VOLUME I – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN/SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH
SCH #2003012119
PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy
May 24, 2004
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN/SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH
Volume I –Draft Environmental Impact Report
PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Melissa Durkin Planner II 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020
PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 [email protected] www.emcplanning.com
May 24, 2004
Table of Contents
Summary ...... S-1
1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Authorization and Purpose ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Location and Setting ...... 1-3 1.3 Project Background and Description ...... 1-17 1.4 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans ...... 1-37 1.5 EIR Uses ...... 1-44
2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ...... 2-1 2.1 Aesthetics ...... 2-1 2.2 Agricultural Resources ...... 2-21 2.3 Air Quality ...... 2-41 2.4 Biological Resources ...... 2-54 2.5 Cultural Resources ...... 2-84 2.6 Geology ...... 2-97 2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 2-107 2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 2-117 2.9 Land Use ...... 2-133 2.10 Mineral Resources ...... 2-139 2.11 Noise ...... 2-142 2.12 Public Services ...... 2-155 2.13 Transportation ...... 2-169 2.14 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 2-195
3.0 Related Environmental Issues ...... 3-1 3.1 Cumulative Impacts ...... 3-1
EMC Planning Group Inc.
3.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ...... 3-12 3.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ...... 3-14 3.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ...... 3-15 3.5 Alternatives ...... 3-16
4.0 References ...... 4-1 4.1 Literature Cited ...... 4-1 4.2 Persons Contacted...... 4-4 4.3 Report Preparers ...... 4-4
Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Responses Appendix B Proposed General Plan Amendment Text Appendix C Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Appendix D SB 610 Water Supply Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ...... 1-5
Figure 2 Project Vicinity ...... 1-7
Figure 3 Property Ownership Map ...... 1-9
Figure 4 Existing Land Uses ...... 1-11
Figure 5a Site Photographs ...... 1-13
Figure 5b Site Photographs ...... 1-15
Figure 6 Specific Plan Land Use Map ...... 1-25
EMC Planning Group Inc.
Figure 7 South Valley Community Church Project ...... 1-31
Figure 8 Church Project Elevation ...... 1-33
Figure 9 Church Project Elevations: Preschool and Gymnasium Buildings ...... 1-35
Figure 10 Viewshed Photo: Hecker Pass Highway ...... 2-5
Figure 11 Viewshed Photo: Santa Teresa Boulevard ...... 2-7
Figure 12 Important Farmland Map ...... 2-27
Figure 13 Habitat Types ...... 2-61
Figure 14 Historic Resources Map ...... 2-87
Figure 15 Preliminary Geologic Map ...... 2-99
Figure 16 Very High Fire Hazard Areas ...... 2-109
Figure 17 Consolidated Hazards/Setback Map ...... 2-127
Figure 18 Hecker Pass Land Use Diagram ...... 2-135
Figure 19 Conceptual Circulation Plan ...... 2-181
Figure 20 Specific Plan Conceptual Trail Systems Plan ...... 2-185
Figure 21 Potable Water Plan ...... 2-201
Figure 22 Recycled Water Plan ...... 2-203
Figure 23 Sanitary Sewer Plan ...... 2-211
Figure 24 Storm Drainage Plan ...... 2-219
Figure 25 Alternative 1: General Plan Target Dwelling Unit/Clustering ...... 3-23
Figure 26 Alternative 2: Reduced Dwelling Unit/Clustering ...... 3-31
EMC Planning Group Inc.
List of Tables
Table 1 Land Use Designation Acreages ...... 1-22
Table 2 Summary of Church Project Components ...... 1-30
Table 3 Important Farmland Summary ...... 2-25
Table 4 Common Air Pollutants ...... 2-43
Table 5 Sensitive Receptors and Associated Land Uses ...... 2-45
Table 6 San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status Designations ...... 2-45
Table 7 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 2-47
Table 8 URBEMIS7G Modeling Results (Pounds Per Day) ...... 2-51
Table 9 Special-Status Species Initially Judged to Potentially Occur in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area ...... 2-64
Table 10 Existing Specific Plan Area Noise Levels ...... 2-143
Table 11 The A-Weighted Decibel Scale, Human Response, and Common Noise Sources ...... 2-145
Table 12 Permissible Maximum Outdoor and Indoor Noise Levels ...... 2-146
Table 13 Gilroy Unified School District Student Generation Rates ...... 2-163
Table 14 Existing Intersection Operations ...... 2-172
Table 15 Existing Road Segment Operations ...... 2-174
Table 16 Background Intersection Operations ...... 2-175
Table 17 Background Road Segment Operations ...... 2-176
Table 18 Specific Plan Trip Generation and Distribution ...... 2-187
Table 19 Background Plus HPSP Build Out Intersection Operations ...... 2-188
Table 20 Background Plus HPSP Build Out Road Segment Operations ...... 2-189
EMC Planning Group Inc.
Table 21 Background Plus Church Intersection Operations ...... 2-191
Table 22 Background Plus Church Project Road Segment Operations ...... 2-192
Table 23 Existing Water Use ...... 2-197
Table 24 Estimated Potable Water Use ...... 2-200
Table 25 Estimated Recycled Water Use ...... 2-200
Table 26 Estimated Agricultural Use from Existing Wells ...... 2-205
Table 27 Estimated Wastewater Flow ...... 2-210
Table 28 General Plan Land Use and Build Out Calculations ...... 3-3
Table 29 Existing Plus General Plan Build Out Calculations ...... 3-3
EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC Planning Group Inc.
Summary
CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires an EIR to contain a brief summary of the proposed project and its consequences. The summary identifies each significant effect and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.
Summary of Proposed Project
Location
The specific plan area and the South Valley Community Church site, which is within the specific plan area, are located in the western portion of the City of Gilroy. The sites are approximately three miles to the west of Highway 101. The specific plan area is west of Santa Teresa Boulevard and is bisected by State Route 152, locally referred to as Hecker Pass Highway. The southern boundary and a portion of the eastern boundary of the specific plan area are largely defined by Uvas Creek, though small portions of all parcels do extend across the creek to the south. The northernmost property lines of parcels located north of Hecker Pass Highway define the northern extent of the specific plan area. The specific plan area is approximately 425 acres in size. It is comprised of 29 parcels owned by 23 individual property owners. The South Valley Community Church project is proposed for property within the specific plan area at its eastern boundary.
Background
An evaluation of the annexation of that portion of the specific plan area located south of Hecker Pass Highway to the City of Gilroy was included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Hecker Pass – A Family Adventure (EMC Planning Group Inc. 1990). The annexation action was part of a larger annexation, pre-zoning, general plan amendment and development project proposal by Nob Hill Foods to develop a large theme park project on land located contiguous to the specific plan area on the south and west. No specific development proposal was made for the area located south of Hecker Pass Highway that is within the specific plan area. The EIR evaluated effects of the development in this area under the Rural Residential land use designation previously applied to it by the city wherein approximately 16 dwelling units could be constructed. The area south of the highway was subsequently annexed to the city in 1993.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-1 Summary Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Project Description
This EIR assesses the environmental effects of four “projects” as defined by CEQA. The first is a general plan amendment. The second is the Hecker Pass Specific Plan. The third is the rezoning of the specific plan area. The fourth is discretionary permits for development of the South Valley Community Church project.
The general plan amendment includes proposed modifications to the City of Gilroy General Plan text and graphics that pertain to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Special Use District. The main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan as proposed is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. The impacts of the general plan amendment are largely the same as would occur with the implementation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan. Therefore, the impact analysis in this EIR does not differentiate between the impacts of the general plan amendment and the Hecker Pass Specific Plan; unless the general plan amendment would have effects that are not captured in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan impact analysis.
The rezoning project is a request to modify the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance text and map to apply a planned unit development designation to the specific plan area. The purpose is to bring the zoning map into conformance with the City of Gilroy General Plan consistent with State legal requirements.
The South Valley Community Church project is a specific project under CEQA and requires a higher level of environmental assessment scrutiny than does a plan level project such as a general plan or specific plan. The South Valley Community Church project would partially implement the Hecker Pass Specific Plan consistent with its Community Facilities land use designation. Its effects are evaluated at a project level in this EIR based on the applicant’s application for a Conditional Use Permit.
There are two applicants involved in the proposed projects. The first applicant is the proponent for the general plan amendment, Hecker Pass Specific Plan, and rezoning actions. The second applicant is a representative of the South Valley Community Church project.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
The City of Gilroy General Plan articulates the city’s goals for development in the Hecker Pass highway corridor through objectives and standards for the Hecker Pass Special Use District, a distinct land use designation shown on the city’s general plan land use map. The purpose of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan is to implement the City of Gilroy General Plan goals for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The Hecker Pass Specific Plan is consistent with much of the guidance provided in the City of Gilroy General Plan. However, it is also inconsistent with several standards for the area. In order to bring the proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan into full conformance with the City of Gilroy General Plan, the Hecker Pass Specific Plan applicant is proposing a series of amendments that focus on sections of the City of Gilroy General Plan that address development in the Special Use District. Amendments to several other sections of the City of Gilroy General
S-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Plan are also proposed. Perhaps the most significant proposed changes are requests to develop of up to 530 dwelling units, compared to the approximately 112 dwelling units described for the Hecker Pass Special Use District, and a change the current expressway classification for Hecker Pass Highway to an arterial classification.
Proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan is proposed as the planning and development implementation framework for the Hecker Pass Special Use District as defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The Hecker Pass Specific Plan is needed to implement the City of Gilroy General Plan designation for this area and to facilitate its development by establishing the framework for decision-making on the type, location, and character of subsequent individual projects that could be developed in the area.
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan proposes 146 acres as open space, including protection of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor; 530 dwelling units that would be clustered in three locations; 115 acres of agriculture related land use including maintenance of about 73 acres for continued active agricultural use, 25 acres as agricultural commercial use (maintaining the existing Goldsmith Seeds operation), and 17 acres as agri-tourist related use; and 18 acres for Community Facilities use, the site on which the South Valley Community Church project is proposed.
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan contains a comprehensive set of policies and design guidelines that are intended to implement the land uses proposed for the area. Implementation of the policies would make the Hecker Pass Specific Plan largely self- mitigating in terms of environmental effects. Several mitigation measures are included in this EIR to address effects that would not mitigated to a less than significant level by implementation of Hecker Pass Specific Plan policies.
South Valley Community Church
The South Valley Community Church is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a church/daycare/administrative facility and wedding chapel totaling about 91,300 square feet; a pre-school, elementary school, middle school and ancillary uses totaling about 84,000 square feet; parking facilities totaling about 537 spaces; and landscaping, walkways, etc. Other uses include sports fields, a pool, and a gymnasium. The proposed church sanctuary has a capacity of about 1,200 persons. The elementary school and middle school capacities would be about 450 and 150 students, respectively.
Areas of Known Controversy
To date, there has been no substantial public controversy associated with the proposed projects. Several public agencies responded to the Notice of Preparation on the project. They identified a range of issues that should be addressed in the EIR. These issues have been addressed herein.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-3 Summary Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Summary of Project Effects
This section summarizes project impacts and mitigation measures. Table S-1 provides a brief summary of significant impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts following mitigation. Significant and unavoidable effects and cumulatively considerable effects as well as project alternatives and growth inducing effects are summarized after the table. Refer to Section 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures for full discussions of the environmental effects of the proposed project.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality and mineral resources. The South Valley Community Church project would result in cumulative and unavoidable impacts on cultural resources (loss of the Conrotto Winery complex on the South Valley Community Church site) and mineral resources. Each of these issues is briefly discussed below. A detailed discussion is provided in Section 3.3, Significant Unavoidable Impacts, of this EIR.
Air Quality
The City of Gilroy General Plan is inconsistent with the regional Clean Air Plan; therefore, development consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan would incrementally contribute to adverse air quality in the region. The Hecker Pass Specific Plan proposes substantially more dwelling units than was assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR for the Hecker Pass Special Use District (a maximum of about 112 versus the 530 proposed). Therefore, implementation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan as proposed would result in a greater incremental increase in air emissions, which causes a greater inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan and would contribute greater air emissions in the region than anticipated in the Clear Air Plan.
Cultural Resources
Implementation of the South Valley Community Church project will result in the demolition of the Conrotto Winery complex, which has been evaluated as a significant historical resource. Mitigation for this impact is proposed in this EIR, but implementation of the mitigation would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
S-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
TABLE S-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Aesthetics Damage Scenic Potentially 1. Prepare a detailed landscaping plan to help Less than Resources Significant integrate the project with rural uses to the west and to Significant (Church Project) screen parking areas from view from Hecker Pass Highway.
2. Prepare a detailed parking area treatment plan that specifies a combination of grade differences/terracing, landscaping, landscaped berms, and prioritizes use of alternative paving materials (i.e. decomposed granite or gravel) or earth tone pigmented concrete to reduce visual impacts from expansive parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway.
Aesthetics Creation of Potentially 3. Prepare a detailed lighting plan, which Less than Substantial Light Significant demonstrates the design and technology used for the Significant (Church Project) and Glare lighting of playfields. Prohibit playfield lighting unless the plan demonstrates that the lighting will not create a significant source of glare in this rural area and not adversely affect Uvas Creek habitat quality.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-5 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Agriculture Viability of Potentially HPSP Public Safety (Agricultural Management) Less than Continued Significant Policies 5-93 through 5-97 Significant (HPSP and Agricultural Uses Church Project) – Land Use Conflicts
Air Quality Increased Significant No mitigation measures are available to reduce this Significant Inconsistency and affect to a less than significant level. and (HPSP) with Clean Air Unavoidable Unavoidable Plan – Population Cumulatively Growth Substantial
Air Quality Inconsistency Potentially 4. Specify in project plans that approved dust control Less than with the Clean Significant measures must be implemented during grading and Significant (HPSP) Air Plan for construction activities for any proposed development. Short-Term Emissions
Air Quality Violation of Potentially 4. Specify in project plans that approved dust control Less than Particulate Significant measures must be implemented during grading and Significant (Church Project) Matter Standard construction activities for any proposed development. – Short-Term
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-6 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Biological Impacts on a Potentially HPSP Open Space Land Use Policy 3-5 Riparian Less than Resources Range of Special Significant Habitat Policies 5-34 and 5-37 and 5-38, Natural Significant Status Plant and Resource Protection Policy 5-22, and Grasslands and (HPSP and Animal Species Oak Woodlands Policy 5-47 and 48. Church Project) 5. Conduct a survey of the grassland area located to the north of the Hecker Pass Highway by a qualified biologist to determine the potential for aestivation habitat by California tiger salamanders.
Biological Loss of Riparian Potentially HPSP Natural Resource Protection (Riparian Less than Resources Woodland and Significant Habitats) Policies 5-27 through 5-36 are primary. Significant Oak Woodland Grasslands and Oak Woodlands Policy 5-46. (HPSP and Habitat Church Project)
Biological Disturbance of Potentially HPSP Natural Resource Protection (Riparian Less than Resources Sensitive Significant Habitats) Policies 5-27 through 5-36 are primary. Significant Riparian Habitat (HPSP and Church Project)
Biological Interference with Potentially HPSP Natural Resource Protection Policy 5-23 Less than Resources Wildlife Significant Open Space Access Policy 5-8 and 5-26, and Riparian Significant Movement Habitat Policies 5-33 and 5-43. (HPSP and Church Project)
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-7 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Biological Conflict with Potentially HPSP Natural Resource Protection Policy 5-25 and Less than Resources Local Significant Significant Landscaping Policies 7-9 and 7-10. Significant Trees Policy (HPSP and Church Project)
Cultural Resources Loss or Damage Potentially 6. Developers shall contract with a qualified Less than to Archaeological Significant archaeologist to provide continuous monitoring Significant (HPSP) Resources or during grading and excavation activities. If cultural Human Remains resources or human remains are discovered during construction, immediate and appropriate mitigation measures shall be implemented.
Cultural Resources Adverse Potentially HPSP Natural Resource Protection (Cultural Less than Change/Loss of Significant Resources) Policies 5-49 and 5-50. Significant (HPSP Project) Historical Resources (Ousley House and Ancillary Bldgs)
Cultural Resources Removal of Significant 7. Retain a theme of Conrotto viniculture within the Significant Conrotto Winery and new Church project by developing a display along and (Church Project) Historic Resource Unavoidable Hecker Pass Highway, creating a Conrotto Unavoidable viniculture historic walk, and/or other approaches to be developed by the applicant. The design should utilize winery structures, winery artifacts, landscaping, and other elements.
This mitigation will incrementally reduce the level of impact, but not to a less than significant level.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-8 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Cultural Resources Loss or Damage Potentially 8. The applicant shall contract with a qualified Less than to Archaeological Significant archaeologist to provide continuous monitoring Significant (Church Project) Resources or during grading and excavation activities. If cultural Human Remains resources or human remains are discovered during construction, immediate and appropriate mitigation measures shall be implemented.
Geology Landslide Hazard Potentially HPSP Geology, Soils, and Grading Policy 5-15. Less than (hillsides north of Significant Significant (HPSP) Hecker Pass Highway)
Geology Soil Erosion Potentially HPSP Geology, Soils, and Grading Policy 5-18. Less than Significant Significant (HPSP and Church Project)
Hazards and Exposure to Potentially 9. Prepare a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Less than Hazardous Hazardous Significant (ESA), and if necessary, a Phase 2 ESA in Significant Materials Materials accordance with ASTM Standard(s) to identify whether past or existing uses of the project property (HPSP and may have adversely affected soil or groundwater, or Church Project) would otherwise pose a health hazard during site development or habitation. Contamination clean up and disposal shall be in compliance with federal, state and local regulations.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-9 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Hydrology and Third Street Potentially Geology, Soils and Grading Policy 5-20. Less than Water Quality Encroachment Significant Significant into Uvas Creek (HPSP and Setback – Bank Church Project) Erosion and Instability
Hydrology and Short-Term Potentially Storm Drainage Policies 8-6 through 8-17. Less than Water Quality Water Quality Significant Significant Impacts (HPSP and (Sedimentation) Church Project)
Hydrology and Long-Term Potentially Storm Drainage Policies 8-6 through 8-17. Less than Water Quality Water Quality Significant Significant Impacts (HPSP and Church Project)
Hydrology and Exposure of Potentially 10. Any development with foundations or support Less than Water Quality People or Significant on the ground that is located within 50 feet (distance Significant Structures to subject to change) of the Uvas Creek top of bank shall (HPSP and Flood Hazard conform to requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Church Project) Water District.
Land Use Proposed Potentially The HPSP applicant’s proposed general plan Less than Number of Significant amendment requests that the number of residential Significant (HPSP) Dwelling Units is units permitted within the Hecker Pass Special Use Inconsistent with District be increased from 112 to a maximum of 530. General Plan If approved, this land use issue would be resolved.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-10 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Mineral Resources Loss of Significant The HPSP applicant’s proposed general plan Significant Availability of a and amendment would eliminate project inconsistency and (HPSP and Locally Unavoidable with City of Gilroy General Plan policy but would not Unavoidable Church Project) Important mitigate the future unavailability of designated Mineral Resource mineral resources to a less than significant level.
Noise Exposure to Potentially 11. Limit noise generating construction activities to Less than Construction Significant weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and to Significant (HPSP) Noise Saturdays and city holidays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction is allowed on Sundays. In addition, temporary berms or noise attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary.
Noise Church Function Potentially 12. Close the reception hall doors, acoustically Less than Noise Generation Significant design the reception hall, and control outdoor music. Significant (Church Project) – Impacts on Village Green
Noise School Play Area Potentially 13. Construct a six-foot high acoustically effective Less than and Noise Significant barrier along the property line contiguous with the Significant (Church Project) Impacts on residences to the east (Village Green). The barrier Village Green shall extend from the Reception Gardens to the south property line. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest play area ground elevation.
Noise School Play Area Potentially 14. Development applications shall be consistent Less than and Noise Significant with the City of Gilroy noise exposure standards. Significant (Church Project) Impacts on Utilize development setbacks, construction Future techniques to reduce interior noise exposure, a sound Residential Uses wall and/or a landscaped berm, or other options to minimize noise impacts on residential uses.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-11 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Noise Mechanical Potentially 15. A qualified acoustician should perform a detailed Less than Systems Noise Significant analysis of the church and school mechanical Significant (Church Project) Impact equipment systems to ensure compliance with the city standards under cumulative (traffic plus playground plus mechanical equipment, etc.) conditions.
Noise Gymnasium Potentially 16. All windows and doors on the west and south Less than Noise Impact on Significant sides of the gymnasium shall remain closed during Significant (Church Project) Village Green noise generating activities inside the gymnasium (i.e. athletic games and practice, social events with music, and P.E. classes, etc.)
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-12 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Noise Exposure to Potentially 17. The applicant shall implement the following to Less than Construction Significant reduce construction related noise levels: Significant (Church Project) Noise that Exceeds • Minimize noise generation from construction Standards equipment;
• Construct the six-foot high noise control barrier along the east property line before any other site work is performed;
• Demolish the building closest to existing residences last as the walls can act as noise barriers;
• All diesel powered equipment that operates for more than several hours per day should be located more than 115 feet from any residence; and
• Implement the ancillary noise attenuation actions listed in the Noise Assessment Study for the Planned South Valley Community Church and School.
Transportation Unacceptable Significant 18. Widen Hecker Pass Highway to a four-lane Less than Levels of Service urban arterial from Santa Teresa Boulevard to the Significant (HPSP) on Hecker Pass East intersection. Removal of deodar cedar trees Highway – along the highway must be avoided wherever possible Background plus and improvements must be consistent with State total project scenic highway guidelines.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-13 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Level of Residual Area of Concern Impact Summarized Mitigation Measures Significance Impact
Transportation Unacceptable Significant 19. Upgrade Hecker Pass Highway to a two-lane Less than Levels of Service urban arterial from the East intersection to the Significant (HPSP) on Hecker Pass Bonfante Gardens intersection. Removal of deodar Highway – cedar trees along the highway must be avoided Background plus wherever possible and improvements must be total project consistent with State scenic highway guidelines.
Transportation Unacceptable Cumulatively 20 and 21. Project applicants shall contribute traffic Mitigated Levels of Service Substantial impact fees for cumulative circulation improvements. (HPSP and on Intersections Church Project) and Road Segments
Utilities Storm Drainage Potentially Natural Resource Protection (Riparian Habitats) Less than Outfall Significant Policies 5-29 and 5-31. Significant (HPSP and Construction – Church Project) Impacts on Uvas Creek Habitat
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-14 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Mineral Resources
A portion of the area south of Hecker Pass Highway along Uvas Creek is within Mineral Resource Zone 2 as defined by the State Mining and Geology Board. Implementation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan and the Church project would directly and indirectly cause designated mineral resources to be unavailable for future utilization. The City of Gilroy General Plan contains policy that calls for the conservation of such resources. If the Hecker Pass Specific Plan applicant’s general plan amendment request is approved, the inconsistency of the project with the City of Gilroy General Plan would be resolved, but the resources would remain unavailable for future utilization.
Cumulatively Considerable Effects
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan would have cumulatively considerable effects on air quality and transportation. Each of these effects is briefly discussed below. A more detailed discussion is provided in Section 3.1, Cumulative Impacts, of this EIR.
Air Quality
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR identifies cumulative impacts on air quality from build out of the city as significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan would generate a substantially greater number of vehicle trips that would development that is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. The change in vehicular emissions that would be generated is considered to be considerable.
Traffic and Circulation
The City of Gilroy General Plan build out projects are expected to generate a total of about 279,498 daily trips. Build out of the HPSP would generate approximately five percent of these total trips. This effect is considered to be cumulatively considerable.
The level of service evaluation for intersections in the project vicinity indicates that the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street, Santa Teresa Boulevard/Third Street, and Hecker Pass Highway/Bonfante driveway intersections would not operate at acceptable levels of service. Three road segments, Hecker Pass Highway between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the East intersection, Santa Teresa Boulevard between First and Third streets, and Santa Teresa Boulevard south of Third Street would operate at unacceptable levels of service.
A number of mitigation measures are planned to ensure that the traffic network is improved to adequately handle cumulative traffic volumes. Implementation of dual left turn lanes on all approaches to the Hecker Pass Highway/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection and a shorter cycle length, signalizing the Hecker Pass Highway/Bonfante Gardens intersection, and widening of Santa Teresa Boulevard from a two-lane arterial
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-15 Summary Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
to a four-lane arterial between First and Third Streets and south of Third Street are required improvements.
Payment of traffic impact fees by developers of projects within the specific plan area would mitigate the HPSP’s cumulatively considerable traffic impacts. The Church project itself is not considered to have cumulatively considerable impacts, but the project applicant will be required to pay traffic impacts fees to mitigate the project’s incremental cumulative impact on the circulation network.
Summary of Alternatives
No Project Alternative
The “no project” alternative assumes that the specific plan area is not developed as proposed in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan or in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Under this alternative, it is assumed that new growth would be channeled elsewhere within the Gilroy planning area and that the existing activities within the specific plan area would continue into the future. The “no project” alternative would not result in any significant environmental impacts; however, the “no project” alternative would not meet the project objectives.
Alternative 1: General Plan Target Dwelling Unit/Clustering
This alternative proposes 115 residential units consistent with the target dwelling unit number and clustering approach described in the City of Gilroy General Plan. It also includes the redesign of the South Valley Community Church project. Implementation of this alternative would eliminate or incrementally reduce the impacts on all environmental issues that are analyzed in this EIR. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project. A detailed description of this alternative and an analysis of the environmental effects are provided in Section 3 of this EIR.
Alternative 2: Reduced Dwelling Unit/Clustering
This alternative is intended to be a “middle road” alternative between the proposed project and Alternative 1. A total of 220 dwelling units would be permitted in three clusters that generally correspond to the three cluster locations proposed in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan. Implementation of this alternative would eliminate or incrementally reduce the impacts on all environmental issues that are analyzed in this EIR. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, but is slightly inferior to Alternative 1.
S-16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Summary
Alternative 3 – Hecker Pass Specific Plan Dwelling Unit/Church Redesign
This alternative proposes that development occurs consistent with the Hecker Pass Specific Plan for all locations other than the South Valley Community Church site and that the South Valley Community Church project redesign included in both Alternatives 1 and 2 be implemented. Implementation of this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the impacts caused by the Hecker Pass Specific Plan. However, the visual resources and cultural resource impacts associated with the South Valley Community Church project as described in this EIR would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of this alternative.
Comparison of Alternatives and Environmentally Superior Alternative
The “no project” alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. It would have no impact on the environment. However, it would not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Alternative 1 is the second most environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2 is considered to be the next most environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan and South Valley Community Church projects. Alternative 3 is the least environmentally superior alternative. It results in a reduction of impacts only for the South Valley Community Church project.
EMC Planning Group Inc. S-17 Summary Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
This side intentionally left blank.
S-18 EMC Planning Group Inc.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Authorization and Purpose
This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of a proposed amendment to the City of Gilroy General Plan, the implementation of the proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan (hereinafter “HPSP”), and the development of the proposed South Valley Community Church Project (hereinafter “Church” project). This EIR has been prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. under contract to the City of Gilroy as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing guidelines. This EIR has been prepared using available information from private and public sources noted herein, as well as information generated by the consultant through field investigation. This EIR will be used to inform public decision-makers and their constituents of the environmental impacts of the general plan amendment, HPSP, and Church project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, this report describes adverse impacts generated by the proposed projects and suggests measures for mitigating their significant, adverse environmental impacts.
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and responses to the NOP received from responsible agencies, is contained in Appendix A.
This EIR describes and evaluates the existing environmental setting of the project sites and surrounding areas; discusses the characteristics of the general plan amendment, HPSP, and Church projects; identifies environmental impacts associated with the projects; and provides feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce or avoid identified adverse environmental impacts. This EIR also evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed projects.
Where an EIR identifies a significant adverse impact, the lead agency may not approve the project unless it finds that changes to the project or mitigation measures have been required to reduce the impact's significance or that changes are infeasible for specified social, economic, and/or other reasons (Public Resources Code section 21081). When a mitigation measure is associated with an impact that is identified as significant in the EIR, the lead agency may not exclude the mitigation measure from the project conditions without making specific findings regarding the omission.
This EIR is a factual, objective public disclosure document that takes no position on the merits of any of the proposed projects. Thus, the findings of this EIR do not advocate a position "for" or "against" the projects. Instead, this EIR provides information on which decisions about the proposed projects can be based.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-1 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
The EIR has been prepared according to the professional standards and practices of the EIR participants' individual disciplines and in conformance with the legal requirements and informational expectations of CEQA and its implementing guidelines.
EIR Scope and Level of Specificity
This EIR identifies environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives for the four individual discretionary actions being requested. The first is an amendment to the City of Gilroy General Plan, the second is the HPSP, the third is a zone change to planned unit development, and the fourth are discretionary permits for development of the Church project. There are two applicants involved in the proposed projects. The first applicant is the proponent for the general plan amendment, zone change, and HPSP approval actions. The second applicant is a representative of the South Valley Community Church project.
CEQA provides for the “tiering” of environmental documents using a “multilevel” approach. At the broadest level, an EIR can be prepared to analyze the effects of implementing a large-scale plan, such as a general plan or program, or in the case of this EIR, for an amendment to a general plan. The level of detail in such an analysis is inherently broad and general. Subsequent more detailed tiers of environmental analysis can be conducted for projects that are intended to implement the broader plan or program.
A specific plan is a tool for systematically implementing a general plan within all or a portion of a jurisdiction and must be consistent with the jurisdiction’s general plan. A specific plan directs the development of typically larger tracts of land that warrant special treatment, often due to environmental or fiscal opportunities or constraints, by specifying policies, programs and implementation regulations at a greater level of detail than normally found in a general plan. The HPSP provides a greater level of development planning and regulation than the City of Gilroy General Plan or the applicant’s proposed amendment to the City of Gilroy General Plan. The assessment of its environmental effects can take place at a greater level of detail than would the assessment of a general plan amendment. The proposed general plan amendment applies entirely to portions of the City of Gilroy General Plan that address development of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Special Use District. The environment effects of that action are captured in this EIR in the more detailed analysis of HPSP impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the general plan amendment are not individually identified in this EIR except where a distinction between the two actions is needed.
The rezoning request is being made to ensure project consistency with the City of Gilroy General Plan. Planned unit development zoning allows flexibility in development standards to accommodate development designs that creatively respond to site conditions or other factors that make application of typical zoning standards problematic or inefficient. Due to the unique physical nature of the specific plan area and the unique development and design goals specified for the area in the City of Gilroy General Plan, the applicant is requesting planned unit development zoning to enable implementation of the HPSP as proposed, consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. As with the proposed
1-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
general plan amendment, the environmental effects of the proposed zoning are captured in the detailed analysis of HPSP impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the zoning request are not individually identified in this EIR except where a distinction between the two proposed actions is needed.
While a specific plan does provide detailed guidance for development of an area, it does not identify individual projects for development within that area. Hence, the analysis of environmental impacts of the HPSP will necessarily be at a broader level of detail than is possible for individual projects.
More detailed environmental review of the Church project is possible within the scope of this EIR as it is a specific project rather than a planning level action. In effect, the environmental review of the Church project is being tiered from the HPSP environmental assessment. Where necessary, specific information for the Church project is provided (i.e. traffic, cultural resources, and noise) to address its effects at a higher level of specificity than the broader plan level assessment of environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the general plan amendment, HPSP, or PUD zone change.
1.2 Project Location and Setting
Project Location
The specific plan area is located within the western portion of the Gilroy city limits as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location. The area is west of Santa Teresa Boulevard and essentially bisected by State Route 152, locally referred to as Hecker Pass Highway. It is approximately three miles to the west of State Highway 101. Figure 2, Project Vicinity, illustrates the specific plan area vicinity.
Project Site Characteristics
Specific Plan Area Boundaries/Ownership
The specific plan area is approximately 425 acres in size. It is comprised of 29 parcels owned by 23 individual property owners. Figure 3, Property Ownership Map, shows the individual parcels and their respective owners. The southern boundary and a portion of the eastern boundary of the area are largely defined by Uvas Creek, though small portions of all parcels through which the creek traverses do extend across the creek to the south. Hecker Pass Highway bisects the area from east to west. The northernmost property lines of parcels located north of Hecker Pass Highway define the northern extent of the specific plan area.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-3 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
Physical Characteristics
The specific plan area contains three distinct physical components, which are most readily distinguished in Figure 4, Existing Land Use. The first, and perhaps most environmentally sensitive, is Uvas Creek and its adjoining riparian habitat. The lowest elevation of 203 feet in the plan area occurs in this area. The creek habitat is considered to be of significant biological, aesthetic, scenic and recreational value. Subsequent sections of this EIR describe these characteristics of the creek habitat in detail.
The area located south of Hecker Pass Highway generally slopes gently towards Uvas Creek. It is largely comprised of land that has historically been uses largely for agricultural purposes. Hecker Pass Highway is generally located at a higher elevation than the area between it and Uvas Creek. This allows views over the area to Uvas Creek and beyond.
Topography to the north of Hecker Pass Highway is varied. Much of it consists of steep hillsides containing oak woodland vegetation. Limited development is possible in the northwest corner of the area where hillsides drop away to more level terrain. Please refer to Figures 5a & 5b, Site Photographs, for illustrations of representative physical and cultural features within the specific plan area. These are described in more detail within each subsection of Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
The Church site physical characteristics mirror those for the area south of Hecker Pass Highway. The site is relatively level and has historically been used as farmland. The parcel extends from Hecker Pass Highway to the south over Uvas Creek, measuring 429 feet wide by an average of 2,749 feet long.
Existing Land Use
Little development exists north of Hecker Pass Highway. In fact, development is limited to a small number of residences, the majority of which are located on parcels ranging from .22 to 2.11 acres in hillside areas just west of Santa Teresa Boulevard. Portions of existing approved and partially constructed projects such as Country Estates and The Forest lie within the specific plan area, but are exempt from HPSP regulations.
Between the Uvas Creek riparian habitat corridor and Hecker Pass Highway, agriculture related uses predominate. Approximately 90 percent of this portion of the specific plan area is used for agriculture or agriculture related uses. Goldsmith Seeds occupies two parcels that total approximately 50 acres. The company produces flower seeds grown on their fields, conducts horticultural research and operates a demonstration garden, greenhouses, office buildings and other ancillary activities. Bonfante Nurseries, a major horticultural plant producer, occupies another approximately 50-acre parcel. The company also utilizes an adjacent 10-acre parcel for its activities. A tree farm, cultivated crop production, poultry production, vineyards, and fallow agricultural uses are the other predominant activities on other larger parcels in this portion of the plan area.
1-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. 580
Oakland San Francisco Modesto 580 99
880 680 99
280 Palo Merced Alto San Jose 5
85 1 85
17 101 Morgan Project Hill Location 5 P Gilroy a 152 152 San Luis c 1 Reservoir Santa Cruz i 156
f 156 156 i Hollister
c 1
Salinas
O 68
c
e Monterey
a Carmel
n 101 1
25 Big Soledad Sur
King City
Source: California State Automobile Association & EMC Planning Group Inc. 0 20 miles This map is generalized. Figure 1 Regional Location HPSP/South Valley Community Church EIR Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates Williamson Act and Santa Clara County Assessor 0 800 feet Figure 3 Property Ownership Map HPSP/South Valley Community Church EIR Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-10 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-12 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-14 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
As noted previously, an application is pending with the city for development of the Church project on two parcels located at the eastern end of the plan area. Several residences are located on these parcels. The former Conrotto Winery is also located here. The non-developed portions have historically been used for agricultural purposes.
Uvas Creek and its adjoining riparian habitat constitute the remainder of the plan area. The creek corridor is currently unimproved, though a sewer trunk line and service road traverse the top of the northern creek bank.
Surrounding Land Uses
Much of the specific plan area is effectively buffered from off site land uses. On the southern and eastern margins of the site, the Uvas Creek corridor ranges from approximately 150 feet wide at the western end of the plan area to about 1,000 feet wide at the eastern end. It buffers the site from the Eagle Ridge golf course and residential development and Bonfante Gardens Theme Park, located to the south and southwest of the site respectively. The Gilroy Municipal Golf Course lies to the northwest. Undeveloped oak woodland on steep slopes buffers the developable portions of the specific plan area from residential subdivisions located to the north.
The Village Green project under construction on the parcel that separates the Church property from Santa Teresa Boulevard. At buildout, the project will consist of a 22-acre senior housing project, with 76 single-family cottage homes, 75 apartments, a 133,000 square-foot assisted care facility, and a 4.8-acre estate lot. A 1.5-acre park will also be created at the southern edge of the site adjacent to Uvas Creek.
1.3 Project Background and Description
Background
A preliminary draft of the proposed HPSP was completed in August 2002. During the HPSP preparation process, an application to develop two of the parcels in the specific plan area as the Church project was presented to the City of Gilroy. In the interest of ensuring that the Church project is consistent with the HPSP design goals and that its environmental effects are evaluated in a timely manner, the city requested that the environmental evaluations of both projects be folded into this EIR.
The HPSP applicant subsequently made application to the city for a general plan amendment and zone change. The purpose of the amendment is to request changes to the existing City of Gilroy General Plan text and maps that guide development of the Hecker Pass Special Use District. These changes would enable the proposed HPSP, which was revised and resubmitted to the city along with the general plan amendment, to be consistent with the amended City of Gilroy General Plan. The purpose of rezoning the
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-17 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
entire specific plan area to PUD is to bring the zoning map into conformance with the City of Gilroy General Plan in accordance with State law.
Before details of each element of the proposed actions being evaluated in this EIR are discussed, the following overview of the City of Gilroy General Plan treatment of the Hecker Pass Special Use District is provided for context.
City of Gilroy General Plan – Hecker Pass Special Use District
The city considers the Hecker Pass Highway corridor located west of Santa Teresa Boulevard to be a valuable gateway to Gilroy where an opportunity exists to maintain the area’s existing aesthetic, scenic, rural agricultural, and natural environmental values through a targeted planning and development program. As such, this area receives special treatment in the City of Gilroy General Plan where it is defined as an “area of special concern” and described as the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The area receives special strategic planning attention in the form of goals, policies and implementation programs. The following goals are provided:
• Protect the area’s rural and agricultural character and scenic qualities, including its view corridors and natural features;
• Provide for an economically viable use of land for property owners;
• Capitalize on the area’s unique potential as a year-round tourist draw;
• Ensure that the design of new developments respects and reflects the rural character of the area;
• Pursue designation of Hecker Pass Highway (State Route 152) as a State Scenic Highway, and establish development controls to protect its scenic qualities; and
• Extend the Uvas Creek Park Preserve and trail to serve as part of the regional trail network and eventually connect with the Bay Ridge Regional Trail.
A series of more detailed development controls consisting of land use, zoning, residential density, agricultural use, circulation, development controls and design guidelines, and implementation guidelines are also included. In total, these provide direction for the content of a specific plan that must be prepared to implement the Hecker Pass Special Use District designation. Details of the development controls are discussed in Section 1.4, Consistency with Local and Regional Plans, and throughout Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
As discussed in more detail in Section 1.4, Consistency with Local and Regional Plans, the proposed HPSP is consistent with much of the guidance provided in the City of Gilroy General Plan. However, it is also inconsistent with several standards for the area. In
1-18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
order to bring the proposed HPSP into full conformance with the City of Gilroy General Plan, the HPSP applicant is proposing a series of amendments to the sections and standards in the City of Gilroy General Plan that address development in the Special Use District.
The applicant’s full listing of proposed general plan amendment requests is included as Appendix B of this document. Please refer to this appendix for detailed information. Key basic amendment requests include:
• Amend the second Hecker Pass General Plan goal to include economic viability for agriculture, residential, agri-commercial, agri-tourist commercial, private community facilities, and recreational land uses;
• Amend the Hecker Pass Special Use District designation to include new zoning districts for Hecker Pass Agriculture, Ag-Commercial, Agri-tourist Commercial, Residential Cluster, and Private Community Facilities;
• Amend the Hecker Pass “Residential Densities” sections to indicate an overall density of 1.3 dwelling units per gross acre and up to 530 new dwelling units distributed in three residential clusters within the specific plan area. The City of Gilroy General Plan currently enables development of up to about 112 new dwelling units within the specific plan area;
• Expand the City of Gilroy General Plan discussion and policies regarding Uvas Creek preservation to include the riparian corridor habitat, creek buffers, and a linear park;
• Expand the City of Gilroy General Plan discussion regarding Hecker Pass Highway to include preservation of the highway’s rural character, discourage widening, minimize improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service, create setbacks for future improvements, and support designation of the roadway as a scenic highway;
• Amend the City of Gilroy General Plan text, Land Use Plan Map and Circulation Plan Map to change the designation of Hecker Pass Highway from “expressway” to “arterial”;
• Amend the City of Gilroy General Plan Circulation section to allow for reduced road standards in the specific plan area in order to preserve the area’s rural character; and
• Amend the City of Gilroy General Plan Mineral Resources policy to terminate the State mineral resource designation, thereby eliminating conflicting goals that, on one hand, call for reserving mineral resources along Uvas Creek within the specific plan area, and on the other hand, call for protection of Uvas Creek within the area for its biological and visual resource values.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-19 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
Additional discussion of the general plan amendment request and the existing City of Gilroy General Plan is provided in Section 1.4, Consistency with Local and Regional Plans.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Objectives and Description
Project Objectives
The objective of the HPSP project applicant is to develop a planning and development framework for the Hecker Pass Special Use District as defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The HPSP is needed to implement the City of Gilroy General Plan designation for this area and to facilitate its development by specifying conditions and specifications to be followed by such development. The HPSP does not propose specific development projects per se, but rather proposes the framework for decision-making on the type, location, and character of subsequent individual projects. The HPSP would facilitate development of individual projects within the specific plan area that must be consistent with the land use plan and policies contained in the HPSP.
The objective of the general plan amendment request being made by the HPSP applicant is to modify the City of Gilroy General Plan where needed to ensure consistency between the HPSP and City of Gilroy General Plan. This issue is discussed below.
Project Description
The California Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines set forth the basic legal content requirements for a specific plan. The plan must include text and diagrams specifying all of the following:
• The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open-space, within the area covered by the plan;
• The proposed distribution, location, extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located with the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan;
• Standards and criteria by which development will proceed and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable;
• A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects and financing measures necessary to carry out the provisions of the preceding three paragraphs; and
• Any other subjects which in the judgment of the planning agency are necessary or desirable for City of Gilroy General Plan implementation.
1-20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The HPSP contains all of the legally required contents of a specific plan within seven major sections that include: 1) Land Use; 2) Circulation and Transportation; 3) Conservation and Resource Management; 4) Community Services and Utilities; 5) Community Design; 6) Public Utilities; and 7) Implementation and Financing. Taken together, the elements represent the primary “project” being evaluated in this EIR. Each of these is briefly described below. More detailed information can be found in relevant subsections of section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures of this EIR. The HPSP is available for public review at the City of Gilroy Planning Division.
Land Use
The stated land use design concept for the HPSP is to protect and enhance the Hecker Pass area’s rural character, open space, and agricultural uses as well as accommodate a reasonable amount of development. Open space and agriculture were the two primary existing uses/features of the site around which the development strategy was developed. Open space was first set aside and protected. Second, agricultural areas were defined along Hecker Pass Highway to preserve the scenic corridor, views to Uvas Creek, the Gabilan Mountains and hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway, and to maintain the rural character of the area.
Figure 6, Specific Plan Land Use Map, shows the proposed land use plan. It includes four broad land use designations, three of which are divided into more specific designations. The broad designations include residential, agriculture, open space, and private community facilities. Table 1, Land Use Designation Acreages, includes a breakdown of acreage contained within each land use designation. Open Space Designation. The HPSP considers Open Space to be the most important land use within the plan area. The HPSP is intended to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas as permanent open space and includes goals and policies for open space enhancement. The Open Space land use category includes 47 acres of the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway. The Park/Recreational category includes about 99 total acres and includes all of the proposed extension of the existing Uvas Creek Park Preserve through the plan area (73 acres), a creek setback area (seven acres), linear park located outside of the creek setback area in which an extension of the existing Levee Trail will be located (16 acres), and a three-acre neighborhood park. All park and recreation land except the three-acre park would be dedicated to the city, subject to city acceptance requirements.
The three-acre park site will be offered to the city for purchase and improvement; if the City elects not to develop the park, then the three acres will revert to Residential Cluster, resulting in only 96 acres of total Park/Recreational facility lands. Should the three acres revert to Residential Cluster, any uses allowed within the Residential Cluster land use designation will be permitted, however no additional units will be allowed within this cluster.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-21 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
TABLE 1 Land Use Designation Acreages
Land Use Approximate # Dwelling Units Acreage Open Space 146 0 Open Space 47 0 Park/Recreational Facility 99 0 Residential 146 530 Hillside 49 0 Hecker Pass Cluster Residential 89 512 Low Density 8 18 Agriculture 115 0 Hecker Pass Agriculture 73 0 Agricultural Commercial 25 0 Agri-tourist 17 0 Community Facility 18 0 TOTAL Specific Plan Area 425 530
Source: RJA Associates
Agriculture Designation. The HPSP considers Agriculture to be the most critical component of the rural design concept. Open agricultural fields preserve views towards Uvas Creek, preserve the scenic corridor of Hecker Pass Highway, and buffer residential development and commercial uses. The Hecker Pass Agricultural designation provides for ongoing and new agricultural uses within the plan area, which total about 73 acres. The intent of this designation is to provide for permanent agricultural uses consisting of low intensity crops that are more compatible with nearby residential development. Low intensity crops include crops that require low levels of pesticide application and limited use of heavy machinery. The HPSP recognizes the potential for conflicts between agricultural uses and residential uses. It includes policies that require future residents to sign “right-to-farm” disclosures, establish setbacks between agricultural uses and residential uses, and that require development of an Integrated Management Plan for each property that defines how agricultural activities are to be managed to reduce land use conflicts. The Agriculture Commercial designation is intended to provide for on-going and future agricultural commercial businesses in the plan area. The most notable existing agricultural commercial use is Goldsmith Seeds. Agri-tourist Commercial uses include small-scale commercial uses associated with rural tourism, agricultural uses, and some limited recreational services. Small-scale
1-22 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
commercial uses that serve local residents and visitors would also be permitted. Commercial uses within the HPSP area would be limited to 30 percent site coverage. Residential Designation. As noted in the HPSP, residential development has been clustered to preserve larger areas for agriculture and open space uses and to preserve views and the overall character of the Hecker Pass area. Residential development within the Residential Cluster category would be clustered in three locations as shown on the Land Use Plan Map presented earlier. “Livable” and “walkable” design themes would be followed. The HPSP articulates the design standards that would be used to achieve a mix of residential unit types and densities where alternative transit use can be maximized. About 78 homes on lot sizes less than 3,500 square feet, 340 homes on lot sizes ranging from 3,500 to 6,000 square feet, 94 homes on lots greater than 6,000 square feet are envisioned, and 18 low-density residential homes. The low-density residential homes are intended to be consistent with the City’s current low-density residential zoning district to ensure that future homes built in this eight-acre portion of the West Cluster are consistent with three existing homes on Lone Oak Court. The smallest lot sizes are limited to the East Cluster as shown on the Land Use Plan Map. The other size lots occur in all three cluster locations. About 146 acres or 34 percent of the total HPSP area is designated for residential uses. At maximum buildout, a total of 530 new dwelling units could be constructed. Residential density will be less than 1.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
The Hillside Residential category is reserved for properties north of Hecker Pass Highway that will develop to regular hillside development standards. The designation ensures consistency with the existing land use designations applied to the existing property. No new development potential is envisioned in the specific plan area within the land use category.
Community Facility Designation. The Community Facility designation permits schools, churches and other institutions. The designation applies only to the proposed Church project. There are three land use categories within this designation. The first is Church and Private School, which permits church structures and private educational facilities. The second is Community Center, which permits uses that serve the needs of the plan area and may include art galleries, small-scale stage theaters, meeting rooms, event areas and seating, etc. The third is Recreational Center, which provides recreational opportunities for plan area residents and the residents within the city. Playfields, sport courts, parks, swimming pools and other recreational uses may be permitted with a Use Permit.
A maximum of 30 percent gross area building coverage is permitted with the remaining area available for a variety of other uses such as playfields, landscaping, landscaped parking areas, etc.
A maximum of 30 percent gross area building coverage is permitted with the remaining area available for a variety of other uses such as playfields, landscaping, landscaped parking areas, etc.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-23 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
The City of Gilroy General Plan acknowledges that to meet its design goals for the Hecker Pass area, new land use designations not found in the City of Gilroy General Plan may be required. The Hillside Residential and Park/Recreational Facility designations can be found in the existing City of Gilroy General Plan. However, the other proposed HPSP land uses are new and unique to it. The HPSP includes performance standards for all new land use categories at a level of detail that should provide adequate guidance to new development
Circulation and Transportation
The Circulation Element identifies circulation design concepts and development specifications whose goal is to accommodate new development while preserving and enhancing the rural agricultural character of the plan area. A conceptual circulation plan is included that illustrates existing and planned roadways, intersection design and signalization. The circulation plan and circulation issues are discussed in Section 2.13, Transportation, of this EIR.
A key goal of the roadway design approach is to specify setbacks and development design parameters that preserve the scenic qualities of the Hecker Pass area. The purpose is to facilitate the city’s pursuit of a state scenic highway designation for that portion of Hecker Pass Highway located within the city. Preserving these qualities would also facilitate this designation for the segment of the highway located to the west within the County of Santa Clara. Criteria for development design within an existing scenic highway corridor and guidelines for designating a new scenic highway are discussed in Section 2.1, Aesthetics.
A variety of street classifications are proposed for the plan area. Their respective design standards are discussed. The HPSP provides a setback from the Hecker Pass Highway edge of pavement to allow for the potential future widening of the highway. The element also describes goals and potential for extending transit service to the area and lays the groundwork for establishment of pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Perhaps the most important component of the HPSP Circulation Element is its proposed improvement plan for Hecker Pass Highway. In order to maintain the rural character of Hecker Pass Highway while providing acceptable levels of service for the project, the HPSP proposes improvements to widen the highway from Santa Teresa Boulevard west to the “East” intersection and to install traffic signals at both the East and West intersections.
Conservation and Resource Management
The Conservation and Resource Management Element provides guidance for the long- term preservation and conservation of the natural resources and open space lands within the plan area. As noted previously, the main components of open space within the plan area are lands within the Open Space and Agriculture designations. The HPSP also
1-24 EMC Planning Group Inc. RC OS HR
AT HPA HPA AC HPA R-1 PCF
RC PRF RC PRF
PRF
Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates
0 833 feet Figure 6 Specific Plan Land Use Map HPSP/South Valley Community Church EIR Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-26 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
considers as open space land within the other land use categories that is essentially outside the permitted site or building coverage area.
Agricultural resource conservation is discussed in detail with emphasis given to maintenance of existing uses where possible and avoidance of conflicts with other land uses in the plan area. The element also describes the various open space ownership options.
A primary motivation of the city is to preserve natural and cultural resources within the plan area. The Uvas Creek stream corridor and associated riparian vegetation; biological resources including plant and animal habitat and species; historic and archeological resources; visual resources related to scenic corridors (Hecker Pass Highway), hillside development and Uvas Creek; as well as conservation and public safety issues including geology and soils, soil stability, erosion, and noise are all addressed in this element.
The primary natural habitats in the plan area include Uvas Creek and its associated riparian habitat, as well as the oak woodlands and grasslands located north of Hecker Pass Highway. These habitats host a variety of important animal and plant species. Development design guidelines for protection of these resources such as prohibitions and setbacks, preservation of open space and habitat corridors, and other specifications are discussed. Section 2.4, Biological Resources, of the EIR addresses these issues in detail.
The specific plan area contains a number of structures that are representative of the history of the Hecker Pass area and the area has been found to contain archaeological resources of importance. The Conservation and Resource Management Element describes priorities and approaches for preserving such resources. Potential cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures are included in this document in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, of this document.
Protection and enhancement of the visual quality of the Hecker Pass Highway corridor is a recurrent theme in the HPSP. The visual resources component of the HPSP includes further direction on development design considerations that must be observed to protect the corridor. It also speaks further to the designation of the highway as a scenic highway and measures needed to achieve this goal, including maintenance of development setbacks and conservation of open space and agricultural land. Design parameters for hillside development and for protection of Uvas Creek as a visual resource are also forwarded.
Public safety concerns in the form of geologic and hydrologic hazards are also defined. Development standards for avoiding unstable soils at the margins of Uvas Creek and in hillside areas north of Hecker Pass Highway and conditions for mitigation of potential property damage and public safety hazards from Uvas Creek stream bank erosion are included. Section 2.6, Geology and Soils and Section 2.8, Hydrology and Water Quality contain in depth discussions of these hazards and the adequacy of the HPSP approach to their treatment and mitigation.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-27 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
Noise issues are also summarized. Hecker Pass Highway is identified as the main source of noise. These issues, as well as other noise concerns, are addressed in Section 2.11, Noise, of the EIR.
Community Services and Facilities
The HPSP design and land use plan proposes public park and open space uses that include the Uvas Creek Park Preserve and Linear Park and a neighborhood park. This Element describes how these public benefit open space areas should be developed and managed. It also discusses how demand for public/private school facilities and police and fire protection will be affected by development of the plan area and notes components of the HPSP and the Church project that are of benefit in expanding community services and facilities.
Community Design
Design guidelines for new development are key to maintaining and enhancing the unique scenic, rural agriculture and natural environment features of the plan area. Overall plan area design principles, as well as design guidelines for residential and agricultural commercial site layout, development pattern, setbacks, grading, architectural design, parking, roadways, materials and colors, etc., are specified. Landscaping design themes are discussed and elaborated on through planting materials, roadway landscaping, fencing, signage, lighting, street furniture and paving materials specifications. A more detailed discussion of community design is provided in Section 2.1, Aesthetics, of this document.
Public Utilities
The purpose of the Public Utilities Element is to facilitate orderly development of infrastructure in the specific plan area and to ensure adequate capacity of utilities based on the projected demand for them. The element addresses existing and future demands for domestic, well water, and recycled water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, solid waste and gas and electric distribution services and systems within the plan area.
Implementation and Financing
This element addresses the procedures for administering the HPSP and associated CEQA compliance issues. It also addresses the phasing of improvements and methods for financing the improvements. The HPSP implementation process is elaborated with each step described in detail. Potential funding mechanisms including cost sharing of privately funded infrastructure, citywide sources such as impact fees, assessment and special tax secured financing, and area specific fees, dedications, and exactions are described. The element also discusses conceptual HPSP implementation phasing and sequencing.
1-28 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Residential Development Ordinance
The city has allocated 427 units to the project area through the Residential Development Ordinance process. The HPSP proposes a total of 530 units; the HPSP would need to obtain 103 additional units to build the project as proposed. The allocation is a first step in pursuing subsequent entitlements to construct residential developments within the City of Gilroy.
South Valley Community Church - Project Description
The South Valley Community Church is seeking a conditional use permit for the development of a church, daycare facility, pre-school, elementary school, middle school and ancillary uses, including sports fields. The new project would replace the Church’s existing operations that are located within the city and relocate them to the specific plan area. Current church sanctuary capacity is about 450 people. The existing elementary and middle schools currently have about 340 students, with attendance near maximum capacity. As illustrated in Figure 7, South Valley Community Church Project, and summarized in Table 2, Summary of Church Project Components, the new facilities would expand the church sanctuary capacity (to about 1,200 persons) as well as the elementary school and middle school capacities to about 450 and 150 students, respectively. Additional ancillary uses are planned at the new site.
The site plan shows that the Church project is comprised of four major elements. The first is the two-story sanctuary component. The sanctuary building is the most significant structure planned for the site. Conceptual elevations for it and other components of the project are illustrated in Figure 8, Church Project Elevation and Figure 9, Church Project Elevations: Preschool and Gymnasium Buildings. The applicant has stated that it will not exceed the maximum building height of 35 feet or 45 feet with architectural elements described in the HPSP. The sanctuary has a seating capacity of approximately 1,200 persons. Sunday morning services are expected to approach this capacity over time.
The second element is the day care/elementary school/middle school. These functions would be located behind the sanctuary and midway between the highway and Uvas Creek. Projected capacity of both the elementary school and middle school combined is about 600 students. The day care function would have a maximum capacity of 50 children. Ancillary uses including a two-story gymnasium, food court, play areas, etc. are also associated with the school use.
The third element is the playfields and pool. A soccer field and baseball field are planned at the southern end of the site adjacent to Third Street and the Uvas Creek riparian corridor. The Church will use the fields during the week and after school, also on Saturday. The applicant is investigating arrangements for enabling public use of the fields on the weekends. A pool is also planned. It will be located between the playfields and the gymnasium.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-29 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
TABLE 2 Summary of Church Project Components
Building Type Proposed Square Footage Church Sanctuary 46,021 Support Administration Building First Floor 21,000 Second Floor 21,000 Daycare (included in Support Admin.) - Wedding Chapel 3,350 Subtotal 91,371 School Administration Building First Floor 16,960 Second Floor 15,930 Kindergarten Classrooms (included in Admin Bldg) Elementary School Classrooms First Floor/Second Floor (1st to 5th Grades) 9,400/9,400 Middle School Classrooms (6th to 8th Grades) 5,900 Multipurpose Building/Gym 26,850 Subtotal 84,440 Other Improvements Parking Spaces 525 + 12 handicap Landscaping 711,160 (60% of total site area) Covered Walkways 21,915 Hardscape 60,250
Source: Archespace
The fourth element is parking. A significant area of the site will be utilized for this function. About 525 regular and 12 handicap spaces are proposed. Many of these spaces would be within an area located between Hecker Pass Highway and the sanctuary building. Parking areas would be terraced. The remainder of the spaces will be located along the western property line of the site.
1-30 EMC Planning Group Inc. H
e
c
k
e
r
P
a
s
s
H
i g
h
w
a
y
( S
R
1
5
2
)
Village Greens Development
Th
i
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Source: Archespace 0 135 feet Figure 7 South Valley Community Church Site Plan HPSP/South Valley Community Church EIR Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-32 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-34 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-36 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The site plan shows a 100-foot building setback from the existing edge of pavement of Hecker Pass Highway. As will be described in Section 2.13, Transportation, implementation of the HPSP would result in widening of Hecker Pass Highway from Santa Teresa Boulevard to an East intersection on Hecker Pass Highway; widening would occur along the Church project frontage with the highway within the proposed 100-foot setback. After the roadway is widened, an approximately 68-foot setback between the highway and the edge of the parking lot would remain.
Access to the Church site will available from a frontage road to be constructed along Hecker Pass Highway and from the extension of Third Street along the southern margin of the site.
The project would tie into the water, sewer, and storm drainage infrastructure to be installed as part of the overall HPSP improvements. The area of the site located within the Uvas Creek riparian corridor would be dedicated to the city.
Past Planning Actions
An evaluation of the annexation of the specific plan area located south of Hecker Pass Highway to the City of Gilroy was included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Hecker Pass – A Family Adventure (EMC Planning Group Inc. 1990). The annexation action was part of a larger annexation, pre-zoning, general plan amendment and development project proposal by Nob Hill Foods to develop a large theme park project on land in its ownership that is located contiguous to the specific plan area on the south and west. No specific development proposal was made for the area located south of Hecker Pass Highway that is within the specific plan area. The EIR evaluated effects of the development in this area under the Rural Residential land use designation previously applied to it by the city wherein approximately 16 dwelling units could be constructed.
1.4 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d), states that an EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. This section includes a discussion of the HPSP’s consistency with basic components of the Hecker Pass Special Use District implementation direction included in the City of Gilroy General Plan and the proposed general plan amendments that would bring the project into conformance with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
As a specific project within the specific plan area, the Church project must be consistent with the policies and development standards contained in the proposed HPSP. Consistency issues are discussed in each subsection of Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-37 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
The City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan, and 2000 Clean Air Plan comprise other local and regional plans of significance for the HPSP. Its relationship to, and consistency with, these plans is discussed below.
Land Use
The applicant has requested a change to the City of Gilroy General Plan that would replace the existing conceptual land use diagram (Figure 3-6, Hecker Pass Land Use Diagram), with the proposed Figure 6, Land Use Plan Map, which is illustrated in this EIR. The remainder of this consistency analysis assumes that this request is approved, making the HPSP Land Use Plan map an official part of the City of Gilroy General Plan.
The HPSP proposes 530 dwelling units within the plan area - substantially more than intended for the Hecker Pass Special Use District in the City of Gilroy General Plan, which permits a maximum total of approximately 112 units. It also proposes a range of open space, agricultural, residential, and private community facility uses as described previously.
Consistency: Owners of property within the plan area have already been allocated a total of 427 units through the city’s RDO process. In addition, the HPSP proposes 18 low- density residential units that may obtain RDO allocations through the small project exemption or regular RDO competition and 85 units on the Bonfante Nursery Site that would need to obtain RDO allocations through regular RDO competition. The applicant’s proposed general plan amendment requests changes to the City of Gilroy General Plan to permit 530 units. Approval of the general plan amendment would make the proposed dwelling unit number consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. If the general plan amendment were not approved, the project would be inconsistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
The HPSP achieves the intent of the residential clustering, preservation of open space and rural agricultural character, and Hecker Pass scenic highway goals for development within the plan area as described in relevant portions of Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. Therefore, the HPSP is considered to be consistent with these important land use considerations as described in the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Preservation of Open Space
The City of Gilroy General Plan prioritizes the preservation of open space within the Hecker Pass Special Use District. Protection and dedication of the Uvas Creek corridor as habitat and recreational open space, clustering residential units, and preserving agricultural use and scenic open space are approaches specified for such preservation.
Consistency: The HPSP meets the City of Gilroy General Plan intent for open space preservation and therefore is considered consistent with this intent. The HPSP proposes a total of 146 acres of open space, of which 96 consist of the Uvas Creek corridor and recreational open space within a linear park adjacent to the creek. Another three acres
1-38 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
are reserved for purchase by the city to develop a neighborhood park. Forty-seven acres on the north side of Hecker Pass Highway would be left in open space. Further, the HPSP preserves 73 acres of land strictly for agricultural use in addition to the 25-acre Goldsmith Seeds facility, totaling 98 acres. Together, these elements of the plan result in significant preservation of open space.
Limits on buildable area within all of the other land use designations would result in significant additional open areas throughout the site. In general, the residential clustering approach enables large areas of the site to remain undeveloped.
The Church project site plan maintains a minimum of 70 percent non-structural area per the HPSP. Therefore, it is consistent with the HPSP. However, a large percentage of the site area would be covered with parking. This will impart a more urban feel to the site relative while the HPSP emphasizes maintenance of the existing rural character of the plan area.
Preservation of Agricultural Character/Uses
The area bound by Hecker Pass Highway and Uvas Creek is designated as Prime Agricultural Land in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Reducing the loss of such prime agricultural land is a key issue in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The city focuses its actions on conservation of prime agricultural land located east of Highway 101. Loss of prime agricultural land is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact of implementing the City of Gilroy General Plan. The goals for the Hecker Pass Special Use District prioritize clustering of residential uses to preserve agricultural uses and to maintain “large areas of agricultural lands”.
Consistency: The HPSP achieves the intent of the City of Gilroy General Plan for development of the Hecker Pass Special Use District and is considered consistent with it. While the City of Gilroy General Plan describes the specific plan area as containing prime agricultural and unique agricultural land, as discussed in Section 2.2, Agriculture, loss of agricultural land from implementation of the HPSP has been found to have a less than significant impact. Therefore, the loss would not conflict with city agricultural policy, nor would mitigation of this effect be required. The HPSP retains approximately 73 acres of prime agricultural land within the Hecker Pass Agriculture category strictly for active agricultural that should be of sufficient size to promote continued use. These areas are located along the southern side of Hecker Pass Highway where they will serve as a visual buffer to new development and help maintain the existing agricultural character of the plan area. Policies are included in the HPSP that if implemented, should mitigate potential conflicts between agricultural and residential uses.
The Church project is consistent with the non-structural open space requirements in the HPSP. Since the HPSP land use designation of Private Community Facilities does not specify that non-structural open space be utilized for agricultural purposes, the HPSP does not direct the Church project to contribute to maintenance of the agricultural character of the specific plan area.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-39 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
Scenic Quality and Aesthetics
Land use and development design control guidance is provided in the City of Gilroy General Plan to promote preservation of existing rural character and scenic qualities. Development design controls address development setbacks, scenic highway standards, site design for clustered development, open space preservation, building heights, architectural guidelines, and signage.
Consistency: The development design standards in the HPSP are well developed. The HPSP states that preservation of open space as a means of preserving visual quality and maintaining rural character is its primary design and policy goal. The plan also proposes setbacks from Hecker Pass Highway and specific development, signing, architecture, and other controls to maintain view corridors and view sheds from the highway and to facilitate its designation as a state scenic highway. Active agricultural uses would be maintained along much of the southern margin of Hecker Pass Highway, providing a visual buffer for new residential development and retaining much of the existing agricultural, rural visual quality of the plan area. The HPSP is considered to be consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
The Church project would be subject to the standards of the HPSP. Preliminary reviews of the project plans indicate that it is generally consistent with standards of the HPSP, though the siting/design and treatment of parking areas adjacent to Hecker Pass Highway and the scale of the project would not maintain the rural visual character proposed in the remainder of the specific plan area. This an area of potential impact on aesthetics and preservation of scenic quality. This issue is discussed in detail in Section 2.1, Aesthetics.
Park Development/Conservation of Natural Resources
The City of Gilroy General Plan prioritizes the extension of the existing Uvas Creek Park Preserve and Levee Trail from their current terminus at the eastern end of the specific plan area across the plan area to its eastern boundary. It also prioritizes the protection of sensitive biological resources including the Uvas Creek, its riparian corridor habitat, and the flora and fauna that utilize it and other portions of the HPSP area as habitat.
The proposed general plan amendment includes significant new articulation of how and where both the Uvas Creek Preserve and the Levee Trail are to be extended. It also describes appropriate and permitted uses within this area.
Consistency: The HPSP substantially meets the intent of the City of Gilroy General Plan andis considered to be consistent with it. Uvas Creek and its habitat would be protected through permanent dedications as an extension of the Uvas Creek Preserve. The Levee Trail would also be extended through the plan area. In addition, development would be located out of the sensitive oak woodland and grassland habitats to the north of Hecker Pass Highway. Development setbacks from Uvas Creek and its habitat have been established based on input from the California Department of Fish and Game and based on hydrological and erosion hazard issues. The proposed general plan amendment
1-40 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
includes specific language on this issue. However, the HPSP would remain consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan even if the amendment were not approved.
The Church project will provide permanent dedications consistent with HPSP policy. It will be consistent with the HPSP and City of Gilroy General Plan.
Circulation
Four circulation issues are prioritized in the City of Gilroy General Plan for application in the HPSP area. These are as follows: 1) limiting the number of access points on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard; 2) planning for the widening of Hecker Pass Highway; 3) providing for an internal circulation in the plan area; and 4) creating an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle trails and paths.
Consistency: The HPSP adequately addresses each of these issues and is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan, providing the proposed general plan amendment is approved. The proposed general plan amendment includes a range of circulation related modifications to the City of Gilroy General Plan text. The primary modification is language that calls for widening a portion of Hecker Pass Highway to four lanes to accommodate future traffic volumes. The amendment also includes language that discourages future widening of the highway and requests that the designation of the highway be changed from “expressway” to arterial. This change would reduce the widening requirement assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan, as the HPSP traffic study has determined that widening to four lanes is not required along the entire length of the specific plan area under general plan build out conditions. Regardless, the HPSP includes 100-foot development setbacks from the existing edge of pavement to permit future widening if it becomes necessary. Implementation of the HPSP would result in the installation of signalization improvements on Hecker Pass Highway. It does not include policy that defines the HPSP and Church project responsibilities for facilitating widening of Hecker Pass Highway, but does acknowledge the need for such through plans included in the document.
The Church project would not gain direct access from Hecker Pass Highway. Its access would be from a frontage road along the highway that connects to the East intersection and from Third Street along the site’s southern margin. The Church site plan does not provide connections for an integrated trail network. This is justified based on the need to minimize unauthorized public access to a school site. A public trail through the site along Uvas Creek would be provided.
Economically Viable Use of Property and Promotion of Tourism
The City of Gilroy General Plan recognizes the need for landowners to capitalize on economic development opportunities in order to stabilize and enhance agricultural activities within the plan area. It suggests that the HPSP must provide for these opportunities in a manner consistent with overall specific plan goals.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-41 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
Consistency: The HPSP establishes a range of land uses that will enable property owners the opportunity for economically viable use of land within the plan area. The HPSP is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan intent relative to this issue.
The Church project is consistent with the HPSP and enables the South Valley Community Church to implement a project that is consistent with its organizational goals.
City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance
The specific plan area currently carries three different zoning district designations. All areas north of Hecker Pass Highway are zoned Hillside Residential. Land located between Hecker Pass Highway and Uvas Creek is zoned A-1, Agriculture. Land within the Uvas Creek corridor is zoned OS, Open Space. To date, the city has not modified its zoning map or zoning ordinance to reflect zoning district designations that would implement the City of Gilroy General Plan land use intent for the Hecker Pass Special Use District.
The HPSP includes three land use designations that could be implemented by existing zoning designations in the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance. The designations and the existing zoning districts that are consistent with them include Open Space (OS zoning district), Park/Public Facility (PF zoning district), and Hillside Residential (HR zoning district). The Hecker Pass Agriculture, Agriculture Commercial, Agri-tourist Commercial, Residential Cluster, and Private Community Facilities land use designations in the HPSP are unique to the HPSP and therefore, existing zoning designations to implement them do not exist. The HPSP includes detailed development standards for all proposed land use designations that would act as the implementing zoning district regulations such that the unique planning goals for the area can be met.
Consistency: The HPSP includes specific land use and design and development standards and implementing regulations to ensure consistency of the HPSP with the City of Gilroy General Plan Hecker Pass Special Use District goals and guidelines. A number of these land uses and standards are not found in the city’s zoning ordinance. These standards will supplement those contained in the city’s zoning ordinance. Where the HPSP does not provide specific guidance, regulations of the existing zoning ordinance would likely apply. According to state law, the zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan. Once a general plan amendment has been approved, the city has 12 months to amend the zoning ordinance accordingly. Therefore, a rezoning application to rezone the entire HPSP area to PUD has been filed concurrently with the HPSP and general plan amendment. Individual PUD and Architectural and Site Review will still be required for each development project.
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the County of Santa Clara. California’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation requires that all CMAs develop programs for
1-42 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
evaluating the transportation impacts of land-use decisions. The CMP instructs member agencies to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for proposed projects that are expected to result in 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips.
Consistency: Higgins Associates has prepared a traffic study for the proposed project according to VTA Guidelines. This study results are summarized in Section 2.13, Transportation, of this EIR and is included in Volume II – Technical Appendix for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. The study describes potential impacts and mitigation of those impacts needed to ensure the project is consistent with the CMA. The mitigation measures described in the traffic report have largely been incorporated into the HPSP as specific improvements or policies. Where this is not the case, mitigation measures have been included in this EIR for this purpose.
The HPSP has clustered residential development in a manner that may facilitate transit service to the plan area and includes a range of pedestrian and bicycle trails. In addition, it allows for locally serving commercial uses such that residents in the plan area may have access to basic services. These components of the HPSP should help to reduce the number and/or length of vehicle trips generated from new development.
The HPSP is considered to be consistent with the policies of the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency.
2000 Clean Air Plan
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for coordination and oversight and implementation of state and local air pollution control programs in California. The City of Gilroy is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), one of the regional air pollution control programs under the CARB umbrella. The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that Federal and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The CARB is required to designate areas of the state as being in “attainment” or “non- attainment” (or in certain cases “unclassified”) of criteria air pollutant concentration standards. An “attainment” designation signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “non-attainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or non-attainment status.
The air basin managed by the BAAQMD is in non-attainment of ozone standards. Areas of the state that are in non-attainment for one or more pollutants must develop implementation plans that bring pollutant levels back into attainment status. The BAAQMD has developed the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for this purpose.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-43 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
Consistency: The air quality effects of the buildout of the specific plan area per the HPSP are evaluated in Section 2.3, Air Quality. The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR concludes that build out of the City of Gilroy General Plan will result in population growth that exceeds that anticipated in the CAP, which in turn is the basis for projecting air quality impacts and structuring mitigation programs. As a result, air quality impacts of implementing the City of Gilroy General Plan are considered significant and unavoidable.
Buildout of the HPSP will contribute a portion of the projected 2020 population growth in the city. Hence, it will create an incremental cumulative addition to air quality impacts that is considered significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, the proposed residential development intensity exceeds that anticipated in the population projections included in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Those projections assumed no more than approximately 112 dwelling units consistent with the Hecker Pass Special Use District designation. The HPSP could result in development of 530 new dwelling units. The HPSP’s incremental cumulative impact is greater than what was assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. The project is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the CAP.
A project specific air quality analysis has been conducted for the Church project. The project-specific effects were found to be less than significant and consistent with the CAP. Its cumulative effects are also consistent with the CAP as it will not result in a population increase that affects projections made in the CAP, nor will it result in a significant increase in the rate of vehicle miles traveled that exceeds the rate of increase in population. Air quality issues are discussed in Section 2.3, Air Quality.
1.5 EIR Uses
As mandated by CEQA Guidelines section 15124, this section contains a list identifying the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making and the approvals for which the EIR will be used. List of Agencies Expected to Use the EIR
• Lead Agency—City of Gilroy
• California Department of Fish and Game
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• Caltrans
1-44 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section1.0 Introduction Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
List of Approvals Required
• City of Gilroy
Specific Plan Adoption
General Plan Amendment
Zoning Code Change
Use Permits (Church and Agri-tourism uses)
Planned Unit Development Rezoning Permits (Residential Projects)
Subdivision Maps
Architectural and Site Review Approvals
Individual project building and other applicable construction permits
California Department of Fish and Game – 1603 Permit (Streambed Alteration)
Santa Clara Valley Water District – Ordinance 83-2 Permit
Caltrans – Encroachment Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board – NPDES Permit
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-45 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 1.0 Introduction
This side intentionally left blank.
1-46 EMC Planning Group Inc. 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
This EIR assesses the environmental effects of four “projects” as defined by CEQA. The first is a general plan amendment. The second is the HPSP. The third is the rezoning of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. The fourth are discretionary permits for development of the Church project. The general plan amendment requests modifications to the City of Gilroy General Plan text and graphics that pertain to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Special Use District. The purpose is to ensure that the proposed HPSP is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. The impacts of the general plan amendment request are largely the same as would occur with the implementation of the HPSP. Therefore, the following analysis of project effects does not differentiate between the impacts of the general plan amendment and the HPSP, except where the general plan amendment request calls for changes to the City of Gilroy General Plan that are not specific to the specific plan area. The zone change would modify the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance text and map that pertain to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. The purpose of rezoning the entire Specific Plan Area is to bring the zoning map into conformance with the General Plan in accordance with State law. The Church project is a specific project under CEQA and requires a higher level of environmental assessment scrutiny than does a plan level project such as a general plan or specific plan. The Church project would partially implement the HPSP consistent with its Community Facilities land use designation.
Each topic within Section 2.0 describes environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the HPSP (and where necessary the general plan amendment request) independently of those for the Church project, as the level of assessment is different for each. It is assumed that the Church project will be conditioned to ensure its consistency with policies contained in the HPSP and with mitigation measures contained in this EIR that recommend additional policy additions to the HPSP. Mitigation measures specific to the Church project are also included.
2.1 Aesthetics
A significant impetus for the city having designated the Hecker Pass Highway corridor as a Special Use District in the general plan was a desire to maintain scenic views available from the highway as well as existing visual quality within the highway corridor. That quality stems from the rural agricultural nature of the area, its open space feel, and scenic vistas across the site to the Uvas Creek corridor and to rolling hills and distant mountains. The HPSP recognizes this impetus through policy and design standards, as well as land use planning.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-1 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Environmental Setting
Existing Visual Character of the Specific Plan Area
The specific plan area is and has historically largely been in agricultural production in the form of row crops, field crops such as oat hay, orchards, horticultural plant production, or vineyards. Based on a visual assessment, over 400 acres of the total 430- acre specific plan area is either in agricultural use, vacant and undeveloped (including the hillside areas north of Hecker Pass Highway, or in open space (Uvas Creek). The balance of the site is covered by buildings and related infrastructure. Goldsmith Seeds is the largest physical development complex on the property. Other uses are scattered single-family residences and the former Conrotto Winery buildings.
The Uvas Creek corridor is one of the most distinct visual amenities within the specific plan area. While the creek bed and banks are only visible 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. Another distinctive feature is the 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 trees range to a height of approximately 50 feet. The oak woodland covered hillsides in the northern portion of the site are also considered to be a highly valuable scenic amenity.
Overall, the site can be said to be of high visual quality and aesthetic value that is representative of the remaining historic, older rural development character of the Santa Clara Valley.
The Church site is representative of the existing rural character in the area. Its main historical feature is the old Conrotto Winery building. Two other residences are located on the property. With these exceptions, the site is undeveloped and has historically been used for agricultural purposes. It retains a rural, open space, agricultural visual character, with Uvas Creek corridor riparian and other associate vegetation visible along its southern boundary.
Visibility of the Specific Plan Area
Generally, the specific plan area (both the area south of Hecker Pass Highway and the hillsides to the north of the highway) is highly visible from Hecker Pass Highway. 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 to the south. This enables views over the southern area to Uvas Creek and beyond. Many views to the south are momentarily blocked by trunks of the Deodar cedar trees located on the south shoulder of the highway. The cedar trees are a valuable visual amenity, serving to frame the highway through the specific plan area.
Traveling westbound on the highway, the bulk of the site first becomes visible at a point approximately 50 yards west of the Hecker Pass Highway/Santa Teresa Boulevard
2-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
intersection. Prior to this point, the Village Green project, now under construction, blocks views to the Uvas Creek corridor. Views over properties to the Uvas Creek corridor are similar as those described above for movement in the westbound direction. Figure 10, Viewshed Photos – Hecker Pass Highway, shows a representative view over the southern portion of the specific plan area from Hecker Pass Highway.
Traveling northbound on Santa Teresa Boulevard, the eastern portion of the specific plan area is momentarily highly visible and views to the west into the site from the bridge over Uvas Creek are momentarily expansive. Views are soon blocked by the Village Green project that fronts on Santa Teresa Boulevard. Views across the Village Green site into the specific plan area open up again as one approaches the Hecker Pass Highway/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection. Figure 11, Viewshed Photos – Santa Teresa Boulevard, shows views from the roadway into the specific plan area.
The northern hillsides are visible from points beyond Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard due to their elevation. The only area north of the highway that is proposed for development (Hoey Ranch) is located in the northwestern corner of the specific plan area. This “pocket” of developable area (please refer back to Specific Plan Land Use Map for the location of this developable area) is almost entirely screened from view from all points to the east by a forested ridge. Views of extremely limited duration and extent are available only from Hecker Pass Highway.
For photos of other portions of the specific plan area, please refer back to Figures 5A and 5B in Section 1.0, Introduction.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
Caltrans Scenic Highway Designation Issues. The segment of Hecker Pass Highway (State Highway 152) from Highway 1 to the Santa Clara County line at Hecker Pass (the western edge of the specific plan area) is currently on the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) list of highways that are eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. It is a goal of the city that the segment of the highway located within the specific plan area (within the city limits) also be included in the eligibility list and subsequently designated as a State Scenic Highway. Highways can only be added to the list through legislative action. Caltrans’ minimum requirement criteria for eligibility include:
• Regulation of land use and density of development (i.e. density classifications and types of allowable land uses);
• Detailed land and site planning (i.e. permit or design review authority and regulations for the review of proposed developments);
• Prohibition of off-site outdoor advertising and control of on-site outdoor advertising;
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-3
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
• Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping (i.e. grading ordinances, grading permit requirements, design review authority, landscaping and vegetation requirements); and
• Design and appearance of structures and equipment (i.e. placement of utility structures, microwave receptors, etc.).
In addition to these minimum requirements, placement of utilities under ground within 1,000 feet of a designated scenic highway that would otherwise be visible from the highway is required where feasible.
In addition to these general criteria, Caltrans states that the merits of a nominated highway are evaluated on how much of the natural landscape a passing motorist sees and the extent to which visual intrusions (i.e. buildings, unsightly land uses, noise barriers) impact the “scenic corridor”. Visual intrusions are considered in the following manner:
• The more pristine and unaffected by intrusions, the more likely the nominated highway will qualify as scenic;
• Where intrusions have occurred, the less the impact on an areas natural beauty, the more likely the nominated highway will quality as scenic; and
• The extent to which intrusions, rather than the natural landscape, dominate views from the highway determines the significance of their impact on the scenic corridor.
Scenic highway nominations will be evaluated using the following qualifications:
• The proposed scenic highway is principally within an unspoiled native habitat and showcases the unique aspects of the landscape. However, the scenic corridor can also showcase agriculture or manmade water features;
• Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor;
• Strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation is demonstrated; and
• The length of the proposed scenic highway is not short or segmented.
Examples of visual intrusions along scenic corridors include buildings and noise barriers. Building intrusion is considered minor when:
• the buildings are widely disbursed;
• the natural landscape dominates;
2-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
• wide setbacks and buildings are screened from roadway;
• exterior color and materials are compatible with environment; and
• buildings have cultural or historical significance.
Building intrusion is considered moderate when:
• there is an increased number of buildings, but these are complementary to the landscape;
• there are smaller setbacks and lack of roadway screening; and
• buildings do not degrade or obstruct scenic views.
Building intrusion is considered major when:
• there is dense and continuous development;
• there are highly reflective surfaces;
• buildings are poorly maintained;
• there is visible blight;
• development is along ridge lines; and
• buildings degrade or obstruct scenic views.
In addition to the text of the guidelines presented above, EMC Planning Group Inc. discussed the criteria with Caltrans’ staff, which elaborated on the criteria. The first criterion for official State designation is the degree to which a roadway includes unspoiled, native habitat. If it does not, or if the roadway is segmented, then it has to be very unique—very rare to the region. If it is not unique, does not exemplify vividness, intactness or unity, then it is quite possible that it will not be considered under the Caltrans scenic roadway program.
Sometimes subdivisions along the roadway are acceptable if they don't intrude or significantly disturb the landscape or the viewscape. A setback of 100 to 500 feet is necessary, in addition to landscape and topographic screening of the development from the roadway. Exempt structures are historical, cultural or structures very unique to the region.
City of Gilroy General Plan – Hecker Pass Special Use District. As was discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction, the City of Gilroy General Plan emphasizes the city’s desire to protect the scenic quality the Hecker Pass Highway corridor. As described in the “Hecker Pass” Strategic Direction section of the City of Gilroy General Plan, the Hecker Pass Highway corridor is considered the western gateway to the city. Its scenic quality is
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-9
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
considered highly valuable. The specific plan that implements the Hecker Pass Special Use District is to ensure the protection of the specific plan area’s scenic attributes:
• Protect the area’s rural and agricultural character and scenic qualities, including its view corridors and natural features; and
• Pursue designation of Highway 152/Hecker Pass as a State Scenic Highway, and establish roadside development controls to protect its scenic qualities.
The guidance given for development in the specific plan area includes promoting cluster residential development to retain large areas of agricultural land and open spaces, protecting views from both the highway and the Uvas Creek area, providing incentives for permanent dedications of open space, limiting the number and scale of commercial developments, preserving existing cedar trees that line the highway, and specifying a range of development controls and design standards including setbacks from Hecker Pass Highway, adherence to State Scenic Highway standards, site design guidelines for clustered development, building height limitations, open space preservation, architectural guidelines, and signage control. Implementation of more specific planning for the area is left to the specific plan process.
City of Gilroy General Plan Policy. The following policy reflects the city’s goal of attaining the designation of Hecker Pass Highway as a scenic highway and ensuring the long-term preservation of scenic quality within the corridor:
Policy 6.01 Scenic Highways. Support the designation of Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, and Pacheco Pass Highway as official State Scenic highways, and establish appropriate development controls to ensure long-term protection of their scenic qualities. Controls should establish appropriate setbacks, sign controls, and other development regulations in keeping with State guidelines for the protection of scenic highway corridors.
For the HPSP to be consistent with the city’s goal of seeking nomination and designation of Hecker Pass Highway as a State Scenic Highway, it must reflect development design and land use standards that protect the existing scenic character within the highway corridor consistent with Caltrans’ criteria.
HPSP Project Analysis
HPSP Policies
The HPSP contains numerous goals and policies and text references that address the need to maintain the existing rural and scenic character of the specific plan area. The following are representative related policies:
2-10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
3.2 Land Use Concept
Policy: Designate natural open space areas to protect the scenic natural environment of the Hecker Pass Area.
Policy: Create open space and agricultural areas to maintain view corridors, provide opportunities for recreation and to act as buffers between natural areas and future development.
4.4.2 Hecker Pass Highway
Policy: No development shall be allowed within 100 feet of the existing edge of pavement of Hecker Pass Highway with the exception of future roadway improvements necessary to maintain adequate levels of service through the Planning Area…
Policy: Sound walls are strictly prohibited within the Specific Plan Area.
5.2 Agricultural and Open Space Areas
Policy: Provide open space and agricultural spaces around development clusters to preserve views to Uvas Creek and the hillsides and oak woodlands north of Hecker Pass Highway.
Policy: Agricultural uses shall be established between Hecker Pass Highway and future development clusters to preserve the rural character of the area.
Policy: The Uvas Creek riparian corridor, the associated habitat, and the lands included in the setback area shall be incorporated into the existing Uvas Creek Park Preserve and offered for dedication to the City of Gilroy or resource agencies.
5.6.2 Visual Resources
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-11
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy: Improvements and permitted uses within the Hecker Pass Setback corridor are restricted to agriculture, natural landscaping, trails, and roadway improvements necessary to facilitate adequate levels of service along the highway. Parking areas and structures including buildings, and fences are prohibited within the Hecker Pass Setback.
Policy: Develop road and community design standards to protect and enhance Hecker Pass Highway’s scenic and rural character.
Policy: Uses within the Specific Plan Area, which detract from scenic values of the Hecker Pass Highway corridor shall be mitigated by proper siting, landscaping or screening.
Policy: Billboards shall be prohibited along the Hecker Pass Highway corridor and on-site signs shall be regulated so that they do not detract from scenic views.
Policy: Building siting, height, colors, and materials that are harmonious with the surrounding area shall be required within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area to make development more compatible with the environment.
Policy: Grading activities within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area shall be regulated to minimize alteration of existing contours and to preserve important vegetative features along Hecker Pass Highway.
Policy: All residential development adjacent to Hecker Pass Highway shall be located outside the “Hecker Pass Highway Setback Corridor”.
Policy: Preserve the existing stand of trees along the Hecker Pass Highway right-of-way to the greatest extent possible
Policy: Create roadside development controls and design guidelines to protect the scenic quality of Hecker Pass Highway
The fundamental land planning approach taken in the HPSP is to maximize open space preservation by identifying valuable natural features, open space, and view corridors areas and planning/locating new development in a manner that preserves them.
2-12 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Proposed land uses, design standards for each land use, and natural resource preservation approaches focus on maintaining the rural aesthetic character of the area. The HPSP includes policies and development standards that generally provide solid guidance for maintenance of scenic quality within the specific plan area.
Preservation of open space is perhaps the most significant HPSP planning approach that will serve this purpose. Approximately 146 acres of the 425-acre site would be left strictly in open space or in park/recreational facility uses. Much of, if not all, of the 49 acres in the Hillside Residential designation would remain undeveloped. About 73 acres located in the Hecker Pass Agricultural designation that are located along the south side of Hecker Pass Highway would be retained in permanent agricultural use. The agricultural land would serve as a visual buffer to the residential development clusters on the south side of the highway. Further, the maximum percentage of buildable area is included within each land use designation. That maximum is generally about 30 percent.
In short, much of the plan area would remain either in natural or non-structural open space. The definition of non-structural open space within the Agricultural Commercial, Agri-tourist, and Private Community Facilities designations permits improvements that include paved parking. As a result, non-structural open space as defined does not necessarily maintain the aesthetic character of the specific plan area.
Clustering of residential development is a key design aspect included in the HPSP as directed by the City of Gilroy General Plan. Clustering will facilitate maintenance of open space. As a result of the open space preservation approach, many view corridors across the site would be retained. However, because the number of units proposed in the HPSP is substantially greater than allowed in the City of Gilroy General Plan, residential development would cover a larger area than planned for by the city. The larger clusters south of Hecker Pass Highway would result in a longer length of the Uvas Creek riparian area being blocked from view from the highway than might otherwise occur with fewer residential units.
Valuable natural scenic assets within the specific plan area, including the oak woodland covered hillsides, the Uvas Creek riparian corridor, and the Deodar cedars on Hecker Pass Highway would be preserved.
The HPSP contains extensive design guidelines for development and activity within each of the proposed land uses. Residential design guidelines address site layout, development pattern, setbacks, grading, architectural design (including massing, height limits, articulation, roof types and materials, etc.), parking, and materials and colors. Agriculture and Private Community Facilities design guidelines address many of the same issues and include specifications for design sensitivity along Hecker Pass Highway that affect consistency of development with state scenic highway designation criteria. Guidelines are provided for locating and designing parking areas such that views from Hecker Pass Highway are not degraded. Landscaping, fencing, signage, and lighting specifications and guidelines are also defined, as are road specifications, design, and landscaping.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-13
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Caltrans Scenic Highway Criteria
The decision to designate the highway is at the discretion of Caltrans and subject to Caltrans own evaluation of development impacts on the Hecker Pass Highway corridor. The following discussion is EMC Planning Group Inc.’s general evaluation of the HPSP’s consistency with Caltrans criteria.
At the broadest level, implementation of the HPSP would reduce the degree to which the scenic corridor is considered pristine and unaffected by intrusions. The HPSP would introduce new clustered residential development (the west and east clusters south of the highway), new buildings and parking facilities within the Agri-tourist designation adjacent to the highway, and dense development on the Church site. It would result in greater coverage of the specific plan area with residential development (and result in a greater loss of existing aesthetic character) than would occur if the number of dwelling units proposed in the HPSP (530) was consistent with the number of dwelling units allowed for the area in the City of Gilroy General Plan (112).
As discussed earlier in this section of the EIR, the HPSP includes a range of land use and policy features that substantially lessen the degree to which its implementation would be inconsistent with Caltrans criteria. By clustering residential development; requiring preservation of active agricultural uses along the south side of the highway as a visual feature and buffer to residential development; requiring a minimum 100-foot setback to new development from the highway (and up to 250-foot setbacks for residential development clusters); defining extensive design guidelines for new development; including myriad policies that seek to retain natural features including trees, the Uvas Creek riparian corridor, hillsides located to the north of the highway; avoid blocking views across the site to the south from the highway, etc.; the HPSP reduces the extent to which intrusions affect the quality of the scenic corridor. Given the HPSP’s consideration of scenic corridor and scenic highway designation criteria, implementation of the HPSP would not appear to preclude designation of Hecker Pass Highway as a state scenic highway. Development of the Church project as proposed may be inconsistent with Caltrans criteria. This issue is discussed below.
HPSP Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP land use planning approach, implemented per the HPSP’s policies and design guidelines, appears to be sensitive to the overall city goals for preserving the scenic character of the specific plan area. Caltrans has the discretion to determine if Hecker Pass Highway warrants state scenic highway designation under post HPSP implementation conditions. That determination will ultimately determine if the HPSP is consistent with the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Criteria and the City of Gilroy General Plan. The HPSP does, however, contain a range of land use design elements, development controls, and design guidelines that are consistent with the intent of the City of Gilroy General Plan scenic highways policy.
The city, County of Santa Clara, and Caltrans will need to work collaboratively on completing the State Scenic Highway nomination and designation process. The
2-14 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
proposed specific plan creates the prerequisite planning conditions needed for the city to move forward with that process.
Church Project Analysis
The Church project represents development of a different character than is planned within the remainder of the specific plan area. A community facility land use of the type proposed requires a different set of development standards and would inherently have different site planning needs than clustered residential or the types of agricultural land uses proposed. The site plan and elevations for the project provide an indication of how the project is planned and designed.
Design Theme
The overarching design theme is “Cal-Tuscanism”. The project architect describes this design theme as having the “look and feel of the Napa Valley with an old world feel of Tuscan architecture.” Elements of the architectural theme include cultured stone, cement plaster of various textures, large wood members, tile roof, accent details of the old world, and a mix of the Silicon Valley Modern era. Exterior treatment will be of materials with a range of earth tones, including stone, wood, and cement. The roof structure will incorporate the style of tile roofs as seen in areas of Gilroy, Napa, and in Old Tuscany. Wood materials will be used to construct extensive trellis works.
Parking Improvements
A significant percentage of the site will be covered with developed uses including buildings and parking. Parking represents the greatest percentage of developed use. Buildings would be located within the approximate middle third of the site. One large parking area of approximately 500 spaces is placed in the foreground of the buildings relative to views from Hecker Pass Highway. The applicant proposes to terrace the parking area located along the Hecker Pass Highway frontage at elevations that are lower than Hecker Pass Highway. The site plan also illustrates a basic landscaping plan for the periphery of the parking areas and for internal parking islands. The applicant has not prepared a detailed landscaping plan for the project to date.
The HPSP includes parking areas within the definition of non-structural area within the Agri-tourist, Agriculture Commercial, and Private Public Facilities land uses. However, extensive landscaping will be needed to prevent the parking areas from detracting from the project’s visual character. Hecker Pass Highway is at a higher elevation than the proposed parking lot terraces, which will reduce the visual impact of the parking areas. The visual dominance of the parking areas will be heightened by the fact that the HPSP requires the maintenance of agricultural use on the adjacent property to the west. Therefore, the Church parking areas and facilities will mark an abrupt change in land use type and create a marked visual agricultural/urban use boundary between the two properties.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-15
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
It should be noted that while the Church project development intensity is significant relative to the remainder of development proposed in the HPSP, the Village Green project, located adjacent to the Church site on the east, is developed at a higher urban intensity that is proposed by the Church applicant. Therefore, the Church project does provide for a transition from rural development intensity west of the Church site in the remainder of the specific plan area to urban development intensity to the east of the site.
Setbacks and Views over the Site
The site plan shows that the project would maintain a 100-foot setback from the existing edge of pavement of Hecker Pass Highway, consistent with HPSP policy. A setback of about 68 feet would remain between the proposed parking area and the new edge of pavement if Hecker Pass Highway is widened to four lanes along the project frontage.
Maintenance of views over the specific plan area to Uvas Creek and hillsides further to the south from Hecker Pass Highway is a priority goal of the HPSP. Based on preliminary evaluation by the project architect, it does not appear that the height of the proposed structures will impede views over the site.
The proposed location of play fields adjacent to Third Street and the Uvas Creek riparian corridor provides for a prudent transition from an intense urban use to an open space/sensitive habitat area. This will facilitate a relatively smooth visual transition from highly developed uses to a natural open space use from viewpoints both on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard.
Playfield Lighting
The applicant proposes to install lighting for nighttime use of the playfields. A very preliminary lighting plan has been submitted to illustrate lighting locations and relative intensity of lighting that would be cast on the playfields and that would affect areas surrounding the playfields. Nighttime lighting may be a source of concern to the extent that it would be inconsistent with maintenance of rural aesthetic character in the specific plan area as well as potentially impact the habitat value of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor.
Consistency with the HPSP
The HPSP contains a multitude of policies that are applicable to the Church project. With the following possible exceptions, the Church project is substantially consistent with them. Exceptions are as follows:
7.4.7 Lighting
Policy: Nighttime lighting of playfields should not be permitted unless the proposed lighting design and technology substantially reduce nighttime
2-16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
glare and substantially reduce glare in areas outside of the immediate playfield area.
Policy: Projects proposing nighttime lighting of playfields will be subject to a conditional use permit and will require the review and approval of the City of Gilroy.
Caltrans Scenic Highway Criteria
The Church project does not appear to meet Caltrans’ priority criteria for scenic highways. However, as stated previously, the Church project does provide a transition in development intensity between the more rural uses in the remainder of the specific plan area and the Village Green project to the east of the Church site, which is developed at higher intensity than is planned for the Church project. While the Church project is visually intrusive relative to Caltrans criteria, it may be most appropriate for the city to seek a scenic highway designation for that portion of Hecker Pass Highway located to the west of the Church site. It is doubtful that a scenic highway designation that extends east to Santa Teresa Boulevard would be warranted under existing conditions given the development intensity of the Village Green project.
Consistency with the City of Gilroy General Plan
While the Church project may create visual intrusion within the scenic corridor, it is considered to be consistent with the City of Gilroy GeneralPlan. Landscape screening can be utilized to buffer the developed portions of the site from view. And as stated above, though the project does not appear to meet Caltrans’ scenic highway designation criteria, inclusion of the site in a request for scenic highway designation may not be needed, as the project would serve as a visual transition from rural to high intensity development.
Relationship to Proposed General Plan Amendment Request
As part of the HPSP applicant’s proposed general plan amendment request, existing language in the City of Gilroy General Plan pertaining to community design and development standards for the Hecker Pass Special Use district would be modified and new language added. Included in the proposed new language is the following:
Private Community Facilities uses should be consistent with rural character of the Hecker Pass area. Private Community Facilities might include a church, private school, community center, recreational facilities or a combination of these.
If the general plan amendment request were to be approved, without implementation of mitigation measures, the Church project would be inconsistent with the new language.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-17
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Provided that mitigation measures are implemented that require robust landscaping be installed along the western boundary of the site, within parking areas, and within the Hecker Pass setback area, the visual impact of the project can be substantially reduced and the function of the Church project as a visual transition from rural to urban development can be facilitated.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• substantially damage scenic resources, including , but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;
• substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and
Note that the City of Gilroy General Plan provides policy direction for implementing the Hecker Pass Special Use District that includes criteria for maintaining the existing rural agriculture and open space visual character of the specific plan area. This policy direction is utilized as the standard of significance for degradation of visual quality.
• create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
HPSP Impacts
Substantially Damage Scenic Resources – Less than Significant Impact. The HPSP provides land use and policy direction for protecting on-site natural scenic resources and development design and controls that are designed to enhance compatibility of development with the scenic value of the specific plan area. The proposed 530 dwelling units are substantially greater than currently permitted by the City of Gilroy General Plan. Therefore, development intensity will be greater than anticipated. This will incrementally reduce scenic quality within the area. However, the HPSP substantially reduces this effect through appropriate land use and design controls. This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on the Potential for Obtaining a State Scenic Highways Designation for Hecker Pass Highway – Less than Significant Impact. The HPSP contains land use and development design guidelines and standards that will help to reduce the degree of visual intrusion created by new development. However, the degree to which Caltrans criteria for scenic highways are met under post-project conditions is a determination that will be made by Caltrans. Implementation of the HPSP would increase the degree of visual intrusion relative to existing conditions, but
2-18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Caltrans will determine whether or not the change is significant enough to preclude a state scenic highway designation. As discussed below, visual intrusion caused by the Church project is considered to be significant and implementation of that project may be inconsistent with Caltrans scenic highway criteria. This could result in the exclusion of a portion of Hecker Pass Highway from consideration as a state scenic highway. However, the overall impact of the HPSP is considered less than significant given the intent of the HPSP to manage development in a manner that does not preclude the designation.
Degradation of Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings – Less than Significant Impact: The HPSP would permit development intensity within the specific plan area that is substantially greater than envisioned in the City of Gilroy General Plan. It would allow up to 530 dwelling units as compared to a maximum of about 112 units. The applicant’s proposed general plan amendment requests a change in the City of Gilroy General Plan to allow 530 units within the plan area. The HPSP does cluster the units in three specific locations, which enables preservation of significant open space and preservation of agricultural uses – both of which contribute substantially to the visual quality of the site. With the assumption that the general plan amendment is approved, the HPSP is not considered to have significant adverse impacts on visual character. Even if the general plan amendment request to increase the number of permitted units to 530 is denied and the units that are allowed are clustered as proposed in the HPSP, this impact would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Creation of a New Source of Light or Glare – Less than Significant Impact: The HPSP will permit the introduction of new sources of light and glare to the plan area. However, residential uses will be clustered such that lighting from this use will be limited to specific areas of the site. Agri-tourism uses will be a new source of light, but such uses will be limited to a maximum of 25 acres of the 425-acre plan area. The HPSP contains text that emphasizes that minimal lighting should be used. The HPSP also contains a policy that directs lighting used within areas adjacent to the Uvas Creek riparian habitat to minimize its effects on the habitat corridor.
Though this impact is considered to be less than significant, it is recommended that the intent of the HPSP text in section 7.4.7 regarding minimizing the use of lighting in all new development be included in a new policy. This will help provide direction to new development that is not captured in the existing lighting policies.
Church Impacts
Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista – Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project should not block views across the specific plan area or substantially degrade natural features within the specific plan area, namely Uvas Creek and its associated riparian vegetation. The project is of significant development intensity relative to the rural uses proposed in the remainder of the specific plan area, but is less intense that the adjacent existing Village Green project. It therefore provides a transition
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-19
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
in visual character from rural uses to the west of the Church site to intense urban uses to the east of the site.
Substantially Damage Scenic Resources – Potentially Significant Impact. The Church project site plan represents one option for development that is consistent with the basic land use requirements specified for the Private Community Facilities land use designation in the HPSP. The project would maintain 70 percent non-structural open space as required. However, the scale of development and the significant area of the site dedicated to parking are inconsistent with the open space character and sensitivity to visual character which the HPSP promotes in the remainder of the specific plan area.
The visual change between the Church project, which locates a large parking area along its western boundary, and the rural visual character of agricultural uses proposed for the adjacent property (Hecker Pass Agriculture designation), is abrupt and would not promote or be consistent with rural visual character and pattern of development.
The potential visual effect of the extensive parking facility adds significantly to the visual urban intensity of the project in an area where existing rural, agricultural, and open space qualities are to be maintained. In addition, the location of the parking area would detract from the scenic quality of the Hecker Pass Highway corridor
This impact is considered significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
1. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscaping plan. In addition to landscaping for screening buildings to minimize their visual massiveness, the plan shall provide for:
• extensive landscaping along the western property line to facilitate a smooth visual transition from rural, agricultural uses to the west and the parking areas proposed along the western boundary of the site; and
• dense landscaping within the Hecker Pass Highway setback area to screen views of the parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway. Landscape plantings in this area must avoid blocking views across the site to Uvas Creek and the foothills.
The landscaping plan shall be subject to review and approval prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
2. The applicant shall prepare a detailed parking area treatment plan. The plan shall illustrate how, through a combination of grade differences/terracing, landscaping, landscaped berms, and use of alternatives to asphalt such as pervious paving materials (i.e. decomposed granite or gravel) or earth tone pigmented concrete, the visual impact of all parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway will be minimized. Use of alternative paving materials shall be
2-20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
prioritized as specified in the HPSP. The parking area treatment plan shall be subject to review and approval by the city prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on the Potential for Obtaining a State Scenic Highway Designation for Hecker Pass Highway /City of Gilroy General Plan Inconsistency – Less than Significant Impact. Due to its scale and urban intensity, the Church project would be of a visual character that would not promote rural character in the specific plan area. It would create a visual intrusion that is not consistent with Caltrans criteria for scenic highway designation. However, the project would provide a visual transition between rural character in the remainder of the specific plan area and the Village Green project located on the east side of the Church site, which is developed to urban intensity. The project would not preclude the city from requesting Caltrans to designate Hecker Pass Highway west of the Church site as a scenic highway. No mitigation measures are required.
Creation of Substantial Light and Glare – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed nighttime lighting of playfields is considered inconsistent with the rural visual character of the specific plan area and may be inconsistent with HPSP lighting policies. It would introduce urban intensity lighting to an area where lighting, under post-HPSP implementation conditions, would be largely muted. Glare from the lighting would be visually intrusive and of significantly different character than lighting within or adjacent to the specific plan area. This impact is considered potentially significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
3. The applicant shall prepare a detailed lighting plan, which demonstrates how nighttime lighting of playfields will be designed and the lighting technology that shall be used. Nighttime lighting of playfields should be prohibited by the city unless the plan clearly demonstrates that nighttime lighting will not create a significant source of glare that is inconsistent with maintaining the rural character of the plan area. The lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval of the city for consistency with this mitigation and with relevant HPSP lighting policies prior to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This review should be coordinated with mitigation provided in Section 2.4, Biological Resources, regarding lighting impacts on the habitat value of the Uvas Creek corridor.
2.2 Agricultural Resources
The importance of maintaining existing agricultural character in the specific plan area is illustrated and described in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Clustered residential development combined with agri-tourism and commercial agricultural use is defined as the development direction for the specific plan area. Maintenance of rural agricultural
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-21
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
character is a key component of the city’s vision for protecting the Hecker Pass area as a scenic gateway to the city. Agriculture issues discussed in this section that illustrate the extent to which the HPSP meets the City of Gilroy General Plan intent include loss of important farmland, conflicts with Williamson Act contracts, viability of agricultural land under build out conditions, conflicts between agricultural and other uses proposed in the HPSP, and consistency of the HPSP with city policies for the Hecker Pass Special Use District.
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002), Santa Clara County Crop Report 2002 (Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioners Office 2002), California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual (California Department of Conservation 1997), Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, September 1974), Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map (Department of Conservation 2002), and Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, Lands of Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area (Kelly & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. 2004). The Land Evaluation and Assessment report was peer reviewed by EMC Planning Group, Inc. No comments regarding agricultural resources were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Environmental Setting
Economic Value
Agriculture is a large part of the Gilroy economy and is very important to the industry in the area. The Santa Clara Valley has historically grown a variety of crops, including vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, floral and nursery crops. The primary crops grown have changed in response to market demands. Agricultural processing industries in the region include canneries, dehydrators, dryers, packers, breeding, and the seed industry.
There were approximately 221,342 acres in agricultural production in Santa Clara County in 2001. Agricultural production in Santa Clara County in 2002 was valued at $255,674,400, with nursery crops accounting for approximately 44 percent of the total production value, and mushrooms another 18 percent. The total value for Santa Clara County nursery crop production was $113,640,500, down 11 percent from the 2001 value (Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioners Office 2002). The agricultural land in the specific plan area accounts for less than one percent of the total amount of agricultural land in Santa Clara County.
Soils
The specific plan area contains several soil types, as described in the Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara Area, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1974). Soil characteristics are key indicators of land value in terms of agricultural production. In addition, the evaluation of soil types is an input to the overall assessment
2-22 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
of the significance of the loss of agricultural land within the specific plan area. The soil types in the specific plan area are described below.
Los Osos Clay Loam, 15-75 Percent Slopes. Los Osos clay loam is a well-drained soil that is underlain by sedimentary rock. This soil type is located on uplands at elevations from 300 to 1,200 feet. Permeability on this soil type is slow and available water capacity is 4 to 8 inches. Runoff is medium to very rapid and erosion hazard is moderate to very high, depending on the slope. This soil is used for dryland hay, pasture, and range. This soil type is located in the northern portion of the specific plan area on the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway.
San Andreas Fine Sandy Loam, 15-30 Percent Slopes. San Andreas fine sandy loam is a well-drained soil that is underlain by sandstone bedrock. This soil type is located on uplands at elevations from 400 to 2,500 feet. Permeability on this soil type is moderately rapid and available water capacity ranges from 3 to 4.5 inches. Runoff is rapid and erosion hazard is high. This soil is used for dryland grapes and range. A patch of this soil type is located in the northern portion of the specific plan area on the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway.
San Ysidro Loam, Acid Variant, 2-9 Percent Slopes. San Ysidro loam, acid variant, is a moderately well-drained soil formed on old alluvium from sedimentary rock. This soil type is located on fans and terraces at elevations from 200 to 2,000 feet. Permeability is moderately slow and available water capacity ranges from 6 to 9 inches. Runoff is slow to medium and erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for irrigated row crops, fruit trees, dryland hay, and pasture. This soil type is located in the east central portion of the specific plan area along Hecker Pass Highway, and a small patch of this soil type is located in the northern portion of the specific plan area on the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway.
Zamora Loam, 2-9 Percent Slopes. Zamora loam is a well-drained soil underlain by alluvium of mixed origin. This soil type is located on alluvial fans at elevations from 200 to 1,000 feet. Permeability is moderately slow and available water capacity ranges from 11 to 12 inches. Runoff is slow to medium and erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used mainly for irrigated row crops, orchards, vineyards, and dryland hay and pasture. This soil type is located in the west central portion of the specific plan area along Hecker Pass Highway.
Yolo Loam, 0-2 Percent Slopes. Yolo loam is a well-drained soil underlain by alluvium from sedimentary rock. This soil type is located on alluvial plains and fans at elevations from 400 to 2,400 feet. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity ranges from 10 to 11 inches. Runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is none to slight. This soil is used mainly for irrigated row crops, orchards, vineyards, and dryland hay and pasture, and some areas are used for housing and commercial development. The Yolo soil series are the most productive soils in the Santa Clara Valley. This soil type is located in the central portion of the specific plan area on the south side of Hecker Pass Highway.
Garretson Loam, 0-2 Percent Slopes. Garretson loam is a well-drained soil underlain by alluvium from material derived from sedimentary rock. This soil type is located on
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-23
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
stream benches and fans along drainageways at elevations from 200 to 2,000 feet. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity ranges from 7.5 to 11 inches. Runoff is slow and erosion hazard is none to slight. This soil is used mainly for irrigated row crops, orchards, vineyards, and dryland hay and pasture. This soil type is located in the more southerly portion of the specific plan area, south of Hecker Pass Highway close to Uvas Creek.
Cortina Very Gravelly Loam, 0-5 Percent Slopes. Cortina very gravelly loam is a somewhat excessively drained soil underlain by alluvium from mixed sources. This soil type is located on stream benches along major drainageways at elevations from 100 to 2,400 feet. Permeability is rapid and available water capacity ranges from 2.5 to 4 inches. Runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is none. This soil is used mostly for dryland pasture, wildlife, and recreation. This soil type is located in the southern portion of the specific plan area along Uvas Creek.
Riverwash. Riverwash is a mixture of sand, gravel, and cobblestones that contains little or no silt and clay. It is the loose mass of material that occupies stream channels and is exposed at low water levels. Riverwash is subject to movement in spring during periods of runoff and during stream flooding. This soil type is located in the southern portion of the specific plan area in and adjacent to the Uvas Creek channel.
Land Capability Classification
The Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1974) places each soil type in a land capability classification. A land capability classification is the grouping of soils to show, in a general way, their suitability for most kinds of farming. The classifications range from I to VII, with class I being most suitable. It is a practical classification based on limitations of the soils, the risk of damage when they are used, and the way they respond to treatment. The soils are classified according to the degree and kind of permanent limitation, but without consideration of major and generally expensive land forming that would change the slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils; and without consideration of possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. The land capability classification is also an input to the assessment of significance of agricultural land loss within the specific plan area. The land capability classifications within the specific plan area as defined in the Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County range from I to VIII. However, as described later in this section, a reduction of some of the class ratings has been made due to factors, especially irrigation water availability, that affect suitability of land for farming.
Storie Index Rating
The USDA Soil Conservation Service uses the Storie index rating system to numerically express (from 0 to 100) the relative degree of suitability and value of a soil map unit for general intensive farming purposes. Four factors represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of soil under the Storie index rating. These factors are soil profile characteristics; texture of the surface horizon; slope; and other conditions, such as high water table, risk of erosion, and high alkalinity. Soils best suited for agricultural
2-24 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
production fall between the Storie index range of 80 to 100 and are classified as Grade 1. Soils between the Storie index range of 40 to 60 are classified as Grade 3 and are suited for a few crops or for special crops and require special management (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1974). As with soil type and the land capability classification, the Storie Index rating serves as an input to the assessment of agricultural land loss. Storie index ratings at the site range from as low as 10 on a total of about 150 acres of the site to as high as 100 on about 78 acres of the site.
Important Farmland
The specific plan area includes acreage that is categorized by the Department of Conservation as important farmlands. Figure 12, Important Farmland Map, shows important farmland designations in the specific plan area consistent with the California Department of Conservation Monitoring and Mapping Program. Table 4, Important Farmland Summary, provides a summary of the important farmlands along with acreage included within other use classifications. Each of the designations, along with a description of their occurrence within and adjacent to the specific plan area, follows.
TABLE 3 Important Farmland Summary Important Farmland Acreage in Specific Percentage of Specific Designation Plan Area Plan Area Prime 165 39 Grazing Land 110 26 Unique Farmland 36 8 Other Land 92 22 Urban and Built Up Land 22 5 Total 425 100
Source: California Department of Conservation
Prime Farmland. Prime Farmland is land with the best combination of physical and chemical features for crop production. It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to current farming methods, including water management. The land must have been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the four years prior to mapping (Department of Conservation 2000).
On Site. Almost all of the land within the specific plan area south of Hecker Pass Highway is currently designated Prime Farmland. Agricultural production in this area includes nursery crops, seed crops, vineyards, rooster farming, and fallow land. Prime Farmland constitutes approximately 165 acres, or 39 percent of the specific plan area.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-25
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Off Site. Designated Prime Farmland is located just south of Uvas Creek and continues east across Santa Teresa Boulevard into the proposed Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area. The majority of the Prime Farmland in the Gilroy area is located east of Highway 101 in the South County Agricultural Preserve.
Grazing Land. Grazing Land is land on which existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock, and must be at least 40 acres (Department of Conservation 2000).
On Site. A total of 110 acres, or 26 percent of the specific plan area, is designated as Grazing Land. All of the Grazing Land located within the specific plan area is located north of Hecker Pass Highway in the hillside area.
Off Site. Grazing Land is located along the western boundary of the specific plan area and extends westward.
Unique Farmland. Unique Farmland does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland, but can be used for the production of specific high economic value crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality crops or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods (Department of Conservation 2000).
On Site. Unique Farmland covers approximately 36 acres, or 8 percent of the specific plan area, with most located along the western boundary. This land is used for nursery crop production and is owned and operated by Bonfante Nurseries.
Off Site. The Unique Farmland located in the specific plan area continues to the south and west.
Other Land. Other Land is characterized as land that does not fit within any other category; some examples are wetlands, riparian areas not suitable for grazing, brush, and timber.
On Site. Approximately 92 acres, or 22 percent of the specific plan area, all of which is associated with Uvas Creek, is considered Other Land.
Off Site. Other Land located in the vicinity of the specific plan area includes the land fronting onto the eastern side of Santa Teresa Boulevard. A small area of Other Land is located to the northwest of the specific plan area.
Urban and Built Up Land. This includes land that is developed.
On Site. The remaining land within the specific plan area is categorized as Urban and Built Up Land. Urban and Built Up Land includes approximately 22 acres, or five percent of the specific plan area.
2-26 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-28 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Off Site. The Country Estates and The Forest residential developments are located to the north, the Gilroy Municipal Golf Course is located to the northwest, the Village Green development lies to the east, additional urban uses lie beyond Santa Teresa Boulevard to the east, and the Eagle Ridge golf course and residential development borders much of the southern side of the specific plan area, south of Uvas Creek.
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 – commonly referred to as the Williamson Act – enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the State via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971.
The minimum term for a Williamson Act contract is ten years. The term automatically renews on each anniversary date of the contract. Therefore, the actual term of a Williamson Act contract is indefinite. Contracts may be exited at the option of the landowner or local government by initiating the process of non-renewal. Under this process, the remaining contract term (nine years in the case of an original term of ten years) is allowed to lapse, with the contract null and void at the end of the term. Property tax rates gradually increase during the non-renewal period, until they reach normal (i.e., non-restricted) levels upon termination of the contract. Under a set of specifically defined circumstances, a contract may be cancelled without completing the process of term non-renewal. Contract cancellation, however, involves a comprehensive review and approval process, and the payment of fees by the landowner equal to 12.5 percent of the full market value of the property in question. Local activities such as eminent domain, or, in some rare cases city annexation, also result in the termination of Land Conservation Act contracts.
On Site. There are two parcels (APN 810-20-004, -005) located within the specific plan area that are currently under a Williamson Act contract. One of the parcels is the Goldsmith Seeds property, which is planned to remain under contract and continue agricultural commercial operations. The other parcel is the Arias property, which is planned for Residential Cluster and Hecker Pass Agriculture uses.
Off Site. Santa Clara County has proposed to designate land located outside of the Urban Service Area to the west of the specific plan area as agricultural preserve. All land in the agricultural preserve is eligible for Williamson Act contracts (Dunia Noel, pers. com., April 14, 2003). Several parcels located to the west of the specific plan area are currently under contract.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-29
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Agricultural Viability - Agriculture on Small Tracts
The size and configuration of agricultural land has a distinct effect on the potential for agricultural operations to remain economically viable. The costs of using farm equipment, irrigation, and labor are generally lower on large tracts of agricultural land with non-irregular configuration.
In Santa Clara County, there are few economically self-sustaining commercial agricultural operations on parcels less than 20 acres in size. Economically viable operations on parcels of 20 acres or smaller do occur where the operator sells products directly to the public, thereby lowering transportation and marketing costs (Kevin O’Day, per.com., January 2, 2003).
Agricultural Land Use Conflicts
Agricultural activities can generate noise and dust and utilize chemicals that are considered nuisances or health hazards to adjacent non-agriculture land uses. The HPSP includes land uses that are considered sensitive to agricultural operations. All of the uses included within the Church project, including the church, middle school, and elementary school, as well as the proposed residential uses are considered sensitive to agricultural operations. A common approach to mitigating conflicts between agricultural activities and surrounding sensitive uses includes establishing land buffers that separate the non-compatible uses.
One buffer approach is to provide a strip of land between the land uses in which neither land use is permitted. Buffers can be improved with vegetation, used for trails or other passive recreation activity, roads, storm detention ponds, utility corridors or other such uses that don’t attract a high volume of users. Typically, buffers are placed within the property lines of a new development rather then imposing buffers on adjacent land. Exceptions may occur when the adjacent non-agricultural use is on a small parcel where establishment of an on-site buffer would render the parcel non-developable.
Many variables affect the appropriate width of a buffer. Foremost among these is the type of chemicals that are utilized in the agricultural activity, which is directly related to the type of agricultural crop that is produced. Agricultural chemicals are generally designated “controlled” or “uncontrolled” for regulatory purposes. Controlled materials are generally more hazardous to human health and/or the environment. Their use is regulated by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office through a permit process. A permit process does not regulate uncontrolled materials as they are deemed to be less hazardous. Use of “uncontrolled” chemicals is preferred in areas adjacent to non- agricultural land uses. Crops such as vineyards and orchards do not require the use of controlled materials.
The method of chemical application also plays a large role in determining buffer width requirements. Chemicals applied aerially in a spray generally have a higher potential to drift than do those applied from the ground. The degree of this hazard depends on wind conditions, the method of spraying, and the type of chemical being used.
2-30 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The City of Gilroy does not have policies for agricultural buffers. In Santa Clara County, agricultural buffers generally range from about 50 feet to 500 feet (for highly controlled chemicals such as methyl bromide), but may be as low as 25 feet when organic farming practices are followed. Buffers may range up to several hundred feet in width in a more highly sensitive situation, such as where a school site is being proposed adjacent to an active agricultural use. The actual width appropriate for a given situation is based on a combination of the agricultural practices, the sensitivity of the surrounding land use, and the design of the buffer (i.e. presence of wind breaks to reduce spray drift).
Right to farm ordinances are becoming increasingly utilized to disclose nuisances from agricultural operations to owners/users of adjacent land being proposed for non- agricultural uses. Such ordinances establish the right for farmers to continue with the agricultural activities on land adjacent to sensitive land uses. Deed restrictions notify all future buyers of adjacent property that there is a right to farm on the adjacent land. The restriction lists the type of operations and possible nuisances or inconveniences that can be associated with agricultural activities and notifies buyers that they must accept such nuisances. Generally an Agricultural Commissioner tries to resolve any conflicts that arise. The City of Gilroy currently does not have a right to farm ordinance in place, but a HPSP policy recommends that city adopt one due to its relevance to proposed development within the specific plan area. A second policy would require new residents within the specific plan area to sign a right to farm agreement.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies designed to protect agricultural resources. The policies are as follows:
Policy 3.11 Agricultural Industries: Recognizing agriculture as an important base industry vital to the existing economy of Gilroy, support measures that strengthen the position and economic viability of local agriculture and related industries.
Policy 4.01 Economic Viability of Agriculture: Support the long-term economic viability of agriculture and agri-tourism, thereby encouraging landowners to keep their land in cultivation.
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR describes the loss of prime agricultural land from general plan build out as a significant and unavoidable impact. If through the use of the LESA model (described below) or other similar mechanism, loss of agricultural land is found to be a significant impact, project applicants must participate in a conservation and open space easement program to at least partially mitigate the impacts of the loss, consistent with the City of Gilroy’s Agricultural Mitigation Policy, adopted May 3, 2004.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-31
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
HPSP Project Analysis
Analysis of potential HPSP and Church project impacts on agriculture relate to the physical loss of land considered to be of agricultural value, agricultural land use conflicts, and to the maintenance of existing agricultural use and character as prioritized in the City of Gilroy General Plan for the Hecker Pass Special Use District.
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes several policies that relate agricultural resources within the specific plan area. The policies are as follows:
3.2 Land Use Concept
Policy: Create open space and agricultural areas to maintain view corridors, provide opportunities for recreation and to act as buffers between natural areas and future development.
Policy: Establish contiguous agricultural lands large enough to ensure viable agricultural operations and preserve the rural character of the Specific Plan Area.
Policy: Residential and commercial uses should be clustered to create open space and agricultural areas between developments and to reduce the impacts associated with typical urban development patterns.
3.4.1 Hecker Pass Agricultural
Policy: Establish significant development buffers along Hecker Pass Highway.
Policy: Establish open space and agricultural areas between Hecker Pass Highway and clustered development to provide development buffers and view corridors.
3.4.2 Agriculture Commercial
2-32 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Policy: Agricultural Commercial buildings shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from Hecker Pass Highway.
Policy: New habitable residential structures shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from agricultural commercial uses.
5.2.1 Agricultural Resources
Policy: Encourage the Hecker Pass Specific Plan property owners and project developers to promote the establishment of an agricultural history center, working farm, viticulture center or educational programs in the Specific Plan Area.
Policy: To enhance the character of proposed development, agricultural open spaces areas separating development clusters shall be created. These open spaces should be of sufficient size and shape to allow for agricultural production.
Policy: Agricultural uses shall be established between Hecker Pass Highway and future development clusters to preserve the rural character of the area.
5.2.1.1 Agricultural Access
Policy: Public access to agricultural areas shall be limited to avoid potential conflicts with agricultural viability.
5.2.1.2 Agricultural Ownership and Maintenance
Policy: Owners of agricultural properties shall be responsible for conformance to all agricultural management policies set forth in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan and shall be required to disclose these policies to all potential lessees prior to the lease agreement.
Policy: To insure the preservation of agricultural open space, permanent agricultural open space easements or other such instrument will be created for each agricultural area prior to or concurrent with final map approvals.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-33
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
5.7.3 Agricultural Management
Policy: The City of Gilroy shall consider adoption of a “right to farm” ordinance to prevent existing and future agricultural uses from becoming nuisances to future residential uses.
Policy: Future property and homebuyers shall execute right to farm disclosure statements as part of all sales transactions.
Policy: All properties that include agricultural uses shall include an Integrated Agricultural Management Plan in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the property.
Policy: Any related Integrated Agricultural Management Plans and the “right to farm” ordinance shall be disclosed to future residents and commercial tenants prior to lease or purchase.
Policy: Establish minimum 25-foot agricultural buffer for organic farming and minimum 50-foot agricultural buffer for all other farming between agricultural crops and dwelling units.
The HPSP also makes numerous text references to maintaining agricultural uses within open space areas between residential and commercial uses and “wherever soil is suitable for agricultural production.” As is discussed below, these policies address the consistency of the HPSP with the City of Gilroy General Plan and direct development in a manner that reduces potential impacts on agricultural land and agricultural uses.
Loss of Important Farmland
The Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1974) identifies that the specific plan area has approximately 311 acres of land with soil characteristics for agricultural use. Conversion of land designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use is typically considered to be a significant impact under CEQA. As discussed above, the city’s Agricultural Mitigation policy is used to partially mitigate impacts from such loss. If a project would result in the unavoidable loss of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, a project applicant must participate in the mitigation program if the loss is determined to be significant. The determination of significance is based on results of an assessment called a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).
2-34 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model. The LESA model is used to rate the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The model’s results are used to determine whether loss of agricultural land is a significant impact. The LESA model is comprised of six different factors. Two land evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil quality. Four site assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. Information presented above on soils, soil classifications, and Storie index rating of on-site soils serves as inputs to the model.
Each of the factors is rated separately on a 100-point scale. The factors are weighted and then combined, resulting in a single numeric score that determines a project's potential significance, based on established scoring thresholds. The land capability classification and Storie index rating are each weighted 25 percent, with project size, water resource availability and surrounding agricultural lands each weighted 15 percent. Lastly, surrounding protected resource lands (typically Williamson Act lands) are weighted five percent.
The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual (California Department of Conservation 1997) identifies the step-by-step process required to determine the land evaluation score, site assessment score, and the final weighted LESA score. Resources utilized for the model include the Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1974), and a planimeter.
With a LESA modeling result of between zero and 39, the loss of agricultural land is considered not significant. A result of 40 and 59 is considered significant impact if both the land assessment and the site assessment subscore are 20 or better. A result of 60 to 79 points is considered a significant impact unless either the land assessment or site assessment subscore is less than 20 points. A score of 80 to 100 is considered a significant impact.
HPSP LESA Model. The HPSP applicant retained Kelly & Associates Environmental Sciences, Inc. to conduct a LESA evaluation of the agricultural quality of soils within the specific plan area. The assessment results are included in Appendix C. If the LESA model results indicated that loss of agricultural land would be significant, the loss would be considered unavoidable under CEQA and the HPSP applicant would need to partially mitigate the impact by participating in the city’s agricultural land mitigation program.
The LESA model data indicates that there are about 111 irrigated acres (26.1 percent) of row crops, vines, and container trees, about 15 acres (3.5 percent) of dryland crops (trees, hay, and vines), and approximately 299 acres (70.3 percent) is developed, fallow, or grazed, or supports riparian vegetation (along Uvas Creek). Of this land, approximately 30 acres of irrigated farmland would be converted to residential uses, and approximately seven acres of irrigated farmland would be converted to agri-tourist uses. The HPSP Land Use Plan indicates that approximately 115 acres of land would be
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-35
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
retained under agriculture related land uses, with approximately 73 acres preserved strictly for active agriculture.
The LESA evaluation included an assessment of the classifications and production feasibility of the agricultural soils. The report indicates that the USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) for the soils located within the specific plan area are not appropriate due to the lack of water availability in the area and historic farming practices. Therefore, several soils were downgraded between one or two LCCs, but several remained the same. By downgrading LCCs between one or two classes, the overall agricultural value of the soils was downgraded.
Kelley & Associates’ LESA results show a total score of 38.8, a land assessment subscore of 19.6, and a site assessment subscore of 19.2. Based on the scoring thresholds described previously, the LESA modeling results indicate that the conversion of a portion of the existing agricultural land within the specific plan area to urban uses would be considered a less than significant impact.
EMC Planning Group Inc. peer reviewed the LESA modeling conducted by Kelly & Associates and found the methodology and results to be adequate.
Potential Future Williamson Act Issue
Parcels 810-20-004 (Arias) and 810-20-004 (Goldsmith) located within the specific plan area are currently under a Williamson Act contact. The Goldsmith property, which is designated for Agricultural Commercial will remain in contract after development of the HPSP. The Arias property is designated partly for Hecker Pass Agriculture (approximately 5.75 acres) and partly for Residential Cluster (approximately 2.02 acres).
Prior to conversion of the portion of the Arias parcel designated for Residential Cluster, the Arias family would be required to file a notice of non-renewal of the existing Williamson Act contract or exit the contract by other legally acceptable means. A notice of non-renewal would result in the property owner being released from Williamson Act contract obligation in 10 years. If the approximately two acres of the parcel were not developed until after that time, no conflict with a Williamson Act contract would occur. If the property owner were to act to cancel the contract on this portion of the property or the property as a whole, that action would be considered a conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract.
This discussion is pertinent to any future project level application that is made for specific development on this portion of the Arias property. Approval of the HPSP would not create this potential conflict with the Williamson Act as the HPSP is a plan level document and this EIR does not examine project level impacts except for those related to the Church project.
It should be noted that the HPSP would retain about 73 acres of agricultural land for active use. The long-term use of that land for agriculture would be assured by placing the land in a conservation easement or by utilizing one or more other protection tools.
2-36 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The HPSP would therefore preserve a substantially greater area of land for agricultural that is not currently in a Williamson Act contract in perpetuity, which is the functional equivalent of a Williamson Act contract.
Agricultural Viability on Small Tracts
As general rule of thumb in Santa Clara County, the economic viability of agricultural parcels is more challenging when such parcels are less than 20 acres in size and of significantly irregular shape or are non-contiguous (Lori Oleson, per. com., May 13, 2003). The HPSP Land Use Map is designed in a way that clusters urban development into three areas. By clustering urban development into these three areas, the remaining agricultural land is contiguous and of a size that makes agricultural production more viable.
The Agri-tourist use enables development that may provide an opportunity for direct marketing and sale of agricultural products grown within the specific plan area to the public. Providing that a local agricultural market use is created at one or more of the locations designated for this use, the potential viability of agriculture within the specific plan area would be enhanced.
Land Use Conflicts
Agricultural production would be located adjacent to sensitive receptors such as residential units, a church, and schools. Agricultural production generally requires the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Daily activities can produce noise and dust that can disturb sensitive receptors and can be considered a nuisance.
The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture (SCCDA) is responsible for permitting the use of agricultural chemicals within the county, including within cities. The SCCDA generally prohibits application of chemicals within 200 feet of schools during school hours. Aerial application of chemicals near schools is prohibited (Lori Oleson, per. com., May 13, 2003). Buffers are typically used to separate incompatible land uses for existing agricultural uses. The exact buffer distance is determined based on a case-by-case basis with the type of agricultural chemical used (which in turn is dependent on the type of crop grown) being the main variable.
HPSP policy requires a 50-foot agricultural buffer between residences and active agricultural land. It does not address buffers that would be needed to minimize conflicts between the Church project and adjacent agricultural uses. The HPSP includes a policy requirement that an Integrated Agricultural Management Plan be prepared and incorporated into the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions for agricultural properties. An Integrated Agricultural Management Plan is intended to provide the agricultural operators within the specific plan area with the best management practices for weed abatement, pest control, fertilization, erosion control, and the use of farm machinery adjacent to sensitive uses. The plan is to be prepared in consultation with the SCCDA.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-37
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
The HPSP also includes a policy recommendation that the city adopt a “right-to-farm” ordinance to reduce the potential for conflicts between agricultural uses and owners of residences. The deed of each property would include a right-to-farm disclosure that tells the property owner of the potential nuisances that may occur due to adjacent agricultural operations. Development and adoption of such an ordinance is at the discretion of the City of Gilroy.
Consistency with the General Plan
The City of Gilroy General Plan provides guiding principles for uses such as agriculture/open space, low density residential, hillside residential, and a recreational facility to be located within the specific plan area. The city acknowledged that some of the existing agricultural uses would be converted to urban uses when the land is ultimately developed. However, the City of Gilroy General Plan provides direction to maintain the existing agricultural character of the area. The City of Gilroy General Plan specifically notes:
The proposed distribution of land uses calls for the clustering of residential development in the southern part of the area designated as the Hecker Pass Special Use District, and in some of the designated areas north of Highway 152. The remainder of the site is kept in agricultural uses, with some “agri-tourism’” development allowed to capitalize on the area’s tourism potential.
The HPSP Land Use Map includes clustering of residences into three areas, two of which are in the southern portion of the specific plan area and, one cluster is in the northern portion of the specific plan area. Additionally, the Land Use Map illustrates about 17 acres of agri-tourism development along the Hecker Pass Highway frontage. Approximately 73 acres of existing agricultural land would be retained for active agriculture and protected for such use. The HPSP is considered consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Church Project Analysis
Important Farmland
Development of the proposed Church project would directly result in the loss of approximately 19 acres of designated Prime Farmland. The LESA model results for the HPSP indicate that development within the specific plan area would result in a less than significant loss of agricultural land. In addition, the land use approach contained in the HPSP helps to minimize the loss of agricultural land by clustering development into specific areas while preserving agricultural land in contiguous areas. Although the Church project would individually contribute to the loss of designated Prime Farmland within the specific plan area, implementation of the HPSP as a whole would have a less than significant impact on designated important farmland.
2-38 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Land Use Conflicts
The Church project includes sensitive uses such as a church, elementary school, and middle school. The Church project site is adjacent to land designated as Hecker Pass Agriculture, on which agricultural production does and would continue to take place. Agricultural activities adjacent to the Church project may create dust, noise, and fertilizer or pesticide drift that may create nuisances for sensitive receptors on the Church project site. The nearest classroom is located approximately 195 feet from the proposed adjacent agricultural use. The church building is located approximately 80 feet from the adjacent agricultural use. Parking facilities of varying widths and roadways separate the sensitive uses in the Church project from the western property line.
Consistency with the HPSP
The Community Facilities land use designation as defined in the HPSP does not require maintenance of open space for agricultural use. Therefore, the Church project applicant does not propose agricultural uses on the site. The Church project has not specifically been designed to address setbacks or actions that would mitigate potential impacts with the proposed adjacent agricultural use, but based on HPSP policy it is not required to do so. This would be the responsibility of owners of land on which agricultural operations would be maintained. The Church project is considered to be consistent with the open space/agricultural use directives of the HPSP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and the LESA model thresholds indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
Note that the LESA model is used to determine significance of loss of farmland. The loss is significant if it results in the loss of agricultural lands with a score of: 1) 80 to 100 points; 2) between 60 and 79 unless either the Land Evaluation or the Site Assessment subcategories have scores less than 20; or 3) between 40 and 59 if both the Land Evaluation and the Site Assessment subcategories have scores of 20 or better.
• conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; and/or
• involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-39
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
HPSP Impacts
Conversion of Agricultural Land (LESA Model Finding) – Less than Significant Impact: The total LESA score for the HPSP was 38.8, with a Land Assessment score of 19.6 and Site Assessment score of 19.2. Based on the total LESA score the impact from build out of the HPSP would be less than significant under the California Department of Conservation LESA criteria. The City bases its determination of significance of farmland loss on the results of a LESA model. Therefore, the loss of agricultural land would not be significant.
The HPSP is consistent with the design concept for the specific plan area as shown in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The design concept includes clustered development on a portion of the specific plan area, some of which is designated as prime farmland by the California Department of Conservation. In addition, the HPSP includes a policy that requires a permanent conservation easement or other instrument to be used to ensure that active agricultural activity within the Hecker Pass Agricultural designation is retained in perpetuity. It also includes several additional policies that would promote agriculture by resolving potential land use incompatibility problems. No mitigation measures are required.
Conversion of Agricultural Land (Reduction in Viability of Agricultural Land) – Less than Significant Impact: The HPSP Land Use Map is largely consistent with the clustering concept shown in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The clustering concept was created partly in an effort to reduce fragmentation of agricultural land into sizes and configurations that reduces the economic viability of agriculture. In addition, the HPSP includes policy measures that are aimed at preserving land within the Hecker Pass Agricultural land use designation in perpetuity and at creating an Integrated Agricultural Management Plan that coordinates the operations and management of the remaining agricultural land to reduce or eliminate potential land use conflicts. Therefore, implementation of the HPSP would have a less than significant impact on the viability of the remaining agricultural land and no mitigation measures are required.
Land Use Changes that Could Result in Conversion of Farmland/Agricultural Land Use Conflicts – Potentially Significant Impact: Operational noise, dust, and agricultural chemicals associated with agricultural production could be a nuisance and health hazard to sensitive receptors such as residential, school, and church uses. Conflicts between agriculture and other land uses could result in pressure to convert farmland to non-agricultural use. The HPSP includes policies whose implementation should serve to prevent significant land use conflicts that could result in pressure to convert land designated as Hecker Pass Agriculture to non-agricultural use. Implementation of the policies in the HPSP would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Conflict with William Act Contract – Less than Significant Impact. Approximately 2.5 acres of Arias property is within an area proposed for development in the HPSP. However, approval of the HPSP would not directly result in a conflict with the Williamson Act contract for this property, as the HPSP is a plan level document. The
2-40 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
potential for conflict will be assessed when a specific development application is made for the property. No mitigation measures are required.
Church Project Impacts
Conversion of Agricultural Land – Less than Significant Impact: Build out of the HPSP as a whole has been determined to have a less than significant impact from the loss of designated important farmland, including farmland located on the Church site. The Church project is consistent with HPSP and would therefore, have a less than significant impact from the conversion of agricultural land. No mitigation measures are required.
Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson Act contract – Less than Significant Impact: The Church project site is not currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the HPSP would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract.
Land Use Changes that Could Result in Conversion of Farmland/Agricultural Land Use Conflicts – Potentially Significant Impact: Operational noise, dust, and agricultural chemicals associated with agricultural production located adjacent to the Church project could be a nuisance and health hazard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The HPSP includes policies whose implementation should serve to prevent significant land use conflicts that could result in pressure to convert land designated as Hecker Pass Agriculture to non-agricultural use. Implementation of the policies in the HPSP would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required.
2.3 Air Quality
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1999). Comments were received from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Environmental Setting
Regional Climate
The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by San Francisco Bay to the north and by mountains to the east, south and west. Temperatures are warm on summer days and cool on summer nights, and winter temperatures are fairly mild. At the northern end of the valley, mean maximum temperatures are in the low-90’s during the summer and the high-50’s during the winter. The mean minimum temperature ranges from the high-50’s in the summer to the low-40’s in the winter. Further inland, where the moderating effect
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-41
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
of the bay is not as strong, temperature extremes are greater. For example, in San Martin, located approximately two and one-half miles north of Gilroy, temperatures can be more than ten degrees warmer on summer afternoons and more than ten degrees cooler on winter nights when compared to the San Francisco Bay.
Winds in the valley are greatly influenced by the terrain, resulting in a prevailing flow that roughly parallels the valley’s northwest-southeast axis. A north-northwesterly sea breeze flows through the valley during the afternoon and early evening, and a light south-southeasterly drainage flow occurs during the late evening and early morning. In the summer, the southern end of the valley, including Gilroy, sometimes becomes a “convergence zone,” when air flowing from the Monterey Bay gets channeled northward into the southern end of the valley and meets with the prevailing north- northwesterly winds.
Wind speeds are greatest in the spring and summer and weakest in the fall and winter. Nighttime and early morning hours frequently have calm winds in all seasons, while summer afternoons and evenings are quite breezy. Strong winds are rare, associated mostly with the occasional winter storm.
Regional Air Quality
The air pollution potential of the Santa Clara Valley is high. High summer temperatures, stable air and mountains surrounding the valley combine to promote ozone formation. In addition to the many local sources of pollution, ozone precursors from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda counties, are carried by prevailing winds in the Santa Clara Valley. The valley tends to channel pollutants to the southeast. In addition, on summer days with low-level inversions, ozone can be recirculated by southerly drainage flows in the late evening and early morning and by the prevailing northwesterly in the afternoon. A similar recirculation pattern occurs in the winter, affecting levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. This movement of the air up and down the valley increases the impact of the pollutants significantly.
Pollution sources are plentiful and complex in the Santa Clara Valley. There is a high concentration of industry at the northern end in the Silicon Valley. Some of these industries are sources of air toxins as well as criteria pollutants. In addition, Santa Clara Valley’s large population and many work-site destinations result in the highest generation of mobile source emissions of any sub-region in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 1996).
The most common and widespread air pollutants of concern include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, reactive organic gases, sulfur dioxide, and lead. The common properties, sources, and related health and environmental effects are summarized in Table 4, Common Air Pollutants.
2-42 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 4 Common Air Pollutants
Related Health & Pollutant Properties Major Sources Environmental Effects
Ozone (O3) Ground level ozone is created • Motor vehicle exhaust, • Irritation of lung by the chemical reaction • Industrial emissions, airways and between oxides of nitrogen • Gasoline vapors, and inflammation,
(NOx) and volatile organic • Chemical solvents. • Aggravated asthma, compounds (VOC) in the • Reduced lung capacity, presence of heat and sunlight. and Ground level ozone is the • Increased susceptibility principal component of smog. to respiratory illnesses (i.e. bronchitis). Suspended Suspended particulate matter is • Motor vehicles, • Aggravated asthma, Particulate a term used to describe • Factories, • Increases in respiratory Matter particles in the air, including • Construction sites, symptoms, dust, soot, smoke, and liquid • Tilled Agricultural • Decreased lung droplets. Others are so small fields, function; that they can only be detected • Unpaved roads, and • Premature death, with an electron microscope. • Burning of Wood. • Reduced visibility. Carbon Carbon Monoxide is a • Fuel combustion; • Chest pain for those Monoxide colorless, odorless gas that is • Industrial processes, that suffer from heart (CO) formed when carbon in fuel is • Areas of high traffic disease, not burned completely density during peak hour • Vision problems, traffic (localized sources • Reduced mental of concern) alertness, • Death (at high levels) Nitrogen Generic form for a group of • Motor vehicles, • Toxic to plants, Oxides highly organic gases, all of • Electric utilities, and • Reduce visibility, and which contain nitrogen in • Industrial, commercial, • Respiratory irritant. varying amounts. Many of the and residential sources nitrogen oxides are odorless that burn fuel. and colorless. Sulfur Sulfur oxide gases are formed • Electric utilities • Respiratory illness, Dioxides when fuel containing sulfur (especially those that burn particularly in children
(SOx) such as coal and oil is burned coal), and and the elderly, and and when gasoline is extracted • Industrial facilities that • Aggravates existing from oil or metals are extracted derive their products from heart and lung diseases. from ore. raw materials to produce process heat. Reactive Precursor of ground-level • Petroleum transfer and • Potential carcinogen Organic ozone. storage, (e.g. benzene), and Gases • Mobile sources, and • Toxic to plants and (ROG) • Organic solvent use. animals.
Source: BAAQMD and EPA
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-43
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Sensitive Receptors
Although air pollution can affect all segments of the population, certain groups are more susceptible to its adverse effects than others. Children, the elderly, and the chronically or acutely ill are the most sensitive population groups as summarized in Table 5, Sensitive Receptors and Associated Land Uses. These sensitive receptors are commonly associated with various types of land uses. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include primarily residents living to the north, east, and south of the specific plan area. A 120-bed senior housing facility is located in Village Greens, which is adjacent to the site on the east.
Existing Attainment Status
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any state standard. An “Attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “Nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An “Unclassified” designation signifies that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. CARB divides air basins into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. Table 6, San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status Designations, shows the attainment status designations for the air basin.
The San Francisco Bay Air Basin lost its designation by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an attainment area for the national ozone standard on July 10, 1998. The EPA changed the air basin classification for national 1-hour ozone standard to a “nonattainment” designation. The re-designation action is EPA’s formal recognition that the region has recent violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The notice requires Bay Area co- lead agencies to prepare a revision to the State Implementation Plan, which is a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region complies with the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. In response, the 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan, which supplements air quality management strategies included CAP, was adopted by the BAAQMD in July 1999 and submitted to the EPA. On March 30, 2001, the EPA proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the plan. In response, the three co-lead agencies, the BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governments have prepared the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was submitted to the EPA on November 30, 2001 (Bruce Tuter, email comm., May 16, 2003). The BAAQMD is currently in the process of preparing an update to the 2001, which should be completed in 2004.
2-44 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 5 Sensitive Receptors and Associated Land Uses
Sensitive Receptors Land Use Type Children Residences Schools Parks and Playgrounds Childcare centers Elderly Residences Retirement Homes Convalescent Homes Chronically or Acutely Ill Hospitals Residences Convalescent Homes Source: BAAQMD
TABLE 6 San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status Designations
State Designation Pollutant Federal Designation Nonattainment Ozone Nonattainment Attainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment
Non-attainment Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassified Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfates No Federal Standard Unclassified Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard
The BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and state ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Air Basin encompasses nine San Francisco Bay Area counties including: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Marin, Southern Sonoma, and southwestern Solano counties. The specific plan area is located within the subregion known as the Santa Clara Valley. As shown in the table above, the air basin managed by the BAAQMD is in non-attainment of ozone standards. Areas of the state that are in non-attainment for one or more pollutants must develop implementation plans that bring pollutant levels back into attainment status and guide air quality management such that the basin achieves attainment status for all criteria pollutants. The BAAQMD has developed the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for this purpose. Source: BAAQMD
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-45
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy/Regulatory Issues
Federal Air Quality Standards. Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with State and national standards. The CAA, which was last amended in 1990, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The CAA established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (EPA 2001).
State Air Quality Standards. The California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA) has established standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. The state standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. When standards are exceeded, an “attainment plan” must be prepared which outlines how an air quality district would comply. Generally, these plans must provide for district-wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year periods. California also grants air districts explicit statutory authority to adopt indirect source regulations and transportation control measures, including measures to encourage or require the use of ridesharing, flexible work hours, or other measures that reduce the number or length of vehicle trips. Table 7, Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards, indicates applicable ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants. The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that federal and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin.
Air Quality Monitoring
Ambient air quality in the specific plan area can be inferred from air quality monitoring data obtained from nearby monitoring stations. The closest monitoring station is located on Ninth Street in Gilroy. In 2003, preliminary data from CARB show that the monitoring station reported six days where the state one-hour ozone standard was exceeded and two days where the national eight-hour standard was exceeded. The station measures only ozone levels.
The San Francisco Bay Air Basin as a whole experienced 19 days above the State one- hour ozone standard, three days above the Federal one-hour ozone standard, and seven days above the Federal eight-hour standard based preliminary 2003 data from CARB.
HPSP Project Analysis
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1999) indicates that an evaluation of a specific plan’s potential air quality impacts should focus on an analysis of the general plan and specific plan’s consistency with the adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP). The three criteria used in the consistency analysis include: the local plan’s consistency with the CAP
2-46 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 7 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal Standard California Time Standard Ozone 1 hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm 8 hour 0.08 ppm 0.09 ppm
Particulates 24 hours 150.0 μg/m3 50.0 μg/m3 (PM10) Annual 50.0 μg/m3 30.0 μg/m3
Particulates 24 hours 65.0 μg/m3 — (PM2.5) Annual 15.0 μg/m3 — Carbon 1 hour 35.00 ppm 20.00 ppm Monoxide 8 hour 9.00 ppm 9.00 ppm Nitrogen 1 hour — 0.25 ppm Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm — Lead 30 day average — 1.5 μg/m3 Calendar 1.5 μg/m3 — Quarter Sulfur 1 hour — 0.25 ppm
Dioxide (SO2) 24 hours 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm Annual 0.03 ppm — Sulfates 24 hours — 24 μg/m3 Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm Sulfide Visibility 8 Hour (10:00 In sufficient amount to produce an Reducing am to 6pm, extinction coefficient of 0.23 per Particles PST) kilometer-visibility of ten miles or more due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent.
ppm = parts per million per volume μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board General Plan Consistency with the Clean Air Plan
population and vehicle use projections, the extent to which the specific plan implements CAP Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), and whether the specific plan provides adequate buffers to avoid odor and toxic impacts. The BAAQMD does not generally
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-47
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
recommend a quantitative air emission analysis as part of the evaluation of a specific plan.
The consistency of a general plan and specific plan with the CAP is determined by analyzing the following two criteria: (a) consistency of the population projections used to prepare the CAP and, (b) consistency of vehicle miles traveled projections. These two criteria are analyzed in detail below.
Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled Projections. The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR points out that the expected population growth resulting from implementation of the City of Gilroy General Plan would exceed the population growth projections used to prepare the CAP. Several policies, implementing actions, and mitigation measures were presented to mitigate the impact, however, the residual impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. The city certified the EIR and adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The proposed general plan amendment request and the HPSP are not consistent with the development density and populations projections identified in the City of Gilroy General Plan for the specific plan area. The City of Gilroy General Plan estimated that about 112 single-family residential units would be constructed in the specific plan area. The general plan amendment and the HPSP propose 530 units, which represents an increase of 418 residences when compared to what was planned in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Implementation of the HPSP would result in a population increase of about 1,855 people in the city based on 3.5 persons per household, which is substantially more than the 343 person population that would have occurred under the City of Gilroy General Plan development scenario for this area.
The increase in population would result in an increase in the vehicle miles traveled by Gilroy residents. The increase in vehicle miles traveled would hinder progress towards achieving the BAAQMD performance objectives, and therefore, like the General Plan, the HPSP is inconsistent with the CAP.
Transportation Control Measures. The consistency of a general plan with the CAP TCMs involves assessing whether a local government includes TCMs in its general plan and whether the TCMs are being implemented. The BAAQMD recommends the following seven TCMs to be implemented by local governments: • TCM 1: Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs • TCM 9: Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities • TCM 12: Improve Arterial Traffic Management • TCM 15: Local Clean Air Plans Policies and Programs • TCM 17: Construct Demonstration Projects • TCM 19: Pedestrian Travel • TCM 20: Traffic Calming
2-48 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies that meet the intention of the CAP TCMs. The city requires new development projects to include public transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and park and ride lots set-asides, when appropriate. The HPSP includes policies that generally meet the intention of the City of Gilroy General Plan and CAP. The policies would require development of a pedestrian and bicycle trail system and installation of traffic calming infrastructure.
The HPSP clusters residential development in a manner that may enable use of transit. Generally, a density of seven units per acre is considered sufficient to enable public transit to be economically feasible for the service provider. The HPSP proposes a total of 530 units within approximately 89 acres of clustered residential development, an overall density of nearly six units per acre. The residential clusters are spaced relatively far apart from a transit route servicing perspective. The local transit provider will evaluate how best to provide service to all or portions of the specific plan area based on densities, travel time, and route distance. Provided that transit service is feasible, the HPSP would be considered consistent with the applicable CAP TCMs.
Odors and Toxics
Land uses identified in the HPSP are not expected to enable commercial or industrial development that would release odors or toxic chemicals into the air. The existing commercial agricultural uses are not known to release odors or toxic chemicals into the air. The use of agricultural chemicals is discussed under Section 2.2 Agriculture.
Church Project Analysis
Individual projects, including the Church project, that develop within the specific plan area can affect air quality during three phases of their development: 1) site preparation (i.e. particulate and exhaust generation from earthmoving equipment); 2) building construction (i.e. exhaust from equipment and transport vehicles); and 3) operation and use of developed uses (i.e. vehicle trips generated by new development). To evaluate impacts on air quality, activities that generate emissions are categorized in two ways, short-term (grading and construction) and long-term (operational) activities.
Short-Term Impacts
Emissions generated during site preparation and construction are “short-term” in the sense that they would be limited to the actual periods of site development and construction. Short-term construction emissions are typically generated by the use of heavy equipment, the transport of materials, and during construction employee commute trips. Construction-related emissions consist primarily of reactive organic
gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), fugitive dust (PM10), and carbon monoxide. Emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO are generated primarily by the operation of gas and diesel-powered motor vehicles, asphalt paving activities, and the application of
architectural coatings. Emissions of PM10 are generated primarily by wind erosion of exposed graded surfaces.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-49
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Construction generated emissions vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific construction equipment used, and weather conditions. Construction-related emissions can cause a substantial increase in localized concentrations of PM10. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects, as well as nuisance concerns such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. The BAAQMD approach to CEQA analyses of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions (BAAQMD 1996).
Long-Term Impacts
Operational emissions occur after construction is completed and structures are occupied. Operational emissions are considered long-term because they continue indefinitely. Long-term operational emissions include primarily mobile source emissions resulting from motor vehicle trips generated by the Church project and other future projects in the specific plan area.
The urban emission model, URBEMIS7G was used to predict quantities of ROG, NOx, PM10 and CO emissions that would be generated by the Church project. URBEMIS7G is an air quality-modeling program developed by CARB to determine pollutant emission levels based on traffic generation for a project level analysis. The URBEMIS7G is generally not used for planning level documents such as the HPSP. The URBEMIS7G default values contained within the model were adjusted to reflect the vehicle trip generation rates for the Church project based on the information obtained from the project traffic analysis. The URBEMIS7G modeling results are contained in Volume II – Technical Appendices for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. The URBEMIS7G modeling indicates that criteria air pollutant levels would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds of 80 pounds per day as shown below in Table 8, URBEMIS7G Modeling Results.
Localized Mobile Source Emissions
The primary source pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide concentration is a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. Carbon monoxide transport is extremely limited; it disperses rapidly from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS D or below). Based on information in Section 2.13 Transportation, all study roadways and intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service after development of the Church project.
2-50 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 8 URBEMIS7G Modeling Results (Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOx PM10 CO Summer (unmitigated) 20.34 23.17 11.49 102.73 Summer (mitigated) 20.34 23.17 11.49 102.73 Winter (unmitigated) 25.53 26.57 11.49 162.20 Winter (mitigated) 25.53 26.57 11.49 162.20 BAAQMD Thresholds 80 80 80 --
Source: BAAQMD and EMC Planning Group, Inc.
Odors and Toxics
The Church project does not include odor or toxic chemical producing uses. Land uses identified in the HPSP are not expected to facilitate commercial or industrial uses that would release odors or toxic chemicals into the air. The existing commercial agricultural is not known to release odors or toxic chemicals into the air. The use of agricultural chemicals is discussed in Section 2.2 Agriculture.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase or criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-51
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
HPSP Impacts
Inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan for Operational Emissions - Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The City of Gilroy General Plan is inconsistent with the population projections and vehicle miles traveled projections used in preparing the CAP. The volume of operational emissions that would be generated under City of Gilroy General Plan buildout conditions is greater than anticipated in the CAP. The proposed general plan amendment and HPSP would result in development of 418 more dwellings that were assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Therefore, just as in the General Plan, the HPSP is inconsistent with the CAP and its implementation would hinder progress towards achieving the BAAQMD performance objectives for reducing operational emissions to level needed for the air quality basin to be in attainment for all criteria pollutants. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact.
The HPSP includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle trails and would enable development of local commercial services that could be accessible by residents within the specific plan area. These elements of the HPSP would service to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips taken by future residents, thereby marginally reducing vehicle related air emissions. The feasibility of extending transit service to one or more areas within the specific plan area has yet to be fully evaluated by the VTA. If service were feasible, this too would marginally reduce the generation of vehicular emissions from implementation of the HPSP. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan for Short-Term Emissions – Potentially Significant Impact. Approval of the HPSP would not directly result in short-term air emissions, as it is not a specific project. However, it does provide direction for implementing subsequent specific projects that would be the direct source of such emissions. The HPSP should include specific policy direction for reducing such emissions. The following mitigation measure requires that this direction be provided in the form of comprehensive short-term air emission control measures to be followed by individual projects.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP as an implementation program:
4. Individual project applicants 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;
2-52 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
• 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;
• 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.
Church Project Impacts
Violation of Air Quality Standards (Operational Emissions) – Less than Significant Impact: The Church project would generate regional emissions primarily associated with increased vehicle use. The Church project would result in 2,149 daily vehicle trips. The results of the urban emission model, URBEMIS7G show that the emissions generated by the Church project would be below the 80 pounds per day threshold of significance identified by the BAAQMD for each criteria pollutant. Therefore, the Church project would have a less than significant operational air quality impact and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Violation of Air Quality Standards (Construction Emissions) – Potentially Significant Impact: PM10 can cause respiratory ailments if breathed into the body. Construction
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-53
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
projects involving grading and other earth movement can generate significant quantities
of PM10. Projects involving large amounts of earth movement near sensitive receptors such as residences, senior housing facilities, and schools can have a potentially significant health impact. Several residences are located in the vicinity of the Church project. But the major sensitive use is the adjacent Village Green, where facilities for senior housing and care are located. These sensitive receptors could be affected by emissions from construction equipment, as well as the generation of significant
quantities of PM10 during site preparation activities. This is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. Mitigation measure 4 above would require that BAAQMD comprehensive particulate emission control measures to be incorporated into the HPSP as policy. The Church project would be required to implement the measures identified in the policy. Implementation of that mitigation would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Violation of Air Quality Standards (Localized Mobile Source Emissions) – Less than Significant Impact: Intersections in the vicinity of the Church project are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) under post-project conditions. As a result, the Church project is not expected to significantly contribute to increased CO concentrations in excess of state or federal CO standards at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Church project would have a less than significant impact on CO levels and no mitigation measures are necessary.
2.4 Biological Resources
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan Biological Resources Assessment (EMC Planning Group Inc. 2001) was prepared for the specific plan area based on a background data search and a field investigation to determine the potential for sensitive habitats and rare species to occur in the area. The existing habitats in the specific plan area were also mapped. The field survey was conducted on February 7, 2001 by Cara Galloway, M.A., Biologist from EMC Planning Group Inc. The information contained in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Biological Resources Assessment has been incorporated into this EIR. The technical report is included in Volume II – Technical Appendices for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR.
The background data search included a review of the following documents, which contain technical information for the specific plan area and lands in the general vicinity of the specific plan area: City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002), Consolidated Landscaping Policy (City of Gilroy 1988, as amended), Hecker Pass…A Family Adventure Final Certified Environmental Impact Report (City of Gilroy 1990), The Courtyard at Hecker Pass General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices (City of Gilroy 1991), The Courtyard at Hecker Pass General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (City of Gilroy 1992), O’Connell Ranch Revised Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (City of Gilroy 1992), Uvas Creek Park Preserve Master Plan Initial Study (City of Gilroy 1993), Hecker Pass Corridor Area Land Use Plan (City of Gilroy 1993), Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Gilroy Municipal Golf Course Project
2-54 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
(City of Gilroy 1997), Country Estates Phases II and 3A & 3B (TM 95-06) Initial Study (City of Gilroy 1998), Bonfante Gardens Bridges Project Initial Study (City of Gilroy 2000), Country Estates Phase III (TM 99-13) and Phase IV Initial Study (City of Gilroy 2000), Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara Area, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1974), Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (California Native Plant Society 1994), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base (Chittenden, Gilroy, and Mt. Madonna quadrangles) and special plants and animals lists from CDFG (2000 and 2002).
Comments were received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during circulation of the Notice of Preparation. Representatives of the California Department of Fish and Game met with City staff, the project biologist, and the applicant’s representatives on the project site prior to initiation of the formal environmental review process. They provided recommendations on creek setbacks, avoidance of the riparian corridor, and protection of special status species.
Environmental Setting
Policy/Regulatory Issues
Threatened and Endangered Species. Several species of plants and animals within California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered rare and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state's human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. State and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as candidates for such listing. Still others have been designated as species of special concern by the CDFG. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own list of native plants considered rare, threatened or endangered (CNPS 2001). Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as special status species.
Permits may be required from both the CDFG and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the “take” of a listed species. To “take” is defined by the State of California as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill (California Fish and Game Code, section 86). A “take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm (16 USC, section 1532(19), 50 CFR, section 17.3). CDFG and the USFWS are responsible agencies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine whether endangered species have been adequately considered and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.
Migratory Birds. State and federal law also protects most birds. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing,
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-55
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Birds of Prey. Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, section 3503.5, 1992. This section states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFG.
Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters. Natural drainage channels and wetlands are considered Waters of the United States (hereafter referred to as jurisdictional waters). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the filling or grading of such waters by authority of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991). The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by ordinary high water marks on opposing channel banks. Wetlands are habitats with soils that are intermittently or permanently saturated, or inundated. The resulting anaerobic conditions select for plant species known as hydrophytes that show a high degree of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils (soils saturated intermittently or permanently saturated by water), and wetland hydrology according to methodologies outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987).
All activities that involve the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991). Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a certification (or waiver of such certification) that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards. The RWCQB is also responsible for enforcing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.
CDFG has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages according to provisions of section 1601 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities, which would disturb these drainages, are regulated by the CDFG via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures, which protect the habitat values of the drainage in question, must be implemented.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) requires development applications that include construction within 50 feet of a riparian channel to submit plans to the SCVWD and obtain a permit. The 50-foot requirement is currently under review and may become 150 feet in the near future.
2-56 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Significant Trees. The City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy, section 6.0, states that the following trees shall be designated significant:
• Existing native trees (naturally occurring species in Gilroy) six (6) inches or more in diameter, at a point four and one half (4 1/2) feet above the ground; or
• Important to the historical or visual aspect of Gilroy (the hillside tree stands).
City of Gilroy General Plan. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes Open Space and Habitat Areas policies and implementation actions designed to protect biological resources. The policies are as follows:
Policy 20.01 Open Space Areas. Preserve and protect the following open space areas:
a) Natural resource and wildlife habitat areas, such as the Uvas Creek and Llagas Creek riparian communities; the heavily vegetated portions of the Santa Cruz mountains; steep hillsides and significant hillside features (such as serpentinite barrens); and natural features of high community value (e.g., the stands of trees along Miller Avenue and cedar trees bordering Hecker Pass).
b) Hazardous areas, such as fault zones, areas subject to strong groundshaking during earthquakes, and floodways.
c) Lands around reservoirs.
d) Lands which provide greenbelts for the South County cities.
e) Recreational lands, including community, neighborhood, and linear parks; expanded linear parks along Uvas and Llagas Creek; and the Gilroy Municipal Golf Course.
Policy 20.02 Creek Protection. Protect the ecological, aesthetic and recreational value of the creeks that flow through the Gilroy Planning Area from urban encroachment and degradation. Ensure that new development preserves the function of natural drainages, including small canyons and seasonal creeks. The easements and setbacks adjacent to these creeks shall be maintained in open space. Access to creeks should be of sufficient width to accommodate trails, flood control access, and protection of riparian habitat.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-57
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy 20.03 Plant and Wildlife Habitats. Preserve important plant and wildlife habitats, including riparian communities, heavily vegetated hillside areas, unique hillside ecosystems (e.g., serpentinite barrens), creeks, and sensitive nesting sites. Loss of these habitats should be fully offset through creation of habitat of equal value, with the compensation rate for habitat creation determined by a qualified biologist.
Policy 20.04 Rare and Endangered Species. Limit development in areas that support the California Tiger Salamander and other rare or endangered species. If development of these areas must occur, any loss of habitat should be fully compensated onsite. If off-site mitigation is necessary, it should occur within the Gilroy Planning Area whenever possible, and must be accompanied by plans and a monitoring program prepared by a qualified biologist.
Policy 20.05 Greenbelts: Designate protected open space areas in conjunction with agricultural lands to create significant natural buffers, or “greenbelts,” between Gilroy and surrounding communities, helping to retain the city’s semi-rural, small town quality. Land uses within a greenbelt should be determined by joint planning activities of the South County cities and the County, but might include very low density residential development; public parks and recreation areas; privately operated recreation areas; and agriculture. Of special concern is the area separating the northern part of the Gilroy Planning Area from the community of San Martin. If an adequate greenbelt cannot be established in the area north of Masten and Fitzgerald Roads, then the Gilroy General Plan Land Use Map should be amended to include a greenbelt strip in the northern part of the Planning Area.
Policy 20.06 Open Space Access and Management. Manage and maintain public open space areas and encourage the management and maintenance of private open space areas in a manner that ensures habitat protection, provides for public access, addresses public safety concerns, and meets low-impact recreation needs.
Urban Habitat
The specific plan area contains a limited amount of existing urban development, consisting of access roads, several houses, and commercial facilities. Plant species in urban areas are generally composed of cultivated exotics and weedy species that are also common to ruderal areas. Figure 13, Habitat Types, illustrates the habitats types within the specific plan area. The value of urban lands for wildlife is limited. Resident species commonly observed in these areas include Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus),
2-58 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), rock dove (Columba livia) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). During the spring and fall migration, many species of migrant birds pass through urban lands, foraging and seeking cover in landscaping. Non-native mammals often living within urban development include house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and feral cat (Felis cattus). Such species could occur within the specific plan area.
Agricultural/Horticultural
South of Hecker Pass Highway, the specific plan area contains predominantly cultivated fields, orchard, and horticultural nursery operations and does not contain naturally occurring plant species. Orchards also occupy small portions of the specific plan area north of Hecker Pass Highway. These land uses occupy approximately 276 acres, or 65 percent of the specific plan area.
Due to continuous human interaction, agricultural fields and horticultural operations typically provide little habitat for wildlife. Crows and songbirds may forage in the cultivated fields and small mammals (e.g. pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and black- tailed hares) may also forage and burrow in the fields assuming they are not actively controlled in the area. Larger mammals such as coyotes and foxes may also utilize cultivated fields for hunting and foraging but are not likely to inhabit these areas.
Uvas Creek
Uvas Creek, and the associated riparian woodland habitat (described below), is located along the southern boundary of the specific plan area. Willows (Salix spp.) and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) are the most common shrubs along the border of the creek channel. Annual grasses and forbs grow in the creek channel in the dry season. Vegetation in the channel is subject to removal by increased flow during the rainy season. Adult steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), a federally threatened species (discussed further below), is known to migrate upstream in Uvas Creek to spawn in winter and early spring. Bodfish Creek, which is a tributary to Uvas Creek and a known spawning ground for steelhead, is located approximately 100 feet from the specific plan area. Steelhead rest in pools and spawn in shallow riffles. Other native and introduced fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs have been reported in the Uvas Creek Preserve downstream of the specific plan area.
Riparian Woodland
The southern boundary of the specific plan area consists of a riparian corridor with a width ranging from approximately 25 feet to over 100 feet from the centerline of Uvas Creek to the edge of canopy. The boundary of the riparian corridor corresponds to the edge of the vegetation canopy or, where vegetation is absent, the edge of the Uvas Creek channel bank. The riparian corridor and Uvas Creek occupy approximately 92 acres, or 21 percent of the specific plan area. A paved and/or dirt road/trail used for the adjacent
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-59
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
agricultural operations and to access a sanitary sewer trunk line located along the top of the creek bank is located along the entire edge of the riparian corridor. The riparian corridor supports a diversity of vegetation and provides valuable wildlife habitat. The dominant plant species in this corridor include willow thickets with scattered mature western sycamore trees (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) black walnut (Juglans hindsii) and English walnut (Juglans regia) are occasional components of the riparian corridor.
Non-native annual grasses and forbs dominate open areas in the riparian woodland habitat and the edge between riparian woodland habitat and agricultural fields. Common species include oat (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), thistles (Centaurea solstitialis, Cirsium vulgare, Silybum marianum), mallow (Malva spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax), and mustards (Brassica spp).
The scattered oak and sycamore trees provide roost and nesting sites for raptors and other bird species, and the canopy contributes to its value as a corridor for wildlife. White-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata), bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus), scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and northern flickers (Colaptes auratus) are likely inhabitants of the riparian vegetation. Grasses and forbs in the riparian understory harbor insects and provide seed and nesting material for sparrows, finches, and small mammals.
Grassland
Grassland habitat is located on a portion of the specific plan area north of Hecker Pass Highway. Grassland habitat occupies approximately 28 acres, or seven percent of the specific plan area. The grasslands are heavily grazed, and annual non-native grasses, including wild oat, foxtail (Hordeum spp.), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceous), and ripgut brome dominate the grassland habitat. Typical forbs in the grassland include filaree (Erodium spp.), wild mustard, bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), and yellow star thistle.
Grasslands provides habitat for small mammals such as voles and pocket gophers. The presence of these small mammals provides an important prey source for predatory species, such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes), various snakes, and raptors, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). In addition to small mammals, non-native grassland provides forage sites for large mammals, such as black- tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus).
2-60 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-62 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Oak Woodland
Oak woodland habitat typically occurs on hillsides above the grassland habitat in the portion of the specific plan area north of Hecker Pass Highway. Oak woodland habitat occupies approximately 68 acres, or 16 percent of the specific plan area. Coast live oak is the dominant oak species, with scattered valley oak and blue oak (Quercus douglasii). Typical understory species in this habitat include non-native annual grasses and forbs found in the grassland habitat.
Oak woodland habitat provides many wildlife resources, including food, cover, roosting, and breeding sites. Acorns are preferred or essential food items in the diets of black- tailed deer, western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), woodpeckers (Picoides spp.), northern flickers (Colaptes auratus), and scrub jays. Oak foliage and bark contain insects that attract birds, such as ash-throated flycatchers (Myiarchus cinerascens), white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis), and western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis). In addition, oak-dependent fungi, lichen, mistletoe, and galls provide food for such species as raccoons (Procyon lotor) and northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos).
Oak trees offer shade, shelter and breeding areas for many animals. Woodpeckers excavate nest holes that may subsequently be used by other hole-nesting birds, including western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana) and American kestrels. Species that forage in open grasslands during the day return to roost in oak woodlands at night.
The patchy understory of the oak woodland habitat contains downed branches and dead wood that provides cover and nesting sites for rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythropthalmus) and California quail (Callipepla californica).
Small mammals, such as deer mice and woodrats, inhabit shrub thickets and downed wood. The presence of small mammals in the oak woodland provides an important prey source for predatory species, such as various snakes and raptors, including red-tailed hawks and American kestrel.
Special-Status Species
Special-status species that were initially judged to potentially occur in the specific plan area are listed in Table 9, Special-Status Species Initially Judged to Potentially Occur in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area, along with their legal status and habitat requirements. This list was determined by evaluating the geographic ranges and habitat requirements of each species and habitat conditions in the specific plan area.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-63
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 9 Special-Status Species Initially Judged to Potentially Occur in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area
Species Status Habitat Observed or Likely to (Federal/State/ Occur? CNPS) Plants None Wildlife California tiger salamander FPT/CP, CSC Grassland with None observed, but Ambystoma californiense seasonal water source. potential breeding habitat present along Uvas Creek and potential aestivation habitat present to the north of Hecker Pass Highway. Western spadefoot toad FSC/CP, CSC Upland areas with None observed, but Scaphiopus hammondii seasonal water source. potential habitat present along Uvas Creek. Foothill yellow-legged frog FSC/CP, CSC Upland areas None observed, but Rana boylii associated with rock- potential habitat present bottomed creeks. along Uvas Creek. California red-legged frog FT/CP, CSC Lowlands/foothills None observed, but Rana aurora draytonii near permanent deep- potential habitat present water sources. along Uvas Creek. Western pond turtle FSC/CP, CSC Aquatic habitat. None observed, but Clemmys marmorata potential habitat present along Uvas Creek. Steelhead FT/-- Aquatic habitat. Present within the Uvas Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Creek. Loggerhead shrike FSC/CSC Forage in grasslands None observed, but Lanius ludovicianus and nest in oak potential habitat present woodlands. in the specific plan area. Yellow-breasted chat --/CSC Nest and forage in None observed, but Icteria virens riparian woodlands. potential habitat present along Uvas Creek. Yellow warbler --/CSC Nest and forage in None observed, but Dendroica petechia brewsteri riparian woodlands. potential habitat present along Uvas Creek. Burrowing owl FSC/CSC Nests and winters in None observed, but Athene cunicularia small mammal potential habitat present burrows in grasslands. in the specific plan area (approximately seven percent of specific plan area).
2-64 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Species Status Habitat Observed or Likely to (Federal/State/ Occur? CNPS) Nesting raptors/active raptor --/CSC Tall trees in woodland None observed, but nests areas. potential habitat present along Uvas Creek.
FE: Listed as “Endangered” under the federal Endangered Species Act.
FT: Listed as “Threatened” by the USFWS or NMFS.
FPT: Proposed as “Threatened” by USFWS.
FSC: USFWS “Species of Concern.” Prior to February 1996, the USFWS identified these species as "Category 2" candidates for listing (taxa for which information in the possession of the USFWS indicated that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threat were not currently available to support proposed rules). The designation of Category 2 species as candidates resulted in confusion about the conservation status of these taxa. To reduce that confusion, and to clarify that the USFWS does not regard these species as candidates for listing, the USFWS has discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as candidates. The USFWS remains concerned about these species, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
CP: CDFG “Protected.” Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, Chapter 5, section 40, it is unlawful to capture, collect, intentionally kill or injure, possess, purchase, propagate, sell, transport, import or export any native reptile or amphibian, or part thereof. “Intentionally kill or injure” does not include death or injury that occurs incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
CSC: CDFG “Species of Special Concern.” No federal or state protection is provided by this designation. This designation indicates that the population may face extirpation in California and special consideration should be taken when decisions are made regarding the future of an area containing the species. Sources: California Natural Diversity Data Base, Chittenden, Gilroy, and Mt. Madonna quadrangles (CDFG 2004), California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Special Plants and Animals Lists (CDFG 2000), and California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001).
Plants
The CDFG Natural Diversity Database (Chittenden, Gilroy, and Mt. Madonna quadrangles) reports four special-status native plant species occurring within the vicinity of the specific plan area, including big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), Metcalf canyon jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus), most beautiful jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), and Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii). These plant species are restricted to serpentine soils. Since serpentine soils are not expected to be present in the specific plan area, and since natural conditions in the portion of the specific plan area south of Hecker Pass Highway have been
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-65
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
disturbed by long-term agricultural and horticultural uses, it would be extremely unlikely that any of these plant species would occur in the specific plan area.
Wildlife
The CDFG Natural Diversity Database (Chittenden, Gilroy, and Mt. Madonna quadrangles) reports several special-status animal species occurring within the vicinity of the specific plan area, including California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In addition, adult steelhead migrate from the ocean into Uvas Creek and Bodfish Creek (a tributary of Uvas Creek) to spawn. Bodfish Creek generally dries up during summer months so juvenile steehead are forced to migrate into Uvas Creek. Raptor nests could be present in the riparian woodland trees along Uvas Creek. Other species not listed on the Natural Diversity Database that have the potential to occur in the specific plan area include western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii) and foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii).
Of those species listed on the Natural Diversity Database reports, bank swallow and tricolored blackbird most likely do not occur in the specific plan area. Bank swallows require vertical banks or cliffs with fine-textured sandy soils to dig a nesting hole. The portion of Uvas Creek that occurs in the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for nesting bank swallows. Likewise, tricolored blackbirds typically nest in colonies in marshes or other open water areas, and no appropriate habitat for tricolored blackbirds occurs in the specific plan area.
Also, while not listed in the Natural Diversity Database reports, the specific plan area was evaluated for potential use by other special-status species, including San Joaquin whipsnake (Masticophus flagellum ruddocki), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii). These species most likely do not occur in the specific plan area. San Joaquin whipsnakes are found in grassland habitats, and pallid and Townsend’s western big-eared bats are found in deserts, pine forests and canyons with roost sites (caves, cliff overhangs, and buildings). No appropriate habitat for these species occurs in the specific plan area.
California Tiger Salamander. The California tiger salamander is proposed for listing as “Threatened” by the USFWS, and is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG. Native reptiles and amphibians are also classified as “protected” species by the DFG pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, Chapter 5, section 40, which states that it is unlawful to capture, collect, intentionally kill or injure, possess, purchase, propagate, sell, transport, import or export any native reptile or amphibian, or part thereof. “Intentionally kill or injure” does not include death or injury that occurs incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
California tiger salamanders occur in the California Central Valley and in surrounding foothills of both the Coast Range and Sierra Nevada mountains. The California tiger salamander is a large (adult size seven to eight inches long) terrestrial salamander with
2-66 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
several white or pale yellow spots or bars on a jet-black body. They primarily occur in grasslands and low foothill regions, and in the grassy understory of oak savannahs and woodlands. They prefer lowland aquatic sites for breeding and natural seasonal pools or ponds with similar characteristics. Adult California tiger salamanders spend the majority of the year below ground in ground squirrel burrows or other rodent burrows. The salamanders are only above ground during the winter and spring rainy season when they feed and move to aquatic breeding sites, such as seasonal ponds, stock ponds, reservoirs, lakes, and occasionally stream pools that are devoid of fish. The larvae spend two to four months in the water before transforming to the adult form and seeking suitable terrestrial aestivation habitat. During their migration between breeding sites and upland habitat, the salamanders can travel up to one kilometer.
The NDDB lists known occurrences of California tiger salamanders near Tick Creek (four miles south of Gilroy), near the intersections of Castro Valley Road and Old Monterey Street with U.S. Highway 101 (three and four miles south of Gilroy, respectively), and in Farman Canyon pond, which is a known breeding pond, on the Eagle Ridge Residential and Golf Course Community in Gilroy (two miles southeast of specific plan area). Additionally, aerial photography of the region shows numerous stock ponds and seasonal ponds located in the vicinity of, but not within the specific plan area may support breeding populations of California tiger salamander. However, these areas have not been physically surveyed to determine their potential as habitat for this species.
Within the specific plan area, breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander is potentially present in pools adjacent to the Uvas Creek bed, and the riparian corridor provides a potential migration corridor for this species if it is present.
Upland habitat also serves a critical function in the life cycle of the California tiger salamander. Upland habitat is grassland habitat that is generally located topographically higher than the pond, pool, or other water body or watercourse used as habitat, but in some instances may be lower than the pond or pool. California tiger salamanders use uplands for aestivation habitat and then return to ponds during the remainder of their life cycle. Aestivation means spending the dry summer season in a dormant state. Upland habitats also provide linkage between various aquatic habitats, such as ponds and lakes, which allow population expansion and/or constant gene flow and reduces isolation of populations.
Potential upland habitat exists in the 47-acre Open Space area, 49-acre Hillside Residential area, and the 21-acre north Residential Cluster area, all of which are located north of Hecker Pass Highway. These potential upland aestivation habitat areas extend beyond the specific plan area boundary to the north into areas that contain several ponds that have not been surveyed and have the potential to contain breeding populations of California tiger salamander.
An assessment of the Uvas Creek and riparian corridor is necessary prior to development of the specific plan because of the potential for breeding habitat. In addition, a qualified biologist should monitor construction activities in the areas that are
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-67
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
potentially aestivation habitat for California tiger salamander (areas north of Hecker Pass Highway) to ensure that a take of this species does not occur.
Western Spadefoot Toad. The western spadefoot toad is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the USFWS and CDFG, and is classified as a “protected” species by CDFG. Western spadefoot toads primarily occur in upland areas near aquatic breeding sites, such as seasonal ponds, reservoirs, lakes, and stream pools.
The NDDB does not contain any listings of occurrences of western spadefoot in the vicinity of the specific plan area. However, western spadefoot habitat is potentially present in pools adjacent to the Uvas Creek bed, and the riparian corridor provides a potential migration corridor for this species if it is present. However, the remainder of the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for this species.
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog. The foothill yellow-legged frog is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the USFWS and CDFG, and is classified as a “protected” species by CDFG. Foothill yellow-legged frogs primarily occur in upland areas near rock-bottomed creek breeding sites.
The NDDB does not contain any listings of occurrences of foothill yellow-legged frogs in the specific plan area. However, foothill yellow-legged frog habitat is potentially present in Uvas Creek, and the riparian corridor provides a potential migration corridor for this species if it is present. However, the remainder of the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for this species.
California Red-legged Frog. The California red-legged frog is listed as “Threatened” by the USFWS, and is designated as a “protected” species and “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG. California red-legged frogs occur in different habitats depending on their life stage and the season. All life history stages are most likely to be encountered in and around breeding sites, which include many aquatic habitats, such as ponded and backwater portions of streams. Creeks and ponds where California red- legged frogs are found often have dense growth of woody riparian vegetation, especially willows. The presence of this kind of vegetation is an important indicator that the site may provide foraging or breeding habitat for California red-legged frogs.
The NDDB lists known occurrences of red-legged frogs along Tick Creek (three to four miles south of Gilroy), near the intersection of Old Monterey Street with U.S. Highway 101 (four miles south of Gilroy), and along the Pajaro River near the U.S. Highway 101/25 interchange (four miles southeast of Gilroy). California red-legged frogs may potentially occur and breed in seasonal pools in the Uvas Creek channel, and may potentially disperse to the adjacent riparian woodland after the end of the rainy season. However, the remainder of the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for this species.
Western Pond Turtle. The western pond turtle is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the USFWS and CDFG, and is classified as a “protected” species by CDFG. Western pond turtles are aquatic turtles that live in ponds, marshes, rivers,
2-68 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. They need basking sites and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg laying.
The NDDB indicates that the western pond turtle is present in Reservoir Canyon Pond and along the Uvas Creek. Western pond turtle habitat is potentially present in pools adjacent to the Uvas Creek bed, and the riparian corridor provides a potential migration corridor for this species if it is present. However, the remainder of the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for this species.
Steelhead. Steelhead is listed as “Threatened” by the NMFS but is given no special status by the CDFG. Steelhead spend the first few years of their lives in fresh water before migrating to the ocean. They return to their spawning grounds as adults to breed. Steelhead are known to migrate and spawn in gravel areas in Uvas Creek and Bodfish Creek, which is located within the specific plan area but approximately 100 feet from any development. During the hot dry summer months, Bodfish Creek dries up and forces juvenile steelhead into Uvas Creek. The juvenile stage is the most sensitive time in the lifecycle of a steelhead. Water quality and temperature are the most important environmental factors for the successful development of a juvenile steelhead. A dense riparian canopy is the dominant factor that contributes to regulating water temperatures in streams. Dense canopies create cooler water temperatures, while open or no canopy causes increased water temperatures. Water quality is affected by land use practices along the entire reach of the stream system.
Loggerhead Shrike. Loggerhead shrike is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG and USFWS. Loggerhead shrikes occur in grasslands and agricultural areas with scattered trees and shrubs. Shrikes feed on insects, reptiles, small mammals, and birds. Nests are usually built in trees and shrubs; however, structures such as telephone poles, and abandoned buildings and machinery are also used. Trees and larger shrubs within the specific plan area contain potential nesting habitat for this species, and the specific plan area could potentially provide foraging habitat for this species.
Yellow-breasted Chat. Yellow-breasted chat is not listed by the USFWS, but it is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG. This species is an uncommon summer migrant that nests and forages in dense riparian habitats dominated by shrub species. The Uvas Creek riparian corridor provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for this species. However, the remainder of the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for this species.
Yellow Warbler. Yellow warbler is not listed by the USFWS, but it is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG. This species is a summer migrant that is found in riparian habitats consisting of cottonwoods, willows, alders, and other small trees and shrubs typical of riparian woodlands. The riparian corridor in the specific plan area provides potential nesting habitat for this species. However, the remainder of the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for this species.
Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl is designated as a “Species of Special Concern” by the USFWS and CDFG. Burrowing owls nest and winter in ground burrows typically
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-69
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
created by ground squirrels. Optimal habitat conditions include large, open grasslands or prairies with short to moderate vegetation height and cover, areas of bare ground, that have populations of burrowing mammals. However, burrowing owls can occupy sites that have been recently disturbed if burrowing mammals colonize the site. Burrowing owls have been known to nest in debris piles. Burrowing owls are generally active at dusk and dawn, but are also active at night, and are found perched outside of active burrows during the day. The California population consists of both residents and winter migrants and this species is presently experiencing a decline in numbers in the southern Santa Clara valley due to habitat loss.
No burrowing owls were observed in the specific plan area during the site investigation. The NDDB lists known occurrences of burrowing owls along the Pajaro River near the U.S. Highway 101/25 interchange (four miles southeast of Gilroy) and two occurrences just northwest of Gilroy near Day Road. The grassland habitat occupies a limited amount of the specific plan area (approximately seven percent of the total specific plan area). However, potential burrowing owl habitat could occur in the grassland habitat within the specific plan area if populations of ground squirrels are present. Ground squirrels are known to colonize disturbed sites fairly quickly.
Nesting Raptors/Active Raptor Nests. Nesting raptors and active raptor nests (i.e., nests in which raptors are breeding or raising young) are protected by the CDFG. Raptors, including golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, short-eared owl, and sharp-shinned hawk, could potentially maintain active nests in the riparian woodland habitats in the specific plan area during the breeding season.
HPSP Project Analysis
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes several policies designed to protect biological resources. The policies are as follows:
3.3 Open Space Land Use
Policy: Designate Uvas Creek as permanent open space and provide buffers along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor.
Policy: Minimize encroachments into Uvas Creek buffers by establishing development setbacks.
5.2.2.1 Open Space Access
2-70 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Policy: Access to the Uvas Creek channel and into the associated riparian corridor shall be limited to dirt paths and natural wildlife corridors.
Policy: Solid fencing and structures that restrict the movement of wildlife through the Uvas Creek corridor shall be prohibited. Open fencing is allowed when needed to prevent human intrusion into ecologically sensitive areas.
5.4 Natural Resource Protection
Policy: Impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitats that occur in the Specific Plan Area will be avoided whenever possible. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as necessary to reduce or eliminate impacts to special status species and their habitats.
Policy: Sensitive habitat areas should be designated as permanent open space to preserve the natural resources of the area.
Policy: 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: As a means of preserving wildlife corridors and habitat areas, development should be clustered on lands with less valuable habitat.
Policy: Developments should be designated in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts to native trees and habitats.
Policy: Promote environmental awareness and education for residents and visitors of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area.
5.4.1 Riparian Habitats
Policy: The Uvas Creek riparian corridor, and the associated riparian habitat, and the lands included in the setback areas shall be incorporated into existing Uvas Creek Park Preserve and offered for dedication to the City of Gilroy or a resource agency.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-71
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy: Any recreational improvements proposed adjacent to Uvas Creek and its associated riparian habitat should be done in consultation with the appropriate resources agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Santa Clara Valley Water District) to determine possible permitting requirements.
Policy: All proposed outfalls shall be designed to meet all state water quality standards and shall obtain permits from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction.
Policy: All improvements within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the top of bank or edge of riparian corridor (whichever is greater), subject to review and approval by the City of Gilroy and the California Department of Fish and Game. No development should be allowed in the buffer areas except for improvements associated with passive recreational uses such as pedestrian trails, picnic tables and benches, etc. To the greatest extent feasible, recreation improvements within the buffer area should be sited and designed to avoid direct and indirect impacts to the riparian habitat. Any encroachments will require mitigation.
Policy: Any loss of habitat within the Uvas Creek corridor resulting from development shall require the project proponent to retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Habitat Mitigation Plan to identify the exact amount and location of impacted and replacement habitat. Replacement vegetation shall be locally obtained native riparian species. Any loss of riparian woodland vegetation should be mitigated on-site, when possible, at a minimum of 3:1 replacement ratio, unless otherwise determined by the Department of Fish and Game and the City of Gilroy.
Policy: Discourage human intrusion into natural riparian habitat by limiting access into the riparian corridor and restricting trails to dirt paths and natural wildlife corridors.
Policy: Landscaping plans for any recreation improvements proposed in or adjacent to riparian habitat shall include lighting specifications that shall include at least the following elements:
• All lighting adjacent to riparian habitat along Uvas Creek will be directed away from the riparian habitat;
2-72 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
• No lighting will be installed in the riparian buffer area; and • No lighting will generally be allowed after 11:00 PM.
Policy: Prior to construction, proponents for any recreation improvements proposed in or adjacent to the Uvas Creek riparian corridor should 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.
Policy: Any recreation improvements proposed in or adjacent to the Uvas Creek riparian corridor should undergo additional environmental review to assess impacts of the proposed development on potential biological resources in these habitats.
Policy: Encourage Hecker Pass Property Owners and project developers to promote environmental preservation and restoration through the establishment of an environmental education center and trail along Uvas Creek that includes information centers or kiosks, trail monumentation, and informational signage.
Policy: For any recreational improvements proposed in or adjacent to the Uvas Creek riparian corridor, 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. The project proponent shall 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 shall salvage and relocate individual(s) to an appropriate area outside of the construction zone. If California red-legged frog, a federally threatened species, or California tiger salamander, a species proposed for federal listing as threatened, are observed at the site, construction activities shall be halted and the USFWS shall be contacted for further assistance.
Policy: 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 survey area, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-73
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
until nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting
Policy: Landscaping plans for any recreation improvements proposed in or adjacent to riparian habitat shall include appropriate guidelines to prevent contamination of Uvas Creek and its associated riparian habitat by pesticide, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers. Landscaping should include appropriate native plant species and should not include plantings of non-native, invasive plant species.
Policy: Future mitigation in the Uvas Creek Park Preserve should include revegetation with native plant species to enhance the appearance and improve the habitat value of the corridor. Revegetation plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Fish and Game.
Policy: The City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation Master Plan should be revised to include policies for the restoration and preservation of the segment of Uvas Creek within the Specific Plan Area. These policies may include eradication of non-native plants, re-vegetation with native plants, native plantings within existing riprap, and establishment of a mitigation bank site for mitigation of future Gilroy development.
Policy: The City in conjunction with the SCVWD should consider establishing future mitigation bank areas within the Specific Plan Area for other City project mitigations.
Policy: Encourage Hecker Pass Specific Plan property owners and project developers to promote the creation of an environmental education center and trail along the Uvas Creek Park Area, including an information center or kiosk, trail monumentation and informational signage.
Policy: Encourage Hecker Pass Specific Plan Property owners and project developers to promote the establishment of a steelhead trout fishery project for Uvas Creek.
5.4.2 Grasslands and Oak Woodlands
Policy: Prior to construction, proponents for any development proposed adjacent to oak woodland and grassland habitat should retain a qualified
2-74 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
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.
Policy: Any development proposed in or adjacent to oak woodland and grassland habitats should undergo additional environmental review to assess impacts of the proposed development on potential biological resources in these habitats.
Policy: Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted for development proposed in or adjacent to grasslands and fallow agricultural land that contains burrowing mammals, or show \signs of burrowing. If active nests are found within the survey area, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. The burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall contain mitigation measures contained in the California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game1995).
Policy: Pre-construction surveys for protected birds shall be conducted for improvements or development proposed in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat within oak woodlands 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 active nests are found within 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.
These policies address a number of key issues for protecting valuable biological resources and habitat and serve to substantially mitigate potential impacts on biological resources.
Special Status Species
Implementation of the HPSP would result in the conversion of approximately 131 acres or 31 percent of the specific plan area into developed uses. The HPSP would preserve approximately 146 acres in Open Space and 73 acres in active agricultural use. Most development would occur in locations south of Hecker Pass Highway that have already been highly disturbed by historical agricultural activities. While no special status plant species were observed or are likely to occur within the specific plan area, the likelihood of impacts is even further reduced given the disturbed nature of the areas proposed for development. Residential development north of the highway would occur in an area
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-75
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
that also has historically been disturbed through farming activities and grazing. Therefore, the same conclusion applies for proposed development in this area.
Special status animal species, if they do occur in the specific plan area, are most likely to occur within the Uvas Creek corridor. This is true for nine of the 11 species observed or likely to occur within the specific plan area. The HPSP would preserve the riparian habitat located along Uvas Creek. This would substantially reduce impacts on special status species that may potentially use this area as habitat. These species include California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, steehead, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler.
The HPSP would extend the Uvas Creek Trail into land at the margin of the Uvas Creek riparian habitat area. This area is designated for Recreational Open Space. Several special status species potentially occur along Uvas Creek and may be affected by construction of the Uvas Creek Trail. Additionally, future use of the Uvas Creek Trail may result in indirect impacts to special status species as a result of human intrusion.
Most of the oak woodland and grassland located north of Hecker Pass Highway would be preserved in open space. This area may be appropriate habitat for California tiger salamander (aestivation), burrowing owls, loggerhead shrike, and nesting raptors, although none were observed. A portion of the oak woodland and grassland area is designated for Hillside Residential uses, but the HPSP does not propose development within the area. However, clustered residential development is proposed within a portion of the oak woodland and grassland habitat. That development has the potential to adversely affect special status species habitat if it does occur in the area proposed for development.
The extension of the Uvas Creek Trail by the city may include efforts to eradicate non- native plants, including giant reed (Arundo donax), from the Uvas Creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and Audubon Society have been mapping and developing control plans for giant reed and other exotic species in the Uvas Creek. Preliminary discussions have indicated that efforts to remove non-native plants would begin in the upper most area of Uvas Creek and progress downstream. If the city decided to be included in the eradication program, they could apply for Weed Management Area funding to facilitate the program within the city limits. This program is not considered part of the proposed HPSP.
Consistency with the General Plan
The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies that protect biological resources. The Hecker Pass Specific Plan Biological Resources Assessment provided several policy recommendations and mitigation measures to ensure that the HPSP is consistent with the general plan policy directives and with mitigation measures for protecting biological resources. The policy directives and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the HPSP as policy measures. Therefore, the HPSP is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
2-76 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Church Project Analysis
Development of the Church project would result in the conversion of approximately 22 acres or 80 percent of the Church site into urban development. The Church project applicant would dedicate approximately five acres of the riparian habitat located along Uvas Creek as part of the Uvas Creek preserve. The dedication would preserve the riparian habitat for potentially occurring special status species, including California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler.
The Church project site does not contain any oak woodland or grassland habitat, and is not considered appropriate habitat for burrowing owls. However, appropriate habitat for nesting raptors and loggerhead shrike exists in the riparian area located adjacent to the proposed play fields. The play fields may include lighting that may illuminate the riparian area during evening hours.
Consistency with the HPSP
The HPSP includes several policies that were created to preserve the Uvas Creek and associated riparian habitat as well as other biological resources. The Church project does not conflict with any of the HPSP policies.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• 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;
• 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;
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-77
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
• conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (i.e., the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy); and/or
• conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.
HPSP Impacts
Impact on Special Status Species (Metcalf Canyon Jewel flower, Most Beautiful Jewelflower, Santa Clara Valley Dudleya, Big-scale Balsamroot) – Less than Significant Impact. These special status plant species are known to exist in the region, but have been determined to not occur in the specific plan area due to lack of appropriate habitat. Implementation of the HPSP is not expected to have an impact on these species.
Impact on Special Status Species (California Tiger Salamander, Western Spadefoot Toad, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, California Red-legged Frog, Western Pond Turtle, Steelhead, Yellow-breasted chat, and Yellow warbler potentially occurring in or along Uvas Creek) - Potentially Significant Impact. Breeding habitat for California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red- legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler is potentially present in and/or adjacent to Uvas Creek. The riparian corridor also provides a potential migration corridor for these species if they are present. The remainder of the specific plan area does not contain appropriate habitat for western spadefoot toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler.
There is potential aestivation habitat for the California tiger salamander in upland portions of the specific plan area located north of Hecker Pass Highway. The majority of the area is designated for open space uses. However, a portion of this area is designated for residential development. The direct impacts on California tiger salamander or its habitat from this development would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
The HPSP includes numerous policies to ensure the protection of special status species and the permanent preservation of Uvas Creek and the riparian corridor. Open Space Land Use Policy 3-5 is a provision to designate Uvas Creek as permanent open space and promote the use of buffers and setbacks along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-37 requires a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities that occur within 100 feet of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor. The monitoring would focus on 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. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-34 requires a qualified biologist to inform construction workers of potential presence of the special-status species prior to
2-78 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
construction. Natural Resource Protection Policy 5-22 designates sensitive habitat areas as permanent open space to preserve the natural resources of the area. Implementation of these policies would, with one possible exception, reduce potential impacts on special status species within the Uvas Creek riparian area to a less than significant level.
The policies listed above do not address potential impacts on aestivation habitat for the California tiger salamander. Residential development proposed north of Hecker Pass Highway could adversely affect aestivation habitat if it occurs in the area proposed for development. The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP as a policy. Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level:
5. A qualified biologist shall survey the grassland area located to the north of the Hecker Pass Highway planned for residential development for potential aestivation habitat. If the area is determined to be aestivation habitat for the California tiger salamander, the biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding mitigation and permit requirements that must be incorporated as conditions of project approval.
Impact on Special Status Species (Burrowing Owl) – Potentially Significant Impact. The specific plan area provides potential habitat for burrowing owls, although none were observed during the field investigation. Potential burrowing owl habitat is limited to approximately seven percent of the specific plan area, which occurs predominately in the area designated for Open Space located north of Hecker Pass Highway. A small portion of the potential habitat is also located in an area designated for Hillside Residential uses. The HPSP does not propose development within either area, though widening of Hecker Pass Highway through the Hillside Residential area and human disturbance within both areas could result from implementation of the HPSP. Should active burrowing owl nests occur on or immediately adjacent to the specific plan area, any construction or disturbance within or immediately adjacent to nest habitat, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The loss of active burrowing owl nests, if determined to be on site, would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
The HPSP Grasslands and Oak Woodlands Policy 5-47 requires burrowing owl pre- construction surveys for development that would occur in or adjacent to grasslands and fallow agricultural land. The policy also provides guidance to prepare a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan that includes protocol mitigation measures for the area if burrowing owls are determined to be present. Implementation of this policy would reduce potentially significant impacts on burrowing owls to a less than significant level.
Impact on Special Status Species (Loggerhead Shrike and Nesting Raptors) - Potentially Significant Impact. Trees located along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor or in the oak woodland area have the potential to provide nesting habitat for loggerhead
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-79
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
shrike and several protected nesting raptor species. No evidence of nesting activity was observed in the trees during site investigations. However, if active nest(s) of loggerhead shrike and/or raptors species should occur in the trees, any construction and site preparation activities, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The loss of individuals of these species or abandonment of their nests would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
The HPSP Grasslands and Oak Woodlands Policy 5-48 and Riparian Habitat Policy 5-38 requires pre-construction surveys for protected birds when development would occur in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat within oak woodlands if development is proposed during the nesting and/or breeding season of loggerhead shrike (generally February through June) or raptors (generally March through August. The policy also provides guidance to postpone or halt construction within 250 feet of any nest until nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Implementation of this policy would reduce potentially significant impacts on protected birds to a less than significant level.
Loss of Riparian Woodland and Oak Woodland Habitat – Potentially Significant Impact. The HPSP designates Uvas Creek and the riparian woodland area for open space uses. Impacts to the riparian woodland would be limited to extension of the Uvas Creek Trail along the riparian corridor and potential domestic disturbance. The Hillside Residential area is located within oak woodland habitat. Disturbance to the oak woodland or riparian habitat is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
The HPSP includes numerous policies that protect and preserve the riparian woodland located along the Uvas Creek. Additionally, the HPSP includes Grasslands and Oak Woodlands Policy 5-46, which requires additional environmental review for development projects that are proposed in or adjacent to oak woodland and grassland habitats to assess the impact to biological resources. Implementation of this policy would ensure that the impact to oak woodlands is reduced to a less than significant level.
Disturbance of Sensitive Riparian Habitat/Hydrologic Disturbance – Potentially Significant Impact. Any work within or along Uvas Creek would potentially disturb the sensitive riparian habitat and natural hydrologic processes. Additionally, any work in or along the Uvas Creek may require consultation with USACE, CDFG, or NMFS depending on the activity. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
The HPSP includes numerous policies that protect and preserve the Uvas Creek. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-27 is a provision to incorporate the Uvas Creek riparian corridor into existing Uvas Creek Park Preserve. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-28 requires consultation
2-80 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
with the appropriate resource agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Santa Clara Valley Water District) for any improvements located in or adjacent to the Uvas Creek. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-30 requires a 100-foot setback from the top of bank or edge of riparian corridor (whichever is greater), subject to review and approval by the City of Gilroy and the California Department of Fish and Game. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-31 requires a qualified biologist to prepare a Habitat Mitigation Plan to identify the exact amount and location of impacted and replacement habitat. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-36 through 5-39 includes provisions to establish an environmental education center and landscaping guidelines that prevent contamination of Uvas Creek by pesticide, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers. Implementation of these policies would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Interference with Wildlife Movement - Potentially Significant Impact. If any special status species occur in or along the Uvas Creek or oak woodland, nighttime lighting, and/or people and unleashed pets wandering into these areas could restrict the movement or activity of or disturb or kill one or more of these special status species. Injury or death of a special status species would be considered a significant environmental impact.
Mitigation Measures
The HPSP includes numerous policies that protect wildlife movement habitat. Natural Resource Protection Policy 5-23 promotes the preservation of wildlife corridors and connections to sensitive habitat to the greatest extent possible to permit the free movement of wildlife through open space areas. Open Space Access Policy 5-8 prohibits solid fencing and structures that restrict the movement of wildlife through the Uvas Creek corridor. Natural Resource Protection Policy 5-26, and Riparian Habitat Policies 5-33 and 5-43 are aimed as discouraging human intrusion and access into the riparian corridor, as well as promoting environmental awareness and education for residents and visitors of the area. Riparian Habitat Policy 5-33 requires landscaping plans for any recreation improvements proposed in or adjacent to riparian habitat to include lighting specifications that directs light away from the riparian habitat and buffer area, and prohibits lighting after 11:00 p.m. Implementation of these policies would reduce potentially significant impacts on protected wildlife movement to a less than significant level.
Conflict with Local Policies Protecting Open Space and Habitat Areas - Less than Significant Impact. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes policies and implementing actions designed to protect open space and habitat areas. Several HPSP policies identified in earlier discussions were designed to further the City of Gilroy General Plan’s intention of protecting open space and habitat. Implementation of the HPSP policies would ensure that the HPSP meets the intention of protecting open space and habitat.
Conflict with Local Policies Protecting Open Space and Habitat Areas (Significant Trees) - Potentially Significant Impact. The Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy defines native trees that are six inches or more in diameter to be significant trees.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-81
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Several trees are located along Uvas Creek, as well as the oak woodland habitat located along the northern portion of the specific plan area. In addition, several large trees are distributed throughout the specific plan area. Any native trees that are greater than six inches in diameter may be considered significant. Removal of these trees could represent a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
The HPSP includes several policies that would minimize adverse impacts to native trees. Natural Resource Protection Policy 5-25 is a provision to design projects in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts to native trees and habitats. Landscaping Policy 7-9 requires a certified arborist to prepare a written report that identifies the trees to be removed and the specifications for replacing trees. Landscaping Policy 7-10 requires a tree protection zone to be established and fenced prior to construction. Implementation of these policies will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans – No Impact. The specific plan area is not subject to an approved habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. No mitigation is required.
Church Project Impacts
Impact on Special Status Species (Metcalf Canyon Jewel flower, Most Beautiful Jewelflower, Santa Clara Valley Dudleya, Big-scale Balsamroot) – No Impact. These special status plant species are known to exist in the region, but have been determined to not occur on the Church project site due to lack of appropriate habitat. Implementation of the Church project would have no impact on these species.
Impact on Special Status Species (California Tiger Salamander, Western Spadefoot Toad, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, California Red-legged Frog, Western Pond Turtle, Steelhead, Yellow-breasted chat, and Yellow warbler potentially occurring in or along Uvas Creek) - Potentially Significant Impact. The Church project would dedicate approximately five acres (located in parcel 810-21-005, -004 only) of riparian corridor to the City of Gilroy. The Church project would not include work in Uvas Creek and riparian corridor, but would include work immediately adjacent to the creek. Breeding habitat for California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, foothill yellow- legged frog, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler is potentially present in and/or immediately adjacent to the Uvas Creek.
The Church project would be required to implement policies identified in the HPSP, which would ensure protection of special status species if they occur in the specific plan area. Implementation of those HPSP policies would reduce potential impacts on special status species to a less than significant level.
2-82 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Impact on Special Status Species (Burrowing Owl) - No Impact. The Church project does not contain potential habitat for burrowing owls. Implementation of the Church project would have no impact on this species.
Impact on Special Status Species (Loggerhead Shrike and Nesting Raptors) - Potentially Significant Impact. Trees located along Uvas Creek riparian corridor have the potential to provide nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike and several protected nesting raptor species. No evidence of nesting activity was observed in the trees during site investigations. However, if active nest(s) of loggerhead shrike and/or raptors species should occur in the trees, any construction and site preparation activities, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The loss of individuals of these species or abandonment of their nests would be a significant impact. A policy measure included in the HPSP requires pre-construction surveys for projects located adjacent to potential loggerhead shrike or nesting raptor habitat. Implementation of that policy would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Loss of Riparian Woodland and Oak Woodland Habitat – No Impact. The Church project would dedicate approximately five acres of the Uvas Creek and the riparian woodland area to the City of Gilroy. The Church project would not include work in Uvas Creek or the riparian corridor. The Church project would have no impact on the riparian woodland habitat.
Disturbance of Sensitive Riparian Habitat/Hydrologic Disturbance – No Impact. The Church project would not include work in Uvas Creek or the riparian corridor. The Church project would not disturb the Uvas Creek or the riparian corridor.
Interference with Wildlife Movement – Less Than Significant Impact. The Church project would be located adjacent to Uvas Creek, which is considered potential wildlife movement habitat. Nighttime lighting and/or people and unleashed pets wandering into these areas could restrict the movement or activity of or disturb or kill one or more of these special status species. A policy included in the HPSP restricts lighting or the design of lighting to mitigate transmission of glare off-site. In addition, the HPSP includes other policies that were created to mitigate the potential impact of injury or death to special status species from domestic animal and/or human encounters occurring along Uvas Creek and the riparian corridor. The Church project does not conflict with these policies. Implementation of the Church project would have a less than significant impact on these species.
Conflicts with HPSP Policies Protecting Open Space and Habitat Areas – No Impact. The HPSP includes policies designed to protect open space and habitat areas. The Church project does not conflict with these policies.
Conflict with Local Policies Protecting Open Space and Habitat Areas (Significant Trees) - No Impact. The Church project does not include the removal of significant trees. Implementation of the Church project would have no impact.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-83
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans – No Impact. The Church project is not subject to an approved habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. No mitigation is required.
2.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources including historic and subsurface archaeological resources have been determined to exist within the specific plan area. The following assessment of potential HPSP and/or Church project impacts on these resources is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002), the Preliminary Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Hecker Pass EIR, Gilroy, California (Archaeological Consulting, 1989), the Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Project in the County of Santa Clara for the City of Gilroy (Archaeological Resource Management 2003), the Historic Evaluation of the Structures at the South Valley Community Church Property on Hecker Pass Road in the County of Santa Clara for the City of Gilroy (Archaeological Resource Management 2003), and the Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Structures at the South Valley Community Church Property on Hecker Pass Road in the County of Santa Clara for the City of Gilroy (Archaeological Resource Management 2003). The latter two of these documents is included in Volume II – Technical Appendices for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. No comments regarding cultural resources were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Environmental Setting
Regional History
The first people to inhabit the San Francisco Bay area were the Ohlone (or Costanoan) Indians. The Ohlone inhabited the San Francisco Bay regions from the Golden Gate south to Monterey. The Ohlone were gatherers and hunters who utilized only the native flora and fauna with the exception of one domesticate, the dog. Yet, the abundance and high quality of natural resources allowed them to settle in semi-sedentary villages. These villages were widely distributed throughout the Santa Clara Valley, especially along water courses such as Uvas Creek, which runs through the southern portion of the specific plan area. The arrival of Europeans by the last quarter of the 18th century was the beginning of the end for the Native American period of history in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The first Europeans to settle in what was to become Santa Clara County were the Spanish, who established the Pueblo de San Jose in 1777 and Mission Santa Clara in 1779. The missions were largely self-sufficient, raising their own crops and cattle with Native American labor. The closest mission to the specific plan area is Mission San Juan Bautista.
2-84 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The Gilroy area was first called "Pleasant Valley." In 1814, John Cameron arrived in Monterey aboard the Isaac Todd. Deserting the ship there, he assumed his mother's maiden name and became John Gilroy, the first non-Hispanic settler in California. He was baptized in Carmel as Juan Bautista Maria Gilroy in 1817, and married Maria Clara de la Asuncion, whose father owned Rancho San Ysidro, in 1821. The Gilroy’s had seventeen children, nine of which survived to adulthood. John Gilroy became a naturalized Mexican citizen in 1833 and served as major over San Ysidro, now known as Old Gilroy. In 1865, the Gilroy Hot Springs were discovered, and became one of the leading health resorts on the West Coast. The City of Gilroy was officially incorporated in 1868.
Historical Resources
Two major historical complexes are located in the eastern and western portion of the specific plan area. The first is the Ousley house and associated structures located on the Hoey Ranch property in the northwestern portion of the specific plan area. The second is the Conrotto Winery and associated structures on the Church project site (1690 and 1750 Hecker Pass Road) in the eastern portion of the specific plan area. The structures located on the Church project site were evaluated as part of the environmental review for the HPSP and Church project. The Hoey family proposes to preserve the Ousley house and associated structures, and therefore, these structures were not evaluated in detail. They are already designated as a historic site by the city and are listed on the County Register. However, as discussed later in this section, the HPSP includes a policy that protects these structures against impacts of future development if the Hoey family or any future owner of the property on which the Ousley house sits were to propose development that could affect the structures. Any such proposal would be subject to discretionary approval by the city and require review through the CEQA process to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated consistent with HPSP policy and CEQA requirements. Figure 14, Historic Resources Map, illustrates the location of the historical resources located in the specific plan area.
The structures examined at 1690 Hecker Pass Road include an older vernacular house, a more recent Spanish Colonial Revival style home, a former winery, and associated structures. The structures evaluated at 1750 Hecker Pass Road include one ranch house, a cottage unit, and a bunkhouse/storage building. Each of these structures is described in detail below.
1690 Hecker Pass Road. The older home on the 1690 Hecker Pass Road property is a three bedroom vernacular home with Victorian elements. Please refer to the technical reports for photos and information about the structural architecture of the structures. This structure is in good condition, although significantly altered from its original state. The home was built circa 1890 in Gilroy, and moved to its current location in 1906. Although largely vernacular, some elements of the Queen Anne Victorian style are present. The home also appears to have been significantly remodeled circa the 1920's, including the addition of the porch and major interior changes.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-85
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
The second structure on the property at 1690 Hecker Pass Road is a Spanish Colonial Revival style home in good condition. This home was built by Anselmo Conrotto for his son Giachinto and his family just before World War II (Eugene Conrotto, pers. comm., 2003). A portion of the home was once used as a tasting room for the winery.
The winery complex, is composed of five structures which consist of the main winery building, separated into fermentation and storage rooms and a loading dock, a semi- enclosed press room, a tasting room, a small barn, and a storage shed. The design of the main Conrotto Winery building is considered significant. The winery was constructed into the side of a small hill, and the two rooms are separated onto different levels. The fermentation room is situated on the upper level, and the storage room is on the lower level. This arrangement allowed the fermented juice to flow down into the storage tanks by gravity, eliminating the need for costly pumping equipment.
Directly to the west of the main building is a small building that served as a press room. This structure still contains some of the equipment used by the Conrotto's in winemaking, including a wine press. Adjacent to this is a more recent building, which served in later years as a tasting room. One small barn and a shed are also present in the winery complex. These structures were used for storage.
A large oak tree is located adjacent to the Vernacular home. This element of landscaping, although indigenous and appearing to predate the establishment of the winery, is an integral part of the historic setting of the Conrotto complex.
1750 Hecker Pass Road. The home at 1750 Hecker Pass Road is a Ranch style house built circa the 1950's. To the west of the Ranch style house is a small cottage unit. Several hundred feet to the south of this cottage is a large agricultural building which serves the function of a bunkhouse and workshop, as well as being used for storage.
Local History
The founder of the Conrotto Winery was Anselmo Conrotto, who was born in 1890 in the small town of Coconato d'Asti, Italy. His family was farmers, and Anselmo grew up working on the family farm. In 1906, at the age of sixteen, Anselmo arrived in Gilroy, joining two of his brothers who had already immigrated to California. For several years, he was employed as a laborer on farms and orchards.
Anselmo returned to Italy to serve in the military, where he also married Rose Conti. Anselmo and his wife to returned to California in 1914 and again took on work laboring on farms. Eventually he purchased a small vineyard, partnering with a Mr. Bonfante. In 1924, Anselmo purchased the land within the Church project site. In 1926, while the United States was still under prohibition, the main winery building was constructed. This structure was originally used to store crops, as well as for some illegal distilling of wine and grappa.
2-86 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-88 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
In 1933, just prior to the repeal of prohibition, Anselmo purchased wine making equipment from San Francisco. That year, the 18th amendment was repealed, and by 1934, the Conrotto Winery was producing wine for commercial sale. Throughout the next sixty years, the Conrotto Winery continued to be operated by the Conrotto family. Many of the responsibilities of the winery were taken on by his son Chinto, who inherited the winery after the death of Anselmo. Chinto’s daughters, Jean and Jermaine, operated the winery after Chinto’s retirement.
Over the course of the of the operation of the winery, several varieties of wine were produced, both with grapes grown on the Conrotto's vineyard, and with other varieties purchased from other growers. In the early years, the winery produced only burgundy and sauterne, but under the management of Chinto's daughters, several other variety were made including chablis, chardonnay, white zinfandel, riesling, carignane, cabernet sauvignon, petite sirah, and zinfandel. After more than sixty years as a family run business, the Conrotto Winery was closed in 2001. The South Valley Community Church then purchased the property.
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources left by previous inhabitants generally occur at the confluence of streams, or other areas of similar topography along streams, or in the vicinity of springs. Artifacts commonly found include early ceramics, Native American cooking debris, and artifacts of stone, bone and shell.
Specific Plan Area. One archaeological site exists just outside the northeast boundary of the specific plan area and another exists near the northwest boundary of the specific plan area. Seven additional sites have been recorded within one-half mile radius of the specific plan area boundaries. The specific plan area is considered archeologically sensitive with a high potential for subsurface deposits.
A surface reconnaissance conducted by Archeological Resource Management has resulted in the discovery of a significant archeological resource site located in an area proposed for development located north of Hecker Pass Highway. The archaeological report further concluded that additional buried prehistoric cultural resources and/or subsurface historic cultural resources are potentially located within the specific plan area.
Church Project. The archival research revealed no reports of archaeological sites within the Church site. One site, also noted above for the specific plan area, was reported in the northeast portion of the specific plan area, to the north of the Church site across Hecker Pass Highway. Five sites are recorded within one-half mile of the Church site. Since the Church site is located at the eastern end of the specific plan area, the half-mile radius for this site encompasses a smaller area than does a half-mile radius around the entire specific plan area. Therefore, the number or recorded sites near the Church site differs from the number with one-half mile of the larger specific plan area.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-89
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
The specific locations of recorded archaeological resources has not been included in this document in order to ensure that their integrity is protected to the extent possible.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
National Register of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was first established in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (36 CFR 60), which establishes the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), standards for their staff and review boards, and describes the statewide survey and planning process for historic preservation. Within this regulation, guidelines are set forth concerning the NRHP (36 CFR 60.6). In addition, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletin 15 which define procedures for determination of eligibility, identification of historic properties, recovery, reporting, and protection procedures.
The NRHP was established to recognize resources associated with the accomplishments of all peoples who have contributed to the country's history and heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal and State agencies in nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrity and significance of the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in resources that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In addition, the quality of significance must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history;
b. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
c. Embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or
d. Yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
California Register of Historic Resources. Properties that are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
2-90 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values; and/or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally determined eligible for the NRHP. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as such through one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The CRHR interprets the integrity of a cultural resource based upon its physical authenticity.
A historic cultural resource must retain its historic character or appearance and thus be recognizable as a historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the subject's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be listed in the NRHP, yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing in the CRHR.
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies designed to preserve cultural resources. The policies are as follows:
Policy 5.01 Historic Preservation: Encourage public and private efforts for the preservation of historic and architecturally significant buildings, archaeological sites, and other landmarks that give residents a tie with the past.
Policy 5.07 Archeological Resources: If archeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented.
HPSP Project Analysis
HPSP Policies
The HPSP contains several policies that address historic resources, but none that address archaeological resources. The historic resource policies include:
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-91
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
5.6 Cultural Resources
Policy: Prior to approval of any future development plans on the property containing the potentially historical Ousley house and associated structures (currently owned by the Hoey family) that call for demolition of these structures, the applicant shall contract with a qualified historian to have the structures evaluated for their historical significance and shall implement mitigation measures recommended by the historian to mitigate any potential impact to the structures.
Policy: Prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the Church applicant shall prepare and submit a plan to the city to mitigate impacts to the Conrotto Winery and associated structures. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with a registered archeological historian and follow one of the following four options specified in the historical resources evaluation:
• Keep all or some of the structures of architectural and historic significance. The structures may have use changes in order to merge them with the proposed development;
• Move structures to a new location on Hecker Pass Road where they may be still viewed and appreciated. This relocating alternative may involve all or some of the structures depending on the feasibility;
• Construct new building and landscaping to merge some or all of the old structures with the new project architecture; or
• Design a display along Hecker Pass Road in front of the proposed project, or at a new location along Hecker Pass Road that would utilize structures, winery elements, and landscaping for a theme of Conrotto viniculture.
It should be noted that since the HPSP was prepared, it has been determined in consultation with the city that retaining, moving, or merging the historic resource is not feasible. Therefore, the first three bullet points in the proposed HPSP policy above are not considered feasible as mitigation options.
Policy: Any applicant proposing development on the property north of Hecker Pass Highway where the known archeological resource is located shall retain a qualified archaeological consultant to carry out an archeological testing program prior to approval of a development permit. The testing program will document the content, extent, and quality of the resource and include specific mitigation measures for protecting the
2-92 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
resource. The report shall be reviewed with the city and mitigation measures shall be implemented as required by the city. Mitigation options include: 1) planning construction to avoid the site; 2) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement; 3) capping or covering the site with a layer of soil before building on the site; or 4) planning parks, green space, or other open space to incorporate the site.
Historical Resources
The HPSP indicates that the Hoey family intends on preserving the potentially historic Ousley house and associated structures located on the Hoey Ranch. The policy noted above related to the Ousley house provides reasonable mitigation to ensure that the resources are protected in the event that the Hoey family or any future owner of the property were to propose any action that would result in a material change to the Ousley house or the associated structures or to the setting in which they occur.
Archeological Resources
Construction of future projects within the specific plan area would involve the use of heavy equipment for grading, trenching, excavations, and construction activities. It is possible that buried prehistoric or historic cultural resources would be discovered during these activities and that impacts to identified archaeological resources within the specific plan area could occur unless adequate protection and mitigation measures are implemented. This is especially true for known resources located north of Hecker Pass Highway.
Church Project Analysis
Historical Resources
The Conrotto Winery and associated structures on the Church project site (1690 and 1750 Hecker Pass Road) in the eastern portion of the specific plan area were evaluated by a qualified historian. The structures are not currently listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, the winery complex and the associated vernacular home appear to be eligible for inclusion in both the CRHR and the NRHP due to the significant contribution that the founder of the Conrotto winery, Anselmo Conrotto, and the Conrotto family, have made to the history of the Gilroy area.
Implementation of the Church project would require the demolition of the structures. According to CEQA section 15064.5:
A project that creates a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-93
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource could consist of physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
Unless these structures are retained in place or possibly preserved intact and relocated to a suitable within the specific plan area, a significant impact to these resources would occur, as they would no longer be potentially eligible for the NRHP and/or the CRHP. As noted earlier, the HPSP contains a policy consisting of four mitigation options for this impact. The first three have since been found to be infeasible by the applicant and the city. The fourth option, which is to design a display or other features on the Church site that preserve the Conrotto viniculture theme is considered feasible. It serves only as partial mitigation that would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Archeological Resources
The archival research revealed no archaeological sites located at the Church project site. Surface reconnaissance performed at the site by ARM noted one possible prehistoric cultural resource (fire cracked rock). The archaeological report notes that the fire cracked rock could have been associated with orchard burning in historic times, but that buried prehistoric cultural resources and/or subsurface historic cultural resources are potentially located on the Church project site.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5;
• cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5;
• directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; and/or
• disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
HPSP Impacts
Adverse Change/Loss of Historical Resources – Potentially Significant Impact: The specific plan area contains several potentially historic resources, including structures and landscaping, which could require demolition or relocation to accommodate development. Demolition of the historic resources associated with the Ousley house
2-94 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of the cultural resources policies included in the HPSP would reduce potential impacts on this resource to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are necessary for this specific resource. Potential impacts on the Conrotto Winery complex are discussed below.
Change in Significance of Archaeological Resources – Potentially Significant: The specific plan area is located in an archaeologically sensitive area. In addition, a potentially significant archeological resource has been identified in an area north of Hecker Pass Highway that is proposed for development. The likelihood of discovering subsurface significant archaeological resources during site preparation for infrastructure development or building construction in all locations within the specific plan area is high. Disturbance of prehistoric or historic cultural resources during development is considered a potentially significant impact. Damage or destruction to the potentially significant archeological resource site would be a significant adverse impact. The HPSP does not include policy language that specifically addresses cultural resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measures should be included in the HPSP as an implementation program:
6. All future development within the specific plan area shall implement the following conditions to minimize disturbance to potentially significant cultural resources. Each of the following shall be made a condition of approval for grading and Building Permits:
a. Developers of each project within the specific plan area shall contract with a qualified archaeologist to provide an archeological site assessment to determine the need for monitoring during grading and excavation activities.
b. If cultural resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted at a minimum of 165 feet (50 meters) from the find and the area shall be staked off. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is on site, shall be notified. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not on-site, the city shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.
Paleontological Resources – No Impact. The specific plan area is not known to contain paleontological resources. Implementation of the HPSP would have no impact on paleontological resources.
Disturbance to Human Remains – Potentially Significant Impact. The specific plan area is not known to contain human remains. However, implementation of the same
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-95
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
mitigation measure presented above would require construction to be halted if human remains are encountered during excavation activities. Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Church Project Impacts
Adverse Change/Loss of Historical Resources – Significant Unavoidable Impact: The Church project site contains historic resources that would require demolition or relocation to accommodate the development. Demolition of the historic resources would be considered a significant impact. HPSP policy 5-51 (as described in the preceding HPSP Policies section) includes four options for mitigation of impacts on cultural resources on the Church site. However, the first three mitigation options have been determined to be infeasible and the last option would not mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Nevertheless, policy 5-51 should be modified and retained in the HPSP as described in the following mitigation measure as a basis for partial mitigation of this impact. If the city approves the Church project, the city will be required to adopt findings of overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measure
7. The Church project applicant shall retain a theme of Conrotto viniculture within the new Church project. Options for designs include developing a display along Hecker Pass Highway, creating a Conrotto viniculture historic walk, and/or other approaches to be developed by the applicant. The design should utilize structures, winery artifacts, landscaping, and other elements. The design shall be subject to review and approval of the city prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Change in Significance of Archaeological Resources – Potentially Significant: The Church project site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area and significant subsurface resources may exist. Disturbance of prehistoric or historic cultural resources during development is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
8. The Church project applicant shall implement the following actions:
a. Contract with a qualified archaeologist to provide continuous monitoring during grading and excavation activities.
b. If cultural resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted at a minimum of 165 feet (50 meters) from the find and the area shall be staked off. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is on site, shall be notified. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not on-site, the city shall be notified immediately and a qualified
2-96 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
professional archaeologist shall be retained. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.
Paleontological Resources – No Impact: The Church project site is not known to contain paleontological resources. Implementation of the Church project would have no impact on paleontological resources.
Disturbance to Human Remains – Potentially Significant Impact: The Church project site is not known to contain human remains. Disturbance or damage of such remains would be a significant impact. Implementation of the mitigation measures presented above would reduce the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
2.6 Geology
Future development of the specific plan area, including the Church site, could be influenced by a number of geologic and soils related factors/risks including seismic shaking, stability of the Uvas Creek bank, landslide potential in the northern areas, ground failure, and soil erosion. To evaluate the extent of geologic and soils risks and identify feasible mitigation measures for related potential impacts, four soils and geotechnical studies have been conducted for the specific plan area by ENGEO Incorporated. These studies are included in Volume II – Technical Appendices for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. The technical appendices are available for review at the City of Gilroy Planning Division. Much of the information in this section is taken from those studies. Kleinfelder, geotechnical consultants, conducted a peer review of ENGEO’s studies for the city and found the conclusions to be valid. No NOP responses related to geologic issues were received.
Environmental Setting
Regional and Local Seismic Conditions
The specific plan area is located within the seismically active Santa Clara Valley. The Sargent, San Andreas, and Calaveras faults are the two most notable regional faults. They are located approximately 2.0, 4.5, and 6.0 miles, respectively from the site. Each of these faults is considered a major active fault and has produced earthquakes within the last 200 years. The maximum earthquake for the region can be expected from the San Andreas Fault.
Maximum earthquakes capable of occurring under existing known geologic conditions are 8.5 on the Richter scale for the San Andreas Fault, 7.5 for the Calaveras fault, and 7.0 for the Sargent fault. It is estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 8.5 on the San Andreas Fault has a recurrence interval of 100 to 1,000 years, although it is unknown when the last magnitude 8.5 earthquake occurred on this fault. Similarly, a lesser recurrence interval would exist for an earthquake of smaller magnitude. As for all sites
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-97
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
within the San Francisco Bay area, the likelihood of at least on moderate to strong earthquake occurring during the life span of development within the specific plan area is high.
The Loma Prieta earthquake, which occurred on October 17, 1989, measured 7.1 on the Richter scale, was centered approximately 18 miles northwest Gilroy. The earthquake caused moderate to severe damage to structures in the City of Gilroy.
Ground failure is a phenomenon associated with seismic shaking. Liquefaction is the temporary, but total loss of the sheer strength of soils because of pore pressure buildup under the shear stresses associated with earthquakes. It most commonly occurs when saturated cohensionless soils are subjected to seismic shaking. The flat portions of the project area are classified as having a moderate potential for liquefaction. However, there have been no historic reports of ground failures triggered by earthquakes in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, based on the test borings made by ENGEO across the site, the soils encountered did not generally exhibit characteristics that would indicate high susceptibility to liquefaction. In fact, ENGEO believes that liquefaction potential at the site is low.
Lurching and lateral spreading are two additional forms of ground failure. They occur in weaker soils on slopes and adjacent to open channels that are subjected to strong ground shaking during earthquakes. ENGEO concludes that based on the density and granular composition of soils near the Uvas Creek banks, the hazards of lurching and lateral spreading will be limited with very little potential for ground failure to extend a significant distance back from the top of the creek bank.
Local Landslide and Slope Stability Hazards
ENGEO has mapped geologic features within the specific plan area. Figure 15, Preliminary Geologic Map, illustrates a variety of geologic and soils information for the
site. North of Hecker Pass Highway, a multitude of landslide and slope failure areas have been mapped. Landslide features are quite extensive and the risk of instability of these areas is considered to be high. Risk of instability during earthquakes is considered to be moderate. At a minimum, landslide hazards represent engineering challenges to any type of development that would be proposed in these areas.
Uvas Creek Migration and Bank Erosion
ENGEO also examined, on a preliminary level, the potential for Uvas Creek to migrate and result in bank erosion that, over time could pose a threat to public safety and to planned improvements within the specific plan area. ENGEO has recommended that a 50-foot development setback from the top of the Uvas Creek bank be maintained to account for long-term erosion potential of the creek bank and to allow for bank maintenance. An independent study conducted by Engineering Hydrosystems determined that bank erosions hazards are similar to the findings made by ENGEO.
2-98 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-100 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Please refer to Section 2.8, Hydrology and Water Quality for a thorough discussion of this issue and for specific mitigation on development setbacks.
Soils Characteristics
There are four types of soil cover across the specific plan area as shown on the Preliminary Geologic Map:
• Fill materials located in the center, southern portion of the specific plan area are associated with a former quarry activity in that area. This area is bordered with dashed lines and labeled Qaf;
• Bedrock capped with a relatively thin layer of residual soil that appears to consist of dark brown silty clay is located in the sloped areas north of Hecker Pass Highway. These soils likely are of moderate to high plasticity;
• Areas of thicker soil cover are located in swales and valleys on the northern portion of the specific plan area are shown on the Preliminary Geologic Map as colluvium (Qc). These soils are predominantly dark brown silty clay that has moderate to high plasticity and high expansion potential. Colluvial deposits are typically relatively compressible under deeper fill loads and are susceptible to landsliding if undercut; and
• Three types of alluvium, unconsolidated stream deposits composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, are located in the specific plan area. These are shown as Qya, Qoa1 and Qoa2 on the Preliminary Geologic Map. Qoa1 and Qoa 2 represent older Pleistocene deposits while Qya represents younger Holocene deposits. The alluvium has been deposited over time by the meandering of Uvas Creek across most of the valley. The alluvial deposits are believed to range in depth from 60 to 80 feet.
Additional information on soil characteristics in the specific plan area is described in Section 2.2, Agriculture.
Soils can present development constraints or concerns due to their susceptibility to ground failure as described above, and due to their expansiveness and erosion potential. Expansive soils have the potential to damage foundations, paving, and other subsurface infrastructure due to their shrinking and swelling potential. Expansiveness generally increases with increasing clay content. Some of the surface soils are expected to be moderately expansive. Engineering techniques can be employed to minimize potential impacts from such soils.
The erosion potential of on-site soils was not specifically addressed in the geotechnical studies conducted for the specific plan area. Therefore, information on erosion potential is taken from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service Soils Survey for Eastern Santa Clara County. The survey indicates the presence of 12 different soils types across the specific plan area. With the exception of soils in areas to
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-101
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
the north of Hecker Pass Highway on slopes that range from about 10 percent to 75 percent, erosion potential for soils in the flatter portions of the site is considered to be slight to moderate. Erosion potential in the steeply sloped areas north of Hecker Pass Highway ranges from high to very high.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The following policies are applicable to geologic and geologic related hazards:
Policy 25.01 - Location of Future Development: Permit development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of residents can be adequately mitigated to an “acceptable level of risk” (see Policy 25.04). This applies to development in areas subject to flood damage or geological hazard due to their location and/or design. Development should be prohibited in areas where emergency services, including fire protection, cannot be provided.
Policy 25.03 - Development Review: Require appropriate studies as part of the development review process to assess potential hazards and assure that impacts are adequately mitigated.
Policy 25.11 - Slope Restrictions: Restrict development on steep slopes and on slopes susceptible to landslides and soil creep. Slopes of 10 to 30 percent may be suitable for low intensity, low-density development, subject to site-specific review and approval. Slopes greater than 30 percent, areas of high landslide risk, and areas with highly expansive soils on slopes greater than 10 percent are not suitable for development and will remain in open space.
HPSP Project Analysis
HPSP Policies
The HPSP contains several policies that address geologic issues and public safety issues related to geologic hazards:
5.3 Geology, Soils, and Grading
Policy: No development shall be permitted on slopes greater than 30% and should be avoided in areas of high landslide risk. Applicants for clustered residential projects located north of Hecker Pass Highway shall retain a
2-102 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
qualified geologist to verify site specific locations of high landslide risk if improvements are proposed within areas of high landslide risk as identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area, Gilroy California prepared by ENGEO Inc., September 17, 2001. Habitable structures and supporting infrastructure shall be sited consistent with the findings of the geologist.
Policy: All buildings shall be constructed in accordance with current seismic building codes and should be designed to resist minor earthquakes without damage, resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, and resist major earthquakes without collapse.
Policy: All development shall mitigate any geologic safety hazards that might be present on a development site to ensure public safety.
Policy: proposed within the specific plan area, 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 applicants shall be monitored by the city.
Policy: Setback all improvements a minimum of 100 feet from the Uvas Creek toe of bank for the portions of land between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the downstream end of the gravel pit and a minimum of 145 feet from the Uvas Creek toe of bank slope for the portions of land between the downstream end of the gravel pit and the upstream end of the Specific Plan Area.
Policy: Any improvements within the 100 and 145-foot setback other than minor trail and park improvements will require full mitigation recommended by the project geotechnical engineer and approved by the City of Gilroy City Engineer.
These policies address the major geologic and geologic hazard issues within the specific plan area.
Seismic Hazards
Based on historic records and on the known seismicity of the area, it is likely that the specific plan area will experience an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or greater within the next 50 years, as well as numerous smaller earthquakes, all generated within 20 miles of
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-103
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
the specific plan area. In the event of a strong earthquake centered along any of the nearby faults, ground shaking at the site will likely be moderate to high.
Residential and commercial buildings as well as a church/school would be constructed within the specific plan area. These habitable structures, as well as the infrastructure that supports them and other activities at the site, could experience significant damage and create a threat to human safety if adequate mitigations are not implemented to reduce this risk to an acceptable level. As a condition of building permits for any proposed development within the area, new development would be required to be built to the standards of the most current edition of the Uniform Building Code. Buildings built in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and current engineering standards should substantially resist damage from most earthquakes and minimize death or injury to occupants.
The specific plan area is located outside the State of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones and no indication of faulting at the site has been identified. The potential for fault rupture at the site appears to be very low.
Future development within the specific plan area is unlikely to experience damage from ground failure in the form of liquefaction as ENGEO has concluded that liquefaction potential is low. ENGEO concludes that ground failure from lurching or lateral spreading along the margins of Uvas Creek should not affect proposed development. This possible effect will be further avoided by the fact that development will be set back from the top of the Uvas Creek bank as discussed in detail in Section 2.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Landslide potential in the hillside areas is considered to be high. This hazard could pose a potential constraint to proposed development in the northwest corner of the specific plan area (Hoey Ranch property). Site-specific analysis of landslide hazard in this area may be necessary to further characterize the degree of hazard and identify appropriate mitigation solutions.
Soils Issues
Soils on the site 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. The low to moderate erosion potential of soils in areas proposed for development (outside the highly erosive soils on steep slopes located north of Hecker Pass Highway) can be adequately addressed by standard erosion control measures. However, the HPSP does not contain explicit policy language addressing the need for specific erosion control plans.
HPSP Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP contains a number of geology and soils related policies. The policies appear to be consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. The HPSP provides for setbacks from geologic hazard areas (banks of Uvas Creek) and requires that projects be
2-104 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
constructed consistent with the latest adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. Site-specific geotechnical evaluations have been conducted to assess the extent and degree of geologic hazards. Avoidance of areas of slope instability is addressed in HPSP policy as is the need to mitigate potential erosion impacts.
Church Project Analysis
Issues for the Church project are the same as noted above for the HPSP. Improvements made on the Church site will likely be subject to severe ground shaking. The remainder of the potential geologic hazards described above should not be a constraint to development of the project.
The Church project site plan illustrates that the proposed soccer and baseball fields are located adjacent to Uvas Creek and the extension of Third Street. Physical improvements appear to be located Uvas Creek setback.
State of California school site selection standards (for public schools) specify that schools must not be located on sites with moderate to high liquefaction potential or on sites on which an active earthquake fault is contained. Neither of these conditions is present at the Church site.
Church Project Consistency with the HPSP
The Church project will be conditioned to be consistent with the geology and soils related policies contained in the HPSP, which in turn, must be consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. The Church project is considered to be consistent with the HPSP. The Church project maintains setbacks from the Uvas Creek bank consistent with existing HPSP policies and with additional related policies defined in this EIR. Project improvements would be located well outside hazard setbacks established in these policies.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ◊ 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; ◊ strong seismic ground shaking; ◊ seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or ◊ landslides.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-105
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
• result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
• 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; or
• be located on an expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
HPSP Impacts
Exposure of People to Seismic Shaking – Less than Significant Impact: Future development at the site is likely to be affected by a major ground-shaking event. This hazard is common throughout California. 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. Additionally, as a standard condition of approval applied by the City of Gilroy, all structures must be built to the standards of the latest version of the Uniform Building Code, and to current engineering standards. These standards are designed to minimize damage to structures and potential threats to human safety from seismic shaking events. No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
The HPSP policies listed above reinforce the requirement that buildings be constructed in accordance with current seismic building codes. No further mitigation is required.
Exposure of People to Ground Failure Hazards– Less than Significant Impact: Potential hazards from liquefaction, lateral spreading, and/or lurching are considered to be less than significant. Implementation of the HPSP policies noted above regarding setbacks and mitigation of geologic hazards would ensure that this potential effect is mitigated. The HPSP is consistent with the above noted City of Gilroy General Plan polices. No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Exposure of People to Landslide Hazard – Potentially Significant Impact: Development proposed north of Hecker Pass Highway could, if improperly sited, be subject to hazards from unstable landslide areas. Projects proposed in this area should be evaluated on a site-specific basis to assess potential instability hazards.
The HPSP policy regarding mitigation of hazards from landslide potential will mitigate potential impacts from this hazard to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Soil Erosion – Potentially Significant Impact. Soils within the specific plan area are not considered to be highly erodable. Nevertheless, build out of the specific plan area, including the Church site, would result in significant exposure of soils to the erosive effects of rain and storm water runoff as a result of grading and other site preparation activities. The proximity of the specific plan area to a sensitive biological habitat and to
2-106 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Uvas Creek makes soil erosion and the subsequent potential deposition of sediment within these sensitive areas a potentially significant impact.
The HPSP includes policy language requiring new development to prepare an erosion control plan consistent with city standards. Implementation of the policy for all new development within the specific plan area would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Church Impacts
Impacts and their level of significance for the Church project will be similar to those noted above for future developments within the specific plan area. Implementation of policies contained in the HPSP will mitigate Church specific impacts to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required.
2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The potential for impacts related to the use or storage of hazardous materials requires a brief review of the past, existing, or future land uses within the specific plan area and their potential to have involved, or to involve, such materials. Fire hazard is also of significant concern in the project area. Responses to the NOP did not raise issues associated with hazards and hazardous materials.
Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials
Commercial agricultural activities have taken place within the specific plan area over time. These activities have included commercial crop and vineyard production, commercial nursery uses, as well as Goldsmith Seed’s flower seed production, research, and development facility. These types of commercial agricultural activities can involve the use of hazardous materials including pesticides, fertilizers and others. Furthermore, storage of fuel for agricultural equipment is often associated with such uses.
Through a cursory visual reconnaissance of properties within the area, EMC Planning Group Inc. did not identify potential use or storage of hazardous materials. However, the reconnaissance is not considered sufficient evidence for concluding that such materials are not currently being stored or used or were not stored or used in the past.
Pursuant to CEQA section 65962.5, the California Environmental Protection Agency is required to develop a list of the locations of hazardous materials release sites in the state. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has developed such a list for this purpose. Only one site in Gilroy is included in the list and it is not located within or adjacent to the specific plan area. The list can be accessed on-line at www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-107
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Hazards other than potential hazardous materials contamination that occur within the specific plan area include seismic ground shaking, Uvas Creek bank erosion and landslides. These hazards are discussed in section 2.6, Geology and Soils. Flooding is also a potential hazard. It is discussed in section 2.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. The site is within a high fire hazard area. This issue is discussed below and impacts on fire services are discussed in section 2.12, Public Services.
Fire Hazards
The degree of fire hazard within the specific plan area varies. The hillside areas north of Hecker Pass Highway are considered a very high fire hazard area in the City of Gilroy General Plan and areas south of the highway are considered to be within a high fire hazard area by the Gilroy Fire Department. The southern portion of the area, with the exception of the Uvas Creek riparian zone, has minimal vegetative cover and has been utilized for agricultural production in the past. Fuel loading in this area is relatively low compared to the northern hillsides and the risk of fire is lower. Figure 16, Very High Fire Hazard Areas, delineates the portions of the specific plan area that are located within a very high fire hazard area.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The following policies are applicable to development within the specific plan area:
Policy 27.04 Potential Hazardous Soils Conditions: Evaluate new development on sites that may have involved the use of hazardous materials to ensure there is no public health danger prior to granting development approvals.
Policy 18.07 Access for Emergency Vehicles: Ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles and equipment, providing a second means of ingress and egress in all development.
Policy 25.12 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone: Restrict development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (or “Mutual Threat Zone”) as designated by the South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District and illustrated in Figure 16.
Policy 25.13 Fire Prevention and Hazard Reduction: Ensure that new and existing construction complies with applicable State and local codes, ordinances and regulations regarding fire and life safety.
2-108 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-110 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Policy 25.14 Roofing Requirements: Require “Class A” roofs on all new construction or re-roofing in the area west of Santa Teresa Boulevard, south of Mantelli Drive, and west of Rancho Hills Drive. In all other areas, “Class C” roofs shall be required for new construction and re- roofing.
Policy 25.16 Hillside Areas: Require developments in hillside areas to comply with the fire hazard policies of the Hillside Development Guidelines and the criteria set forth on the “Plan Checklist for Hillside Construction” of the Gilroy Fire Department.
HPSP Project Analysis
HPSP Policies
The HPSP does not contain policies that address hazardous materials issues. The HPSP contains approximately 19 policies that specifically address actions needed to reduce fire hazards. Twelve of the policies apply to development within the hillside area north of Hecker Pass Highway. Other policies address reduction of fire hazard within open space and agricultural areas and management of landscaping.
Policies regarding fire hazards are as follows:
5.7.1 Fire Protection
Policy: All new development within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area shall be subject to the most current fire department policies and regulations in place at the time of development.
Policy: Future development and agricultural areas or open space areas adjacent to development shall maintain a 60-foot fire hazard reduction zone between buildings and open areas. This hazard reduction zone shall consist of 30 feet of fuel transition area. The irrigated landscape area may consist of private yard and other landscaped areas. The fuel transition area may consist of irrigated crops, agricultural maintenance roads, roadways, agricultural buffers or may simply consist of land that has brush removed, trees pruned, and grass kept moved no greater than 4 inches high from march through November.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-111
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy: Homes with deep lots and against hillside or open areas shall have a 60-foot fore hazard reduction zone. The first 30 feet from the building pad shall consist of an irrigated landscape area. The remaining 30 feet shall have brush removed, trees pruned and grass kept mowed no greater than 4” high from March through November or may contain irrigated crops. Open fields should be plowed or disked when not in active agricultural use.
Policy: Open Space not part of a home parcel shall be maintained so that there is a 30-foot irrigated strip of fire resistive landscaping surrounding any building. An additional 30-foot strip shall have brush removed, trees pruned and grass kept mowed no greater than 4” high from March through November.
Policy: All new landscaping shall be approved fire resistive plants as required by the City’s Consolidated Landscaping Policy and applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code (UFC app. 11-a). All landscaping within 30 feet of a building shall be irrigated. Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Deputy Fire Marshall for approval prior to building final.
Policy: Maintain all open space areas to reduce the risk of fire in the Hecker Pass Area, including disking fallow agricultural lands.
Policy: Prior to combustible construction, native bushes and weeks shall be cleared a minimum of 30 feet from the structure/pad. All small branched on trees shall be pruned to a height of 6 feet to remove “ladder fuels.”
Policy: All hillside construction shall be required to meet the City of Gilroy Hillside Development Guidelines including all policies related to fire protection.
Policy: Homes shall be constructed with Class ‘A’ Roof systems.
Policy: Fire sprinkler conforming to NFPA 13D are required in hillside homes including the garage and crawl spaces greater than 50 square feet with 5 feet of clearance. Hillside homes shall be monitored by local alarm.
2-112 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Policy: Attic vents shall be screened with meshed material suitable for high hazard areas.
Policy: All chimneys in hillside homes shall be equipped with spark arresters and must be located a minimum of 10 feet from trees.
Policy: Decks shall have the underside protected by “on-hour-rated” construction or fire sprinkler coverage.
Policy: Building pads shall be within 150 feet of a fire access road.
Policy: Roadways and shared driveways shall provide a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed travel. Roadways less than City Standard shall be posted for no parking re striping. Signage and striping shall be maintained in good condition.
Policy: Roadways and shared driveways shall provide a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed travel. Roads shall not exceed 15% grade. Driveways with greater than 15 % grade shall be provided with Fire Engine turnout.
Policy: Gates shall be the same width as the roadway and if locked, shall be provided with KNOX key access.
Policy: Address numbers must be provided on a 4-inch square post, 36 inches tall if address numbers on homes are not clearly visible from the street. The post can include a mailbox or can stand alone. All numerals shall be minimum of 2-1/2 inches in height with a 3/8 inch stroke and must read from left to right or top to bottom. (UFC 10.301)
Policy: Fire hydrants must be installed in locations determined necessary by the Fire Department and must have a static pressure of at least 43 psi. Fire hydrant flows must also meet the Fire Department requirements of 2000 gpm @ 20 psi residual. (UFC app. III-A)
Hazards from Future Use, Storage, or Transport of Hazardous Materials
The proposed HPSP land use plan would not likely facilitate new development with a significant potential to use or release hazardous materials to the environment. Much of
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-113
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
development potential will be in the form of residential uses, which are not inherently hazardous material use or storage intensive. Agri-tourism commercial activities and community facilities (the Church project) are also unlikely to be a source of significant concern.
Exposure to Potential Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination
To the extent that existing or historical commercial agricultural uses used or stored hazardous materials, the HPSP may have a beneficial effect. The HPSP enables continued agricultural activity on about 73 acres, a significantly smaller area than has historically been used for agricultural production. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.2, Agriculture, use of chemicals, fertilizers, etc. as part of future agricultural use will have to be compatible with the proposed adjacent residential and commercial uses. This may limit the range of chemical or fertilizers used to those that are less hazardous to health or the environment.
Based on current DTSC information, future residents within the specific plan area would not be exposed to contamination from known contaminated sites pursuant to Government Code 65962.5, so this potential impact is considered less than significant.
It is currently unknown whether past activities within the specific plan area have resulted in the release of hazardous materials. Given the past agricultural uses, further analysis of this possibility is prudent, especially given that residential and school development would occur. The City of Gilroy General Plan and the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR identify the potential for soil contamination in localized areas including near agricultural operations. City of Gilroy General Plan policy 27.04 noted above is designed to mitigate potential impacts on new development from this hazard.
Fire Hazards
The HPSP includes 60 acres that are designated as Hillside Residential located north of Hecker Pass Highway. This area, as well as much of the remainder of the site is within a high fire hazard area. As noted above, the HPSP contains twenty policies designed to minimize fire hazards. The policies deal primarily with the establishment of fuel hazard reduction zones around all structures, selection of fire resistive plants in landscaping, selection of building materials, the provision for adequate emergency service access, and water supply infrastructure. In addition, these policies require all development to conform to the most current City of Gilroy Fire Department standards adopted at the time of development. The City of Gilroy Fire Department has submitted comments on the project that further articulate specific development implementation parameters and requirements, including the need to provide fire sprinkler systems and class A roof materials in all structures, provision of secondary access to all cluster areas, and contribution of funds for construction of a new fire station in the project vicinity. These issues will be addressed at the time specific projects are proposed.
2-114 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP does not provide information or direction on issues related to hazardous materials in an area where exposure is a possibility. A mitigation included in this section requires the addition of a policy to the HPSP that if implemented, would bring the HPSP into consistency with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Church Project Analysis
The same conclusions made for the HPSP regarding hazardous materials also apply to the Church project. Its historical use for agricultural production and commercial activities (Conrotto Winery) could have entailed the on-site use of chemicals or pesticides that could result in exposure of the public or school age children to such substances.
Consistency with the HPSP
As the HPSP does not contain policy or direction on hazardous materials, consistency of the Church project with the HPSP cannot be assessed. The mitigation measure included below would ensure that the Church project applicant addresses hazardous materials issues consistent with the HPSP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
• 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;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• 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; or
• Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-115
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
HPSP Impacts
Exposure of Future Residents, the Public, and Users of Community Facilities to Hazardous Materials – Potentially Significant Impact: The extent to which future residents of the site, visitors to commercial uses, and/or Church project visitors and school children would be exposed to hazardous materials from historical use of the specific plan area for agricultural use cannot be adequately assessed without further evaluation. Analysis is needed to identify if the hazard exists and to ensure that hazards, if they do exist, are adequately mitigated prior to development. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which includes specific performance measures, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP as an implementation program:
9. Prior to development of any property within the specific plan area, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance with ASTM Standard(s) to identify whether past or existing uses of the project property may have adversely affected soil or groundwater, or would otherwise pose a health hazard during site development or habitation. If the Phase I assessment finds that past uses may have contaminated the site, a Phase 2 Site Assessment shall be prepared. If contamination is present, clean up and disposal of such contamination shall be in compliance with federal, state and local regulations governing the cleanup and disposal of hazardous waste. Results of the Phase 1 and, if needed, the Phase 2 assessment and cleanup shall be presented to and approved by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Exposure of Future People or Structures to Significant Risk from Wildland Fires – Less than Significant Impact. The specific plan area is located in a high fire hazard area. The HPSP includes a goal of “protecting existing and future development within the Hecker Pass Area from fire hazards.” Implementation of the HPSP 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 reduce the fire hazards in the specific plan area to a less than significant level.
Church Project Impacts
Potential hazardous materials impacts on the proposed Church project and fire hazards will be the same as described above for development within the specific plan area in general. Implementation of the mitigation measure above, conformance with HPSP policies, and implementation of project-specific conditions required by the City of Gilroy Fire Department will ensure that these hazards are adequately addressed and the potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
2-116 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Storm drainage management and retention and hydrological hazards related to Uvas Creek (creek bank erosion and flooding) are key development issues within the specific plan area. Technical studies have been prepared for both. RJA Associates, the applicant’s consultant, completed a preliminary hydraulics study for the project, which was peer reviewed by Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers, who made additional recommendations in its report, Hydrology and Drainage for Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Program EIR. This latter document is included in Volume II – Technical Appendices for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. ENGEO Inc., Geotechnical Consultants, prepared a Creek Bank Movement and Erosion Assessment for Uvas Creek. Engineering & Hydrosystems Inc. prepared an independent technical report entitled No-Build Setback Determination, Uvas Creek, Gilroy for utilization in this EIR. The purpose was to identify past and future creek bank erosion potential so that development setbacks from the top of bank could be established. Engineering & Hydrosystems Inc.s report is included in Volume II – Technical Appendix for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR.
Environmental Setting
Surface Water Runoff/Water Quality
The specific plan area is located within the Uvas Creek watershed and contains Uvas Creek along its southern and western boundary. Under existing conditions, relatively small amounts of storm water flow from areas north of the specific plan area into the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway, across Hecker Pass Highway, and across the remainder of the specific plan area to Uvas Creek with the exception of some storm drain culverts at road crossings. Existing storm drainage is via unimproved depressions and swales, some of which lead to existing outfalls that discharge into Uvas Creek. There is no specific improved storm drainage collection or disposal system currently in place.
Historical/current activities within the specific plan area have likely been a cause of water quality degradation in Uvas Creek from non-point (non-location specific) sources. Much of the specific plan area south of Hecker Pass Highway has been used for agricultural purposes over time. During periods when soils are exposed due to tilling or other practices, rainfall and surface runoff have likely been a source of sediment that eventually has drained via overland flow into the creek. Agricultural activities have also likely been a source of pesticides or fertilizers that have been carried in surface runoff to Uvas Creek.
Urban pollutants such as grease, oils, particulates and other materials are also a prime source of surface water contamination. Development within the specific plan area is of rural character and intensity. There are few large areas of impervious surface or significant sources of grease and oils such as vehicles. Consequently, the volume of
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-117
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
urban pollutants generated from within the specific plan area and delivered to the creek is not likely to have been substantial.
The volume of surface water runoff generated from within the specific plan area is minimal relative to developed urban conditions. Much of the area remains covered with pervious surfaces (soil, agricultural crops, etc.). Much of the rainfall that falls on these surfaces is likely to percolate into the soil rather than run off of it, though the percolation/runoff dynamic is dependent on a number of variables ranging from rainfall intensity to soil type to cultivation practices.
Groundwater
The HPSP states that there are approximately five active, one abandoned, and one inactive agricultural wells located within the specific plan area. All wells now in use support agriculture related activities. They currently produce about 1,550 gallons of water per minute. The HPSP projects current total daily agricultural water use at about 174 acre-feet per year (afy). This demand is generated by agricultural uses on 83.5 acres of irrigated soil and 50 acres of container trees located on the Bonfante and Giacalone properties. This translates to an existing water demand of about 1,165 gallons of water per acre per day.
Flood Hazard
Uvas Creek forms the western and southern boundary of the specific plan area. Uvas Creek is part of the 90 square mile Uvas-Carnadero Creek drainage basin, which includes the major tributaries of Little Uvas Creek, Little Arthur Creek and Bodfish Creek. Uvas Dam, constructed in 1957 on Little Uvas Creek, is approximately eight miles upstream of the specific plan area.
A portion of the specific plan area is within a 100-year flood zone as defined by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its 1973 Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area. A 100-year flood or “one-percent flood” is defined as a flood that has a one percent chance of occurring each year, or once on average in 100 years. Areas subject to this level of flooding are classified by FEMA as Zone A. Zone A is illustrated in the Consolidated Hazards/Setbacks Map in Section 2.6 Geology and Soils. The flood hazard elevation varies from a maximum of about 242 feet near Hecker Pass Highway at the west end of the specific plan area to about 215 feet near Santa Teresa Boulevard at the east end of the area. Typically, development within Zone A cannot proceed unless the finished floor elevation of structures is one foot or more about the 100-year year flood elevation. Development within a flood hazard zone must also be evaluated for its potential to affect downstream flooding by reducing the flood carrying capacity of the floodplain.
Uvas Creek Bank Erosion
Erosion of the banks of Uvas Creek from flooding or the meandering of the creek over time is of concern within the specific plan area. A review of historical creek bank
2-118 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
erosion is provided in the in the two separate technical studies described earlier that were conducted after the preliminary HPSP was released. The purpose of the studies was to evaluate historical creek bank erosion as a basis for projecting the potential future extent of creek bank erosion that can be expected to occur over the life of development within the specific plan area. On this basis, a no-build setback from the creek banks could be established within which construction of new infrastructure and/or habitable structures would be prohibited.
Both studies investigated a variety of variables that, taken together, provide an indication of historical creek bank erosion. These variables included historic meander behavior as seen in aerial photographs taken over time; soil types and their relative resistance to erosion; presence of creek flow moderators (i.e. vegetation); creek flow velocity, flow depth, effective flow width and energy; and land use activities, especially the former gravel mining operation that took place within the specific plan area.
Field observations indicated that under current conditions, little erosion of the creeks banks is taking place. Active erosion was observed at two relatively small locations along the creek. The presence of extensive, well-established vegetation within the creek and its margins has generally served to reduce bank erosion within the specific plan area. Historical erosion of the banks was more significant prior to the cessation of the gravel extraction activity that occurred within the specific plan area. That activity stopped over 30 years ago. Since that time, erosion of the creek bank and channel in areas affected by the mining activity has stabilized.
Uvas Creek Dam Inundation
Uvas Creek Dam is located approximately eight miles upstream of the specific plan area. The earthen dam was construct in 1957. It was constructed by and is currently operated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The dam has a storage capacity of about 10,000 acre-feet of water, has a crest elevation of about 500 feet, and has been used to form the Uvas Reservoir, which is about 280 acres in area.
In the 1980s, the State Office of Emergency Services required that dam inundation maps be prepared for all dams in the state. The purpose of the maps is to provide information to local emergency service agencies that allows them to plan for a response in the event of a dam failure.
With the exception of the hillsides to the north of Hecker Pass Highway, all of the specific plan area is located within the Uvas Dam inundation area. In an absolute worst- case scenario, a flood wave could reach the westernmost portion of the specific plan area within about 10 minutes of the failure and would have passed through the site within about 17 minutes. The depth of the flood wave would be variable across the area. The intensity of any failure event is not expected to approach the worst-case scenario. The worst-case assumes that the dam is completely full and that failure occurs instantly. In reality, were the dam to be damaged and lose water, the failure would be gradual, with the lead-time for warning downstream residents and emergency management authorities in the City significantly longer than the 10 to 17 minutes noted above.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-119
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Though precise failure probabilities of dam failure have not been calculated, the probability is considered extremely remote. The SCVWD is mandated by the State to inspect and report on the condition of the dam on an annual basis, and in reality, the SCVWD inspects the dam and all others in its jurisdiction, on a much more frequent basis. The SCVWD has not experienced a failure of any of its facilities to date (Dick Volpe, pers. com., May 28, 2003).
Policy/Regulatory Issues
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Water quality degradation is regulated by the Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, which was established by the Clean Water Act. The NPDES controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point discharges. In California, the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) administers the NPDES Program. The Central Coast RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits for discharges to water bodies in the portion of Santa Clara County that drains to the Monterey Bay.
Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a notice of intent to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activities. The applicant must propose control measures that are consistent with the State NPDES General Construction Permit and consistent with recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB.
The State NPDES General Construction Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that uses storm water “Best Management Practices” to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from the site both during and after construction. The SWPPP has two major objectives: (1) to help identify the sources of sediments and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges; and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of practices to reduce sediment and other pollutants in storm water discharges.
Santa Clara Valley Water District Jurisdiction – Uvas Creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has discretionary review authority over projects proposed within 50 feet of any watercourse within the District’s jurisdiction, including Uvas Creek, pursuant to its Ordinance 82-3 requirements. The ordinance addresses issues that include: defining limits of flood control responsibility; providing for maintenance of watercourses; joint use of projects and dedications; prohibiting pollution of district water supplies, injury to district projects, as well as encroachment upon or interference with watercourses. The ordinance requires a project review and permitting process to minimize impacts to watercourses resulting from development or community activities. Applicants that plan projects within 50-feet of a creek or waterway, or within 50-feet of district property or a district easement, must first obtain a permit from the SCVWD’s Community Projects Review Unit. SCVWD is currently considering expanding their review and permitting jurisdiction.
2-120 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The following policies are applicable to development within the specific plan area:
Policy 25.01 - Location of Future Development: Permit development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of residents can be adequately mitigated to an “acceptable level of risk” (see Policy 25.04). This applies to development in areas subject to flood damage or geological hazard due to their location and/or design. Development should be prohibited in areas where emergency services, including fire protection, cannot be provided.
Policy 25.01 - Development Restrictions in Flood Areas: Restrict urban development and expansion in areas prone to flooding (as indicated on the Flood Hazards Map) or on properties where drainage problems or saturated soils conditions create flood hazards. Allow development in such areas only if measures are enacted to reduce these hazards to an acceptable level.
Policy 25.01 - Flood Control Costs and Impacts: Minimize the long-term costs of flood control improvements and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Also ensure that measures to reduce flood damage to individual properties do not increase erosion and/or flood hazards on other properties.
Policy 25.01 - Green Areas and Permeable Surfaces for Runoff Reduction and Absorption: Require new development to include green areas for reducing runoff and increasing runoff absorption capacities. Similarly, encourage the removal of pavement that does not directly serve traffic parking needs; maintain unpaved parkways between sidewalks and streets; encourage the use of permeable paving materials; and require the use of landscaped strips and islands to break-up large paved areas.
HPSP Project Analysis
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes a number of policies that may serve as mitigation for the storm drainage and hydrology impacts of future development. Relevant policies are as follows:
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-121
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
8.2 Storm Drainage
Policy: Stormwater detention shall be designed to prevent an increase in the 10-year and 100-year peak discharge for the project area.
Policy: Ensure that all storm drain flows entering Uvas Creek from the Specific Plan Area coincide with the current City of Gilroy Storm Drain Master Plan and the Uvas Creek Drainage standards.
Policy: Whenever feasible, developments should use impervious materials to decrease the amount of storm water runoff and increase infiltration for groundwater recharge.
Policy: Preserve water quality by implementing the latest Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm drainage into the design and construction of the Specific Plan Area and detention facilities.
Policy: Whenever feasible, developments should use impervious materials to decrease the amount of storm water runoff and increase infiltration for groundwater recharge.
Policy: All rural roads and driveways shall utilize vegetated swales for infiltration and biologic uptake of pollutants whenever possible. Concrete gutters for roads and driveways are only permitted on rural roads when necessary and within residential clusters.
Policy: Incorporate vegetated swales around parking areas to provide pretreatment of storm water runoff before entering the storm drain system.
Policy: Rooftops should be designed to drain as much rainwater as possible into areas with permeable surfaces. This may be achieved by providing downspouts that direct water to appropriate areas.
Policy: Limit the destruction of existing habitats caused by flow changes, channel erosion, and channel improvements.
2-122 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
All storm drainage related improvements proposed within individual developments within the specific plan area would be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Modifications to the policies proposed in HPSP may be made by the city during the development review process.
Storm Water Runoff/Water Quality
Development of the specific plan area has the potential to affect water quality it two primary ways – through an increase in soil erosion that carries sediment to surface water bodies and through the conveyance of urban pollutants to surface water bodies. Both short-term and long-term sources of non-point water pollution are possible.
Short-Term Water Quality Effects. Development of the specific plan area could be a major source of sediment if drainage, grading, and re-vegetation are not well planned and controlled. The sediment that is dislodged by rainfall or surface drainage flow and washed into surface waters from construction sites is regarded as the greatest single pollutant from non-point sources. Influx of sediment into a water body is a natural process; however human activities tend to accelerate sedimentation processes. Impacts of sedimentation include reduction in water clarity and water quality, reduced light transmission, and thus, reduced growth of aquatic vegetation, clogging of fish gills, and reduction in spawning area and aquatic habitat. The most common factors influencing topsoil erosion include rainfall characteristics, soil properties, slope factors, land-cover conditions, and conservation practices. Soils within the project area have an erosion hazard rating of slight in the level areas south of Hecker Pass Highway to high within the hillside areas.
Long-Term Water Quality Effects. According to the HPSP, under build out conditions, approximately 28 percent of the specific plan area, including the Church site, would be developed with urban uses. Approximately 73 percent of the site would remain in open space or open areas as defined in the HPSP. However, open areas within agricultural commercial agri-tourist commercial and public facility uses as defined in the HPSP can include parking areas and other ancillary uses. Relative to existing conditions, build out of the specific plan area, including the Church site, would create a greater area of impervious surfaces and would introduce a higher volume of urban pollutants to the site. HPSP design guidelines for parking areas do encourage the use of pervious materials. If such materials are actually utilized, runoff volumes and pollutant concentrations could be incrementally reduced.
Urban pollutants include coliform bacteria, sediment, organic chemicals, nutrients and pesticides from landscaping and athletic fields, and fuel constituents, heavy metals, oil and grease from automobiles, roads and parking areas. These contaminants could be transported to the drainage system, polluting Uvas Creek and other downstream surface water systems. The potential for contamination exists during both the construction and operation of the proposed uses within the specific plan area.
Use of agricultural related pesticides and fertilizers will likely be reduced under build out conditions. Relative to existing conditions, the volume of use is likely to decline since
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-123
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
less of specific plan area would be used for active agriculture and the HPSP’s Integrated Agricultural Management Plan restricts these uses. Currently, about 83.5 acres are used for irrigated agriculture and 50 acres for growing container trees. The HPSP proposes to retain about 73 acres of active agricultural land.
Non-point source pollution including urban and agricultural pollutants can have a major impact on public health by contaminating drinking water supplies. It may flow directly into surface water or slowly infiltrate into the ground, emerging later into streams, lakes, and coastal waters. It can also restrict harvesting from commercial shellfish beds, limit recreational uses of surface waters, and adversely affect other natural resources (e.g. wildlife and habitats). The types of contamination found in non-point source pollution are widely varied and difficult to predict without some prior knowledge of the land uses in the area under study.
Proposed Surface Drainage Management and Water Quality
The HPSP includes a conceptual plan for collecting and treating surface water runoff. Implementation of the system and recommendations for storm water retention, would serve to help filter pollutants from storm water before it is discharged to Uvas Creek.
According to the HPSP, the proposed storm water collection system for the specific plan area, including the Church site, will primarily consist of natural grass lined drainage ways and vegetated drainage swales that would be located within the right-of-way of proposed streets. Natural drainage ways north of Hecker Pass Highway would be preserved to the extent possible. These will flow into the swales located south of the highway. Once the capacity of the swales is reached, additional storm water will flow into inlets that connect to an underground storm drainage piping system.
The HPSP also states that all storm water runoff will be maintained at the predevelopment condition for the 10-year storm event by providing detention facilities. These detention facilities would be designed to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution. The Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report concludes that approximately three storm water detention facilities are within the specific plan area. One is identified on the Hoey Ranch site north of the highway, one on the Church property, and one near the top of the bank of Uvas Creek in the eastern portion of the plan area.
Storm water would ultimately be discharged to Uvas Creek. Three discharge points are proposed. Two of the discharge points would correspond to an existing outfall and an existing weir outfall that are located on the bank of Uvas Creek. A third outfall is proposed to drain the detention pond to be located near the bank of Uvas Creek. It is likely that the existing outfalls will need to be upgraded while the third will need to be constructed. More information on the storm drainage system is provided in Section 2.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Concerns related to locating outfalls within the Uvas Creek habitat area are described in Section 2.4, Biological Resources.
2-124 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The Hydrology and Drainage for Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Program EIR study provides options for storm water management. Schaff & Wheeler utilized storm drainage and flood control management criteria of the SCVWD and the city to identify storm water detention/retention and storm water quality issues. Schaaf & Wheeler identified two alternative approaches to ensuring that storm drainage from the site meets the criteria. The first is construction of an on-line storm water detention facility. Storm water would be delivered directly to a detention pond, with discharge to Uvas Creek metered so that the existing 10-year and 100-year design storm runoff volumes from the site would not be exceeded under post-project conditions. A detention facility of this type would be fairly large as it must be sized to handle the difference between pre-project storm water runoff volume and post-project volumes, which is estimated to be about 22 acre feet. The second approach is to design an off-line retention facility. In this scenario, only the discharge volume that exceeds the pre-project storm water runoff volume is diverted to a detention basin. In this scenario, Schaaf & Wheeler estimate that a detention basin of 3.0 acre-feet in volume would be needed – much smaller than in the on-line approach.
Consistent with the preliminary storm drainage plan proposed by RJA Associates, Schaff & Wheeler notes that more than one detention basin may be used to meet detention and runoff criteria requirements as long as the combined volume is adequate and site-specific variables are assessed.
As noted previously, RJA Associates proposes the use of grass lined drainage swales as a mechanism for treating the water quality of storm water before discharge into Uvas Creek. Schaaf & Wheeler note that storm water detention ponds can also provide increased benefits for improving the quality of water released from the site. One method is to design detention ponds so that the first flows from developed areas, which contain the bulk of pollutants, are directed to the basin to allow some residence time to settle out sediment and pollutants. Preliminary ideas on design approaches are provided. Schaaf & Wheeler state that based on accepted best management practices about 3.25 additional acre-feet of basin storage (in addition to the 3.0 acre-feet noted previously) would be needed to treat storm water by this method. This approach typically captures 85 percent of the pollutants that enter the pond. Additional best management approaches for water quality control including source control, construction practices, storm drainage system inlet filters, street sweeping, and oil/water separators are described as additional potential actions to improve storm water runoff quality. Schaff & Wheeler feel that if other best management practices, including the grass swale approach, are incorporated into the project, that adding additional pond volume for water quality improvement may not be necessary, thus eliminating the need for an additional 3.25 acre-feet of storage.
Groundwater
Implementation of the HPSP and Church projects is anticipated to increase overall demand on groundwater resources. Groundwater is the source of all domestic water supply in the city that will be used to supply the proposed residential, commercial, and community facilities uses. Acreage currently in agricultural use will decline. Some savings in this source of existing demand may be realized, though existing on-site wells will continue to be utilized for agricultural uses that will be retained. Used of recycled
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-125
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
water is also planned. Based on a water supply assessment conducted for the project, the city has stated that adequate water supply is available to serve new development within the specific plan area. Therefore, significant adverse impacts on groundwater resources are not anticipated.
A full discussion of water supply and demand is included in Water subsection of Section 2.14, Utilities and Service Systems.
Flood Hazard
The HPSP does not specifically address flood hazard potential since no development is proposed in the flood zone and therefore, does not include policies related to it. Flood hazard potential will be indirectly mitigated by proposed setbacks from Uvas Creek. The HPSP includes policy that requires development to be set back a minimum of 100 to 140 feet from toe of the Uvas Creek bank as mitigation for potential creek erosion impacts and for potential impacts on sensitive habitat within the Uvas Creek corridor. As illustrated in Figure 17, Consolidated Hazards/Setback Map, the 100-year flood elevation does not extend outside the limits of this setback. The setback should ensure that proposed improvements, including the extension of Third Street, would not impede the flow of floodwaters or impede the flood carrying capacity of Uvas Creek.
Uvas Creek Bank Erosion
On the basis of the technical studies discussed earlier, ENGEO Inc. and Engineering & Hydrosystems Inc. came to similar conclusions about the potential long-term hazards from erosion of the Uvas Creek bank. There is consensus that a setback from the creek is necessary to mitigate long-term threat to improvements and public safety from this hazard. The setback distance is 145 feet from the toe of the Uvas Creek bank upstream of the southern boundary of the former quarry site and 100 feet from the toe of the bank in the area downstream of the southern extent of the former quarry site. The setback is illustrated in the Consolidated Hazards/Setback Map.
No project improvements, other than recreational amenities such as the Levee Trail and ancillary improvements, may be permitted within the setback area without mitigation. Minor encroachments of Third Street roadway improvements, such as those that will occur south of the Church property and those that may occur south of the Goldsmith property due to existing physical constraints, are permitted but require mitigation per the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer for hazards related to creek bank erosion and instability are subject to review by the City of Gilroy and possibly other resources agencies.
Uvas Dam Inundation
In the event of that the Uvas Dam was to fail, a significant public safety hazard would exist for residents and development located south of Hecker Pass Highway. However, given the intensive inspection and reporting regime required by the State and by the
2-126 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-128 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
SCVWD, the likelihood of a dam failure event is considered extremely small, making potential exposure of residents or improvement to this hazard equally small.
HPSP Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP contain does not contain policies related to avoidance of flood hazards. It does contain a number of policies that address management of surface water runoff to promote improved water quality through appropriate storm water management techniques and site planning strategies. Taken together with the new policies proposed as a mitigation measures later in this section, the HPSP should be consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Church Project Analysis
Surface Water Runoff/Water Quality
The Church project has the same potential to generate short-term and long-term surface water quality impacts as is described above for the HPSP. It will result in significant exposure of soils to the erosive effects of rainfall and surface water runoff during the site preparation and construction phase. It includes extensive impervious cover, the majority of which is comprised of the proposed parking areas and buildings. As a result, surface water runoff from the site will increase under post-project conditions and carry urban pollutants from parking areas and other impervious surfaces. The project applicant has estimated pre-project storm drainage runoff from the site at 5.67 cubic feet per second. Under post-project conditions, runoff volume is expected to increase to 12.96 cubic feet per second.
The project is expected to introduce urban pollutants into storm water runoff. Storm water runoff from 10-year intensity storms would presumably be directed to a series of grass swales, catch basins, and pipes, then on to the storm water detention pond proposed for location on the Church site. Filtering of some of the pollutants will take place within the pond before storm water is discharged to Uvas Creek, consistent with the storm water management approach in the HPSP.
Flood Hazard
As stated previously, the plans for the Church project place playfields adjacent to Uvas Creek. No significant structural improvements or habitable structures are proposed within the defined 100-year flood hazard boundary.
Uvas Creek Bank Erosion
With the exception of minor encroachments of the Third Street extension roadway improvements, no significant structural improvements are located within the setback from the toe of the Uvas Creek bank, which at the Church site is 100 feet. These minor
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-129
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
encroachments were necessary due to existing physical constraints and will be mitigated per the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer.
Uvas Dam Inundation
As with the dam failure hazard for the specific plan area in general, the likelihood of a dam failure event is considered extremely small, making potential exposure of the public and improvements at the Church site to potential safety hazards highly unlikely.
Church Project Consistency with the HPSP
Since the HPSP does not include flood hazard policy, Church project consistency with mitigation for this hazard cannot be assessed. However, the 100-year flood elevation does not extend beyond the 100-foot setback from the toe of the Uvas Creek bank. Therefore, the Church project would be consistent with any policy that required habitable development to be located outside the 100-year flood elevation. The Church project will be conditioned to ensure its consistency with the hydrology policies added to the HPSP per the mitigation measures described below.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:
• Violate any water-quality discharge standards or waste-discharge requirements;
• 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;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site;
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
2-130 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
• 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;
• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows;
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure or a levee or dam; and/or
• Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
HPSP Impacts
Substantially Deplete Groundwater Resources – Less than Significant Impact. Based on information contained in the HPSP, about 174 afy of groundwater is pumped from existing wells within the specific plan area for agricultural use. Implementation of the HPSP would result in a decrease of groundwater extraction because the area to be retained for agricultural use would decline.
The HPSP estimates that about 95.3 afy of groundwater would be demanded with implementation of the HPSP. The total project water demand as well as sources of water to meet that demand are described in Section 2.14, Utilities and Service Systems. The city has conducted a water supply assessment for the HPSP and has concluded that it will have adequate supply available to meet projected HPSP demand. The city’s water supply is derived from groundwater. Therefore, the increased demand from the project is not anticipated to have significant impacts on groundwater resources.
Erosion of Uvas Creek Banks From Storm Water Runoff/Increased Bank Instability for Third Street Extension – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed extension of Third Street would result in two minor encroachments into the Uvas Creek setback defined in the HPSP. The roadway improvement could, if not properly designed, result in storm water runoff being conveyed over the creek bank and require grading/excavation or other actions that could facilitate instability of the bank margins. The HPSP include a policy that requires that any improvements, including the encroachments of Third Street, that extend into the setback from Uvas Creek to be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and mitigations implemented as required. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Increase in Storm Water Runoff/Adequacy of Storm Drainage Facilities – Less than Significant Impact. Build out of the specific plan area will raise the volume of storm water runoff generated from the specific plan area under certain storm conditions. Additional runoff can result in an increase in the volume of sediment eroded from the specific plan area. The HPSP includes preliminary plans for a storm water management system designed to accommodate changes in runoff volumes, to retain the incremental increase in runoff during a 10-year storm on site, and to filter runoff to reduce its pollutant load before discharge to Uvas Creek. This is considered a less than significant
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-131
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
impact with the implementation of development consistent with the policies. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Short Term Storm Water Runoff Water Quality Effects – Potentially Significant Impact. Build out of the specific plan area, including the Church site, would require a significant amount of grading for site preparation and construction activities. The HPSP includes policy that requires project applicants to prepare an erosion control plan consistent with the city’s erosion control ordinance (or other code ordinances as deemed applicable by the city). Implementation of this policy would, in combination with the implementation of water quality BMPs, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. No further mitigation measures are necessary.
Long Term Water Storm Water Runoff Quality Effects – Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed development could introduce contaminants associated with urban runoff into the local groundwater and surface water. Construction activities have the potential to result in erosion of soil from wind or water, including washing of mud from the site into areas of sensitive habitat. This is a potentially significant environmental impact. The HPSP includes policies for the design of storm water collection and treatment that, if strictly implemented, should reduce the level of impact to less than significant. The HPSP also includes policy requiring compliance regulatory requirements of the NPDES. Implementation of the policies and conditions of approval for new projects ensure that long term potential surface water quality impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. No further mitigation measures are necessary.
Exposure of People or Structures to Flood Hazard – Potentially Significant Impact. The Uvas Creek setback of 100 to 145 feet from toe of bank should be sufficient to prevent construction of significant improvements within the flood hazard zone. However, the HPSP does not contain policy language that recognizes the need to prevent damage to or impacts from improvements that may be constructed within a flood hazard zone. The following mitigation measure should be added as policy to the HPSP for this purpose.
Mitigation Measure
10. Any development (i.e. public recreational facilities) with foundations or support on the ground that is located within 50 feet (or the distance in effect at the time of application) of the Uvas Creek top of bank shall conform to requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Exposure of People and Structures to Uvas Creek Bank Erosion Hazards – Less than Significant Impact. The HPSP clearly defines the bank erosion hazard in the specific plan area and includes policy that requires new development to be located outside the composite Uvas Creek setback, which is largely based on bank erosion potential. This policy will ensure that hazards from this potential impact are reduced to a less than significant level. No further mitigations are necessary.
2-132 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Exposure of People and Structures to Hazards from Uvas Dam Failure – Less than Significant Impact. Though the southern portion of the specific plan area is located within the flood inundation area for the Uvas Creek Dam, the likelihood of a failure of the dam is considered to be extremely small. State regulations and practices of the SCVWD ensure that the dam is inspected and maintained to the extent that a concern about the structural integrity of the dam is addressed far in advance of a potential failure. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Church Impacts
The Church project is subject to the same hazards and has the same potential to create hydrology and water quality impacts discussed for other future development within the specific plan area. It does not involve unique impacts or impacts of greater severity than assumed for other future projects to be constructed within the specific plan area. However, the intensity of development at the Church site may result in a greater volume of grading and potential surface water quality impacts over the construction and operational phases of the project. The Church project will be conditioned to be consistent with HPSP policies, and those polices, including new policies noted above, should reduce potential hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. No further mitigation measures are necessary.
2.9 Land Use
This section includes a basic evaluation of the HPSP proposed use of land relative to the direction given in the City of Gilroy General Plan, reviews the consistency of the HPSP with local and regional plans, and discusses the potential for implementation of the HPSP to affect existing housing and communities in the project area.
Existing Policy/Regulatory Issues
Background
As described in Section 1.4, Consistency with Local and Regional Plans, the City of Gilroy General Plan describes the Hecker Pass area as the “Jewel of Gilroy”, owing to its unique rural and scenic qualities. The City of Gilroy General Plan Land Use Map designates the Hecker Pass area as the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The purpose of this designation is to facilitate more detailed planning of the area through the preparation of a specific plan whose policies and guidelines implement a number of goals that are listed in Section 1.4. The HPSP is designed to provide more detailed planning for development within the Hecker Pass Special Use District.
Land use designation, zoning district and use control, residential density, agri-tourism development, circulation, development control and design standards, and implementation guidance for development of the specific plan area are given in the City
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-133
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
of Gilroy General Plan. The HPSP utilizes this guidance in an effort to meet the city’s overall goals for the area.
Residential Land Use in the Specific Plan Area
Residential Density and Dwelling Unit Numbers. The Hecker Pass Land Use Diagram from the City of Gilroy General Plan shown in Figure 18, Hecker Pass Land Use Diagram, illustrates conceptual land uses that are “considered to be in keeping” with the goals of the Hecker Pass Special Use District. Low Density Residential uses are clustered in two areas south of Hecker Pass Highway. The text indicates that the Hoey Ranch site on the north side of Hecker Pass Highway could also be a site for clustered residential development. The suggested target residential density for the area is defined as 0.4 units per acre, with a maximum of about 112 units permitted within the entire specific plan area.
The HPSP applicant’s proposed general plan amendment requests that the Hecker Pass Land Use Diagram be replaced with the Specific Plan Land Use Map shown in Figure 6.
Residential Development Clustering. Numerous references to the purpose of clustering residential development are made in the City of Gilroy General Plan for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. Examples include:
Residential development is clustered into the southern part of the area in order to retain large areas of agricultural lands and open spaces along the northern part of the area, adjacent to Hecker Pass Highway.
The proposed distribution of land uses calls for the clustering of residential development in the southern part of the areas designated as the Hecker Pass Special Use District, and in some of the designated areas north of Highway 152. The remainder of the site is kept in agricultural uses, with some agri-tourism development allowed to capitalize on the area’s tourism potential.
In addition to setback requirements, site design guidelines should promote clustered development; maximize open space preservation; ensure protection of viewsheds, natural features, and habitat areas, including Uvas Creek; and keep development away from hazards such as floodways, seismic hazards (i.e. fault zones and areas of potential liquefaction), and steep hillsides. The siting and design of clustered developments will be critical to achieving the Plan’s goals – ensuring that cluster densities and designs preserve the semi-rural character, including the preservation of agricultural properties that are large enough to support ongoing agricultural operations.
2-134 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-136 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The City of Gilroy General Plan clearly intends that future residential development be concentrated in a limited number of areas in order to achieve overall planning goals for the specific plan area.
Consistency with Local and Regional Plans
The consistency of the HPSP with local and regional plans is discussed in Section 1.4 of this document. The plans evaluated include the City of Gilroy General Plan, Bay Area Air Quality Management Plan, Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program, and the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance. Please refer back to this section for a consistency review.
HPSP Project Analysis
Residential Dwelling Unit Numbers and Residential Clustering
Residential Density and Dwelling Unit Numbers. The proposed HPSP would enable development of up to 530 new dwelling units at an average density of about 1.4 units per acre. This number substantially exceeds the total number of dwelling units envisioned in the City of Gilroy General Plan for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The city has already awarded a total allocation of 427 dwelling units to property owners within the specific plan area through its RDO allocation process. The HPSP applicant is requesting a general plan amendment that would modify language in the City of Gilroy General Plan to allow up to 530 units to be constructed. Provided the amendment is approved, the HPSP would be consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Residential Development Clustering. The HPSP substantially meets the residential clustering intent described in the City of Gilroy General Plan. It clusters residential development in the three locations discussed in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The total area of the residential clusters is larger than described and illustrated in the City of Gilroy General Plan because the HPSP proposes substantially more dwelling units. Nevertheless, the HPSP Land Use Plan Map substantially achieves the goals of the City of Gilroy General Plan through its conservation of natural open space and the Uvas Creek corridor, designation of larger areas of agricultural land for commercial agricultural use, maintenance of visual quality and views over the site, and overall, significant preservation of the rural agricultural character of the area – clustering of residential development enables achievement of several of these goals.
The HPSP provides building setbacks from Hecker Pass Highway, retains active agriculture as a visual buffer to residential development clusters, and provides a range of land use and design controls that should ensure that visual quality within Hecker Pass Highway corridor is maintained. Therefore, implementation of the HPSP should not impede the designation of Hecker Pass Highway as a scenic highway – also a goal of the City of Gilroy General Plan for development within the Hecker Pass Special Use District.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-137
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Consistency with Local and Regional Plans
The general plan amendment and the HPSP projects conflict with the existing total unit numbers for the specific plan area intended by the City of Gilroy General Plan. This issue would be resolved if the proposed general plan amendment is approved.
The general plan amendment and HPSP would permit a substantial increase in population relative to that enabled in the City of Gilroy General Plan for the specific plan area. The City of Gilroy General Plan is already inconsistent with the CAP. Approval of the general plan amendment and HPSP would exacerbate the degree to which the city’s population exceeds projections made in the CAP, leading to a larger incremental increase in generation of air emissions than anticipated and planned for in the CAP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:
• Physically divide an established community;
• 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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and
• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
HPSP Impacts
Physically Divide an Established Community – Less than Significant Impact: The specific plan area is located within the westernmost city limits of Gilroy. Land to the west of the site is within unincorporated Santa Clara County and largely undeveloped or developed at rural density. Existing urban density uses are located to the east of the site. Implementation of the HPSP would result in a logical transition from urban uses to the east to rural land uses to the west of the site. No mitigation measures are necessary.
HPSP Inconsistency with the City of Gilroy General Plan Target Dwelling Unit Number for the Hecker Pass Special Use District – Significant Impact: The HPSP is inconsistent with target number of dwelling units described in the City of Gilroy General Plan for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. However, the HPSP applicant has submitted a general plan amendment request that would modify the City of Gilroy General Plan to enable up to 530 dwelling units. Only 427 dwelling units have already been allocated to the Specific Plan Area through the RDO process. Eighteen of the units proposed in the Lone Oak area of the Specific Plan are eligible for small project exemptions and 85 of the units still need to obtain RDO allocations.
2-138 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Approval of the general plan amendment and the HPSP would result in more substantial air quality, agriculture, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, utilities, and transportation impacts than would otherwise occur if the if the City of Gilroy General Plan target dwelling number of 112 units were maintained.
This EIR evaluates the impacts of implementing the HPSP assuming that up to 530 dwelling units could be constructed. With the exception of effects described in Section 3.3, Significant Unavoidable Impacts, implementation of HPSP policies and mitigation measures included in this EIR would reduce potentially significant impacts of the projects to a less than significant level. No other mitigation measures other than those described in other sections of this EIR are required.
Conflict with Conservation Plans – No Impact. There are no habitat or community conservation plans that apply to the specific plan area.
Church Impacts
The City of Gilroy General Plan goals for residential unit numbers and residential clustering are not applicable to the Church project. Effects related to division of an established community and to conflict with conservation plans are the same as that noted for the HPSP.
2.10 Mineral Resources
The State Mining and Geology Board identifies the location and character of mineral resources throughout the state. The purpose is to plan for and promote access to such resources. The Department of Conservation Mines and Geology in its publication Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Monterey Bay Production- Consumption Region, 2000, includes maps and descriptions of these resources, including those found within the specific plan area. The information in this section is drawn largely from this publication.
Environmental Setting
The entire segment of Uvas Creek and the adjoining margins of the creek located within the specific plan area are designated as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-2. This zone also extends along the segment of Uvas Creek south of Santa Teresa Boulevard and to the segment of the creek located north of Hecker Pass Highway. The zone defines areas where “adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.” The resources are considered to be of statewide importance. The types of mineral resources identified in Uvas Creek are aggregate resources (sand and gravel, typically used to make concrete). The total amount identified within the Uvas Creek MRZ-2 zone is approximately 23 million tons. Resources of sand and gravel throughout all areas designated MRZ-2 in the Monterey Bay region are about 387 million tons.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-139
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Gravel extraction activities did take place within the specific plan area in the past. The Preliminary Geologic Map in Section 2.6, Geology and Soils identifies the location of the former quarry pit. Quarrying activities ceased over 30 years ago. All that remains of the activity is the pit and a group of waste mounds that range up to 15 feet in height. This operation also had an influence on the location and rate of erosion of the Uvas Creek banks through the extraction and deposition of materials within the Uvas Creek corridor. This issue is discussed in Section 2.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies
The following policy is applicable to mineral resource management:
Policy 23.06 – Mineral Resources: Conserve the mineral resources along Uvas Creek that have been designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as having statewide or regional significance. Protect these resource areas from urban encroachment and premature development that may be incompatible with mining. Undeveloped lands that may be recognized in the future as possessing mineral resources of statewide or regional significance shall also be examined to determine the feasibility of conserving those lands for future mineral extraction.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
The HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment request includes deleting most of the existing text of Policy 23.06. It would be replaced with new language that notes the City of Gilroy General Plan’s dominant goal and policy theme for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The goals emphasize maintaining the rural agricultural character of the specific plan area, protecting natural resources – especially agricultural lands and Uvas Creek and its riparian habitat, and protecting visual quality within the Hecker Pass Highway corridor. The amendment request includes the following related language to replace existing text in Policy 23.06:
…The importance of these other goals outweighs any value of extracting sand and gravel from Uvas Creek in the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The City shall implement the necessary measures to terminate the state’s designation.
Please refer to Appendix B, General Plan Amendment Request, for specific changes proposed by the HPSP applicant to the City of Gilroy General Plan regarding mineral resources.
2-140 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
HPSP and Church Project Analysis
Effects of the Proposed General Plan Amendment
As noted previously, sand and gravel resources along Uvas Creek are estimated to total about 23 million tons. If it is assumed that the portion of the MRZ-2 zone located within the specific plan area is about one-third of the total resource located along Uvas Creek, the proposed general plan amendment would result in the declassification of about eight million tons of resource being available for extraction. This represents about two percent of the total designated sand and gravel resources within the Monterey Bay region.
It should be noted that existing City of Gilroy General Plan policy 23.06 appears to conflict with other specific goals for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. As described in Section 1.4, Consistency with Local and Regional Plans, key city goals for the area include preservation of visual quality, rural agricultural character, and biotic value of the Uvas Creek corridor, as well as the extension of the Uvas Creek Preserve and Levee Trail through the specific plan area. Extraction of mineral resources associated with Uvas Creek may not be consistent with these specific goals.
Effects of Implementing the HPSP
The HPSP contains policy that prohibits development within 100 to 140 feet of the toe of the Uvas Creek bank. Further, residential development is clustered, leaving larger areas of land available for continued agricultural operations. These features of the HPSP would prohibit development within a portion of the area designated MRZ-2. Therefore, access to all of the designated resources would not be precluded per se. However, for all practical purposes, mining of aggregate resources within these remaining area would be incompatible with development proposed in the HPSP and with policies of the HPSP that seek to implement the City of Gilroy General Plan goals for the Hecker Pass Special Use District for maintenance of rural agricultural character, preservation of natural resources, and maintenance of visual quality. The HPSP would therefore result in the loss of availability of designated mineral resources.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; and/or
• Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-141
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
HPSP and Church Impacts
Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource – Significant and Unavoidable Impact: Implementation of the HPSP and Church projects would result in loss of availability of State designated mineral resources. Direct loss would occur from development within areas where resources have been mapped. Indirect loss of resources mapped outside proposed development areas would likely occur as mining activity in those areas would be incompatible with the HPSP and Church site land uses. This impact would be significant and unavoidable. No mitigation measures are available that would substantially lessen this effect.
If the proposed general plan amendment request is approved, implementation of the HPSP and development of the Church project would not be inconsistent with amended City of Gilroy General Plan mineral resource policy, but the projects would still result in the loss of availability of designated mineral resources.
2.11 Noise
Noise generation and exposure to noise is generally of greatest concern for residential land uses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and other uses of land that are highly sensitive to disturbance from noise. Within the specific plan area noise exposure at residences and the school/church uses is at issue, as are potential noise conflicts with adjacent development that could be created by the Church project. Potential long term and short term noise concerns are discussed in this section based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002), City of Gilroy General Plan EIR (City of Gilroy 2002), and the Noise Assessment Study for the Planned South Valley Community Church and School (Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. 2003), which is included in this document as Volume II – Technical Appendices for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. No comments regarding noise impacts were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Environmental Setting
Vehicular traffic on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard is the greatest source of ambient noise in the specific plan area. The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR contains existing and projected noise levels at various distances from the centerline of these respective roads. The projections are made using modeling techniques that are based on traffic volumes and do not generally take site-specific noise measurements or site-specific conditions that could affect noise levels into consideration. Extrapolation of Church project site-specific noise data collected by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. indicates that the existing noise levels from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway are 60 dBA DNL at 98 feet and 65 dBA DNL at 45 feet on either side of the roadway. Santa Teresa Boulevard is located about 475 feet from the nearest developable portion of the specific area (the Church site). Existing noise levels are projected at 60 dBA DNL at 216 feet from the centerline and 65 dBA at 100 feet from the centerline (Jeff Pack, pers.
2-142 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
com., June 9, 2003). Table 10, Existing Specific Plan Area Noise Levels, summarizes existing roadway related noise levels.
TABLE 10 Existing Specific Plan Area Noise Levels
Street Location Noise Level
Hecker Pass Highway 98 feet from centerline 60 dBA DNL 45 feet from centerline 65 dBA DNL Santa Teresa Boulevard 216 feet from centerline 60 dBA DNL 100 feet from centerline 65 dBA DNL
Source: Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.
Commercial activities at Goldsmith seeds and nursery production activities at Bonfante Nurseries are the only notable sources of noise in the specific plan area. While these operations involve the processing of agricultural products (flower seeds), use of equipment for moving and storing products and materials, and for growing agricultural products, they do not involve the use of heavy industrial equipment or other activities that create noise of significant intensity or duration.
A significant noise sensitive use is located adjacent to the Church project site on the east. The Village Green project includes senior housing and senior care facilities. Compatibility of the Church project with this adjacent use is an important issue.
Fundamentals of Noise Evaluation
Acoustics. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds we hear in our normal environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad range of frequencies. As humans do not have perfect hearing, environmental sound measuring instruments have an electrical filter built in so that the instrument's detector replicates human hearing. This filter is called the "A-weighting" network and filters out low and very high frequencies. All environmental noise is reported in terms of A- weighted decibels, notated as “dBA.”
Ambient Noise. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just- perceptible difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-143
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: (1) subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; (2) interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning and, relaxing; and (3) physiological effects such as startling, and hearing loss. The levels associated with environmental noise, in almost every case, produce effects only in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants, airports, etc., can experience noise in the last category. Unfortunately, there is, as yet, no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily due to the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual past experiences with noise.
Thus, an important way to determine a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare it to the existing environment to which one has adapted. This is called the "ambient" environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by the hearers. Table 11, The A-Weighted Decibel Scale, Human Response, and Common Noise Sources, shows the typical human responses for various noise intensities.
It is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Furthermore, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion.
To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, the Day-Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor was developed. The DNL divides the 24-hour day into the daytime period of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime noise levels are penalized by 10 dB to account for the greater sensitivity to noise at night. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average that includes both an evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a nighttime penalty.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
State Standards. State noise standards are identified in Title 24 of the State of California Administrative Code. These standards are known as the “State Insulation Standards”, which require noise levels inside newly constructed residential dwelling units to not exceed a day/night average level of 45 dB.
City of Gilroy Standards. The City of Gilroy Noise Element utilizes the Day-Night Level (DNL) noise descriptor and specifies an exterior noise exposure limit of 60 dB DNL for residential land use and 65 dB DNL for commercial land use. No specific standards are provided for church or school uses. The interior noise exposures for residential uses are limited to 45 dBA and commercial uses are limited to 61 dBA. For noise sensitive interior spaces such as the schools and churches, a short-term noise limit of 35 dBA is typically used as a design criterion to minimize noise disruption during
2-144 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 11 The A-Weighted Decibel Scale, Human Response, and Common Noise Sources
Noise Level, dBA Human Response Noise Source 120-150+ Painfully Loud • Sonic Boom (140 dBA) • Discotheque (115 dBA) 100-120 Physical Discomfort • Motorcycle at 20 ft. (110 dBA) • Power Mower (100 dBA) 70-100 Annoying • Diesel Pump at 100 ft. (95 dBA) • Freight Train at 50 ft. (90 dBA) • Food Blender (90 dBA) • Jet Plane at 1000 ft. (85 dBA) • Freeway at 50 ft. (80 dBA) • Alarm Clock (80 dBA) 50-70 Intrusive Average Traffic at 100 ft. (70 dBA) • Vacuum Cleaner (70 dBA) • Typewriter (65 dBA) 0-50 Quiet • Normal Conversation (50 dBA) • Light Traffic at 100 ft. (45 dBA) • Refrigerator (45 dBA) • Whispering (35 dBA) • Leaves Rustling (10 dBA) • Threshold of Hearing (0 dBA)
Source: Edward L. Pack Associates , Inc.
church services and school hours and is recommended for use in this analysis by Edward L. Pack Associates. Table 12, Permissible Maximum Outdoor and Indoor Noise Levels, shows maximum noise level thresholds in use by the city at the time the analysis was conducted.
The City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance contains performance standards that state that a project shall not create objectionable nuisance due to noise or vibration. These standards are not quantified.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-145
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 12 Permissible Maximum Outdoor and Indoor Noise Levels
Land Use Category Max. Outdoor Ldn (DNL) Max. Indoor Ldn (DNL) Residential 60 45 Commercial 65 61 Industrial 76 65
Source: City of Gilroy General Plan
HPSP Project Analysis
Specific Plan Policies
The HPSP contains several policies related to noise. These are:
5.7.2 Noise
Policy: All proposed residential development projects should be set back a minimum of 250 feet from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway. If 250 feet cannot be accomplished, lesser setbacks that still meet the City of Gilroy noise policies may be implemented or alternative sound attenuation measures may be utilized. Mitigation actions must not interfere with views over the site and must be consistent with scenic highway designation criteria and design standards.
Policy: All proposed agri-tourist and agricultural commercial development should be setback a minimum of 115 feet from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway. Proposed Agri-tourist, Agricultural Commercial, and Private Community Facility projects where habitable structures or outdoor uses are proposed within 115 feet of the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway shall prepare a project noise study. The study shall define mitigation measures needed to ensure that exterior and interior noise levels do not exceed city noise standards. Mitigation measures shall be included in proposed projects subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. Mitigation actions must not interfere with views over the site and must be consistent with scenic highway designation criteria and design standards contained in the Specific Plan.
2-146 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Policy: Sound walls shall not be permitted along the Hecker Pass Highway Corridor.
Policy: No sensitive noise receptors should be located within the 115-foot setback unless adequately mitigated.
Policy: The City should pursue lowering speed limits on Hecker Pass Highway.
Regarding this last policy, the City Engineer has noted that speed limit evaluations and analyses are established by state law. Speed surveys are conducted every five years.
Projected Noise Exposure
Future noise levels in the specific plan area will rise due to projected increases in traffic levels that would occur with build out of the city. The average daily traffic on Hecker Pass Highway is expected to increase from about 7,600 trips per day under existing conditions to about 27,000 daily trips by 2020. Projections of Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. data indicates that the 60 dBA DNL noise contour will be at about 246 feet with the 65 dBA DNL contour at about 114 feet along the highway under City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions. The HPSP contains a graphic illustrating the locations of the 250-foot and 115-foot noise setbacks referenced in the HPSP noise policies. The graphic illustrates that all residential development clusters are located outside the 250-foot noise contour. Thus, future residential development would not likely be subjected to cumulative noise levels from vehicle travel on Hecker Pass Highway that exceed current city noise exposure standards. This is also true for agri- tourist and agricultural commercial uses. A policy contained in the HPSP requires that these uses maintain a 115-foot setback from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway unless noise studies are performed that conclude such development can be located closer to the roadway.
At its closest point, Santa Teresa Boulevard is located about 475 feet from the nearest developable portion of the specific area. Under City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions, traffic levels on the portion of Santa Teresa Boulevard between Hecker Pass Highway and Miller Street are expected to reach 32,000 trips per day. At this traffic level, the 60 dBA DNL noise contour would be located about 294 feet from the centerline of the road and the 65 dBA DNL contour would be located about 137 feet from the roadway centerline. The 60 dBA DNL contour does not extend into the specific plan area. Residential uses proposed in the HPSP would not be subject to exterior noise levels from traffic on this roadway that exceed recommended standards.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-147
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Noise Generated by Future Build Out of the Specific Plan Area
Traffic Generation on Third Street. Build out of the HPSP would result in the extension of Third Street west from its current stub west of Santa Teresa Boulevard through the specific plan area and then north to Hecker Pass Highway. It is likely that traffic generated by HPSP development located in the eastern third of the specific plan area would use Third Street as a primary access into and out of the area. The noise generated along the Third Street from this volume of traffic is not expected to expose people within the specific plan area or at the Village Green project to noise in excess of the City of Gilroy standards.
Uvas Creek Park Preserve Noise. The future Uvas Creek Trail would be located adjacent to future residences. Trail use by bicyclists, pedestrians and others would not be likely to result in noise levels that would exceed city noise standards.
Construction Noise Impacts. Short-term noise could occur from construction within the specific plan area. Construction equipment typically generates noise levels in the range of 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The few existing on-site residences located to the south of Hecker Pass Highway and to the northeast of the highway could all experience construction noise impacts as different portions of the specific plan area are constructed. The city’s approach to mitigating construction related noise impacts is to limit construction to normal business hours.
Church Project Analysis
Effects of Projected Vehicular Noise Levels on the Church and School
Projected noise levels on both Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard under City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions are not expected to exceed acceptable interior noise exposure levels for either the church or school uses. Exterior noise exposure at the Church building from traffic on Hecker Pass Highway is expected to be
about 58 dBA DNL or 59 dBA for the highest hourly Leq (used for purposes of evaluating the interior noise level). Exterior noise exposure from traffic on Santa Teresa Boulevard would be about 55dB DNL assuming a 4 dBA DNL reduction due to the shielding effect of the Village Green project.
For the school use, neither the exterior noise levels from Hecker Pass Highway (43 dBA DNL assuming a 9 dBA DNL reduction created by the screening effect of the church building) or Santa Teresa Boulevard (55 dBA DNL assuming a reduction due to the screening effect of the Village Green) are anticipated to exceed the commercial land use noise exposure standard (used in absence of a standard for these types of specific land uses).
Interior noise levels at the church and school uses should not exceed the accepted
35 dBA Leq level. Projections for the church, assuming that windows are closed and sound attenuation is provided by the building shell, should not exceed 34 dBA Leq . The same projection can be made for the school use.
2-148 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Effects of the Church and School Uses on Adjacent Land Uses
Church-Generated Noise. Along the eastern boundary of the Church project site, the highest project-generated noise exposure will be 38 dB DNL adjacent to the location of the proposed church parking lot. Along the western property line, the highest project- generated noise exposure will be 42 dB DNL, also at a point located adjacent to the proposed parking lot. For a single event, the project-generated noise exposure along the eastern property line would be up to 54 dB DNL from a large (300 person) wedding ceremony and reception (reception hall doors open) with a live rock band or DJ, which is within the 60 dBA DNL city standard for residential uses.
Noise from a wedding located at the Church project site would likely be within the limits of the standards; however, music from a live band or DJ could result in annoyance to sensitive residents at Village Green may be inconsistent with the policies of the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance. Youth oriented activities could include events such as live or DJ music, carnival type rides and other noise generating events that would typically create sound levels similar to a large wedding. These may be considered nuisance noise levels. Noise from other church related activities such as bible study, worship, and drama team practice and classes generally do not create significantly high levels of noise.
Precise designs of the mechanical systems for the church have not been developed. There is a potential for air-conditioners, air-handlers, condensing units and other HVAC equipment to generate significant levels of noise.
School-Generated Noise. Daily school activity (recess, lunch, etc.) will generate noise levels of up to 66 dB DNL at maximum enrollment of 600 students at the eastern property line. Noise exposure will be up to 6 dB in excess of the city standards.
Noise exposure along the western property line from school related traffic will be 60 dB DNL with the future 600 student enrollment. Thus, the noise exposure will be within the limits of the city standards.
Noise exposure at the western property line from school traffic combined with school activities will be up to 61 dB DNL at the projected 600-student enrollment capacity. The noise exposure at the western property line under the expanded student enrollment will be up to 1 dB in excess of the city standards.
Noise levels generated within the planned gymnasium could not be quantified, as detailed architectural information is not available. Typically, noise from within a gymnasium is not significant at the exterior of the building if windows and doors are kept closed during loud activities such as basketball games and dances. The locker rooms and food court will provide an adequate noise buffer for noise transmitting to the east and north. However, if windows or doors are open during certain events, or if events occur past 10:00 p.m., there is potential for noise excesses to the west and south.
Construction-Generated Noise. Construction of the Church project would have short- term noise affects on the ambient noise environment. Operation of construction equipment may produce noise up to 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Village Green,
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-149
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
as well as other residential uses in the vicinity, could all experience construction noise impacts as the Church project is constructed.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;
• Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
• Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or
• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
HPSP Impacts
Noise Exposure at Residential Land Uses in Excess of Standards – Less than Significant Impact: The HPSP land use plan indicates that residential uses would be setback from Hecker Pass Highway such that noise exposure from cumulative traffic levels on the highway should not exceed existing city standards. Implementation of policies in the HPSP as well as the conformance of future individual projects to city noise standards in effect at the time development is proposed should ensure that this effect is avoided. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Noise Exposure at Commercial Land Uses that Exceed Standards – Less than Significant Impact: The HPSP proposes agri-tourist and agricultural commercial uses along Hecker Pass Highway. However, these uses would be setback a minimum of 115 feet from the centerline of the highway per HPSP policy requirement. Noise exposure at these uses would therefore be within acceptable standards. Noise studies must be prepared for commercial projects proposed within the 115-foot contour that define if and how noise impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level, and as well as by
2-150 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
ensuring the conformance of future individual projects to city noise standards in effect at the time development is proposed. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Exposure to Construction Noise that Exceeds Standards – Potentially Significant Impact: Implementation of the HPSP would require the operation of construction equipment that could produce noise up to 70 to 90 dBA. The city has adopted a standard mitigation measure that is required for all development projects within the city. The mitigation measure limits the construction operations to specific times. Implementation of the following standard mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP as an implementation program:
11. 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.
Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration – Less than Significant Impact. The project will not be the source of excessive groundborne vibration and no sources of such vibration are located within the project vicinity. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Generation of Substantial Permanent or Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. The HPSP is not expected to be the source of substantial increases in ambient noise levels. No mitigation measures are required. It will generate additional traffic that will incrementally add to ambient noise levels in the city. This effect is described in Section 3.1, Cumulative Impacts.
Exposure of People to Excessive Airport Related Noise – Less than Significant. The specific plan area is not located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No mitigation measures are required.
Church Project Impacts
Church Function Noise Generation and Effects on Village Green Residents – Potentially Significant Impact: A large (300 person) wedding ceremony and reception (reception hall doors open) with a live rock band or DJ, could generate noise levels of up to 54 dB DNL, which is within the 60 dB DNL limit of the city standards. However, a nuisance to sensitive residents at Village Green from live music events could occur. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-151
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
12. Doors to the reception hall shall be closed as much as possible whenever significant noise generating activities such as live or recorded music is being played. The interior of the reception hall shall be acoustically designed to minimize sound build up within the space and to control reflected sound from being emitted. Outdoor music for weddings and any other functions should be limited to soft music styles and instrumentation, typical of wedding ceremony music. These requirements shall be made conditions of approval of a Building Permit.
School Play Area Function and Noise Impacts on Village Green – Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed school use could generate noise levels along the eastern project boundary and at the closest Village Greens structure of up to 66 dBA DNL at full school capacity of 600 students. Noise exposure up to 6 dB in excess of the city standard would occur. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP as an implementation program:
13. The applicant shall construct a six-foot high acoustically effective barrier along the property line contiguous with the residences to the east (Village Green). The barrier shall extend from the Reception Gardens to the south property line. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest play area ground elevation. Plans for the barrier shall be subject to review of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit.
School Play Area Function and Noise Impacts on Proposed Residential Land Uses to the West – Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed school use could generate noise levels along the western project boundary of up to 61 dBA DNL at full school capacity of 600 students. This noise level only marginally exceeds the city standard, but nevertheless, triggers the need for mitigation under current city standards. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP:
14. Residential development proposed adjacent to the Church project site shall be consistent with the City of Gilroy noise exposure standards in effect at the time a
2-152 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
project application is submitted. Potential sound attenuation options for reducing exposure to Church project generated noise under current standards might include development setbacks from the Church property line, utilization of construction techniques to reduce interior noise exposure to 45dBA or less, installation of a sound wall and/or a landscaped berm between residential development sites and the Church property line, or another measure or combination of measures deemed acceptable to the city.
If buildout of the Church project and full utilization of the site occurs prior to an application being submitted for residential development, the applicant for the residential project may choose to conduct a noise study to determine noise levels at the Church property line based on actual conditions. Mitigation measures, if needed, would be proposed in the noise study consistent with city noise standards in effect at that time.
The noise mitigation approach proposed by the applicant for residential development adjacent to the Church shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit.
Mechanical Systems Noise Impact on Village Green – Potentially Significant Impact: Precise designs of the mechanical systems for the church and school have not been developed, thus, a detailed analysis of the mechanical systems could not be performed. There is potential for air-conditioners, air-handlers, condensing units and other HVAC equipment to generate significant levels of noise that could be a nuisance to the adjacent Village Green residential use. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP as an implementation program:
15. The applicant shall perform a detailed analysis of the church and school mechanical equipment systems to ensure compliance with the city standards under cumulative (traffic plus playground plus mechanical equipment, etc.) conditions. The analysis shall be performed by a qualified acoustician and approved by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit.
Gymnasium Noise Impact of Village Green – Potentially Significant Impact: Noise exposure created by activities within the planned gymnasium could not be quantified, as detailed architectural information is not available. Typically, noise from within a gymnasium is not significant at the exterior of the building if windows and doors are kept closed during loud activities such as basketball games and dances. The locker rooms and food court will provide an adequate noise buffer for noise transmitting to the east and north. However, if windows or doors are open during certain events, or if
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-153
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
events occur past 10:00 p.m., there is potential for noise excesses to the west and south. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
16. To minimize noise annoyance to the residences to the west of the gymnasium, all windows and doors on the west and south sides of the gymnasium shall remain closed during noise generating activities inside the gymnasium. Noise generating activities include, but are not limited to, athletic games and practice, social events with music, and P.E. classes. These requirements shall be made conditions of approval of a Building Permit.
Exposure to Construction Noise that Exceeds Standards – Potentially Significant Impact: Development of the Church project would require the operation of construction equipment that could produce noise up to 70 to 90 dBA. The city standard would impose construction-timing limits as a standard condition of approval. Additionally, use of “new technology equipment can reduce equipment noise. Implementation of the following standard mitigation measure would ensure that construction noise impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure should be included in the HPSP as an implementation program:
17. The Church project applicant shall ensure that the following actions are incorporated into the contractor specifications:
• Construct the six-foot high noise control barrier along the east property line before any other site work is performed;
• Demolition of buildings should occur in phases with the walls of the building closest to existing residences being removed last as the walls can act as noise barriers;
• All diesel powered equipment should be located more than 115 feet from any residence if the equipment is to operate for more than several hours per day; and
• Consider implementing the additional ancillary noise attenuation actions as listed in the Noise Assessment Study for the Planned South Valley Community Church and School.
2-154 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
2.12 Public Services
Environmental Setting-Fire Protection Service
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002) and the Fire Services Master Plan (Citygate Associates 2000). A Notice of Preparation comment was received from the Gilroy Building Division regarding fire protection services and has been incorporated into this section.
Local Fire and Emergency Service
The Gilroy Fire Department (GFD) serves the specific plan area. The nearest city fire station is located at the corner of Wren Avenue and Welburn Avenue. The Fire Services Master Plan indicates that the GFD response time standard is to respond within five minutes for 95 percent of all calls. The response time to the specific plan area is estimated to be about six minutes, which is outside the GFD’s response time standard. A new fire station is located on Sunrise Drive near Santa Teresa Boulevard, about one mile to the north of the specific plan area. The Sunrise Fire Station is not fully staffed with a fire-fighting unit.
The GFD has a mutual aid agreement with the South Santa Clara Country Fire District (SSCCFD). The SSCCFD has an existing station located to the west of the specific plan area on property owned by the Bonfante Gardens Theme Park. Access to the fire station is from Hecker Pass Highway. Response time to the specific plan area from the SSCCFD station is about three to four minutes. The SSCCFD fire station generally does not operate with full fire-fighting unit and therefore, does cannot facilitate the commencement of fire operations. Response capacity of the SSCCFD station may not be an issue, as it appears the station will be relocating (Dave Bozzo, GFD, pers. com., January 3, 2003).
The GFD will likely be required to respond to all calls within the specific plan area. The response time to the specific plan area would exceed the GFD standard (Dave Bozzo, GFD, pers. com., January 3, 2003) from the station at Wren and Welburn avenues. The Sunrise Fire station would need to increase staffing so that the station is equipped with a full fire-fighting unit to meet the increased demand for fire protection services within the specific plan area. The response time from the Sunrise Fire station with a full fire- fighting unit to the specific plan area would be within acceptable standards. In addition, a new fire station is proposed within the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area. That fire station is proposed for construction after 2013. Response time to the specific plan area would be within acceptable standards.
The GFD charges a public safety impact fee for new construction. This fee covers the cost of incremental increases in service required for new development. Payment of impact fees will occur prior to issuance of Building Permits.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-155
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies designed to provide high quality fire and emergency response services. The policies are as follows:
Policy 18.01 Standards of Service: Continue to provide and maintain police and fire service that are adequate in manpower, equipment, and resources to respond to localized emergencies and calls for service within the City. The departments’ current levels of service should be maintained or improved as the city continues to grow, with average emergency response times for police services of approximately 4.5 minutes and average response times for fire services of less than 5.0 minutes.
HPSP Project Analysis-Fire Protection Service
HPSP Policies
The HPSP contains a number of policies designed to reduce risks from fire hazards. These policies, described in Section 2.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would serve to reduce demand for fire protection services within the specific plan area and consequently, reduce the need for new facilities to support expanded protection services.
HPSP Demand for New Fire Protection Facilities
Buildout of the HPSP would place additional demands on the GFD and SSCCFD. Fire service demand would be higher than what has been historically assumed for the specific plan area. The City of Gilroy General Plan assumed 78 residences (98 residences with density bonuses) south of Hecker Pass Highway and about 14 more north of the highway for a total of about 112 in the specific plan area. The HPSP would enable construction of 530 residences, which represents 418 more residences than planned in the City of Gilroy General Plan. New facilities being planned by the GFD would need to be sufficient to serve the project site and the potential increase in population. The financing for improvements needed to meet the HPSP’s incremental increase in demand for service would be provided through the payment of public safety impact fees.
Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP is not anticipated to conflict with public policies of the City of Gilroy General Plan provided public safety fees are paid by project developers as a standard condition of project approval. In addition, each new development application within the HPSP would be evaluated for response time, access, egress, and proximity to fire hazards.
2-156 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Church Project Analysis-Fire Protection Service
Fire Hazards
The Church project would be located south of Hecker Pass Highway, which is not considered to be within a very high fire hazard area as defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The project would be conditioned to be consistent with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code and applicable fire codes. Fire hazards would be substantially reduced as a result of compliance with these codes.
Consistency with the HPSP
The Church project would add development intensity within the specific plan area that had not previously been envisioned by the GFD. The HPSP contains sixteen policies that establish fuel hazard reduction zones around all structures, selection of fire resistive plants in landscaping, selection of building materials, the provision for adequate emergency service access, and water supply infrastructure. The Church project does not conflict with any of the HPSP policies.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures-Fire Protection Service
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire services.
HPSP Impacts
Increased Fire Service Demand Resulting in Need for New Facilities – Less than Significant Impact. The Gilroy Fire Department will evaluate each tentative map or other development application for emergency response time, fire flow, access and egress, and proximity to fire hazards. The Gilroy Fire Department may require residential fire sprinkler systems, class A roof materials, secondary access to all residential uses, fire hydrants that are appropriately designed, located, and protected, street vertical clearance, a comprehensive landscape management and weed abatement program, fuel transition zones, and prohibition of open burning and fire works within areas determined to be high fire hazards (i.e. hillside area). All future development within the specific plan area is subject to the Fire Department Standards, Regulations, and Policies that are in effect at the time that a tentative map or other development application is approved.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-157
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Development facilitated by the HPSP would contribute to impacts on fire protection services. However, the City requires the payment of public service impact fees as a standard condition of approval to offset the increased demand on fire protection services and for construction of new facilities required to meet demands. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Church Project Impacts
Increased Fire Service Demand Resulting in Need for New Facilities – Less than Significant Impact. The Church project would contribute to impacts on fire protection services. However, the City requires the payment of public service impact fees as a standard condition of approval to offset the increased demand on fire protection services and for construction of new facilities required to meet demands. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be considered less than significant.
Environmental Setting-Police Protection Services
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002). No comments regarding police protection services were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Local Police Service
The City of Gilroy Police Department (GPD) currently provides police protection within the specific plan area. The GPD operates out of a station located on Rosanna Street. Response times to the specific plan area are estimated at approximately two to three minutes, 24 hours a day.
The GPD has a staff of approximately 58 full-time officers and six reserve officers. The GPD is staffed on a per capita basis, with a preferred ratio of 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 people. The City of Gilroy General Plan directs the GPD to maintain or improve the existing average response time of four and one-half minutes. The GPD charges a public safety impact fee for new construction. This fee covers the incremental increases in service and facilities required for new development.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies designed to provide high quality police services. The policies are as follows:
Policy 18.01 Standards of Service: Continue to provide and maintain police and fire service that are adequate in manpower, equipment, and resources to respond to localized emergencies and calls for service within the City. The departments’ current levels of service should be maintained or improved as the City continues to grow, with average emergency response
2-158 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
times for police services of approximately 4.5 minutes and average response times fore fire services of less than 5.0 minutes.
Policy 18.07 Access for Emergency Vehicles: Ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles and equipment, providing a second means of ingress and egress in all development.
HPSP Project Analysis-Police Protection Service
HPSP Policies
The HPSP does not contain policies regarding police protection service.
HPSP Demand for New Police Protection Facilities
The HPSP would create up to 530 residences and an increase in population of up to 1,855 people, assuming 3.5 persons per household. Up to 2.8 police officers would be required to meet the incremental demand created by development of the specific plan area. Existing police facilities could accommodate the required increase in personnel and public safety impact fees are expected to cover incremental increases in demand on police services.
Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP is not anticipated to conflict with public policies of the City of Gilroy General Plan provided public safety fees are paid by project developers as a standard condition of project approval.
Church Project Analysis-Police Protection Service
Church Project Demand for New Police Protection Facilities
The Church project would not directly increase the number of people in Gilroy. However, the Church project would include approximately 600 students (elementary and middle school combined) and 30 employees that would create an incremental increase in demand for police services. The total increase in demand would not require additional police officers in order to maintain the acceptable service ratios. Existing police facilities could accommodate the increased demand on personnel and public safety impact fees are expected to cover incremental increases in demand on police services.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-159
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Impacts and Mitigation Measures-Police Protection Service
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police services.
HPSP Impacts
Increased Police Service Demand Resulting in Need for New Facilities – Less than Significant Impact. The HPSP would not result in the need for additional facilities to provide police services. The level of police service in the community would not decrease to unacceptable levels. Up to 2.8 additional police officers would be required for the department to maintain established per capita staffing ratios. The City requires the payment of public service impact fees as a standard condition of approval to offset the increased demand on police services required to meet demands. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Church Project Impacts
Increased Police Service Demand Resulting in Need for New Facilities - Less Than Significant Impact. The Church project would not require additional facilities or staff to provide police services. The level of police service in the community would not decrease to unacceptable levels. The City requires the payment of public service impact fees as a standard condition of approval to offset the increased demand on police services required to meet demands. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Environmental Setting-School Services
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002). No comments regarding school services were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Local School Service
The specific plan area is within the boundaries of the Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD). The GUSD projected enrollment capacity over the next ten years is 8,900 students. The GUSD operates ten elementary schools, three junior high schools, one high school and one special-needs high school. The district is in the process of identifying a second high school site.
2-160 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
School children residing in the specific plan area would attend either Luigi Aprea Elementary School, located about one-half mile north of the specific plan area or Antonio del Buono Elementary School, located approximately two miles from the specific plan area, Ascension Solorsano Middle School located approximately one mile from the specific plan area, or Gilroy High School located approximately 2.6 miles from the specific plan area.
In addition to the public schools in the GUSD, several private schools are located in the Gilroy area. Private schools provide an alternative to public education and they ease the demand on the public school system. Saint Mary’s school, Vineyards preschool, and several other planned private schools provide the residents with opportunities for private education.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
Government Code. Government Code section 65996(b) prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any legislative or judicial act involving the planning, use or development of real property. Government Code section 65995(a) sets a limit on school impact fees that may be assessed. The limit established is $1.93 per square foot for residential and $.31 per square foot for commercial construction. These rates are adjusted for inflation in January of even-numbered years.
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies designed to support educational services. The policies are as follows:
Policy 17.01 New Residential Development: Control the timing and location of new residential development facilities and community development in a way that allows the Gilroy Unified School District to plan and finance facilities in an orderly fashion.
Policy 17.04 Land Dedication and Fees: Require developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate land and/or pay fees (at the discretion of the City and School District) to offset the cost of providing new elementary and secondary schools resulting from their developments.
HPSP Project Analysis-School Services
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes several policies designed to support educational services. The policies are as follows:
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-161
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
6.2 Schools
Policy: Encourage the development of a private elementary and middle school facility in the Specific Plan Area.
Policy: The City of Gilroy and South Valley Community Church should pursue an agreement to allow public access to playfields after school hours.
Policy: Work with the private school and church to allow limited public use of the multi-purpose room through a partnership agreement with the City or groups, rental agreement or other such instrument.
Policy: All future developments shall pay school impact fees required by the City of Gilroy to mitigate impacts on the public school system.
HPSP Demand for New School Facilities
Buildout of the HPSP would create up to 530 new dwelling units. The City of Gilroy General Plan describes GUSD student generation rates for each grade level based on single-family, multi-family, and affordable housing units. Table 13, Gilroy Unified School District Student Generation Rates, shows these generation rates.
Development of the HPSP would result in the addition of 345 students to the GUSD, assuming the construction of a maximum of 530 single-family dwelling units. Approximately 212 of these students would be K-6 age, 53 would be grade 7-8 age and 79.5 would be high school age. This new student population would require capacity within the schools operated by the GUSD. The GUSD is responsible for school facility expansions to accommodate new growth.
Consistency with the Government Code
The HPSP includes a policy that requires all future development projects to pay school impacts fees. This is consistent with Government Code section 65995.
Consistency with the General Plan
Development in the specific plan area would place additional demands on school services. The City of Gilroy General Plan assumed 78 residences (98 residences with density bonuses) for the area south of Hecker Pass Highway and an additional estimated 14 units north of the highway. Buildout of the HPSP would create 530 new dwelling
2-162 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 13 Gilroy Unified School District Student Generation Rates
Grade Level Single Family Multi-Family Affordable K-6 .40 .20 .60 7-8 .10 .05 .15 9-12 .15 .08 .25 K-12 Total .65 .33 1.00
Source: City of Gilroy General Plan
units and generate approximately 345 students, while buildout consistent with the original City of Gilroy General Plan would generate approximately 73 students.
General Plan policy 17.01 is designed to control the timing and location of new residential development facilities to allow the GUSD to plan and finance facilities accordingly. Future development projects would be required to pay impacts fees to the GUSD to accommodate the estimated increase of students.
Church Project Analysis-School Services
Church Project Demand for New School Facilities
The proposed Church project includes a private elementary school and a middle school. The elementary school would serve a maximum of about 450 children in grades K-5. The middle school would serve approximately 150 children in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. The school facilities would include: multipurpose rooms, play fields, and classrooms. These facilities would operate during normal school hours. The facilities may be available for public activities, such as community meetings, public recreation, etc. during after-school hours.
The Church project would not result in increased demand for new school facilities, but rather contribute to the supply of new school facilities within the city.
Consistency with the HPSP
The HPSP contains three policies that when implemented would reduce impacts on local school services. One of the policies encourages the development of a private elementary and middle school, both of which are included in the Church project. The Church project would not directly increase demand for school services and is consistent with the HPSP policies.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-163
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Impacts and Mitigation Measures-School Services
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools.
HPSP Impacts
Increased Student Generation Resulting in Need for New Facilities - Less Than Significant Impact. The HPSP would add approximately 345 students to the GUSD. Build out per the City of Gilroy General Plan would generate only about 73 school-age children. Enrollment is currently over capacity at the District's elementary schools, intermediate, and high schools. The GUSD is constructing new elementary schools to provide for the increase in enrollment. These new schools require separate CEQA review, for which the GUSD is the lead agency. The HPSP does not include or require the construction of a new public school or facilities. School impact fees are required as a standard condition of approval to offset the increased demand on school protection services and for construction of new facilities required to meet demands. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Church Project Impacts
Increased Student Generation Resulting in Need for New Facilities – No Impact. Construction of the Church project would not directly generate additional students and would therefore, have no direct impact on capacity within the GUSD.
Environmental Setting-Parks and Recreation
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002) and the City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1999). No comments regarding recreational services were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Recreational Facilities Service
The Draft City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (City of Gilroy, 1999) (hereinafter “Gilroy Park Plan”) was prepared as a guide to planning and designing recreational facilities in the city. The Gilroy Park Plan indicates that for every 1,000 people there should be five acres of active parkland. The Gilroy Park Plan also indicates that passive open space only provides a limited amount of recreational opportunity for
2-164 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
residents, and therefore, only five percent of passive open space acreage is included in the parkland calculation.
Based on the current population in Gilroy, approximately 187 acres of parkland would be required to meet the parkland standard. Currently, the city has approximately 85 acres of active park land, 25 acres of undeveloped park land, and 179 acres of limited use park land, which totals approximately 289 acres of parkland. The Gilroy Park Plan includes plans for an additional 151 acres of parkland.
Gilroy requires development projects to either dedicate land or pay in-lieu-of fees to offset the cost for the additional demand on the city’s park and recreational facilities generated by new residential development.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies designed to provide high quality park and recreation services. The policies are as follows:
Policy 16.01 Parkland Standards: Maintain the City’s established standards of 5 acres of developed parkland per thousand populations.
a) This standard includes mini-parks, neighborhood/school parks, community and community/school parks, sports parks, trails/linear parkways, and special use facilities.
b) Park preserves and limited active recreation use areas are valued at 5 percent of their total acreage toward meeting this standard.
c) Golf course non-accessible open spaces, and private recreational facilities are not included in this standard. School lands are not included unless there is a long-term lease agreement for their use as City recreational facilities.
Policy 16.02 Land Dedication or Fees: Require developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate land for development of recreation facilities, which may include cultural facilities, to serve the subdivision, neighborhood, and community. At the City’s discretion, the developer may pay fees in lieu of dedication to assist in land acquisition and facility development in other locations.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-165
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
HPSP Project Analysis-Parks and Recreation
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes several policies designed to provide high quality park and recreation services. The policies are as follows:
3.3 Open Space Land Use Policies
Policy: Designate Uvas Creek as permanent open space and provide buffers along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor.
5.2.2 Open Space Resources
Policy: A hierarchy of pedestrian trails shall be provided by future projects throughout the Specific Plan Area. Trails should connect future residential neighborhoods and commercial developments to Uvas Creek, the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway and other open space areas.
Policy: Public access along all public trails within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area should be provided in right-of-ways or publicly owned lands.
Policy: All of the public park preserve and linear park areas will be dedicated to or reserved for the City of Gilroy prior to or concurrent with final map approvals.
Policy: Hecker Pass Property Owners shall offer the 3-acre neighborhood park to the City of Gilroy for future purchase.
6.1 Parks and Open Space
Policy: Development proposals for properties within the Specific Plan Area will be required to dedicate land within the Uvas Creek Park Preserve and the designated linear park area to the City of Gilroy for public open space use and public park use.
2-166 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Policy: The Class I recreational trail shall be constructed in accordance with State and Federal accessibility codes and standards, including those established by the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Codes (Title 24, California Code of Regulation).
HPSP Demand for New Recreational Facilities
According to the HPSP land use map, approximately 96 acres are designated as Park/Recreational Facility within the Uvas Creek riparian zone. The City would require the dedication of the 96 acres as a condition of project approval. In addition, the Specific Plan has set aside three acres for potential future purchase by the city for a neighborhood park. The 96 acres would be part of the planned extension of the Uvas Creek Preserve and would include 80 acres of riparian habitat and buffer plus 16 acres of linear park. This total Park/Recreational Facility land is valued at 23 acres of active parkland. The full acreage of liner park and neighborhood park count toward the City of Gilroy’s park standard but only five percent of the 80 acres of riparian habitat and buffer qualify toward meeting the park standard because of the passive nature of the open space preserve. The area would not contain recreation uses such as ball fields, basketball courts, tot-lots, etc. The linear park would have a Class I recreational trail that would be 12 feet wide and available to the public for riding and walking. As the linear park area containing the trail would be dedicated to the city, the city would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the trail and other ancillary improvements associated with it. The HPSP indicates that a new three-acre neighborhood park with urban recreation elements would be situated in the southeastern portion of the specific plan area. The three-acre would provide urban recreational opportunities for the residents of the specific plan area. The applicant proposes to sell the three-acres to the city for development as a neighborhood park. Since the city would own the park, it would assume maintenance responsibility for it.
Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP would introduce up to 1,855 people to the City of Gilroy. The population increase would result in the need for up to 9.3 additional acres of parkland according to city parkland standards. The incremental demand for parkland would be offset by the 80 acres dedicated to the city for the Uvas Creek Preserve, the 16 acres of land dedicated to the City for the Uvas Creek Trail extension and linear park, and the three-acre park that is reserved for the City of Gilroy to purchase. The HPSP exceeds the parkland standard by 13.7 acres. With the dedication of the Uvas Creek corridor and linear park, reserving the three-acre park site for the City to purchase, and paying in-lieu fees, if required, the HPSP would be consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-167
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Church Project Analysis-Parks and Recreation
Church Project Demand for Recreational Facilities
The proposed Church project includes multipurpose rooms, play fields, and classrooms. These facilities would operate during normal school hours. The applicant is exploring the possibility of making the facilities and play fields available to the public for activities, such as community meetings, public recreation, etc. during after-school hours.
Consistency with the HPSP
The Church project would not directly increase demand for recreational services. Land along the southern boundary of the Church site would be dedicated to the city for extension of the Uvas Creek Trail and Preserve. The Church project is consistent with the HPSP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures-Parks and Recreation
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered recreational facilities, or the need for new or physically altered recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for park and recreation services.
HPSP Impacts
Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities – Less than Significant Impact: Buildout of the HPSP would create an incremental demand up to 9.3 acres of park and recreational facilities. The HPSP includes policies that were created to provide recreational and open space amenities, such as a three-acre park and a 96-acre park preserve with a linear park (Class I bike trail). The HPSP exceeds the parkland standard by 13.7 acres. With the dedication of the Uvas Creek corridor and linear park and reserving the three-acre park site for the City to purchase, the impact on the city’s park and recreational facilities would be considered less than significant.
Location and construction of the new neighborhood park as well as improvements within the linear park must be consistent with HPSP policies to ensure that adverse environmental effects are reduced to a less than significant level.
Church Impacts
Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities – No Impact: Development of the Church project would not directly increase the demand for park and recreational
2-168 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
facilities. The HPSP requires the Church project to dedicate the southern portion of the property to the city for extension of the Uvas Creek Trail and Preserve. No mitigation is necessary.
2.13 Transportation
The HPSP would facilitate a significant increase in traffic generation that will affect circulation conditions on the local roadway network. It includes a full traffic and circulation element that identifies policies for future development projects and proposes an on-site circulation system and improvements as well as improvements to the adjacent major roadways.
A complete analysis of HPSP effects and project specific effects of the Church project has been conducted by Higgins Associates. Both projects were studied in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Gilroy California, Traffic Impact Study Report (2003). This report was subsequently revised to account for changes in the HPSP project definition. The revised study is entitled, Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis Report for Proposed New Residential Development and Agri-Commercial Development, Gilroy, California (2004). The revised report. This report is included in Volume II – Technical Appendices for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Project EIR, City of Gilroy, which is available for review at the City of Gilroy Planning Division. This section includes a summary of key elements of the 2004 traffic report.
The traffic report evaluates existing, existing plus background, background plus Church project (Phase 1), background plus total project, cumulative, and general plan build out conditions. Background plus Phase 1 refers to construction of the Church project only. The Church project is expected to precede all other future development within the remainder of the specific plan area. Therefore, its individual effects were considered separately from HPSP build out in the traffic study. Its incremental effects are accounted for in the background plus total project condition, which refers to build out of the entire specific plan area, including the Church project. The cumulative conditions evaluation will be used by the city for planning purposes and is not described in this EIR. The general plan build out effects are described in Section 3.1, Cumulative Impacts.
Caltrans, the Santa Clara County Road and Airports Department, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority provided comments on transportation issues in response to the NOP.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-169
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Environmental Setting
Existing/Planned Roadway Network
The existing main roadways relevant to this project and the study area are Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, First Street and Third Street. Each is briefly discussed below:
Hecker Pass Highway. Hecker Pass Highway bisects the southern portion from the northern portion of the specific plan area. In the vicinity of the specific plan area, Hecker Pass Highway, based on the classification system used in the Highway Capacity Manual is considered a two-lane rural highway. However, there is a double yellow line (i.e. no passing zone) for the entire section of Hecker Pass Highway through the specific plan area. This has significant implications for how HPSP impacts on the highway are evaluated. The highway extends in an east/west direction connecting Gilroy to Watsonville and Highway 1 to the west. It is also classified as a State scenic route west of the specific plan area. The posted speed limit is 55 mph along the specific plan area frontage, but is reduced to 40 mph on the approach to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection.
First Street. This street varies between a two-lane and a four-lane urban arterial with a two-way left turn lane providing access to the strip mall type businesses along it. Significant improvements at the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection have recently been completed and there are now two through lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. West of its intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard, First Street becomes Hecker Pass Highway. The speed limit on First Street is 40 miles per hour.
Santa Teresa Boulevard. Santa Teresa Boulevard is an important two-lane, urban arterial and runs in a north/south direction on the eastern side of the specific plan area. It connects to Highway 101 via Castro Valley Road to the south and continues northwards through Morgan Hill to San Jose. The widening of Santa Teresa Boulevard between First Street and Longmeadow Drive to a four-lane urban arterial has been approved and will be implemented within the next year. The speed limit on Santa Teresa Boulevard is 45 miles per hour.
Third Street. Third Street is a residential collector street. Until recently, it formed a T- intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard. However, a fourth leg has just been added to the intersection to provide access to the Village Green project that is presently under construction. It has been signalized at its intersection with Santa Teresa Boulevard, but still only allows for right in - right out turning movements on the eastern side of Third Street.
Burchell Road. Burchell Road is a narrow two-lane rural residential access road and is stop controlled at its intersection with Hecker Pass Highway.
2-170 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Bonfante Gardens Driveway. Presently, the driveway is stop controlled at its intersection with Hecker Pass Highway. Its primary function is to provide access to the theme park users and employees.
Existing Intersection and Road Segment Operations
Traffic counts on Hecker Pass Highway made in a preliminary traffic assessment during June 2001 were the basis for the current traffic assessment. The city agreed that such data was acceptable. However, to verify the accuracy of these counts, the First Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection was recounted in January 2003. To establish existing traffic flow conditions, the manual traffic counts made at the five study intersections in June 2001 were used and adjusted with the 2003 counts at the First Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection.
Existing Intersection Operations. The City of Gilroy has established Level of Service (LOS) C as the threshold for acceptable traffic operations, with exceptions not applicable to this traffic study, in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The specific plan area falls within the city limits of the City of Gilroy and LOS C is thus the required operational standard.
The level of operation at the following intersections was assessed for the existing traffic conditions and background conditions scenarios:
Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street;
Hecker Pass Highway / Existing Access to Goldsmith Seeds;
Hecker Pass Highway / Burchell Road;
Hecker Pass Highway / Bonfante Gardens Driveway; and
Santa Teresa Boulevard / Third Street.
Existing intersection conditions analysis results are summarized in Table 14, Existing Intersection Operations. The LOS results indicate that for almost all the intersections in the study area, during both AM and PM peak hours, the intersections operate at LOS A. The only exception is the Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street intersection, which operates at LOS C for both the AM and PM peak hours.
Existing Road Segment Operations. The following road segments were analyzed under existing and background traffic conditions:
Hecker Pass Highway:
• Between the Goldsmith Seeds entrance and the Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street intersection;
• Between Goldsmith Seeds entrance and Two Oaks Lane;
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-171
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 14 Existing Intersection Operations
Existing Operations Traffic AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Intersection Control Delay Delay LOS LOS (sec) (sec) Santa Teresa/First Street Signal 23.9 C 23.5 C Santa Teresa/Third Street Signal 0.7 A 0.6 A Bonfante Gardens Stop Sign 1.5 A 1.2 A Driveway/Hecker Pass Hwy Burchell Road/Hecker Pass Hwy Stop Sign 1.0 A 0.9 A Goldsmith Driveway/Hecker Stop Sign 0.1 A 0.2 A Pass Hwy
Source: Higgins Associates
• Between Two Oaks Lane and Burchell; and
• Between Burchell Road and Bonfante Gardens.
Santa Teresa Boulevard:
• South of the Third Street intersection; and
• Between First and Third streets.
Hecker Pass Highway Segment Analysis Methodology. The evaluation of existing road segment level of service conditions on Hecker Pass Highway warrants discussion. Hecker Pass Highway is a two-lane rural highway. The typical methodology used to analyze level of service is based on traffic volume thresholds for a two-lane rural highway. Two-lane rural highways are normally very long, with passing opportunities as the primary controlling criterion that affects the level of service. These conditions do not exist on Hecker Pass Highway. There is a double yellow line (i.e. no passing zone) for the entire section of Hecker Pass Highway located within the specific plan area. This has a significant influence on the operating conditions along this section of the highway. The level of service for two-lane rural highways is influenced by the percentage time spent following other vehicles using the road and by average travel speed, which are both dependent on the percentage of no-passing zones. Since the entire length of Hecker Pass Highway within the specific plan area is a no-passing zone, there are no opportunities to pass. Therefore, the percentage time following vehicles is skewed upwards and the average travel speed is skewed downward.
2-172 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Higgins Associates initially used the two-lane rural road traffic volume thresholds to evaluate level of service on Hecker Pass Highway. However, because of the no passing constraints, this analysis approach yielded lower level of service ratings than appear to exist under current conditions. The “fit” between the analysis methodology and actual conditions was not considered sufficient. The results of the segment analysis using this methodology are provided in the traffic report for informational purposes.
Because the two-lane rural highway segment methodology appeared to skew the level of service analysis, Higgins Associates utilized a different methodology called the “floating car” methodology to evaluate levels of service on the highway. This methodology is based on evaluation of average travel speeds. It yielded higher LOS ratings than the two-lane rural highway volume threshold methodology and was determined to be a better fit for evaluating existing conditions. Table 15, Existing Road Segment Operations, shows LOS results using the floating car methodology. One road segment (between Santa Teresa Boulevard and Goldsmith Seeds) on Hecker Pass Highway is shown to operate at unacceptable LOS D in the westbound direction in the AM peak hour. However, Higgins Associates concluded that the average LOS on the full segment of Hecker Pass Highway along the specific plan area frontage would average an LOS C and that mitigation is not needed to address the one unacceptable LOS rating.
Also, as discussed in the traffic report, the segment analysis methodology used to evaluate road segments may not be appropriate for the segment of Santa Teresa Boulevard between First Street and Third Street. Using this methodology, the segment operates at unacceptable LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. Santa Teresa Boulevard is classified as an arterial roadway. The segment methodology for such roadways typically is valid for arterials that are not highly constrained by traffic controls. Segment operations between First Street and Third Street are highly constrained by First Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard and Santa Teresa Boulevard/Third Street intersection signal operations because of their proximity (approximately .4 miles) to one another. The LOS for both intersections under existing conditions is acceptable. The “Acceptable LOS” shown in the table for the northbound AM and PM peak hours for this segment reflects this determination. This same situation, where the operations of the two intersections control the level of service on this segment, is reflected throughout all of the traffic condition scenarios evaluated.
Background Traffic Conditions
Intersection Operations. Background traffic conditions consist of existing traffic conditions as affected by the addition of traffic from approved projects that are not yet built. A number of other projects have already been approved throughout the City of Gilroy that are not yet constructed. The traffic report includes a list of these projects. It is assumed that these will impact the study area street network prior to impacts that may be created by the HPSP and Church projects. The assignment of approved project trips was combined with existing traffic to obtain background traffic volumes.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-173
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 15 Existing Road Segment Operations
Existing Operations AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Road Segment Type EB WB EB WB LOS LOS LOS LOS Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. 2-lane Hwy C D C C Santa Teresa & Goldsmith Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. 2-lane Hwy C C C C Goldsmith & Two Oaks Hecker Pass 2-lane Hwy C C C C Highway/Bet. Two Oaks & Burchell Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. 2-lane Hwy A C A C Burchell & Bonfante NB SB NB SB Santa Teresa/Bet. Urban Acceptable B Acceptable B Third & First Streets Arterial (4 LOS * LOS* Lanes) Santa Teresa/South of Urban A A A A Third Street Arterial * Operations on this segment are actually controlled by the operations at the First Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard and Third Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersections. Both intersections operate at acceptable LOS. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
Source: Higgins Associates
Approved projects are expected to generate a total of 83,116 trips per day with 4,164 trips during the morning peak hour and 7,374 trips during the evening peak hour. These trips include both new productions (residential trips) and attractions (new industrial and commercial trips) which could be double counted in certain cases. About 50 percent of new productions were not distributed to local zones where new industrial and/or commercial development is scheduled to occur in order to avoid double counting.
The roadway system relevant to the HPSP and the study area under background traffic conditions will mostly remain the same as for existing traffic conditions. The only change is that the fourth leg at the Santa Teresa Boulevard / Third Street intersection will become operational with the opening of the Village Green project.
2-174 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Background morning and evening peak hour intersection levels of service are shown in Table 16, Background Intersection Operations. The LOS results indicate that almost all the intersections in the study area (and during both AM and PM peak hours) would continue to operate at LOS A. Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street intersection would continue operate at LOS C for both the AM and PM peak hours.
TABLE 16 Background Intersection Operations
Background Operations Traffic AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Intersection Control Delay Delay LOS LOS (sec) (sec) Santa Teresa/First Street Signal 25.8 C 29.1 C Santa Teresa/Third Street Signal 2.8 A 3.5 A Bonfante Gardens Stop Sign 2.0 A 4.8 A Driveway/Hecker Pass Hwy Burchell Road/Hecker Pass Hwy Stop Sign 1.0 A 1.5 A Goldsmith Driveway/Hecker Stop Sign .1 A .1 A Pass Hwy
Source: Higgins Associates
Road Segment Operations. The same road segments were analyzed under background traffic conditions as for the existing traffic conditions. As previously described under “Existing Conditions”, the two-lane rural highway thresholds were initially used to evaluate level of service on Hecker Pass Highway. Again, the results, which showed that all road segments would operate at unacceptable LOS E in both the eastbound and westbound directions during both the AM and PM peak hours, were found not to represent anticipated conditions. The floating car technique could not be used as a replacement operational assessment methodology because that technique is based on actual field tests of average road speeds. Such speeds cannot be determined for future conditions.
Higgins Associates concluded that the projected increase in traffic volumes on Hecker Pass Highway under background conditions would be insignificant relative to existing conditions. Since all segments operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions, Higgins Associates concluded the level of service under background conditions for all segments would be an acceptable C or better. This conclusion is reflected in Table 17, Background Road Segment Operations.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-175
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 17 Background Road Segment Operations
Background Operations AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Road Segment Type EB WB EB WB LOS LOS LOS LOS Hecker Pass 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Hwy/Bet. Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS Santa Teresa & Goldsmith Hecker Pass 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Hwy/Bet. Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS Goldsmith & Two Oaks Hecker Pass 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Highway/Bet. Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS Two Oaks & Burchell Hecker Pass 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Hwy/Bet. Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS Burchell & Bonfante NB SB NB SB Santa Urban Acceptable B Acceptable B Teresa/Bet. Arterial (4 LOS* LOS* Third & First Lanes) Streets Santa Urban A B A A Teresa/South Arterial of Third Street * Operations on this segment are controlled by the operations at the First Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard and Third Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersections. Both intersections operate at acceptable LOS with implementation of approved mitigation. LOS at this segment is therefore considered acceptable. Source: Higgins Associates
The background road segment table also shows levels of service on Santa Teresa Boulevard segments. Again, the segment of Santa Teresa Boulevard between First and Third streets is shown to operate at an unacceptable level of service. But since operations at those intersections would be acceptable with the implementation of
2-176 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
approved mitigation, this segment should also operate at an acceptable level of service. Other segments also would operate at acceptable levels of service.
Existing Transit Service
Public transit service within the City of Gilroy is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and consists of four bus routes throughout the City. However, route 19 is the only route that currently serves the specific plan area with the nearest stop located at Santa Teresa Boulevard and First Street. However, connections to all bus lines and Caltrain can be made at the Downtown Transit Center.
The specific plan area is located less than three miles west of the Gilroy Caltrain Station and Transit Center. Several transit modes provide service to the Center. These transit services provide linkages to other South County communities as well as San Jose, San Francisco, the airports in both of these cities, and stops along the Peninsula.
Additional future transit service to the specific plan area depends on the number of potential riders that will be generated by the development of the area. After evaluating an initial conceptual site plan proposed by the HPSP applicant that showed residential development spread across much of the specific plan area, VTA indicated that this initial site planning approach would not support the use of transit or the extension of transit to the specific plan area. The initial concept has been replaced with the clustered residential design evaluated in this EIR. Clustering may make provision of transit service to the specific plan area more feasible. As residential development density increases, feasibility of transit service also increases.
Existing Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilities
There are three basic types of bicycle facilities in Gilroy. Each type is described below:
Bike path (Class I). A completely separate right-of-way designed for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians, with minimal crossings for motorists.
Bike lane (Class II). A lane on a regular roadway, separated from the motorized vehicle right-of-way by paint striping, designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles. Bike lanes allow one-way bike travel. Through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited, but crossing by pedestrians and motorists is permitted.
Bike route (Class III). Provides shared use of the roadway, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with motorists.
There are Class II bike facilities in the vicinity of the project along First Street and Santa Teresa Boulevard.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-177
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan. The following policies are applicable to the HPSP and Church projects:
Policy 12.06 – Expressway Access. Limit driveway intersections on Santa Teresa Boulevard and Hecker Pass Highway to maximize safety and traffic-carrying capacity, and to maintain the high-speed inter-city character of these expressway routes. Street intersections shall be minimal, with an average spacing of one-half mile between intersections.
Policy 12.08 – Standard Level of Service (LOS). Maintain traffic conditions at LOS C or better at Gilroy intersections and roadways, allowing some commercial and industrial areas (as specified on the Standard Levels of Service Map, page 6-11) to operate at LOS D or better. Exceptions to this standard will be allowed only where the City Council determines that the improvements needed to maintain the City’s standard level of service at specific locations are infeasible.
Policy 13.01 – Transit and Development. Plan new residential and commercial development to fully accommodate, enhance, and facilitate public transit, including pedestrian and bicycle access to transit.
Policy 14.03 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths and Facilities. Correct deficiencies, expand existing facilities, and provide for the design of safer, convenient and attractive bicycle and pedestrian facilities whenever possible. Proposed roadways will be planned to accommodate bicycle traffic in accordance with the bikeway designations set forth in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. Similarly, greenbelts, linear parks, public easements and drainages reserved in public open space will be planned to accommodate bike and pedestrian traffic if they are so designated in the bicycle Transportation Plan.
Policy 14.05 – Private Development of Bike and Pedestrian Facilities. Involve private development in providing bikeways, pedestrian pathways, and support facilities when such facilities pass through or about a development site.
2-178 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
HPSP Project Analysis
HPSP Policies
The HPSP contains a number of policies that address the proposed road system, roadway design, roadway system implementation, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. Representative policies include:
4.4.2 Hecker Pass Setback Corridor
Policy: No development shall be allowed within 100 feet of the existing edge of pavement of Hecker Pass Highway with the exception of future roadway improvements necessary to maintain adequate levels of service through the Planning Area. Limited signage may be included within this setback corridor but should be limited in size and type and shall conform to the signage guidelines provided in Sections 7.3.2 and 7.4.6. Billboards are prohibited.
Policy: Sound walls are strictly prohibited within the Specific Plan Area.
Policy: New posted speed limits on Hecker Pass Highway in the Specific Plan Area should reflect the arterial road classification.
4.5 Roadway Character
Policy: Design streets to safely accommodate the projected traffic volumes for the Specific Plan Area.
Policy: The design and alignment of Third Street within the Specific Plan Area should discourage “cut through” traffic and reduce excessive speeds by incorporating traffic calming devices.
Policy: Create new public “rural road” classifications and design standards for roads within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area to ensure preservation of the area’s rural character.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-179
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy: Utilize existing roadway systems to provide access to the Specific Plan Area and minimize extensive development of new roads within the Planning Area.
4.7 Circulation System Implementation
Policy: All future roads within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area will be developed to the street standards of the Specific Plan. The design of all streets will be subject to review and approval of the City, including review by other affected City departments such as Police, Fire, Parks, etc. Design and construction of public roads outside the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area shall meet appropriate City, County, and/or State design and safety standards.
Policy: The City will require developers to enter into development or subdivision agreements with the City to provide the necessary public roadway improvements to serve the development and mitigate traffic impacts.
4.9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Policy: Provide paved, off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities along all Specific Plan Area roads.
Policy: Developers are encouraged to construct “pedestrian-only” and bicycle-only” corridors within the development areas in order to provide shorter and more direct access travel routes.
Proposed HPSP Circulation Plan
Roadways, Intersections and Signals. The HPSP addresses circulation issues in detail and includes a conceptual circulation plan. That plan is illustrated in Figure 19, Conceptual Circulation Plan. The plan provides for a series of internal roadways that are linked by roundabouts rather than four-way intersections. Four roadway classifications are proposed: rural collector road (undivided), rural collector road (divided), rural entry road (divided or undivided), rural residential road, and residential cluster roads. The proposed classifications are shown in the Conceptual Circulation Plan. Design standards for each roadway type are provided as are lighting and landscaping standards for the margins of the roadways. The HPSP attempts to promote
2-180 EMC Planning Group Inc. B u r c h e l l R o a d
Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates
0 750 feet Figure 19 Conceptual Circulation Plan HPSP/South Valley Community Church EIR Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-182 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
the rural character of the area by proposing design standards that avoid typical grid and typical sidewalk and curb cut approaches.
An extension of Third Street from Santa Teresa Boulevard to the west to connect to Hecker Pass Highway would provide the main internal circulation spine. Third Street has already been extended from Santa Teresa Boulevard to the western boundary of the Village Green project. A traffic signal at the intersection of Third Street and Santa Teresa Boulevard has been installed as part of the improvements for the Village Green project.
As shown in the Conceptual Circulation Plan, two new access points onto Hecker Pass Highway are proposed. The first is located in the western portion of the specific plan area (“West intersection”) and the second is in the eastern portion of the specific plan area (“East intersection”). The HPSP assumes that both of these intersections will require signalization. Preliminary improvement plans for the intersections are included in the HPSP. Two existing access points onto the highway, the driveway into Goldsmith Seeds and the Two Oaks Lane intersection, would be eliminated. This is consistent with city policy for limiting the number of access points onto Hecker Pass Highway.
The improvement plans included in the HPSP also illustrate the segment of Hecker Pass Highway from Santa Teresa Boulevard to the East project intersection as a four-lane arterial. This improvement is based on results of the traffic study that indicate that under background plus project conditions, which are described below, the LOS of segments on Hecker Pass Highway would be reduced to unacceptable levels. The improvement plans also show Hecker Pass Highway from the East intersection to the Bonfante driveway as a two-lane arterial. The HPSP does not contain policies that require implementation of these improvements.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails. The HPSP includes plans for a system of internal pedestrian and bicycle trails. The main pedestrian and bicycle trail feature is an extension of the Uvas Creek Class I Levee Trail along the top of the Uvas Creek from it current western terminus at the eastern side of Santa Teresa Boulevard to the western boundary of the specific plan area at Hecker Pass Highway. It will be located within the proposed linear park that runs along the top of the Uvas Creek bank. Secondary public access bicycle and pedestrian trails are planned along internal roads, connecting cluster residential uses to agricultural commercial and agri-tourist uses along Hecker Pass Highway and connecting the Class I trail along Uvas Creek to these uses and the highway. Figure 20, Specific Plan Conceptual Trail System Plan, illustrates the locations and classifications of proposed trail network.
Transit Facilities. The HPSP does not propose specific locations for transit facilities. It acknowledges that the proposed density of development may not be great enough to support the extension of transit service to the specific plan area. The HPSP does note that sufficient density may be achieved if additional development occurs west of the specific plan area and that all developers should contact the VTA to determine if construction of transit facilities as part of any one development is warranted. The
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-183
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Specific Plan also includes design guidelines for bus turnouts if warranted. However, the cluster residential approach taken in the HPSP will be further reviewed by the VTA to determine if limited or full transit service to some or all of the clusters may be feasible.
Circulation Related Elements of the Proposed General Plan Amendment
The HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment includes a request that Hecker Pass Highway be reclassified from an expressway to an arterial within the city limits of Gilroy. The request reflects the applicant’s belief that widening of Hecker Pass to a four- lane expressway as provided for in the City of Gilroy General Plan, is inconsistent with City of Gilroy General Plan goals for maintaining the scenic character of the highway corridor and is not necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service. The traffic study concludes that the classification of the highway as an expressway is not necessary to accommodate general plan build out traffic conditions, as is discussed throughout the remainder of this traffic impact evaluation. Given that the traffic analysis results show that redesignation of Hecker Pass Highway to an arterial will be sufficient to accommodate general plan build out traffic conditions, the general plan amendment request would not appear to have significant impacts. Formal review and approval of the request by Caltrans will be needed to identify concerns related to this proposed change and to ensure that final design of improvements are consistent with Caltrans standards.
Project Traffic Generation and Distribution
Table 18, Specific Plan Trip Generation and Distribution, shows the estimated daily trip generation and peak hour volumes for build out of the specific plan area (“background plus total project conditions” as described in the most recent traffic study), including the Church project. Trip generation and distribution for the Church project is given at a greater level of detail than for the remainder of HPSP land uses as the Church project components are well defined.
As can be seen, total trip generation from build out of the specific plan area is estimated at 13,030 daily trips. Approximately 909 of these trips would occur in the morning peak hour, with about 1,162 in the afternoon peak hour. An assumption is made that a small number of trips would be linked or pass-by trip, where drivers would stop at a destination within the specific plan area (such as the Church school or local serving commercial use) and continue on to a final destination. A total of 88 of these trips are assumed, with 23 in the morning peak hour and 55 in the afternoon peak hour. Thus, the total net morning peak hour trips distributed onto the surrounding roadway network total 886 and the total afternoon peak hour number of trips is 1,107. The majority of these trips would travel east on Hecker Pass Highway or east on Third Street to points beyond. Some of the trips would travel west on Hecker Pass Highway.
2-184 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-186 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 18 Specific Plan Trip Generation and Distribution
Land Use Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Hour Trips Hour Trips Church Project (Phase 1) Elementary School 459 131 0 Kindergarten 55 15 0 Middle School 218 69 24 Daycare & Admin. 115 18 19 Gym 614 60 75 Sanctuary 419 33 30 Office Building 109 16 15 Playfields 160 8 64 Church Subtotal 2,149 350 227 Remainder of HPSP Residential 5,072 398 535 Agri-tourist Commercial 3,738 48 238 Convenience Market1 1,425 93 104 Agricultural Commercial 646 20 58 Subtotal 10,881 559 935 Total Net Trips 13,030 909 1,162 Linked Trips 23 55 TOTAL TRIPS 13,030 886 1,107 Note: 1A convenience market is a permitted use within the Agri-tourist designation. It has been listed separately because its high trip generation rate would inappropriately skew the Agri-tourist trip generation factor rate. Source: Higgins Associates
Background Plus HPSP Build Out Conditions
Intersection Operations. Background plus HPSP morning and evening peak hour intersection levels of service are shown in Table 19, Background Plus HPSP Build Out Intersection Operations. The LOS results indicate that nearly for all intersections in the study area during both AM and PM peak hours would operate at LOS B or better. The only exception is the Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street intersection which would operate at LOS C for the AM peak hour and C- for the PM peak hour. With the installation of a second through lane on the eastbound approach, the LOS C- would be
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-187
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 19 Background Plus HPSP Build Out Intersection Operations
Background + HPSP Build Out Traffic Intersection Control AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Delay Delay LOS LOS (sec) (sec) Santa Teresa/First Street Signal 28.4 C 32.3 C- Santa Teresa/Third Street Signal 142.0 B+ 10.7 B+ Bonfante Gardens Stop Sign 1.9 A 4.3 A Driveway/Hecker Pass Hwy Burchell Road/Hecker Pass Hwy Stop Sign 1.3 A 1.7 A West Access/Hecker Pass Hwy Stop Sign 216.7 B 19.1 B- East Access/Hecker Pass Hwy Stop Sign 9.8 A 9.7 A
Source: Higgins Associates
improved to LOS C. This improvement is not required for the intersection, but is required for impacts on a roadway segment (as described below). It would also improve operations at this intersection. Note that the Goldsmith Seeds/Hecker Pass Highway intersection would be closed with build out of the specific plan area, so it is not shown in the table.
Road Segment Operations. The description of road segments along Hecker Pass Highway would change given closure of the Goldsmith Seeds intersection and the Twin Oaks driveway under background plus project conditions and the construction of the East and West intersections. Three road segments now become relevant: 1) Santa Teresa Boulevard to the East intersection; 2) East intersection to the West intersection; and 3) West intersection the Bonfante Gardens driveway.
Background plus HPSP build out level of service ratings are summarized in Table 20, Background Plus HPSP Build Out Road Segment Operations. With two exceptions, the east and westbound levels of service on the three segments would all operate at acceptable levels of service using a segment analysis methodology that assumes the highway is upgraded to a two-lane arterial. Higgins Associates utilized a two-lane arterial as the basis for this evaluation, as the HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment requests that the existing expressway classification for the highway be changed to an
2-188 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 20 Background Plus HPSP Build Out Road Segment Operations
Background + HPSP Operations AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Road Segment Type EB WB EB WB LOS LOS LOS LOS Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. Urban Arterial D A D A Santa Teresa & East Access Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. East Urban Arterial A A A A Access & West Access Hecker Pass Highway/Bet. Urban Arterial B A B A West Access & Bonfante NB SB NB SB Santa Teresa/Bet. Third & Urban Arterial Acceptable B Acceptable B First Streets LOS* LOS* Santa Teresa/South of Urban Arterial A B A A Third Street * Operations on this segment are controlled by the operations at the First Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard and Third Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersections. Both intersections operate at acceptable LOS with implementation of approved mitigation. LOS on this segment is therefore considered acceptable. Source: Higgins Associates
arterial classification. This approach was deemed acceptable by the city. Under this scenario, the exception to acceptable level of service operations is the eastbound movement on the segment between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the East intersection, which would operate at LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours.
To achieve the levels of service shown in the table, Hecker Pass Highway would need to be improved between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the Bonfante driveway. Implementation of a mitigation to widen Hecker Pass Highway between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the East intersection to four lane arterial standards would improve the level of service on the Santa Teresa Boulevard to East intersection segment to an acceptable LOS C or better. Implementation of a mitigation to upgrade the highway to two-lane arterial standards would be required for the segment from the East intersection to the Bonfante driveway.
Under background plus HPSP build out conditions, the Santa Teresa Boulevard segments would, with one exception, also operate at an acceptable level of service. The northbound PM peak hour level of service between First and Third streets would be acceptable level of service because both intersections that control operations on this segment will operate at an acceptable level of service.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-189
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Consistency with the General Plan
The City of Gilroy General Plan describes four main issues for circulation within the Hecker Pass Special Use District that need to be addressed in a specific plan. These include: limit access points on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard, plan for the widening of Hecker Pass Highway, provide for internal vehicle circulation, and provide an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The HPSP does address all four of these circulation issues and is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan in this regard. However, implementation of the HPSP without implementation of a range of transportation and circulation improvements on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard would result in a reduction of level of service at intersections and on several road segments that is below the city’s threshold of LOS C or better. The HPSP would be inconsistent with City of Gilroy General Plan policies 12.08 and 13.01, respectively if the project applicant did not propose direct improvements and contribution of traffic impact fees that would mitigate the reduction in level of service under background plus total project, and general plan build out conditions.
The HPSP does propose intersection improvements at the East and West intersections on Hecker Pass Highway and at the Third Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection. However, the widening of Hecker Pass Highway to a four-lane arterial between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the East intersection and upgrading of the highway to arterial standards from the East intersection to the West intersection, both of which are deemed necessary to mitigate project specific impacts, are not required in policies of the HPSP. These widening/upgrading improvements are included on plans in the HPSP that illustrate proposed intersection improvements.
Construction Traffic
Construction of projects within the specific plan area will be phased over time. Construction would generate truck and worker automobile trips. Construction traffic volumes would be much less than operational volumes, and are not expected to result in significant traffic impacts at any one point in time.
Church Project (Phase 1) Analysis
Proposed Circulation Plan
Roadways and Access. The Church project site plan illustrates two access points. Initial access will be provided to the site via Third Street and an access road that traverses the western boundary of the site. A second access from Hecker Pass Highway would be developed at a later date as part of the improvements for the entire specific plan area. Internal circulation is via throughways located within the proposed parking areas.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails. The proposed Uvas Creek Class I trail would extend across the southern portion of the Church project site along Uvas Creek. A system of internal paths are planned to enable pedestrian access throughout the site.
2-190 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Project Traffic Generation and Distribution
The traffic generation and distribution calculations for the Church project are illustrated in the Specific Plan Trip Generation and Distribution table presented earlier in this section. The project would generate approximately 2,149 daily trips with about 350 of those occurring in the morning peak hour and about 227 occurring in the evening peak hour.
Background Plus Church Project
Intersection Operations. Background plus Church project morning and evening peak hour intersection levels of service are shown in Table 21, Background Plus Church Intersection Operations. The LOS results indicate that for almost all the intersections in the study area, (and during both AM and PM peak hours), the intersections would operate at LOS B or better. The only exception is the Santa Teresa Boulevard / First Street intersection which would operate at LOS C for both the AM and PM peak hours. Note that the East and West intersections are not listed in the table because they would not be constructed until after the Church project is developed.
TABLE 21 Background Plus Church Project Intersection Operations
Background + Church Operations Existing Intersection AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Control LOS LOS Santa Teresa/First Street Signal C C Santa Teresa/Third Street Signal B+ B+ Bonfante Gardens Stop Sign A A Driveway/Hecker Pass Hwy Burchell Road/Hecker Pass Hwy Stop Sign A A Goldsmith Driveway/Hecker Stop Sign A A Pass Hwy
Source: Higgins Associates
Road Segment Operations. Background plus Church project morning and evening peak hour road segment levels of service are shown in Table 22, Background Plus Church Project Road Segment Operations. As discussed with the HPSP analysis above, the initial two-lane rural highway volume thresholds methodology initially used results in all segments on Hecker Pass Highway operating at below LOS C. However, with the change in methodology for determining LOS effects on Hecker Pass Highway described
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-191
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
previously for background conditions and the fact that the Church project would add only a minor additional increment of traffic on Hecker Pass Highway, levels of service on the highway are expected to remain at acceptable levels. All segments on Santa Teresa Boulevard would also operate at acceptable levels of service.
TABLE 22 Background Plus Church Project Road Segment Operations
Background + Church Project Operations AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Road Segment Type EB WB EB WB LOS LOS LOS LOS Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Santa Teresa & East Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS Access Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Santa Teresa & West Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS Access Hecker Pass 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Highway/Bet. West Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS Access & Burchell Hecker Pass Hwy/Bet. 2-lane Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Burchell & Bonfante Hwy LOS LOS LOS LOS NB NB NB NB Santa Teresa/Bet. Third Urban Acceptable B Acceptable B & First Streets Arterial LOS* LOS* Santa Teresa/South of Urban A B A A Third Street Arterial
* Operations on this segment are controlled by the operations at the First Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard and Third Street/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersections. Both intersections operate at acceptable LOS under background plus Church project conditions. LOS on this segment is therefore considered acceptable.
Source: Higgins Associates
Church Project Consistency with the HPSP
The Church project appears to be consistent with the HPSP. Access to the site would be consistent with City of Gilroy General Plan policy and the Church project would be required to participate in traffic and circulation improvements that serve to ensure an
2-192 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
LOS C or better is maintained on at all affected intersections and road segments. The Church project will provide for the extension of the Class I trail along Uvas Creek.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority guidelines, and City of Gilroy policy indicate that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it:
• For a signalized study intersection:
◊ Causes operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better; LOS D or better on Gilroy study intersections) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level of service (LOS F; LOS E or LOS F on Gilroy study intersections); or
◊ Exacerbates unacceptable operations (LOS F; LOS E or LOS F on Gilroy study intersections by increasing the critical delay by more than four seconds and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more.
• For an un-signalized study intersection:
◊ Causes operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better; LOS D or better on Gilroy study intersections) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level of service (LOS F; LOS E or LOS F on Gilroy study intersections); or
◊ Causes the peak-hour volume traffic signal warrant to be satisfied and the worst movement/approach operations to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F;
• Causes operations on a roadway segment to deteriorate from an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better; LOS D or better on Gilroy study roads) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level of service (LOS F; LOS E or LOS F on Gilroy study roads):
• Substantially increases hazards due to a design feature;
• Results in inadequate emergency access;
• Results in inadequate parking capacity;
• Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks); or
• Conflicts with any City traffic policies.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-193
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
HPSP Impacts
Effects on Traffic Operations on Hecker Pass Highway from the Proposed East and West Access Roads Under Background Plus Total Project Conditions – Significant Impact. Implementation of the HPSP circulation plan requires that two new intersections be created on Hecker Pass Highway (two existing driveways onto the highway would be eliminated). These intersections could impact operations on Hecker Pass Highway unless they are properly designed to accommodate background plus project and cumulative and general plan build out traffic conditions.
The HPSP includes specific policy and plans for constructing the East and West intersection improvements. These improvements have been designed in consultation with the city to ensure they meet future traffic condition requirements. Implementation of the policy and plans would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. No further mitigation is required.
Substantial Increase in Traffic that Contributes to Unacceptable Levels of Service on Hecker Pass Highway Under Background Plus Total Project Conditions – Significant Impact. The HPSP will cause a substantial increase in AM and PM peak hour trips on Hecker Pass Highway when background conditions are compared with background conditions plus HPSP build out. The HPSP triggers the need to widen Hecker Pass Highway from a two-lane rural highway to a four-lane arterial between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the East intersection. It also triggers the need to upgrade the highway to a two-lane arterial from the West intersection to the Bonfante driveway. These improvements would result in an LOS C or better on the Hecker Pass road segments studied.
The HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment includes a request to change the classification of the highway from a four-lane expressway as it is designated in the City of Gilroy General Plan to a two-lane arterial. Approval of the amendment would be needed to enable implementation of the improvements that mitigate HPSP impacts.
The HPSP includes plans that illustrate these improvements. However, it does not specify the responsibility of the HPSP applicant for widening Hecker Pass Highway between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the East intersection to a four-lane arterial as required, nor does it specify the applicant’s responsibility for upgrading the highway to two-lane arterial standards between the East intersection and West intersection.
Upgrading of the highway between the West intersection and the Bonfante Gardens intersection is deemed to be the responsibility of the city as a cumulative development improvement, though the improvement is needed prior to build out of the HPSP to mitigate a reduction of level of service to below standards on this segment.
Mitigation Measures
18. Applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for widening Hecker Pass Highway to a four-lane urban arterial from Santa Teresa Boulevard to the East intersection. This improvement is contingent on approval
2-194 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
of the HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment that would reclassify Hecker Pass Highway to an arterial. 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.
19. Applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for upgrading Hecker Pass Highway to a two-lane arterial from the East intersection to the Bonfante Gardens intersection. This improvement is contingent on approval of the HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment that would reclassify Hecker Pass Highway to a two-lane arterial. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy Engineering Division to design and implement the upgrade project. Removal of deodar cedar trees along the highway must be avoided wherever possible and improvements must be consistent with State scenic highway guidelines. The upgrade project must be approved by the relevant State and local agencies.
Facilitation of Transit Service – Potentially Significant Impact. The HPSP may not facilitate use of public transit consistent with city policy. The HPSP does call for clustering of residential uses in specific locations. This should facilitate the potential for transit service by concentrating residential development in specific locations. However, the feasibility of providing transit services to the residential clusters is not clear. The VTA will review the proposed project to determine if and how transit service may be provided. The HPSP includes a policy requiring new development to request review of plans by the VTA to determine transit feasibility and improvements that may be required to facilitate transit service.
Church Project Impacts
As a specific project, the Church project will not create significant adverse impacts on the transportation network. Its cumulative effects are included in the analysis of transportation impacts of the HPSP.
2.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting - Water Service
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002), California Water Plan Update (Department of Water 1994), the Water Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1993), the HPSP, Hydrology and Drainage for Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Program EIR (Schaaf & Wheeler 2003), Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report and Calculations (Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates 2003), project specific generation factors from the Church project applicant and the water supply assessment made per California Assembly Bill 610 (AB 610) provided by the city. Note that the City recently updated its Water Master Plan. The water demand methodology used in the
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-195
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
1993 Water Master Plan is the same as used in the recent update so use of the 1993 Water Master Plan for this purpose is considered acceptable. No comments regarding water infrastructure and services were received during circulation of the NOP.
Potable Water Supply System
The Water Master Plan provides background on the existing municipal water supply system and a program to provide water service for future development. The city obtains its water from the Llagas groundwater basin of the Santa Clara Valley, which is managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The city currently has eleven wells, with seven wells typically operating at any given time. The present maximum pumping capacity is 14.3 mgd, or approximately 16,000 acre-feet per year. Several new wells are expected to increase this capacity. According to the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR the current citywide maximum water demand is approximately 12.5 million gallons per day (mgd). This equals approximately 14,000 acre-feet of water annually.
The City of Gilroy is divided into three water distribution pressure zones. The specific plan area is located in a portion of each zone. The northeastern portion of the specific plan area (hillside area north of Hecker Pass Highway) is located in Zone 3, the northwestern portion of the specific plan area (north of Hecker Pass Highway) is located in Zone 2, and the southern portion of the specific plan area (south of Hecker Pass Highway) is located in Pressure Zone 1.
Zone 1 contains all municipal water wells and is in the lower elevation areas of the city. Water is stored in several steel reservoirs with a total capacity of 6.4 million gallons. Each pressure Zone receives water from a gravity flow system that comes directly from the reservoirs. The city operates its wells to meet system demands based on reservoir levels. The wells are also used to meet peak demands and fire flows. The reservoirs are drawn to half-full during the winter season before filling from municipal wells in the summer. Water is lightly chlorinated at the well sites.
An existing 24-inch water line is located in Santa Teresa Boulevard and an existing 16- inch water line is located in Hecker Pass Highway, both of which are located in pressure Zone 1.
Recycled Water Supply System
The city is currently developing a recycled water distribution system. Recycled water is made available through the South County Regional Wastewater Authority. Recycled water can be utilized for irrigation of landscaping and certain types of agricultural commodities. The use of recycled water greatly reduces the demand for municipal groundwater.
An existing 16-inch recycled water line is located in Hecker Pass Highway and a 12-inch recycled water line extends north across Uvas Creek from the Eagle Ridge development through the specific plan area to Hecker Pass Highway.
2-196 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Existing Water Use
The HPSP indicates that there are seven existing agricultural wells located within the specific plan area. Two of the wells are located on the Goldsmith Seeds property, one on the Hoey property, one on the Vanni property, one abandoned well on the Bonfante Nurseries property, and one active and one dormant well on the Church project site. These wells have pumping capacity of 150 to 600 gallons per minute. Existing water use was estimated using the City of Gilroy Water Master Plan usage rates for rural residential uses and well log data provided by the property owner representatives for agricultural uses. Current water use within the specific plan area is estimated to be approximately 197,840 gallons per day. The estimated existing water use is presented in Table 23, Existing Water Use. It should be noted that the use rates in Table 23 are conservative.
TABLE 23 Existing Water Use
Use Rate Component Units Gallons per day (gpd/unit) Rural Residential 7 residences 2,3001 16,100 Agriculture 156 acres 1,1652 181,740 Total Existing Demand -- -- 197,840
1. Rural residential water use rates were derived from the median use rates as identified in the Water Master Plan. 2. Agricultural water use rates were derived from well log data that was provided by Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates.
Source: Water Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1993) and Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes one policy designed to ensure that the infrastructure needs of the residents are provided. The policy is as follows:
Policy 19.02 Location of Development: Locate new development in the areas that are most easily supplied by Gilroy’s current water system.
California Senate Bill 610 – Water Supply Planning. This law requires a city or county that determines an environmental impact report is required in connection with a project, as defined, to request each public water system that may supply water for the project to
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-197
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
assess, among other things, whether its total projected water supplies will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. If the public water system, in this case the City of Gilroy, concludes that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, to submit the plans for acquiring additional water supplies. The bill requires that the water supply assessment and certain other information be included in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to the act. The water supply assessment for the HPSP is included in Appendix D.
HPSP Project Analysis - Water Service
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes several policies relating to water service in the specific plan area. The policies are as follows:
8.1 Water
Policy: Existing water wells within the Specific Plan Area will be allowed as an ongoing source of irrigation water for agricultural uses and open space areas.
Policy: Conform all design and construction of the domestic water system to the City of Gilroy Water Master Plan and City standards.
Policy: The water distribution system for the new development within the Specific Plan Area shall meet fire flow and pressure requirements of the Gilroy Fire Department and Engineering Division.
Policy: Provide recycled water as an alternative to potable water for landscape irrigation and, where feasible, crop irrigation throughout the Specific Plan Area.
Policy: Where practical, recycled water should be used to irrigate landscaping within the Specific Plan open space areas.
Infrastructure
The potable water infrastructure for the HPSP would consist of installing 12-inch and 8-inch potable water lines. The HPSP calls for a 12-inch line that connects to the 24-inch line in Santa Teresa Boulevard. The line would extend west along the entire length of
2-198 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
the Third Street extension and then would turn north on Third Street before connecting to the 16-inch potable water line in Hecker Pass Highway. A 12-inch line would also extend north along the Church project site boundary from Hecker Pass Highway to the Third Street extension. An 8-inch line would connect to the Third Street potable water line and extend through the southern portion of the specific plan area (Bonfante Nursery property) to the Hecker Pass Highway. Individual projects within the specific plan area would tie into the main distribution system. Figure 21, Potable Water Plan, shows the potable water distribution system and Figure 22, Recycled Water Plan, shows the recycled water distribution system for the HPSP.
Water Demand
The water unit demand factors identified in the Water Master Plan (Gilroy 1993) were used to estimate the water needed to service the HPSP land uses. Table 24, Estimated Potable Water Use, summarizes the estimated potable water demand. Table 25, Estimated Recycled Water Use, summarizes the estimated recycled water demand. Table 26, Estimated Agricultural Water Use From Existing Wells, summarizes the estimated agricultural irrigation demand from existing wells.
It is assumed that city water supply will be used to meet potable water demand, recycled water will be used for irrigating landscaping and possibly for some agricultural uses, and that water from existing on-site wells will be used for supplying agricultural activities.
The residential portion of the HPSP would create housing for a maximum of 1,855 residents, assuming 3.5 residents per household. Median water use for the residential portion of the HPSP is estimated to be 180 gallons per day per person, with a possible range from 145 to 210 gallons per day per person. The estimated median volume of water needed to serve the residential portion of the HPSP is 333,900 gallons per day.
The unit demand factor for commercial uses was applied to estimate the water needed to service the Agri-tourist Commercial and Agricultural Commercial land uses. Median water use for these uses within the HPSP is estimated to be 1,000 gallons per day per acre, with a possible range from 800 to 1,200 gallons per day per acre. The estimated median water volume needed to serve the Agri-tourist Commercial portion of the HPSP is 42,000 gallons per day.
The unit demand factor for recycled water uses was applied to estimate the water needed to service the linear park and 3-acre neighborhood park. Median water use for this portion of the HPSP is estimated to be 1,000 gallons per day per acre, with a possible range from 800 to 1,200 gallons per day per acre. The estimated median water volume needed to serve this portion of the HPSP is 19,000 gallons per day. It may be possible to use recycled water for some agricultural uses. This would depend on the type of
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-199
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 24 Estimated Potable Water Use
Use Rate Component Units Gallons per day (gpd/unit)1 Residential 1,855 people 180 333,900 Community Facilities 18 acres 526 9,468 Agri-tourist Commercial 17 acres 1,000 17,000 Agricultural Commercial 25 acres 1,000 25,000 Total Project Demand -- -- 385,368 Existing City Demand -- -- 12,500,000 Existing City Demand plus 12,885,368 HPSP Demand Existing City Capacity -- -- 14,500,000 1. Residential, Agri-tourist, and Recreational water use rates were derived from the median use rates as identified in the Water Master Plan. 2. Agricultural water use rates were derived from well log data that was provided by Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates.
Source: Water Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1993) and Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates.
TABLE 25 Estimated Recycled Water Use
Use Rate Component Acres Gallons per day (gpd/unit)1 Linear Park and 3-acre 19 1,000 19,000 Neighborhood Park
Source: Water Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1993) and Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates.
agricultural product grown. This determination has not been made. Therefore, at present, it is not possible to estimate recycled water demand for this purpose.
2-200 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates
0 770 feet Figure 21 Potable Water Plan HPSP/South Valley Community Church EIR Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-202 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-204 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
TABLE 26 Estimated Agricultural Water Use From Existing Wells
Use Rate Component Acres Gallons per day (gpd/unit)1 Agriculture 73 acres 1,165 85,045 1. Agricultural water use rates were derived from well log data that was provided by Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates.
Source: Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar & Associates.
The unit demand factor for agricultural uses was derived from existing well log data. Median water use for this portion of the HPSP is estimated to be 1,165 gallons per day per acre. The estimated median water volume needed to serve this portion of the HPSP is 85,045 gallons per day. As noted above, demand for groundwater for agricultural uses could incrementally decline if recycle water can be used.
The total estimated water demand (potable, recycled, and existing well water) using the above unit demand factors is 489,413 gallons per day.
Consistency with the General Plan
The City of Gilroy General Plan provides policy that requires new development to be located in areas that can be easily served by existing infrastructure. The proposed HPSP is consistent with this policy. The HPSP includes a general plan amendment that would allow up to 530 dwelling units, which if approved, would be an increase of 418 units relative to what the City of Gilroy General Plan currently permits within the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The approval of the additional 418 units would represent a water use increase of up to 263,340 gallons of water per day for the residential uses and approximately 9,468 gallons per day for the Church project.
Water Supply Assessment
The city has conducted an assessment of its ability to provide water supply to the specific plan area at the development levels proposed in the HPSP per California Senate Bill 610 requirements. The city has found that its water supply is sufficient to meet projected demand.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-205
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Church Project Analysis - Water Service
Infrastructure
The proposed Church project does not yet include infrastructure plans. The Church project would connect to the HPSP backbone infrastructure for water supply.
Water Demand
The median water use for the Church project is estimated to be 526 gallons per day per acre. The estimated median water needed to serve the Church project is 9,468 gallons per day.
Consistency with the HPSP
The HPSP provides policy relating to existing wells water use in areas proposed for agricultural use, and recycled water use in the park uses. These policies are not applicable to the Church project. The HPSP also includes a policy relating to pressure flows. The Church project has not, to date, finalized an infrastructure design or pressure calculations. The Gilroy Engineering Division would review the infrastructure design and calculations to ensure that they meet the minimum standards. This would be accomplished during building permit review. The Church project is consistent with the HPSP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Water Service
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant environmental effect on water service if it would:
• require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or
• have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
HPSP Impacts
Construction of New or Expanded Infrastructure – Less than Significant Impact: Development as permitted in the HPSP does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing potable or recycled water supply infrastructure. Existing mains and proposed distribution lines within the specific plan area would enable subsequent individual projects to access both sources of water. Construction of water supply infrastructure for the HPSP would have a less than significant environmental impact. Standard conditions of approval applied to all development projects would ensure that infrastructure is built to city standards. No mitigation is necessary.
2-206 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Water Supply/Availability - Less Than Significant Impact: The HPSP would require approximately 385,368 gallons of potable water per day, 19,000 gallons of recycled water per day, and 85,045 gallons of agricultural irrigation water per day. The City of Gilroy prepared a water supply assessment as required by Senate Bill 610. The assessment indicates that the city has adequate water supplies to meet the projected demand for potable water and recycled water. Therefore, the HPSP would have a less than significant impact on the municipal water supply.
Church Project Impacts
Construction of New or Expanded Infrastructure – Less than Significant Impact: The Church project would connect to the HPSP backbone infrastructure. Installation of the Church project infrastructure would have a less than significant impact on the environment.
Water Supply/Availability – Less than Significant Impact: The Church project would require approximately 9,468 gallons of water per day. The City of Gilroy prepared a water supply assessment as required by Senate Bill 610. The assessment indicates that the city has adequate water supplies to meet the projected demand for potable water and recycled water. Therefore, the HPSP would have a less than significant impact on the municipal water supply.
Environmental Setting - Sanitary Sewer Service
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002), and the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1993). No comments regarding sanitary sewer infrastructure and services were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Sanitary Sewer System
The sanitary sewer system in the city includes a network of trunk sewers (ten inches in diameter or greater) that generally flow from west to east and discharge into an interceptor sewer on the west side of U.S. Highway 101. The interceptor line carries flow south to the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) Wastewater Treatment Plant (Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1993). The SCRWA consists of the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, who cooperatively share responsibility for the maintenance of sewage treatment and collection infrastructure that is located within their respective cities.
The SCRWA treatment plant has an average dry weather flow permitted capacity of 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The city owns 58.1 percent (4.4 mgd) of the total capacity, and currently delivers approximately 3.1 mgd to the plant. Future expansions of the plant would take the total treatment capacity to 15 mgd.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-207
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Existing and Planned Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
A sanitary sewer line currently traverses the southern portion of the specific plan area near the top of the north bank of Uvas Creek. The sanitary sewer line was installed as part of the Country Estates project, which is located within the hillside areas to the north of the specific plan area. The HPSP indicates that preliminary engineering calculations reveal sufficient capacity in downstream sewer mains to accommodate the estimated flows produced from buildout of the HPSP.
The existing sewer line is an 18-inch main starting in Burchell Road in the western portion of the specific plan area. The 18-inch line is increased to 24 inches within the southern specific plan area and downsizes to a 12-inch after it crosses Santa Teresa Boulevard.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes several policies designed to ensure that the infrastructure needs of the residents are provided:
Policy 19.04 Timing and Location of Development: Manage the timing and location of new development according to the ability of the sewer system and treatment plant to accommodate the effluent generated by the proposed development. Ensure that adequate sewer and treatment capacity is funded and in place prior to occupation of new buildings.
Policy 19.06 Sewer Connections: Require that new development connect to the City’s principal wastewater treatment plant. Require pre-treatment of wastes if necessary, and continue to discourage the development of package treatment plants.
Policy 19.08 Areas of Future Development: In areas where future development is expected to be served by sewers, large lot policies (that allow minimal development and limited numbers of septic systems) should be continued. This approach increases the feasibility of designing future urban density subdivisions with smaller lots, which are more efficient for sewers of service and cost.
The City Engineer believes that the septic system component of Policy 19.08 may be inconsistent with current city ordinances.
2-208 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
HPSP Project Analysis - Sanitary Sewer Service
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes one policy relating to sanitary sewer service in the specific plan area. The policy is as follows:
8.3 Sanitary Sewer
Policy: Design and construction of the sanitary sewer system shall conform to the City of Gilroy Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and City standards.
Infrastructure Construction or Expansion
The HPSP indicates that a 10-inch main sewer line will be extended north on the northward extension of Third Street and across Hecker Pass Highway to serve new development. A 10-inch main sewer line will also be extended north on Street B to Hecker Pass Highway. Additionally, an eight-inch main sewer line will be extended north on an unnamed street along the western boundary of the Church project site. Figure 23 Sanitary Sewer Plan, shows the sanitary sewer system for the HPSP.
Wastewater Generation
The wastewater unit flow factors identified in the Sewer Master Plan (Gilroy 1993) were used to estimate the wastewater generated from the HPSP land uses. Table 27, Estimated Wastewater Flow, summarizes the estimated sanitary sewer demand. The demand figure includes the use of recycled water for irrigating landscaping, etc.
The residential portion of the HPSP would create housing for up to 1,855 people, assuming 3.5 persons per household. The average wastewater flow for the residential portion of the HPSP is estimated to be 70 gallons per day per person. The estimated wastewater flow generated by the residential portion of the HPSP is 129,850 gallons per day.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-209
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
TABLE 27 Estimated Wastewater Flow
Generation Rate Component Units Gallons per day (gpd/unit)1 Residential 1,855 people 70 129,850 Community Facilities 630 people 3.6 2,268 Agri-tourist Commercial 17 acres 300 5,100 Agriculture Commercial 25 acres 300 7,500 Total Project Demand -- -- 144,718 Existing City Demand -- -- 3,100,000 Existing City Demand plus 3,244,718 HPSP Demand Existing City Capacity -- -- 4,400,000
1. Residential and Agri-tourist waste water flow rates were derived from the average flow rates identified in the Sewer Master Plan.
2. Existing city demand is based on the demand indicated in the General Plan EIR.
Source: Sewer Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1993)
The wastewater flow factor used to estimate the wastewater flow generated by the Church project was obtained from project specific information provided by the Church project applicant. The average wastewater flow for the Community Facilities portion of the HPSP is estimated to be 3.6 gallons per day per person. The estimated wastewater flow generated by the Community Facilities portion of the HPSP is 2,268 gallons per day.
The wastewater unit flow factor for commercial uses was applied to estimate the wastewater flow generated by the Agri-tourist Commercial and Agricultural Commercial land use. The average wastewater flow for the both of these uses is estimated to be 300 gallons per day per acre. The daily wastewater flow from the Agri-tourist Commercial use is estimated at 5,100 gallons per day. The estimated wastewater flow generated by the Agricultural Commercial use is estimated at 7,500 gallons per day. The open space and agricultural open space areas are not expected to generate wastewater flow. The water used to irrigate crops and landscaping is expected to be taken up by plants, percolate into the soils, drain to water courses, and/or evaporate.
2-210 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-212 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
The total estimated wastewater flow using the above unit flow factors is 144,718 gallons per day.
Consistency with the General Plan
The City of Gilroy General Plan provides policies that require new development to connect to the city system. The proposed HPSP is consistent with this policy. The HPSP proposes to amend the City of Gilroy General Plan to allow up to 530 dwelling units. Currently, the City of Gilroy General Plan has a maximum target total of about 112 dwelling units for specific plan area. The increase in units would result greater wastewater generation and treatment demand than planned for by the city. The increase would be up to 103,390 gallons of wastewater per day for the residential uses and approximately 2,268 gallons per day for the Church project.
Church Project Analysis - Sanitary Sewer Service
Infrastructure Construction or Expansion
The proposed Church project does not yet include infrastructure plans. The Church project would connect to the HPSP backbone infrastructure through on-site infrastructure to be constructed.
Wastewater Generation
The wastewater flow factor used to estimate the wastewater flow generated by the Church project was obtained from project specific information provided by the Church project applicant. The average wastewater flow for the Church project is estimated to be 3.6 gallons per day per person. The estimated wastewater flow generated by the Church project is 2,268 gallons per day.
Consistency with the HPSP
The HPSP provides policy requiring all sewer facilities to conform to the City of Gilroy Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The. The Gilroy Engineering Division would review the infrastructure design to ensure that it meets the minimum standards. This would be accomplished during the building permit review. The Church project is consistent with the HPSP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Sanitary Sewer Service
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-213
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
• require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or
• fail to meet wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Water Quality Control Board.
HPSP Impacts
Effects from Construction of New or Expanded Infrastructure – Less than Significant Impact: Development as permitted in the HPSP does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing wastewater collection infrastructure. Existing main lines within the site would enable subsequent individual projects to easily connect to the city sanitary sewer system. Construction of sanitary sewer infrastructure for the HPSP would have a less than significant environmental impact. Standard conditions of approval applied to all development projects would ensure that infrastructure is built to city standards. No mitigation is necessary.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity – Less than Significant Impact: Development enabled by the HPSP will generate wastewater that will incrementally reduce remaining available capacity at treatment plant. The HPSP would generate approximately 144,718 gallons of wastewater per day. This is 103,390 gallons of wastewater per day more then what is planned for the specific plan area in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The treatment plant currently has capacity for 4.4 million gallons per day. Buildout of the HPSP would leave 1.16 million gallons per day of remaining capacity at the treatment plant. Therefore, the HPSP would have a less than significant environmental impact on the existing wastewater treatment capacity. No mitigation is necessary.
Church Project Impacts
Effects from Construction of New or Expanded Infrastructure – Less than Significant Impact: The Church project would connect to the HPSP backbone infrastructure. Installation of the Church project infrastructure would have a less than significant impact on the environment. No mitigation is necessary.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity – Less than Significant Impact: The Church project would generate approximately 2,268 gallons of wastewater per day. The wastewater treatment plant has enough capacity to service the entire HPSP, including the Church project. Therefore, the Church project would have a less than significant impact on the wastewater treatment capacity. No mitigation is necessary.
Environmental Setting - Storm Drainage
The following discussion is based on information obtained from the City of Gilroy General Plan (City of Gilroy 2002), Hydrology and Drainage for Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Program EIR (Schaaf & Wheeler 2003) and the Storm Drain Master Plan (City of Gilroy 1993). No
2-214 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
comments regarding stormwater infrastructure and services were received during circulation of the Notice of Preparation.
Existing Storm Water System
The City of Gilroy storm drain system includes a network of pipes that drain quickly into one of the five major drainages (West Branch Llagas Creek, Llagas Creek, Carnadero Creek, Uvas Creek, and the Pajaro River). The pipes are typically concrete or corrugated metal pipes. The specific plan area is located within the Uvas Creek watershed. Lands on all sides of the specific plan area drain to Uvas Creek, as does all of the property located within the specific plan area. Except for the steeper slopes north of Hecker Pass Highway, most of the land within the specific plan area slopes gently towards Uvas Creek and rainfall that occurs during storm events eventually flows into the creek.
The amount of storm water runoff that is created during storm events is largely dependent on the natural ability of soils to absorb rainfall and surface sheet flow. In undeveloped areas, a large proportion of rainfall is absorbed into the soil before storm water begins to run off into watercourses. The percentage of storm water that infiltrates into the soil depends on a number of factors including slope, soil cover (e.g., vegetation) soil type, existing level of saturation and intensity of rainfall. Developed areas contain many impervious surfaces, such as streets and buildings. Essentially no storm water can penetrate impervious surfaces. Rainfall flows on these surfaces until it reaches a pervious surface, drainage pipe or watercourse.
The difference in run-off between pervious and impervious surfaces varies depending on hydrologic conditions. Under low rainfall conditions, or if the soil is not saturated, a very high proportion of rainfall infiltrates a pervious surface and a limited quantity of surface runoff results. As the soil becomes saturated or the rainfall intensifies, a lower proportion of storm water would infiltrate into the subsurface, resulting in higher levels of storm water runoff.
Existing Storm Drainage Infrastructure
At present relatively little of the specific plan area is covered by impervious surfaces, as much of the site remains in agricultural use or natural open space. Rainfall during lower intensity storm events is typically absorbed naturally into the soil. However, during higher intensity events or during rainfall events of longer duration, rainfall volume can exceed the percolation capacity of soils and may run off over the soil surfaces in the form of sheet flow. Because there are no significant storm drainage facilities located on-site to collect or direct surface runoff, surface flow typically runs into naturally occurring swales or other depressions, eventually draining into Uvas Creek. In some cases, localized ponding or even flooding may occur if insufficient natural conveyance to Uvas Creek is available or natural runoff or percolation rates are substantially exceeded.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-215
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies. The City of Gilroy General Plan includes one policy designed to ensure that the infrastructure needs of the residents are provided. The policy is as follows:
Policy 19.09 Storm Drain System: Provide and maintain a system of storm drains to protect areas of development form localized flooding.
HPSP Project Analysis - Storm Drain Service
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes several policies relating to water service in the specific plan area. The policies are as follows:
8.2 Storm Drainage
Policy: Stormwater detention shall be designed to prevent an increase in the 10-year and 100-year peak discharge for the project area.
Policy: Stormwater detention shall provide sufficient storage for the difference between the existing and project conditions 24-hour runoff volume.
Policy: Detention basins shall be designed to release no more than the existing 10-year peak discharge.
Policy: Preserve water quality by implementing the latest Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm drainage into the design and construction of the Specific Plan Area and detention facilities.
Policy: Use the existing channels on site as a primary means for conveyance of pre-treated storm water.
Policy: Ensure that all storm drain flows entering Uvas Creek from the Specific Plan Area coincide with the current City of Gilroy Storm Drain Master Plan and the Uvas Creek Drainage Standards.
2-216 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Infrastructure Construction or Expansion
The Hydrology and Drainage for Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Program EIR (Schaaf & Wheeler 2003) confirmed that the increase in 24-hour runoff volumes from the specific plan area for the 2-, 10-, 25- and 100-year storm events would require mitigation such as on-site detention. The applicant’s representative, RJA, completed a report entitled Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report and Calculations for the HPSP. The report indicates that three detention facilities would be constructed in order to meet city and Santa Clara Valley Water District standards for storm water runoff management. These facilities would drain to a total of three storm water outfalls on the bank of Uvas Creek. Two of the outfalls exist. The third is proposed. Figure 24 Storm Drainage Plan, shows the proposed storm drainage system for the HPSP, including the locations of detention and outfall facilities. One detention facility would be located on the Church project site. A second detention facility would be located along the Third Street extension just east of the Goldsmith property. A third detention facility would be located north of Hecker Pass Highway on the Hoey property.
Construction of the proposed storm drainage outfall on the bank of Uvas Creek could have adverse effects on the habitat quality of the creek corridor. Potential effects and mitigation for construction of this improvement is discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources.
Storm Water Runoff
Buildout of the HPSP would result in new imperious surfaces although large portions of the specific plan area would remain pervious to storm water. The Community Facilities land use (Church project) would introduce the largest single area of impervious surfaces within the specific plan area. With the exception of play fields located near Uvas Creek, and the landscaped areas, the remainder of the Community Facilities (Church project) land use would essentially be covered with buildings and parking areas. Additional impervious surfaces such as roadways, residential development clusters, and commercial areas (roofs, parking areas, improved open space, etc.) would be created throughout the remainder of the specific plan area. It is estimated that impervious surfaces would cover approximately 17 percent of the specific plan area.
Storm Water Quality
Storm water quality is discussed in detail in Section 2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.
Consistency with the General Plan
The City of Gilroy General Plan provides policy that requires new development to provide a system of storm drains to protect areas of development from localized flooding. A storm drain study that was prepared for the HPSP identifies three watershed sub-basins and the estimated storm water runoff. The HPSP includes several policies that require the installation of storm water detention facilities and the implementation of best management practices. The exact design of the storm water facilities would be specified
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-217
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
in tentative maps or development proposals. The information contained in the storm drain study will be required to be incorporated into the design of future storm drain facilities. Therefore, the HPSP is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Church Project Analysis - Storm Drain Service
Infrastructure
The proposed Church project does not yet include detailed infrastructure plans. The Church project would connect to the HPSP backbone infrastructure.
Storm Water Runoff
Much of the Church project site would be covered with impervious surfaces after development. Impervious surfaces would include buildings, parking areas, roadways, and other hardscape.
Consistency with the HPSP
The HPSP provides policy relating to storm water. The Gilroy Engineering Division would review the Church project infrastructure design to ensure that it meets the minimum standards. This would be accomplished during the building permit review. The Church project is consistent with the HPSP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures - Storm Drain Service
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• 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.
HPSP and Church Project Impacts
Effects of Construction or Expansion of Facilities – Potentially Significant Impact: Construction of a new storm drainage outfall on the bank of Uvas Creek could adversely affect the quality of the habitat or affect water quality within the creek. These potential impacts are discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources in more detail. The HPSP includes policies that when implemented would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is necessary.
2-218 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
This side intentionally left blank.
2-220 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Environmental Setting - Other Utilities
Gas and Electricity
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has historically been the only gas and electricity provider for the City of Gilroy. PG&E operates the Llagas substation located at the intersection of Renz Street and Tenth Street near Highway 152. A 115 kV electrical distribution line is located within city right-of-ways.
Telecommunications
Verizon would be the telecommunications service provider for the specific plan area. Verizon is certified by the California Public Utilities Commission to provide local telephone service. Charter Cable would be the cable service provider for the specific plan area.
Solid Waste Disposal
South Valley Disposal and Recycling (SVDR) currently provides waste collection services to the city. The city has a contract with the SVDR to serve the city until 2013. The SVDR currently disposes solid waste at the Pacheco Pass landfill, which was at 80 percent capacity in 2001. The Pacheco Pass landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2007. The city has identified two alternative landfill sites; however, an alternative landfill site has not been secured, nor have negotiations begun. Recyclable items are sent to the San Martin Transfer Station and then transported to a materials recovery facility in San Jose. Approximately 50 percent of solid waste generated in the City of Gilroy is recycled.
Policy/Regulatory Issues
City of Gilroy General Plan Policies
The City of Gilroy General Plan includes policies designed to ensure that utility needs of the residents are provided. The policy is as follows:
Policy 19.10 Provision of Utilities: Work with public, quasi-public and private utility providers to ensure adequate levels of service to city residents.
Policy 19.11 Undergrounding: Encourage the undergrounding of utilities in older areas, especially when an area is undergrounding extensive redevelopment or significant construction. Continue to require the undergrounding of utilities in areas of new development.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-221
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Policy 24.01 Recycling: Enhance the long-term viability of natural resources and reduce the volume of material sent to solid waste sites by continuing source reduction and recycling programs, encouraging the participation of all residents and businesses.
Policy 24.02 Source Reduction: Reduce the volume of disposed waste by encouraging efforts to decrease consumption; reduce material weight and volume; reuse products and materials; and increase the durability of products and materials.
Policy 24.03 Landfill Siting: As the current Pacheco Pass landfill nears capacity, ensure that a new landfill site is designed to meet the City’s medium- to long-term waste disposal needs.
HPSP Project Analysis - Other Utilities
HPSP Policies
The HPSP includes one policy relating to utilities in the specific plan area. The policy is as follows:
8.5 Gas, Electric and Cable Television
Policy: All future infrastructure and transmission lines for gas, electricity and cable television shall be placed underground to the greatest extent possible.
Gas, Electricity, and Telecommunications
Gilroy City Ordinance requires that all utilities be underground. The HPSP indicates that utilities will be installed underground to the greatest extent possible. City staff has indicated that all utilities, both new and existing, must be placed underground subject to the city’s underground ordinance. The HPSP indicates that each development project would be required to provide a “will serve” letter from the public utility companies prior to approval of improvement plans. The HPSP does not provide any additional information regarding the potential service providers, the capacity of the service providers, or any other relevant information.
2-222 EMC Planning Group Inc. Section2.0 Environmental Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Solid Waste Disposal
The solid waste unit demand factors for the residential portion of the specific plan were obtained from the City of Gilroy. On average, each person generates two pounds of solid waste per day. The residential portion of the HPSP would create housing for a maximum of 1,855 residents. Solid waste generated from the residential portion of the HPSP is estimated to be 3,710 pounds of waste per day or approximately 677 tons of waste per year. Approximately half of the solid waste could be diverted to recycling centers that are already established, and approximately half of this would enter the landfill.
The solid waste unit demand factors for the Church project were obtained from the existing church and school site (Pacific West School), and then extrapolated to estimate the solid waste generated at buildout of the Church project. The existing church and school site currently generates approximately 7.31 tons of solid waste per year. The majority of the solid waste is paper, packaging, and food waste. Much of the paper and packaging waste generated at the Church project site can be recycled with implementation of a recycling program. Buildout of the Church project would increase the school enrollment by approximately 400 students. With the increased enrollment, the Church project is expected to generate approximately 22 tons of solid waste per year.
Solid waste unit demand factors for commercial uses are highly variable and difficult to estimate without detailed use descriptions, employee counts, and building sizes. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, commercial uses can generate between 5 and 25 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 square feet per day depending on the intensity of the commercial use. There is approximately 17 acres of agri-tourist commercial uses, which enables approximately 222,156 square feet of building space based on a 30 percent building coverage. The solid waste generation is estimated to be between 1,110 and 5,553 pounds per day. The agricultural commercial use is an existing use and solid waste generation is not expected to change.
The solid waste generated by the agricultural uses within the specific plan area is not expected to be as high as the other uses. Much of the agricultural waste that is produced by agricultural uses is returned to the soil where is decomposes. The majority of the solid waste generated from an agricultural operation is expected to be packaging materials (i.e. cardboard, plastic, etc.), most of which is recyclable. Employees would also generate solid waste daily. The number of employees required to operate the agricultural uses is not known.
HPSP Consistency with the General Plan
The HPSP provides guidance for the provision of utilities such as gas, electricity, and cable television, as well as solid waste recycling and disposal.
The HPSP includes a policy that would require all future utility infrastructure to be placed underground to the greatest extent feasible. City staff has indicated that all utility infrastructure must be placed underground. The HPSP policy language appears to allow for exceptions to placing utilities underground that could be inconsistent with the City of
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-223
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 2.0 Environmental
Gilroy General Plan policy. Provided that all utilities are placed underground consistent with the city’s standard conditions of approval, future development would be consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Church Project Analysis - Other Utilities The Church project is a component of the HPSP and would be serviced by the same public utilities that service the entire specific plan area. The project analysis for the Church project is the same as described above for the HPSP.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • result in growth that would exceed the ability of the public utility companies to provide services equal to or better than existing services to the city, or that major new facilities would have to be developed to provide services to the city. • result in a substantial depletion of solid waste disposal capacity.
HPSP Impacts
Effects on Gas, Electricity, and Telecommunications Services/Capacities – Less than Significant Impact. Buildout of the HPSP would require expansion of gas, electricity, and telecommunications services to the specific plan area, which would create an incremental demand for these public utilities. These utilities are available within the vicinity of the specific plan area. Their extension to the site and the increased incremental increase in demand are not anticipated to be significant issues or create significant adverse impacts. No mitigation is necessary. Effects on Solid Waste Disposal Services/Capacities – Less than Significant Impact. Buildout of the HPSP would create an incremental increase in demand for solid waste disposal services. The amount of solid waste generated by the residential portion of the specific plan area would be approximately 3,710 pounds of waste per day. The agri- tourist commercial uses would generate between 1,110 and 5,553 pounds per day. The agricultural commercial use will not represent any change from the existing environment. The agricultural use is expected to generate a limited amount of solid waste that would enter the landfill. The majority of the solid waste could be turned back into the soil or sent to recycling centers. The exact number of employees working on the agricultural land is not known at this time. The existing solid waste disposal facility is near capacity. The City of Gilroy is in the process of reviewing three alternative landfill sites. It is anticipated than an alternative landfill site will be secured by the end of 2004.
Church Project Impacts The Church project impacts do not differ from the impacts identified under the HPSP impacts. The Church project would be subject to all of the policies in the HPS
2-224 EMC Planning Group Inc.
3.0 Related Environmental Issues
3.1 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Requirements
CEQA Guidelines section 15130 requires a discussion of the significant cumulative impacts associated with a proposed project. Cumulative impacts result from the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b) requires the following:
The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact...
CEQA requires a cumulative development scenario to consist of either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or, a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document that evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The geographic area affected by the identified cumulative impacts, and an explanation of the basis of the geographic scope used in analyzing cumulative impacts, must be presented. Cumulative impacts for the HPSP and Church projects are based on a summary of projections contained in the City of Gilroy General Plan and City of Gilroy General Plan EIR.
CEQA Guidelines section 15130 requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project as follows:
An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s cumulative incremental effect is cumulative considerable as defined in section 15065(c). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not “cumulatively considerable”, a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulative considerable.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-1 Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Section 15065(c) states:
“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probably future projects as defined in Section 15130.
City of Gilroy General Plan and General Plan EIR Projections
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR contains a variety of projections on conditions within the city under City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions. Key information on potential development capacity is included in Table 28, General Plan Land Use and Build Out Conditions, which summarizes a low build out intensity scenario for existing undeveloped areas (vacant and agricultural land) as well as a high build out intensity scenario. The low build out scenario assumes that residential development occurs at the lowest end of the density range for each residential land use designation, while that high build out scenario assumes residential development at the maximum permitted density within each residential land use designation. As can be seen, the table includes data specific to the Hecker Pass Special Use District, showing a total of 78 units at low build out and 98 units at high build out and population increases of 262 and 329 persons for each scenario, respectively. As described in Section 2.9, Land Use, an additional 14 units of residential development capacity is assumed for the developable area north of Hecker Pass Highway, making total residential development capacity 112 units within the entire specific plan area. The additional 14 units are not specifically identified in the City of Gilroy General Plan, but the Hecker Pass Special Use District text does discuss development potential north of Hecker Pass Highway, which is estimated to be about 14 units.
Table 29, Existing Plus General Plan Build Out Calculations, illustrates total population, housing development and jobs estimates when the anticipated new low and high build out figures in the table above are added to existing population, housing development and jobs figures.
The following summary of the cumulative effects of implementing the HPSP is based on projections of cumulative impacts defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. It describes significant and unavoidable cumulative effects and briefly reviews the incremental increase in cumulative effects that result from the 530 units proposed in the HPSP relative to the 98 units assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR in its cumulative impact projections.
The cumulative impacts of the Church project are described on the basis that it is an entirely new project in the city, rather than a relocation of existing activities to another site within the city. This is done with the assumption that the existing facilities, once vacated, will be occupied by a new use, but on that is similar the existing Church activities. Therefore, the environmental effects of the new would be within the thresholds of effects created by the exiting Church activities.
3-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
TABLE 28
General Plan Land Use and Build Out Calculations
Land Use Total Undevel. Low Build Out of High Build Out of Acres Acres Undeveloped Areas Undeveloped Areas New New New New New New Jobs Housing Pop. Jobs Housing Pop. Residential 5,765 1,490 NA 9,935 32,533 Na 19,816 64,742 Commercial 1,545 440 8,800 NA NA 15,400 NA NA Industrial 2,280 1,680 25,200 NA NA 58,800 NA NA HPSUD* 310 Note 1 Note 1 78 262 Note 1 98 329 Other 5,185 Note 2 Note 2 NA NA Note 2 NA NA TOTAL 15,085 NA 34,000 10,013 32,795 74,200 19,914 65,071
*Hecker Pass Special Use District
Note 1: The Hecker Pass Special Use District housing figures are based on density “targets established in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Job generation in the area is expected to be minimal.
Note 2: This category includes open space, park and recreation facilities, public/quasi-public facilities, and educational facilities. Source: City of Gilroy General Plan Draft EIR
TABLE 29 Existing Plus General Plan Build Out Calculations
Existing Conditions Low Build Out + High Build Out + Existing Existing Population 41,464 74,259 106,535 Housing 12,152 22,165 32,066 Jobs 23,370 57,370 97,570
Source: City of Gilroy General Plan Draft EIR
The descriptions of cumulative impacts focus on effects of the HPSP, including the Church project. If and when cumulative effects of the Church project are of a different character than the HPSP in general, this is so noted.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-3
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Aesthetics
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR considers the cumulative loss of agricultural land, open space, and alteration of existing visual character resulting from an increase in development in the city and South Santa Clara County, to be a significant and unavoidable impact on aesthetic character. Buildout of the city’s planning area would result in loss of over 5,000 acres of agricultural land, enable intensification of land uses, and convert open space to urban uses. Loss of the city’s current “small-town”, rural character is also considered to be a cumulatively significant impact.
Nearly 30 policies are cited as mitigation to cumulative impacts on aesthetics and visual quality. Several of these, including Policy 1.07 - Hecker Pass (implementation of the Hecker Pass Special Use District, Policy 1.09 – Clustered Development, Policy 6.01 - Scenic Highways, Policy 20.01 – Open Space Areas, and Policy 20.02 – Creek Protection) are particularly germane for the HPSP.
The HPSP does provide for significant open space preservation by designating areas of biological sensitivity and steep hillside areas as open space as required, by clustering residential development, and by maintaining open space character through preservation of agricultural use. It also considers maintenance of existing view corridors and includes development guidelines that will promote sensitive development design. The HPSP also includes policies that, if adhered to, would not eliminate the potential for Hecker Pass Highway to be designated as a scenic highway. Therefore, the HPSP is not anticipated to create cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts.
Agriculture
Build out of the City of Gilroy General Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 381 acres of prime farmland to urban uses. Much of this land is located in the eastern portion of the city. The loss is considered to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the Hecker Pass Special Use District would result in the preservation of a significant amount of agricultural land that exists within the specific plan area. The City of Gilroy General Plan does not specify the number of acres that should be maintained within the specific plan area.
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR contains numerous policies designed to mitigate cumulative impacts to agricultural land. Policies 1.07 - Hecker Pass Highway (implementation of the Hecker Pass Special Use District), Policy 1.09 - Clustered Development, and a new mitigation measure 4.4-A, which requires contributions by applicants to a program to preserve open space and off-set the loss of agricultural land.
The HPSP would result not result in significant impacts on prime and unique farmland for reasons discussed in Section 2.2, Agriculture. A significant percentage of the land that has been traditionally used for agriculture would be retained and protected for agricultural use. Further, the HPSP land use approach does largely meet the intent of the City of Gilroy General Plan for maintaining the rural agricultural character of the area. With the implementation of agriculture related policies contained in the HPSP, neither
3-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
the HPSP nor the Church projects are deemed to have cumulatively considerable impacts on agriculture.
Air Quality
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR identifies cumulative impacts on air quality from build out of the city as significant and unavoidable. Impacts from vehicular emissions are anticipated to be the greatest contributor of air pollutants from future development within the city. The cumulative impact arises because the population increase permitted by the City of Gilroy General Plan is greater than the population projections utilized by the BAAQMD in its 2000 Clean Air Plan. Those projections are used to manage air basin wide activities to ensure that air emissions do not exceed specified state and Federal standards. Additional cumulative air quality impacts are considered to be short-term, arising from particulate generation and exhaust emissions during construction activities.
Mitigation measures proposed in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR along with a range of policies measures whose implementation may reduce the significance of air quality impacts are identified. Policy mitigations that are particularly relevant to the HPSP include Policy 12.09, LOS and Air Quality, Policy 12.10 – Land Use and Congestion, 13.04 – Regional Transit Service, and 21.03 – Trip Reduction and Congestion Management. As stated, implementation of the mitigation measures and policy mitigations are not anticipated to reduce air quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Implementation of the HPSP would result in a significant incremental cumulative impact on air quality. The HPSP proposes up 530 dwelling units, or approximately 418 more than anticipated for the build out of the city and assessed in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. The population increase that would be generated is therefore substantially greater than anticipated for the specific plan area, making the city’s projected population growth more inconsistent with the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan than identified in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR.
Development of the Church project would also exacerbate cumulative air quality impacts by generating new vehicle trips within the city. The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR did not assume this type of use within the specific plan area and hence underestimates the degree to which new development within the city would generate air emissions.
The cumulative air quality impacts of both the HPSP and Church projects are considered to be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.
Biological Resources
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR acknowledges a number of significant impacts on biological resources that would occur from build out of the city. These include loss of existing wildlife habitat, impacts on habitat of special-status species, and effects on jurisdictional wetlands and riparian habitat. The cumulative effects of build out
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-5
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
combined with development in the region are considered to be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative development along Uvas and Llagas Creeks would cause an overall reduction in habitat availability, quality, and value for numerous special-status species due to direct impacts and encroachment into the riparian setbacks.
Mitigation measures and policies whose implementation would partially mitigate impacts are described. Mitigation measures 4.12-A – Habitat and Urban Streams/Creek Protection, 4.12-B – Consultation on Developments that may impact listed species, 4.12- C – reduction of potential impact to wetlands and riparian habitat, and 4.12-D, enhancement of the Uvas Creek riparian corridor are of relevance to the HPSP as are Policies 20.01 through 20.07 related to habitat protection, rare and endangered species, and open space preservation.
The HPSP includes policies to maintain sensitive habitat along Uvas Creek and within the hillside areas as public and private open space, respectively. Development setbacks from the Uvas Creek habitat are proposed, as are a range of policies to protect natural resources and special status species. While implementation of the HPSP would result in the conversion of land to urban uses that currently does serve as habitat (i.e. existing agricultural areas and marginal lands located outside existing agricultural areas and the Uvas Creek corridor), these areas are not anticipated to serve as habitat for special status species. The HPSP will result in an increase in human intrusion into the sensitive Uvas Creek habitat. The level of intrusion will be greater than was anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR as the population living within the specific plan area adjacent to the habitat will be greater than expected. Even with these two effects of the project, its implementation is not considered to create cumulatively substantial impacts on biological resources.
Cultural Resources
The probability of cultural resources being uncovered within the city is considered to be high. Cumulative development activities could result in damage to these resources. Potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources are presumed to be significant, but may be reduced to an insignificant level with the implementation of mitigation measures and a number of policies.
Mitigation measure 4.14-A – requirement to conduct comprehensive cultural resource evaluations and mitigate identified impacts is directly applicable to development north of Hecker Pass Highway in the area where a significant archaeological resource has been identified. Policies 5.01- Historic Preservation and 5.07 – Archaeological Resources are also relevant to the HPSP.
The specific plan area contains historic resources considered to be of significant value and may contain archaeological resources. Implementation of policies included in the HPSP and mitigations included in this EIR will, with the exception of impacts on the Conrotto Winery complex, reduce impacts to a less than significant level and as such, cumulative impacts should not be cumulatively substantial.
3-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
Hydrology and Water Quality
The cumulative analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR addresses flood hazards, storm water runoff/erosion/flooding, and degradation of surface water quality. Future cumulative development and runoff may incrementally increase flood elevations, urban pollutants, and surface runoff, resulting in significant cumulative drainage, flooding and water quality impacts. Development close to creeks must be completed in accordance with city and SCVWD requirements.
These cumulative impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of state water quality protection requirements and Best Management Practices to prevent pollution from entering surface water bodies. Policies 25.18 – Development Restrictions in Flood Areas, 25.19 – Floodway Use, 25.23 – Green Areas and Permeable Surfaces for Runoff Reduction and Absorption act as mitigations that are directly applicable to the HPSP.
Implementation of the HPSP could incrementally contribute to cumulative flooding and water quality degradation impacts. Development is proposed at a higher intensity than anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. The volume of surface water runoff would be significantly greater than anticipated, as would the volume of urban pollutants contained in runoff that could adversely affect surface water quality. However, implementation of all related policies contained in the HPSP, mitigation measures included in this EIR regarding the Church project, and City of Gilroy General Plan EIR mitigation measures would largely reduce the HPSP’s contribution to cumulative impacts such that cumulative impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable.
Hazardous Materials
There are a number of significant risks associated with hazardous materials within the city. These include exposure of people to health risks from: existing contamination; the storage, transportation and use of hazardous materials; agricultural chemicals contained in groundwater; and use of pesticides on neighboring agricultural properties. These risks may rise as the population of the city increases over time, thereby exposing more people to potential hazards.
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR concludes that significant cumulative impacts from these risks can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures and policy mitigation. Mitigation measures that are particularly relevant to the HPSP include: Policy 25.03 – Development Review and Policy 27.04 – Potential Hazardous Soils Conditions. A number of other policy mitigations and several additional mitigation measures for the above noted impacts are provided.
Implementation of the HPSP could result in an incremental increase in public health risks from potential exposure of the proposed resident population to agricultural chemicals in on-site soils, if such chemicals are present, and to chemicals that could be used in future on-site agricultural activities. Given that the increase in population is
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-7
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
substantially greater than was anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan, the level of potential exposure would be greater than anticipated. However, potential health risks are not considered to be cumulatively significant. The HPSP contains a range of related policies that if implemented as required, would reduce potential exposure to hazardous chemicals that may exist on the site or potentially be used in association with future agricultural or other proposed activities. Potential impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable.
Land Use
Build out of the city would result in the conversion of about 3,500 acres of currently undeveloped land to urban uses (residential, commercial and industrial uses). Conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses may create direct impacts related to growth inducement, demand for housing that exceeds supply, employment growth that adversely affects jobs/housing balance, and displacement of people. The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR does not identify any direct significant, unavoidable land use impacts. Many indirect cumulative impacts, most of which relate to anticipated increases in population, are identified. These include increases in demand for public services and utilities, increases in traffic generation and need for new/expanded circulation infrastructure, increases in noise levels, loss or degradation of biological resources, loss of visual quality and aesthetic character, etc. Potential for conflicts between adjacent uses of land is also likely to rise.
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR identifies myriad policy mitigations and additional mitigations for the direct and indirect cumulative effects of land development and potential land use conflicts.
Implementation of the HPSP would result in an increase in conversion of land to urban uses relative to what was anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan. This is based on the fact that the HPSP will allow a greater number of dwelling units within a larger developed area than anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan. However, the HPSP does substantially meet the land use intent and goals for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. It preserves open space, maintains significant agricultural use, is sensitive criteria for designation of Hecker Pass Highway as a scenic highway, etc. Therefore, the HPSP is not deemed to have cumulatively considerable land use impacts. It will result in a greater demand for services than was anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR and will result in greater demands on the transportation network. These land use related issues are described in subsequent sections.
Mineral Resources
The California State Mining and Geology Board has identified areas along Uvas Creek within and adjacent to the specific plan area as containing significant mineral resources. This is the only such designation within the city and within the city’s planning area. Areas where this designation exists, including the specific plan area, are proposed for future urban development.
3-8 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
Sand and gravel resources along Uvas Creek are estimated to total about 23 million tons. If it is assumed that the portion of the MRZ-2 zone located within the specific plan area is about one-third of the total tonnage of resource estimated to exist along Uvas Creek, the proposed general plan amendment would result in about eight million tons of resource becoming unavailable for extraction. This represents about two percent of the total tonnage of designated sand and gravel resources within the Monterey Bay region.
Implementation of the HPSP and Church projects would eliminate availability of these resources. However, because the loss of availability applies to a small percentage of the total resources available in the region, the HPSP and Church projects are considered to have a cumulatively considerable impact on mineral resources.
The City of Gilroy General Plan Policy 23.06 is intended to mitigate the loss of access to designated mineral resources. Development of the specific plan area per the HPSP would be in conflict with this policy. Approval of the HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment would eliminate this policy inconsistency by modifying this policy and requesting to city to have the mineral resource designation removed. The impact of the proposed general plan amendment is also expected to be less than cumulatively considerable for reasons presented above for the HPSP and Church projects.
Noise
Future development within the city would result in an increase in overall ambient noise levels. Increases in cumulative noise levels generated by substantial increases in traffic volumes, especially on major roadways, would create significant, unavoidable adverse effects on existing sensitive receptors located adjacent to the roadways. Other potential cumulative noise impacts, including short-term construction noise and exposure of new development to existing noise levels that exceed maximum exposure standards, can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Key noise mitigation policies include Policies 26.01 through 26.05. These policies address a range of land use, buffering, acoustical design, and site design approaches to noise impact mitigation, as well as set noise exposure standards for existing and new development. In addition, several mitigation measures included in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR are applicable to the HPSP.
Vehicular traffic generated by future development within the specific plan area will be the main source of noise created by implementation of the HPSP. Implementation of the HPSP will result in a higher volume of traffic generation from residential uses than was anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR (approximately 1,070 trips anticipated versus approximately 5,072 that would result from the residential development proposed). Therefore, the cumulative noise impacts from implementation of the HPSP will incrementally increase the significant, unavoidable cumulative impact identified in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR.
The HPSP includes policy that requires residential development setbacks from Hecker Pass Highway to mitigate against exposure to future noise levels that could exceed
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-9
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
acceptable standards. Additional policies are included as mitigation to potential impacts on new agri-tourist uses and to the Church project. Implementation of the policies should mitigate the impacts of cumulative noise levels from traffic on Hecker Pass Highway such that effects are not cumulatively considerable.
Traffic generation from the Church project will raise ambient noise levels on surrounding roadways. However, since its traffic effects are not considered to be cumulatively considerable, its contribution to cumulative noise levels is not anticipated to be cumulatively considerable.
Traffic and Circulation
General Plan Amendment Effects
The HPSP applicant’s proposed general plan amendment should not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on transportation. The traffic study for the HPSP concludes that changing the existing designation of Hecker Pass Highway from an expressway to an arterial would not constrain operations on the highway under cumulative or general plan build out conditions. The change would have beneficial effects by retaining more of the existing rural character within the highway corridor.
Cumulative HPSP Effects
Cumulative traffic effects are based on effects of the project relative to build out of the City of Gilroy General Plan.
General Plan Build Out Traffic Generation. The build out of Gilroy as permitted by the City of Gilroy General Plan will result in a substantial increase in traffic throughout the city. The Citywide Transportation Study, prepared by Higgins Associates in August 2001, presents the daily traffic volumes for the build out per the 2001 City of Gilroy General Plan and three other alternatives.
The analysis of the HPSP study intersections under build out conditions utilized the updated volumes from the Citywide Transportation Study. The study intersections and street segments were analyzed based on build out traffic volume projections. The analysis for build out conditions assumes additional roadway capacities allowing for a wider distribution of forecasted traffic volumes. The build out projects are expected to generate a total of about 279,498 daily trips. Build out of the HPSP would generate approximately five percent of these total trips.
Intersection Operations. The level of service evaluation indicates that three of the six intersections in the study area would operate below an acceptable LOS C. These the Santa Teresa Boulevard/First Street intersection which would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour, the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Third Street intersection which would operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour, and the Hecker Pass Highway/Bonfante driveway intersection which would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
3-10 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
Road Segment Operations. With one exception, all road segments would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in both directions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The exception is the road segment along Hecker Pass Highway between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the East intersection that will operate at LOS D in the eastbound direction during both AM and PM peak hours. Widening this segment to four-lane arterial standards as needed for the background plus total project condition would improve the LOS D to LOS C. Santa Teresa Boulevard between First and Third streets would operate at LOS D in the northbound direction in the AM peak hour and at LOS E and LOS F in the northbound and southbound directions in the PM peak hour, respectively. South of Third Street would operate at LOS D in the northbound direction during both peak hours.
Applicants for development within the specific plan area will be required to participate in the funding of a range of transportation network improvements based either on HPSP policies or mitigation measures included in this EIR. Provided this occurs, the HPSP contribution to cumulative traffic impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
General Plan Build Out Conditions Mitigation Measures. Higgins Associates notes that the Hecker Pass Highway/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection operations would be improved to LOS C by implementing dual left turn lanes on all approaches and a shorter cycle length. Signalizing the Hecker Pass Highway/Bonfante Gardens intersection would improve operations to LOS B during the AM peak hour and C- during the PM peak hour. Widening of Santa Teresa Boulevard from a two-lane arterial to a four-lane arterial between First and Third streets and south of Third Street would improve the LOS to C or better.
The Hecker Pass Highway/Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection improvements and the widening of Santa Teresa Boulevard to a four-lane arterial are part of the city’s transportation impact fee program. Therefore, payment of traffic impact fees by developers of projects within the specific plan area would mitigate the incremental cumulative traffic impacts created by their projects at these locations. Installation of a signal at the Hecker Pass Highway/Bonfante Gardens intersection is the responsibility of Bonfante Gardens and would take place when traffic signal warrants at the intersection are met.
In addition to implementing direct roadway and intersection improvements as described in this EIR, implementation of the following mitigation measure would mitigate the cumulatively considerable circulation effects generated by the HPSP.
Mitigation Measures
20. Applicants for individual projects within the specific plan area shall contribute traffic impact fees for future cumulative circulation improvements consistent with the requirements of the City of Gilroy citywide traffic impact fee ordinance. Fees shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of development permits.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-11
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Traffic generated by the Church project is included in the analysis of cumulative impacts of implementing the HPSP. It represents about 16 percent of the total trip generation (2,149 trips per day) from build out of the entire specific plan area. The Church project would therefore have an incremental impact on cumulative traffic conditions within the study area, but its incremental effects are not considered to be considerable relative to City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions. Nevertheless, the Church project applicant, consistent with city ordinance, must contribute fees towards the mitigation of its incremental cumulative impacts as described in the following mitigation.
Mitigation Measure
21. The Church project applicant shall participate in the city’s traffic impact fee program in order to mitigate its incremental impacts on the circulation system. Fees shall be paid prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
3.2 Growth Inducing Impacts
CEQA Requirements
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of the ways that a project could foster economic or population growth, the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines also state that growth in an area should not be considered beneficial, detrimental or of little significance.
Several general characteristics of a proposed project can result in growth-inducing effects. The following are used as a basis for this discussion:
• The project establishes a precedent setting action that encourages or facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environment;
• The project removes an impediment to growth such as: 1) the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities and/or facility capacity that does not presently exist in an area or, 2) through discretionary approval of changes to the use of land that result in an intensification of land use; and
• The project facilitates economic effects that directly or indirectly could have adverse effects on the environment.
This section of the EIR evaluates the growth inducing effects of the project relative to these criteria.
3-12 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
Precedent Setting Action
The HPSP does not establish a precedent that facilitates unplanned activities that could significantly affect the environment. The HPSP represents an effort to implement the Hecker Pass Special Use District. Development within the specific plan area is anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan and the cumulative effects of that development are evaluated in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. However, the HPSP does propose a substantially greater total dwelling unit number than defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan. As such, it would introduce greater development intensity in an area where preservation of rural agricultural and open space character is prioritized in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Approval of the HPSP applicant’s general plan amendment would bring the HPSP into consistency with the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Removal of Impediments to Growth
The HPSP would not result in the removal of an impediment to growth in one instance, but may stimulate growth in another instance. It does not require the extension of major utility infrastructure or services into a rural area. The major utility infrastructure needed for the project is already in place. Domestic and recycled water mains already exist along Hecker Pass Highway and extend to near the western boundary of the specific plan area. An existing sewer main is located along the top of the Uvas Creek bank. It extends from the east at Santa Teresa Boulevard to the western end of the specific plan area and continues across Hecker Pass Highway to the northwest of the site. A storm drainage system sized only to accommodate build out of the specific plan area is proposed – excess capacity would not be available for future development outside of the specific plan area. The transportation improvements required for the implementation of the HPSP are designed based largely on the need to address cumulative and general plan build out conditions. They would not specifically enable growth not already anticipated by the city. Therefore, from an infrastructure capacity perspective, the HPSP is not expected to be growth inducing.
A significant measure of growth inducing potential is the extent to which a project may facilitate intensification of land use on land where such intensification is not expressly supported by existing land use plans or growth management policies. The HPSP, which proposes 530 new dwelling units, would result in a significant intensification of residential development relative to the maximum of about 112 units described proposed in the City of Gilroy General Plan for the entire specific plan area. The intensification of land use would be moderated by the fact that residential development is clustered in limited areas in order to help retain rural agricultural character and aesthetic quality.
Based on its clustered design, the project would achieve a transition in the intensity of urban development from highly urban to the east of the specific plan area to, with one exception, largely undeveloped rural land in unincorporated Santa Clara County to the west of the specific plan area. Bonfante Gardens Theme Park, located to the west of the specific plan area, is already developed under a Highway Commercial and Visitor- Serving zoning designation. Nevertheless, there is potential that owners of largely undeveloped land to the west and north of the specific plan area that lies outside the city
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-13
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
limits could be motivated to seek annexation to the city and development of residential uses at a density that matches or approaches that proposed in the HPSP (about 1.3 dwelling units per acre). This density is greater than that currently permitted in the noted unincorporated areas.
Economic Effects
The proposed project would stimulate population growth and development of limited commercial uses. The increase in population is not expected to generate economic growth that in turn has an adverse effect on the environment.
3.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
CEQA Requirements
An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that a lead agency make findings of overriding considerations for unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts before approving a project.
CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a) requires the decision-making agency (City of Gilroy) to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” CEQA Guidelines section 15093(b) states that when the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The HPSP, including implementation of the Church project per the HPSP, would result in significant, unavoidable impacts on air quality, cultural resources, and mineral resources. Each of these issues is briefly reviewed below.
Air Quality
The City of Gilroy General Plan EIR concludes that the City of Gilroy General Plan is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan written and administered by the BAAQMD. Residential development proposed per the City of Gilroy General Plan therefore
3-14 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
contributes to incremental unavoidable adverse air quality impacts. The HPSP proposes substantially more dwelling units than was assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR for the Hecker Pass Special Use District (a maximum of about 112). Therefore, implementation of the HPSP as proposed would result in a greater incremental increase in significant, unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality than was assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR.
The Church project would not be a source of significant, unavoidable impacts on air quality.
Cultural Resources
The Church project site plan indicates that existing historic structures on the site would not be preserved. A mitigation measure included in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, requires the applicant to incorporated elements of the Conrotto Winery as a theme on the site, though this mitigation would not fully mitigate the impact of the loss of the resources. Consequently, demolition of this resource is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Mineral Resources
The HPSP and Church projects would result in development that makes designated mineral resources unavailable for future utilization. A portion of the area south of Hecker Pass Highway along Uvas Creek is within Mineral Resource Zone 2 as defined by the State Mining and Geology Board. Implementation of the HPSP and Church projects would directly result in the unavailability of subsurface resources that exist below areas designated for development. It would indirectly result in unavailability of other resources due to their proximity to areas proposed for development – mining of these resources would be considered incompatible with established residential uses and community facilities uses. Please refer to Section 2.10, Mineral Resources, for more information. The project specific effect on mineral resources would be considered significant and unavoidable.
The HPSP applicant’s proposed general plan amendment, among other related changes, requests that the city initiate a process with the State Mining and Geology Board to eliminate the mineral resource zone designation that applies to the specific plan area. This action would eliminate existing policy conflicts within the City of Gilroy General Plan, but the loss of access to the resources would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
3.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2 (c) requires a discussion of significant and irreversible changes that would be caused by the project if implemented. The use of non-renewable
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-15
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
resources in construction or operation of the proposed project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use in the future unlikely. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that current use is justified. Secondary, as well as direct effects should be considered. A project that commits future generations to similar uses should be considered, as should the possibility of accidental environmental damage that could result from the proposed project.
Implementation of the HPSP and Church projects would effectively commit the land to future urban use. In addition, the potential to extract significant aggregate mineral resources that have been designated within the specific plan area would be eliminated. If the Church project applicant proposes to remove the Conrotto Winery complex, the loss of significant historic resources would be irreversible.
3.5 Alternatives
CEQA Requirements
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (a) requires a description of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and an evaluation the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, but must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision- making and public participation. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (b) further requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on those alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (e) stipulates that a “no project” alternative be evaluated along with its impacts.
Alternatives Analysis
The potentially significant impacts that could result from implementation of the HPSP are as follows:
• Conflict with a Williamson Act contract that applies to about two acres within an area proposed for development (if the property owner elects to cancel the existing contract);
• Inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan and generation of construction and vehicle related air emissions;
• Degradation of sensitive biological resources from human intrusion;
3-16 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
• Loss or degradation of a significant archaeological resources;
• Degradation of surface water quality;
• Loss of access to mineral resources designated by the state;
• Traffic impacts on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard whose mitigation requires implementation of circulation improvements; and
• Incremental increases in demand for public services and utilities.
The potentially significant impacts of the Church project that are independent of impacts associated with development in the remainder of the specific plan area per the HPSP are:
• Inconsistency with Caltrans state scenic highway criteria;
• Inconsistency of the intensity of development with the rural agricultural character of the specific plan area;
• Visual intrusion caused by potential use of nighttime playfield lighting in a rural area;
• Noise generation that could adversely affect the Village Green project and future adjacent residential development; and
• Loss of significant historic resources.
Several alternatives to the HPSP and Church projects are proposed in order to reduce or eliminate impacts noted above. The following alternatives are analyzed for this purpose:
• “No Project” alternative;
• Alternative 1: “General Plan Target Dwelling/Clustering” alternative;
• Alternative 2: “Reduced Dwelling Unit/Enhanced Clustering” alternative; and
• Alternative 3: “HPSP Dwelling Units/Church Redesign” alternative.
Implementation of either Alternative 1, which proposes development of no more than 115 dwelling units within the specific plan area or Alternative 2, which proposes no more than 220 units, would reduce the level of significance of nearly all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the HPSP. The reduction in impact significance for Alternatives 1 and 2 stems from the substantial reduction in residential dwelling units proposed in each and from a reduction in the number and/or size of residential clusters proposed in the HPSP. Dwelling unit numbers would be reduced to approximately 115 in Alternative 1 and approximately 220 in Alternative 2. Clustering would be limited to two locations in Alternative 1 and to three locations in Alternative 2. Both alternatives include a redesign of the proposed Church project to address significant aesthetic and historic resource impacts. Other elements of the
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-17
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR proposed HPSP would remain the same (i.e. Agri-tourist and Commercial, Agricultural Commercial uses). Reduction in impact significance under Alternative 2 would be less substantial than for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 retains the same number of dwelling units proposed in the HPSP, but would reduce aesthetic and historic resource impacts associated with the Church project through the same redesign approaches described for Alternatives 1 and 2.
An alternative location was not evaluated as an alternative, as the “project” is a specific plan that implements the City of Gilroy General Plan for a specific area within the city limits. An alternative location would not meet the goals of the City of Gilroy General Plan for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. As discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction, the objectives and purpose of the HPSP are to provide a planning and development framework for the Hecker Pass Special Use District as defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan. As such, the plan implements the City of Gilroy General Plan designation for this area and facilitates development of the plan area by specifying conditions and specifications to be followed by such development.
The relative merits of each alternative are discussed for each environmental issue area. A relative comparison of the alternatives and a selection of the environmentally superior alternative are made at the conclusion of the alternatives analysis.
No Project Alternative
Alternative Description
The “no project” alternative assumes that the specific plan area is not developed as proposed in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Under this alternative, it is assumed that new growth would be channeled elsewhere within the Gilroy planning area and that the existing activities within the specific plan area would continue into the future.
Aesthetics
The “no project” alternative would enable the exiting rural agricultural and open space character of the specific plan area to be retained. It is this character that the goals of the City of Gilroy General Plan seek to retain as the Hecker Pass area is considered to be a highly valuable scenic gateway to the city. The city supports the designation of Hecker Pass Highway as a state scenic highway. The no project alternative would have no impact on scenic resources.
Agricultural Resources
The “no project” alternative would continue existing agricultural uses on the project site indefinitely. Impacts from loss of prime agricultural land and unique agricultural land would not occur.
3-18 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
Air Quality
The “no project” alternative would not generate any traffic or new air emissions from short-term construction or long-term operations (traffic generation). The “no project” alternative would no impact on air quality.
Biological Resources
The “no project” alternative would also not result in direct disturbance to the valuable riparian habitat associated with Uvas Creek. Existing foraging habitat in other portions of the specific plan area, although of marginal quality, would remain. There would be no potential for disturbance of potential special status species habitat with the “no project” alternative. The potential population increase associated with the HPSP residential uses (up to 1,855 people) and the 600 elementary and middle school students that could attend school at the Church project site would not be present. Lighting associated with the proposed Church project playfields would not affect the quality of the Uvas Creek riparian habitat. The no project alternative would have no impact on biological resources.
Cultural Resources
The “no project” alternative would not disturb known and unknown buried cultural resources and would not require the need to mitigate impacts on the Conrotto Winery, which is considered a significant historic resource. Therefore, the “no project” alternative would no impacts relative to implementation of the proposed projects.
Geology and Soils
The “no project” alternative would result in no increase in exposure of the public to potential geologic hazards present within the specific plan area. Therefore, the “no project” alternative would have no geological hazard impacts relative to the implementation of the proposed projects.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The “no project” alternative would not place the public in areas where the historical or current use or storage of agricultural chemicals may have contaminated on-site soils. The “no project” alternative would therefore not result in exposure of the public to potential hazards associated with the use of agricultural chemicals or fertilizers as would occur with the implementation of the HPSP and construction of the Church project. Therefore the “no project” alternative would have no impacts relative to implementation of the proposed projects.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-19
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
The “no project” alternative would not generate an increase in storm water runoff nor would it result in an increase in potential surface water pollution associated with urban related land uses. However, to the extent that agricultural chemicals remain in use within the specific plan area, the “no project” alternative may result in continued surface water pollution, as the volume of agricultural chemicals that remains in use would not decline relative to conditions under build out of the HPSP. Even with such continued use, the “no project” alternative is considered to have less overall impacts than would occur with implementation of the proposed projects.
Land Use
The “no project” alternative would not result in development of the site. Therefore, the “no project” alternative would not have the land use related impacts identified in this EIR that have been identify for the proposed projects.
Noise
The “no project” alternative would not result in potential exposure of people to noise levels that could exceed acceptable standards and would not result in potential noise conflicts between the proposed Church project and the adjacent Village Green project or with future residential development within the specific plan area. It would also avoid incremental impacts on noise sensitive land uses located along roads onto which project traffic would be distributed. The “no project” alternative would have no impacts relative to implementation of the HPSP and Church projects.
Public Services
Police and Fire Services. The “no project” alternative would place no additional demands on police and fire services. The “no project” alternative would no have impact on these services relative to the proposed projects.
Schools. The “no project” alternative would place no additional demands on the GUSD. However, it would not provide the incremental increase in private school capacity for grades K-8 as proposed by the Church project. Nevertheless, the “no project” alternative would have no impact on the GUSD relative to implementation of the HPSP.
Parks and Recreation. The “no project” alternative would not create an increase in demand for park and recreation resources. However, it also would not facilitate the extension of the Uvas Creek Preserve in that no discretionary action would be taken that enables the city to acquire the Uvas Creek riparian corridor area within the specific plan as a condition of development approvals. As the extension of the Uvas Creek Preserve is a priority of the city, the “no project” alternative would have adverse effects on the ability of the city to implement the element of its parks and recreation planning related to extension of the Uvas Creek Preserve. The ability of the city to acquire the proposed
3-20 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
three-acre neighborhood park within the specific plan area would also be lost. Therefore, the no project alternative would have greater impacts on the ability of the city to achieve its parks and recreation facilities provision goals than would implementation of the proposed projects.
Transportation/Circulation. The “no project” alternative would not result in the generation of 13,030 new vehicle trips per day as would occur with implementation of the HPSP. The “no project” alternative would not result in the extension of Third Street through to Hecker Pass Highway as proposed. Project specific traffic infrastructure improvements required for Hecker Pass Highway and improvements required under cumulative and City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions, to which the HPSP will contribute, would not be necessary with the implementation of the no project alternative. Therefore, the no project alternative will have no impacts on traffic and circulation relative to the proposed projects.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service. The “no project” alternative would place no additional demands on the city’s water supply system. The “no project” alternative would have no impact relative to the proposed projects.
Sewer Service. The “no project” alternative would place no additional demands on the city’s sewer system, and would not necessitate construction of on-site wastewater infrastructure. The “no project” alternative would have no impact relative to the proposed projects in terms of sewer infrastructure demands.
Storm Water. The “no project” alternative would not result in an increase in storm water runoff within the specific plan area and as a result, would not require the development of storm drainage infrastructure needed to detain and or treat the quality of the runoff. Potential impacts associated with construction of that infrastructure, such as impacts on habitat from construction of outfall structures on the bank of Uvas Creek, would not occur. Thus, the “no project” alternative would have no impacts relative to implementation of the HPSP or Church projects.
Gas and Electricity, Telecommunications. The “no project” alternative would not result in a need to extend gas and electricity or telecommunications systems to the specific plan area. No significant effects are anticipated to result from such extensions, so the “no project” alternative is not expected to have no impacts relative to implementation of the HPSP and Church projects.
Solid Waste. The “no project” alternative would result in no increase in solid waste generation relative to existing conditions. Incremental impacts on solid waste disposal capacity at affected landfills would not occur relative to implementation of the HPSP. The “no project” alternative would have no impact relative to implementation of the HPSP or Church projects.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-21
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Alternative 1: General Plan Target Dwelling Unit/Clustering
The majority of the significant adverse environmental effects of the HPSP are directly related to its inconsistency with the target number of dwelling units defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan. The majority of the significant adverse effects of the Church project are directly related to its development intensity, as well as site design that places extensive parking along Hecker Pass Highway and along the western boundary of the Church site. This General Plan Target Dwelling Unit/Clustering alternative proposes development in substantial conformance with the target dwelling unit number and clustering approach described in the City of Gilroy General Plan. It also includes the redesign of the Church project. It assumes that proposed Agricultural Commercial and Agri-tourist Commercial uses are unchanged. However, were Alternative 1 to be adopted, the city may want to revisit the intensity of the proposed agricultural commercial related land uses. This may be needed to ensure that the proposed acreage and development intensity is consistent with a residential development scale that better preserves the existing rural agriculture and open space character of the area.
Alternative Definition
This alternative proposes residential development in two of the three locations described in the HPSP (“north” and “east” clusters) and in the same areas as described in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Two primary buildable cluster areas have been defined. One is located south of Hecker Pass Highway and the other is located north of the highway. The buildable cluster areas, which total approximately 55 acres, are shown in Figure 25, General Plan Target Dwelling/Clustering Alternative. Within the buildable cluster areas, it is recommended that a mix of densities be utilized that permits flexibility in housing products and densities up to a maximum of about 115 dwelling units. This alternative would result in a 79 percent decrease in dwelling unit numbers compared to the HPSP (assuming a HPSP maximum of 530 units). It would accommodate a population of about 402 persons or about 21 percent of the maximum 1,855-person population increase projected from implementation of the HPSP.
This alternative assumes the implementation of an on-site trail system, dedication of natural open space areas (i.e. Uvas Creek), protection of areas designated for agricultural use with production activities managed by a third party (as discussed in Section 2.2, Agriculture), an extension of Third Street to the west to serve the southern buildable cluster area from where it would turn north along the Goldsmith Seeds/Vanni property (consistent with the current road alignment proposed in the HPSP), and a mix of housing unit products that help ensure property owners an economic return, as well as other features that meet the intent of the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Church Project Redesign
Alternative 1 includes the redesign of the proposed Church project. The primary significant impacts of the Church project are related to aesthetics and historic resources. The project’s aesthetics impacts include inconsistency with the rural agricultural character of the specific plan area and inconsistency with Caltrans state scenic highway
3-22 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
This side intentionally left blank.
3-24 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
criteria. Including parking areas, the Church project would result in an extensive portion of the site being covered with developed uses. The urban intensity of the project does not match the City of Gilroy General Plan intent that development within the specific plan area maintains the existing rural agricultural character of the area. The development intensity and visual effects created by extensive parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway create a high degree of visual intrusion within the highway scenic corridor. This is also inconsistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan goals for the specific plan area that prioritize maintenance of aesthetic quality within the Hecker Pass Highway corridor and control of development such that the goal of obtaining a state scenic highway designation for the highway is not compromised.
The Church project would result in the demolition of the former Conrotto Winery complex – a significant historic resource. Unless the development plan is modified to preserve the complex or move it to an acceptable location, the resource would be irretrievably lost.
Two primary project/site plan modification options to substantially lessen visual impacts of the project and to protect historic resources are proposed:
• Reduce the seating capacity of the church sanctuary by 25 to 50 percent (about 300 to 600 to seats). Reduce the scale of the sanctuary and more importantly, eliminate the need for parking by an estimated 100 to 250 spaces. This action would substantially reduce visual impacts associated with the current broad expanse of parking area and allow flexibility in site planning to enable preservation of the Conrotto Winery complex as a cultural resource. Visual intrusion within the highway corridor could be significantly reduced by eliminating parking from the foreground view of the site as seen from Hecker Pass Highway.
• Eliminate a combination of two or more of the following project components: preschool/childcare, elementary/middle school (thus reducing playfield and gymnasium needs), or other project components. This would provide improved site planning flexibility. Parking areas along Hecker Pass Highway and the western property line, especially those near Hecker Pass Highway, could be removed behind the sanctuary building, closer to the eastern property line, and/or further from the highway. A much better visual transition between the planned continuation of agricultural uses to the west and the more intense developed use of the Church site would be created. Preservation of the Conrotto Winery historic resource could be achieved with the resource used as a visitor destination or incorporated as a functional use for the Church.
In combination with implementing a project redesign, the applicant should explore alternatives to meeting peak parking demand on site. Alternatives could include shared parking opportunities with the Village Green project and park and ride/shuttle systems or other mechanisms that enable church goers to park within existing underutilized parking facilities located along First Street (or other locations) near the specific plan area.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-25
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Environmental Effects of the General Plan Target Dwelling/Cluster Alternative
Aesthetics. Alternative 1 would largely reduce potential aesthetic effects of the Church project and incrementally reduce the visual effects of the HPSP. It would enable the exiting rural agricultural and open space character of the specific plan area to be retained to a greater degree than proposed, as residential development would be clustered in only two, rather than three areas, and the size of the clusters would be smaller than proposed in the HPSP.
A redesign of the Church project would largely reduce related aesthetic impacts. Reduction and/or screening of parking areas, reduction in scale of the Church sanctuary, and/or elimination of one or more school or other project components would reduce the development intensity of the project. A reduction in visual intrusion within the Hecker Pass Highway scenic corridor would occur, making the project more consistent with Caltrans scenic highway criteria. The project would better blend with the rural, agricultural and open space character that is prioritized for the remainder of the specific plan area, reducing the project’s overall visual inconsistency with that character.
Agricultural Resources. Alternative 1 would enable the retention of a greater number of acres for continued agricultural use than would the HPSP. Three agricultural preservation areas of 32, 35, and 30 acres in size, a total of about 97 acres, would be maintained under this alternative. This compares to the approximately 73 acres proposed in the HPSP.
While the loss of agricultural land from implementation the HPSP has been determined to be less than significant, retention of additional agricultural land may more closely meet the goal of the City of Gilroy General Plan for retaining large areas of agricultural land within the Hecker Pass Special Use District. This alternative would eliminate the potential future project level conflict with a Williamson Act contract, as no development would occur on the portion of the Arias property on which the HPSP proposes residential development.
Revisions to the Church project would not likely have a positive or negative effect on agricultural resources. Loss of existing agricultural character of the site on could be reduced, but not fully mitigated, if development intensity were to be largely reduced to the extent that some form of agricultural use was retained on the site. However, this may be infeasible given the objectives of the project applicant.
Air Quality. Alternative 1 would result in a substantial reduction in the volume of construction phase air emissions and operational phase (vehicular) emissions generated by development within the specific plan area. Construction activities would be limited to two distinct areas, which reduces the need for grading (particulate generation) and construction equipment use (vehicle emissions). Average daily vehicle trips generated by residential development would decline by approximately 79 percent.
To the extent that capacity of the Church sanctuary is reduced or proposed school or ancillary uses are eliminated from the project, total vehicle trip generation could also
3-26 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
decline. This would have beneficial impacts on air quality relative to the proposed Church project.
Biological Resources. Alternative 1 would largely reduce the potential for direct disturbance to the valuable riparian habitat associated with Uvas Creek. Existing foraging habitat in other portions of the specific plan area, although of marginal quality, would be largely retained as development would occur in a much more limited area. There would be significantly less potential that residents within the specific plan area would disturb potential special status species habitat as the number of on-site residents would decline from a maximum of about 1,855 people with the HPSP to about 402.
Were the elementary or middle school components of the Church project to be eliminated, a marginal reduction in potential human disturbance of sensitive habitat may occur.
Cultural Resources. The likelihood of disturbing known and unknown buried cultural resources is largely reduced as much less of the specific plan area would be disturbed by site preparation and construction activities.
Flexibility in site planning could more readily enable the existing historic resources on the Church site to be preserved in place. Less of the site would be covered in parking or building footprints, so the need to develop the part of the site where the historic resources are located would be significantly reduced.
Geology and Soils. Exposure of the public to potential geologic hazards present within the specific plan area is largely reduced relative to implementation of the HPSP and the Church projects.
Geologic hazards associated with the Church project would essentially remain unchanged.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Potential exposure of future specific plan area residents to health impacts that may be present if historical or current use or storage of agricultural chemicals has resulted in contaminated soils will be largely reduced. Residential development is located in a much more limited area of the specific plan area and far fewer people have the potential to be exposed. Hazards from potential wildland fire would remain similar although the number of people potentially exposed to fire hazards would be reduced.
Potential impacts associated with the Church project would be incrementally reduced.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Alternative 1 would result in a substantial reduction in storm water runoff. The area of impervious surfaces (especially roadways, driveways, parking, etc.) created is likely to be significant smaller than under the HPSP. In combination with a substantial reduction in population generation, reduced impervious area is likely to result in a substantial reduction in the volume of runoff delivered to Uvas Creek and a substantial reduction in the volume of urban pollutants contained in that runoff. However, this reduction could be partially offset by the retention of a larger
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-27
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR area of land in active agricultural use. Agricultural related chemicals may, unless properly managed, contribute to water quality degradation in Uvas Creek. Fewer people would be exposed to potential flood hazards associated with Uvas Creek and to hazards related to potential failure of Uvas Dam.
Impacts associated with the Church project would likely be incrementally reduced. Surface water runoff volume and contamination of surface water by urban pollutants may decline with a reduction in the area of impervious surfaces used for parking or other improvements.
Land Use. Alternative 1 is specifically designed to largely reduce or eliminate land use inconsistencies and impacts associated with the HPSP. By permitting development in locations and at a target number of dwelling units that are consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan, this alternative would result in a reduction of impact significance across nearly all environmental effects described in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Alternative 1 would reduce the incremental degradation of the existing rural agricultural character of the site and in turn, incrementally improve visual quality within the Hecker Pass Highway scenic corridor by better blending the Church project with the rural agricultural character that would be retained within the remainder of the specific plan area. It would also largely lessen inconsistency of the project with Caltrans scenic highway criteria by reducing the degree of visual intrusion within the scenic highway corridor that would be caused by the Church project.
Noise. This alternative would reduce the number of people residing within the specific plan area that would be exposed to noise from vehicular traffic on Hecker Pass Highway. However, implementation of the HPSP would not result in exposure of residents to unacceptable noise levels, as the three clustered residential areas are setback a sufficient distance from the highway. Traffic generation would be largely reduced. Therefore, the noise from project generated vehicular trips would decline and incremental effects on sensitive uses located along roadways in the project vicinity would decline.
Reduced potential for noise conflicts between the proposed Church project and the adjacent Village Green project and future residential development to the west of the site is also likely, provided that the school component of the project is eliminated.
Public Services. Effects for each service are as follows:
Police and Fire Services. Demand on police and fire services will decline by largely reducing the number of residents within the specific plan area.
An incremental reduction of potential impacts related to the Church project is expected if its size or scale is reduced.
Schools. A substantial reduction on demand for capacity within the GUSD would occur as this alternative generates approximately 79 percent fewer school-age children.
3-28 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
No change in potential impacts related to the Church project is expected. If one or more of the school related functions are eliminated from the site, it is assumed that the same existing off-site function would be retained.
Parks and Recreation. Alternative 1 would also result in a substantial decrease in demand for park and recreation resources due to the reduction in population associated with it. Demand for parkland would decrease by 79 percent or about 7.3 acres.
Impacts related to the Church project would remain unchanged.
Transportation and Circulation. Alternative 1 would result in largely reduced traffic and circulation impacts. The number of daily trips generated by residential uses would decline by nearly 4,000 trips per day (5,072 versus 1,100 trips per day) with overall trip generation reduced from about 13,030 trips per day to about 9,000 trips per day. Incremental demands on the city’s circulation system would be similarly reduced. Impacts on Hecker Pass Highway and the need to widen the highway would be largely reduced, if not eliminated. Alternative 1 shows that most trips could be distributed onto Santa Teresa Boulevard via Third Street. Improvements to Santa Teresa Boulevard are already programmed for the HPSP area. Improvements to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Hecker Pass Highway required under cumulative and City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions may still be warranted. Signalization requirements for Hecker Pass Highway may also be reduced, though this would require further analysis.
Utilities and Service Systems. Effects for each utility and service are as follows:
Water Service. Alternative 1 would largely reduce the projected demand for water from residential uses by 79 percent. This would reduce incremental demand on groundwater resources. The need to construct water supply infrastructure would be largely reduced, as development would be located within a more limited portion of the specific plan area.
Church related water demand is likely to decline, especially if the school or other project components are eliminated.
Sewer Service. Alternative 1 would largely reduce demands on the city’s sewer system and treatment plant capacity. Sewage generation from residential uses would decline by 79 percent. The need to construct on-site sewage collection infrastructure would be largely reduced, as development would be concentrated in a very limited portion of the specific plan area.
Redesign of the Church site plan could result in incremental reduction in sewage generation if elements are scaled down or eliminated. Overall, the alternative would have similar or incrementally reduced impacts on sewer service.
Storm Water. Alternative 1 would result in a substantial reduction in storm water runoff and consequently, a substantial reduction in the need for storm water infrastructure. Potential effects on sensitive habitat would be reduced as the number of storm drain outfalls required on the banks of Uvas Creek would be reduced.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-29
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Storm water runoff volumes from the Church site would decline as the area of impervious surfaces is reduced.
Gas and Electricity, Telecommunications. Alternative 1 would largely reduce the need to extend gas and electricity or telecommunications systems to the specific plan area. Demand for these systems related to the Church is expected to be unchanged.
Solid Waste. Alternative 1 would result in a substantial reduction in solid waste generation relative to existing conditions. Incremental impacts on solid waste disposal capacity at affected landfills would decline.
An incremental reduction of potential impacts related to the Church project is expected if its size or scale is reduced.
Alternative 2: Reduced Dwelling Unit/Clustering
The purpose of this Reduced Dwelling Unit alternative is to be a “middle road” alternative between the target dwelling unit numbers defined in the City of Gilroy General Plan and the number proposed by the HPSP applicant of 530 dwelling units. A total of 220 dwelling units would be permitted in three clusters that generally correspond to the three cluster locations proposed in the HPSP. It assumes that proposed Agricultural Commercial and Agri-tourist uses remain unchanged. However, if Alternative 2 is adopted, the city may want to revisit the intensity of the proposed agri-tourist land use. This may be necessary to ensure that the proposed acreage and development intensity is consistent with a reduced residential development scale. This alternative is illustrated in Figure 26, Reduced Dwelling Unit Alternative. About 42 percent of the maximum 530 dwelling units proposed in the HPSP would be retained. The population increase is estimated at 770, or about 58 percent less than the maximum of 1,855 that would result from implementation of the HPSP.
The location of the residential clusters is essentially the same as proposed in the HPSP, consistent with the need to place new development in locations were environmental constraints are minimized. Primary access to the eastern building cluster could be provided via Santa Teresa Boulevard via Third Street with a road alignment that is generally consistent with that proposed in the HPSP. Primary access to the north cluster would be consistent with that proposed in the HPSP.
Alternative 2 includes the same Church redesign component as described for Alternative 1.
Environmental Effects of the Reduced Dwelling Unit Alternative
The following impact summary describes reductions in impacts that would occur with implementation of Alternative 2. Since Alternative 2 proposes the same Church project redesign as is defined for Alternative 1 the environmental effects of Alternative 2 vis-à- vis the Church project are not repeated in the following discussion.
3-30 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
This side intentionally left blank.
3-32 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
Aesthetics. Though the HPSP has been determined not to have significant adverse effects on aesthetics, Alternative 2 would reduce the aesthetics effects that the HPSP does create. It would better maintain view corridors to Uvas Creek and to the southern hillsides than would the HPSP and improve preservation of the existing agricultural character of the specific plan area. The scenic quality of the specific plan area would be better maintained relative to implementation of the HPSP.
Agricultural Resources. Alternative 2 would enable the retention of a greater area of the site for potential agricultural use. Alternative 2 would retain about 92 acres of agricultural land relative to the approximately 73 acres proposed in the HPSP. Loss of agricultural land would still occur, but not to the extent as would occur with implementation of the HPSP. The impact of loss of farmland with implementation of the HPSP has been determined to be less than significant. Alternative 2 would simply enable more land that has been historically used for agricultural uses to be maintained, an enhancement of the City of Gilroy General Plan goal to retain large areas of agricultural land within the specific plan area.
Air Quality. Alternative 2 would result in a substantial reduction in the volume of construction phase air emissions and operational phase (vehicular) emissions. Average daily vehicle trips generated by residential development would decline by approximately 58 percent.
Biological Resources. Alternative 2 would reduce the potential for direct disturbance to the valuable riparian habitat associated with Uvas Creek. HPSP impacts associated with placement of Third Street within a portion of the Uvas Creek biological setback area could be avoided.
Cultural Resources. Alternative 2 would also be less likely to disturb known and unknown buried cultural resources.
Geology and Soils. Alternative 2 would result in approximately 770 versus 1,855 people being potentially exposed to potential geologic hazards. Therefore, it would have lesser potential geological impacts that would the implementation of the HPSP and the Church projects.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Alternative 2 would reduce the number of future specific plan area residents exposed to potential health impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in storm water runoff relative to the HPSP. A significant decrease in urban pollutants delivered to Uvas Creek is likely. However, the volume of agricultural chemicals used is likely to be greater than for the HPSP as a larger area would likely be maintained for potential agricultural use. Alternative 2 would expose fewer people to potential flood hazard associated with Uvas Creek, hazards related to potential failure of Uvas Dam, and fire hazards.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-33
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
Land Use. This alternative would reduce the degree of inconsistency of the HPSP with the target number of dwelling units proposed in the City of Gilroy General Plan. A reduction in the degree of inconsistency by allowing only 220 versus 530 units would result in a reduction of nearly all HPSP project effects described in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Noise. Alternative 2 would result in an incremental decrease in impacts on noise sensitive uses located along roadways onto which traffic generated in the specific plan area would be distributed, as the total number of vehicle trips generated would decline.
Public Services. Effects for each service are as follows:
Police and Fire Services. Alternative 2 would reduce demand on police and fire services by reducing the number of residents within the specific plan area.
Schools. Alternative 2 would also reduce demands on the GUSD by generating approximately 58 percent fewer school-age children requiring space in a school system that is near or at capacity.
Parks and Recreation. Alternative 2 would also result in a substantial decrease in demand for park and recreation resources due to the reduction in population associated with it. Demand for parkland would decrease by about 58 percent.
Transportation and Circulation. Alternative 2 would result in reduced traffic and circulation impacts. The number of daily trips generated by residential uses would decline by nearly 3,000 trips per day (5,072 versus 2,103 trips per day) with the overall daily trip volume declining from about 13,030 to about 10,000 trips per day. Incremental demands on the city’s circulation system would be similarly reduced. Impacts on Hecker Pass Highway and the need to widen a segment of the highway would be reduced, if not eliminated. Most trips could be distributed onto Santa Teresa Boulevard via Third Street. Improvements to Santa Teresa Boulevard are already programmed for the HPSP area. Improvements to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Hecker Pass Highway intersection required under cumulative and City of Gilroy General Plan build out conditions may still be warranted. The need for signalization on Hecker Pass Highway would be reduced though this would require further analysis.
Utilities and Service Systems. Effects for each utility or service are as follows:
Water Service. Alternative 2 would reduce the projected demand for domestic water supply by 58 percent. This would reduce incremental demand on groundwater resources utilized by the city for domestic water supply.
Sewer Service. Alternative 2 would reduce demands on the city’s sewer system and treatment plant capacity. Sewage generation from residential uses would decline by 58 percent. The need to construct on-site sewage collection infrastructure would be reduced, as development would be concentrated in a more limited portion of the specific plan area.
3-34 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 3: Environmental Issues
Storm Water. Alternative 2 would result in a substantial reduction in storm water runoff and consequently, a substantial reduction in the need for storm water infrastructure. Potential effects on sensitive habitat would be reduced as the number of storm drain outfalls required on the banks of Uvas Creek would be reduced.
Gas and Electricity, Telecommunications. Alternative 2 would reduce the need to extend gas and electricity or telecommunications systems to the specific plan area.
Solid Waste. Alternative 2 would result in a substantial reduction in solid waste generation relative to existing conditions. Incremental impacts on solid waste disposal capacity at affected landfills would decline.
Alternative 3 – HPSP Dwelling Unit/Church Redesign
Alternative Definition
This alternative proposes that development occurs consistent with that proposed in the HPSP for all locations other than the Church site and that the Church project redesign included in both Alternatives 1 and 2 be implemented.
Environmental Effects of the HPSP Dwelling Unit/Church Redesign Alternative
The potential impacts of implementing the HPSP as described in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures of this EIR also occur with Alternative 3. The scenic highway/aesthetic impacts and the historic resources impacts associated with the Church project as described in this EIR would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of this alternative. The objectives of the HPSP applicant would continue to be met. The objectives of the Church project applicant may not be met given recommended redesign changes.
Comparison of Alternatives and Environmentally Superior Alternative
Selection of the environmentally superior alternative is based on a comparison of the alternatives against two primary criteria. First, alternatives that result in the reduction in intensity of a significant, unavoidable impact are considered to be superior to those with lesser benefit. Second, alternatives that reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level, thereby eliminating the need for mitigation, are considered to be superior to those that have lesser benefit.
The “no project” alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. It would have no impact on the environment. Therefore, it would not create new or exacerbate existing city wide significant, unavoidable impacts. It would also not result in significant environmental impacts. However, it would not enable the city to acquire the Uvas Creek corridor (through dedication to the city) for the extension of the Uvas Creek Preserve and Uvas Creek trail. Nor would it meet one of the City of Gilroy General Plan
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-35
Section 3: Environmental Issues Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
goals for the Hecker Pass Special Use District that seeks to enable an economically viable use of land for property owners. The “no project” alternative would also not meet the objectives of the proposed projects. When the “no project” alternative is selected as the environmentally superior alternative, a second best alternative must be identified.
Alternative 1, General Plan Target Dwelling/Clustering, is ranked as the second most environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 1 largely reduces the intensity of all but one of the potential significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project (conflict with Williamson Act, loss of significant historic resources, and air quality degradation). Loss of access to mineral resources, the remaining unavoidable significant impact, is assumed to remain unchanged. Alternative 1 would also largely reduce potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant level due to its 79 percent reduction in dwelling unit numbers and redesign of the Church project.
Alternative 2 is considered to be the third most environmentally superior alternative to the proposed HPSP and Church projects. It too reduces the significant unavoidable impacts related to William Act contract conflict, air quality degradation, and historic resources. The impact from loss of access to mineral resources is assumed to remain unchanged. Alternative 2 also results in a reduction in nearly all other identified potentially significant impacts. However, due to the relative increase in dwelling unit numbers as compared to Alternative 1 (115 versus 220) and slightly size of residential clusters, its environmental effects are all incrementally more significant than for Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 is least environmentally superior alternative. It results in a reduction of impacts only for the Church project.
In no case do Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 result in a greater number or greater significance of environmental impacts identified for the proposed projects.
3-36 EMC Planning Group Inc.
4.0 References
4.1 Literature Cited
Archeological Resource Management. Historic Evaluation of the Structures at the South Valley Community Church Property on Hecker Pass Road in the County of Santa Clara for the City of Gilroy. February 26, 2003.
Archeological Resource Management. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the South Valley Community Church Property on Hecker Pass Road in the County of Santa Clara for the City of Gilroy. February 26, 2003.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. Adopted April 1996, updated through December 1999.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Air Monitoring Station Data for 2002. http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries/pollsum02.pdf
California Air Resources Board. Monitoring Station Air Quality Data for 2003.
California Department of Conservation. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual. 1997.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Monterey Bay Production- Consumption Region. 2000.
California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map. 2002.
California Department of Transportation. Guidelines for Official Designation of Scenic Highways. March 1996.
California Department of Water Resources. Bulletin 160-93 California Water Plan Update. October 1994.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. State California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Sacramento, California. Statute as amended January 1, 2001 and Guidelines as amended February 1, 2001.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. November 1998.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-1 Section 4: References Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2000 Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws. November 2000.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments. March 26, 2004 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/WGCommer.htm
City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan. Adopted June 13, 2002.
City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy Draft General Plan Draft EIR. Denise Duffy and Associates. September 2001.
City of Gilroy. Amendment to the City of Gilroy Draft General Plan Draft EIR. Denise Duffy and Associates. December 2001.
City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program. Adopted June 13, 2002.
City of Gilroy. Gilroy Zoning Ordinance.
City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy Storm Drain Master Plan. Camp Dresser and McKee. May 1993.
City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy Sewer Master Plan. Camp Dresser and McKee. May 1993.
City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy Water Master Plan. Camp Dresser and McKee. May 1993.
City of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and Santa Clara County. The South County Joint Area Plan. Santa Clara County, California, 1989.
City of Gilroy. Historical and Cultural Resources Map. 1978-79.
Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Noise Assessment Study for the Planned South Valley Community Church and School, Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy. 2003.
EMC Planning Group, Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan: Biological Resources Assessment. 2001.
ENGEO Inc. Letter Submitted to Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates regarding Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. September 5, 2002.
ENGEO Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area, Gilroy California. 2001.
ENGEO Inc. Creek Bank Movement and Erosion Assessment, Hecker Pass Specific plan Area, Gilroy California. 2003.
4-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 4: References
ENGEO Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Bonfante Gardens Nursery, Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area, Gilroy California. 2002.
Engineering & Hydrosystems Inc. Meander Analysis: No-Build Setback Determination, Uvas Creek, Gilroy. 2003.
Higgins Associates, Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Gilroy California – Traffic Impact Study Report. June 2003.
Higgins Associates, Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis Report for Proposed New Residential and Agri-Commercial Development, Gilroy California – Final Report. January, 2004.
Kelly & Associates Environmental Sciences. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, Lands of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area, Gilroy, Santa Clara County California. October 2003.
Kleinfelder. Geotechnical and Geologic Peer Review for Bonfante Garden Nursery, Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area in Gilroy California. December 6, 2002.
Kleinfelder. Comments on ENGEO’s Response to Peer Review Comments for Bonfante Garden Nursery, Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area in Gilroy California. February 26, 2003.
Mark W. Skinner and Bruce M. Pavlik. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. (California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. I), Fifth Edition. 1994.
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Preliminary Hecker Pass Specific Plan Gilroy, California. November 2003.
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report & Calculations, Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Gilroy California. 2003.
Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Santa Clara County Agricultural Crop Report. 2002.
Schaaf & Wheeler. Hydrology and Drainage Report for Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Program EIR. 2003.
State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. California Natural Diversity Data Base Special Animals List, Gilroy Quadrangle. January 2002.
State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Special Animals List. January 2002.
State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. January 2002.
EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-3 Section 4: References Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
4.2 Persons Contacted
Melissa Durkin City of Gilroy Planning Division
Kristi Abrams City of Gilroy Engineering Division
Don Nunes City of Gilroy Engineering Division
Barbara Van Heerden Higgins Associates
Robert Oneto Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates
Lori Oleson Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture
Kevin O’Day Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture
Bruce Tuter California Air Resources Board
Dick Volpe Santa Clara Valley Water District
Jeff Pack Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.
Dunia Noel Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission
4.3 Report Preparers
EMC Planning Group Inc.
Teri Wissler Adam, Principal Principal-in-Charge
Ron Sissem, Principal Planner Project Manager
Cara Galloway, Principal Planner/Biologist Biologist
Steve McMurtry, Associate Planner/ Biologist Report Preparation and Graphics
E.J. Kim, Desktop Publishing Specialist Report Production and Graphics
Vickie Bermea, Administrative Assistant Report Production
4-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR Section 4: References
Subconsultants
Higgins Associates Traffic Impact Report
Archaeological Resource Management Historic and Archaeological Evaluation
Schaaf & Wheeler Hydrology and Storm Drainage Report
Engineering Hydrosystems Inc. Uvas Creek Meander Analysis Report
Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Noise Assessment Study
EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-5 Section 4: References Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR
This side intentionally left blank.
4-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.