build out of the specific plan area over the next three years till December 2020 .
Additionally, the analysis evaluated the addition of the proposed Class I bike path south of an outside of the right‐of‐way for Hecker Pass Highway. Since the plans show the bike path in the vicinity of the roundabout to have a right‐of‐way section of about 20 feet, with a 12‐foot paved section and two 4‐foot shoulders, the proposed bike path satisfies Caltrans standards for Class I bikeway design and would be more than adequate to accommodate two‐way travel for bikes and pedestrians. The remainder of the proposed trail on the project frontage will be required to continue to follow Caltrans standards. Therefore the proposed Class I bike path does not pose any traffic operational issues and would be sufficient to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic through the project area. c‐e. The proposed amendment to the specific plan would not increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with any city general plan transportation and circulation element policies. f. Proposed changes to the specific plan regarding eliminating or modification of mitigation measures 18 and 19, the addition of a Class I bike path, and the construction of a roundabout on Hecker Pass Highway would not result in any transportation‐related impacts beyond those evaluated in the certified EIR and this initial study.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant traffic and circulation effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no significant changes in circulation related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant circulation impacts than were identified for the HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
86 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
16. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources code section 5020.1 k , or 38
2 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision c of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision c of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 38
Comments: a. 1 & 2 As discussed in the Section A, Background, the City of Gilroy did not receive any requests for consultation from tribes traditionally or culturally affiliated with the specific plan project area. Therefore, no additional consultation was required under AB 52, which requires lead agencies to conduct tribal consultation if specifically contacted by traditionally or culturally affiliated tribes in the project area.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 87 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 18, 19, 20
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? 18, 19, 20
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? 18, 19, 20
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 18, 19, 20
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? 18, 19, 20
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid‐waste disposal needs? 18, 19, 20
Comments: a,b,d,e. The HPSP EIR identified that build out of the HPSP area would not result in significant impacts related to water and wastewater utility systems. Build out of the roundabout at the Third Street intersection and the addition of a Class I bike path would not require new off‐site water or wastewater treatment infrastructure whose construction might otherwise create adverse environmental effects. The water and wastewater demand associated with the proposed project would not increase relative to that analyzed in the HPSP EIR.
88 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY c. The HPSP identified potentially significant impacts from expansion of storm drainage facilities needed to serve the entire HPSP area. Construction of storm drainage outfalls on the banks of Uvas Creek was determined to have potentially significant impacts on riparian habitat quality and water quality within the creek. Implementation of storm drainage improvements consistent with policies contained in the HPSP and HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 22 would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 22, reflected in Mitigation Measure U‐1 below, would apply to the proposed project.
Minor alterations of the existing storm drain infrastructure are necessary to accommodate construction of the roundabout. Existing and proposed storm drain infrastructure is presented in Figure 11, Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Infrastructure. Modifications to these facilities are evaluated throughout this initial study.
In addition, the proposed Class I bike path will consist of approximately 3.27 acres of additional paved surface area. Site plans for the bike path show minimal grading is required. The plans include installing a storm drain pipe to collect excess storm water via storm drain drop inlets and flat grate inlets to be installed at various locations along the bike path per the approval of City of Gilroy Engineering.
Mitigation Measure
U‐1. Storm water detention shall be designed to prevent an increase in the 2‐year, 10‐year and 100‐year peak discharge for the project area refinement of existing HPSP policy 8‐6 , and consistent with the City of Gilroy Storm Water Management Guidance Manual For Low Impact Development & Post‐ Construction Requirements March 6, 2014 .
Party Responsible for Implementation: Meritage Homes
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division f. The HPSP EIR concluded that build out of the HPSP, including the roundabout site, would not require extension of gas, electric or telecommunications services that could adversely impact the environment. The same is true for solid waste disposal. Build out at the roundabout site will not result in a change in demand for gas, electric, telecommunications or solid waste services that would result in significant impacts.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant utilities related effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in utility related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant utilities related impacts than were identified for the HPSP EIR and the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 89 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially Less‐than‐Significant Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact 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; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 34, 37, 38
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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. 15, 18, 19, 20, 31
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 31, 34
Comments: a. The proposed project does not 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; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. Tree removal and limited impacts to special‐ status species may occur; however, mitigation measures have been presented in this initial study and will be incorporated into the proposed project that will reduce the impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.
The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; however, it will have an adverse effect on an historic
90 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Use Arial Narrow Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS Interstate 5 or I-5
Source: Belleci & Associates 2017 0 200 feet
Figure 11 Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Infrastructure Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment - Roundabout, Bike Path, Fencing Language, and Traffic Mitigation HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
92 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
resource, although a mitigation measure has been identified and will be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The proposed project has the potential to have adverse impacts on archaeological resources should they be present in the area and accidentally discovered during grading activities. However, mitigation measures were identified and will be incorporated into project plans to ensure any such impacts would be less than significant. b. The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project is not population or job generating and therefore, will have no long term effects on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, vehicle trip generation, water demand, or wastewater generation. Mitigation measures have been identified for significant or potentially significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, storm water, traffic, and short‐term construction‐related air quality and noise impacts. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this initial study will minimize the effects and ensure they are not cumulatively considerable. c. The proposed project has the potential to result in short‐term air quality and noise impacts to adjacent residents associated with construction activity. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 and N‐1 now incorporated into the City of Gilroy’s standard conditions of approvals regarding minimizing short‐term construction impacts presented in this initial study, the project will not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 93 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
E. SOURCES
1. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan. 2002.
2. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. 2002.
3. City of Gilroy. Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
4. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Storm Drainage System Master Plan. May 2004.
5. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Sewer System Master Plan. May 2004.
6. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Water System Master Plan. May 2004.
7. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2004.
8. Carollo Engineers. South County Recycled Water Master Plan. October 2004.
9. Blank.
10. Department of Toxic Substances Controls DTSC . CORTESE List of Toxic Substance Sites. April 2016.
11. Department of Mines and Geology. Update of Mineral Land Classifications: Aggregate Materials in the Monterey Bay Production Consumption Region. 2000. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_99‐01/OFR_99‐01_Text.pdf
12. EMC Planning Group. Reconnaissance field survey conducted by Andrea Edwards, Senior Biologist, April 21, 2016.
13. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan A/S 05‐54 Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2006.
14. Google Earth Imagery. Accessed March 1, 2017.
15. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June 2010. Available on line at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐GUIDELINES.aspx
16. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara, California. September 1974.
94 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
17. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 Map. August 2014. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/scl10.pdf
18. City of Gilroy. Hecker Pass Specific Plan. Adopted January 18, 2005. Revised January 22, 2007. Revised August 3, 2009. Revised May 18, 2015.
19. Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar. Roundabout & Bike Path Application Materials includes applications, maps, proposed amendments, and tree removal exhibit . June 2016; September 2016; April 2017.
20. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. Prepared for City of Gilroy. May 24, 2004.
21. California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDFW . California Natural Diversity Database CNDDB . Records of Occurrence for Morgan Hill, Mount Sizer, Mississippi Creek, Mount Madonna, Gilroy, Gilroy Hot Springs, Watsonville East, Chittenden, and San Felipe USGS quadrangles. Sacramento, California. Accessed April 2016 at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp
22. California Native Plant Society CNPS . Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Records of Occurrence for Morgan Hill, Mount Sizer, Mississippi Creek, Mount Madonna, Gilroy, Gilroy Hot Springs, Watsonville East, Chittenden, and San Felipe USGS quadrangles. Sacramento, California. Accessed April 2016 at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS . Endangered Species Database. Species list for Santa Clara County. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 2016 at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
24. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Habitat Agency . Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan: Permitting for Private Projects and Geobrowser. Morgan Hill, California. Accessed April 2016 at: http://scv‐habitatagency.org/250/Private‐Applicant and http://www.hcpmaps.com/habitat/
25. City of Gilroy, Community Development Department. Consolidated Landscaping Policy. Adopted January 19, 1988. Last amended October 18, 1999. Available online at: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3066
26. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass HPSP General Plan Amendment GPA 07‐05 EIR Addendum. Prepared for City of Gilroy. December 8, 2008.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 95 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
27. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Analysis of Planned New Intersection on Hecker Pass Highway in Gilroy, California. Prepared for City of Gilroy, Public Works Department. March 31, 2014.
28. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Reevaluation of the Need for Certain Traffic Mitigation Measures Associated with the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Project in Gilroy, California. Prepared for EMC Planning Group. June 28, 2016.
29. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass HPSP Amendment GPA 06‐02 Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2006.
30. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016. 2016. Available on line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SantaClara_15_16_WA.pdf
31. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010 Clean Air Plan. Available on line at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/Plans/Clean‐Air‐ Plans.aspx
32. David B. Kelly, Consulting Plant and Soil Scientist. Revised LESA Analysis ‐ Lands of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. July 26, 2004.
33. Vallier Design Inc. Visual Simulations of Proposed Hecker Pass Highway Roundabout. July 2016.
34. Bellecci & Associates, Inc. Project Plans for Construction on State Highway in Santa Clara County in Gilroy at Future Autumn Drive. Prepared for Caltrans. April 11, 2016.
35. Heap, Gary, Traffic Engineer, City of Gilroy Public Works Department. E‐mail message to Teri Wissler Adam, EMC Planning Group, subject: Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendments Traffic Mitigation at STB and 1st , dated 15 March 2018.
36. Moki Smith Morgan Hill Tree Service . Hecker Pass/Cedar Preservation Report and Tree Survey. Prepared for Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar and Meritage Homes. September 18, 2014. Revised September 21, 2016.
37. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Trigger Analysis at Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street SR 152 for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Project. January 10, 2018.
96 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. INITIAL STUDY
38. WSA, Inc. Historical Resources Compliance Report HRCR and Archaeological Survey Report ASR Hecker Pass Roundabout Project, Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California/Project # 04‐4J290/EFIS 0415000318 . March 2017. Not for Public Review
39. WSA, Inc. Finding of No Adverse Effect – Non‐Standard Conditions Hecker Pass Roundabout Project, Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California/Project # 04‐4J290/EFIS 0415000318 . March 2017. Not for Public Review
40. WSA, Inc. Cultural Resources Assessment Report Hecker Pass Highway Class I Bike Path Project . April 2017. Not for Public Review
All documents indicated in bold are available for review at the City of Gilroy, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, 408 846‐0451 during normal business hours.
All documents listed above are available for review at EMC Planning Group Inc., 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C, Monterey, California 93940, 831 649‐1799 during normal business hours.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 97 HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ROUNDABOUT, BIKE PATH, FENCING LANGUAGE, AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION Z 16‐02
This side intentionally left blank.
98 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.