INITIAL STUDY
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy
March 25, 2015
HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
EIR Addendum to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR (SCH#
PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Melissa Durkin, Planner II 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Tel 408.846.0451 Fax 408.846.0429 [email protected]
PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal [email protected] www.emcplanning.com
March 25, 2015
This document was produced on recycled paper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND ...... 1
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..... 22
C. DETERMINATION ...... 23
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 24
1. Aesthetics ...... 26
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 29
3. Air Quality ...... 31
4. Biological Resources ...... 34
5. Cultural Resources ...... 44
6. Geology and Soils ...... 48
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 50
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 51
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 54
10. Land Use and Planning ...... 57
11. Mineral Resources ...... 58
12. Noise ...... 59
13. Population and Housing ...... 61
14. Public Services ...... 62
15. Transportation/Traffic ...... 64
16. Utilities and Service Systems ...... 68
E. SOURCES ...... 70
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Figures
Figure 1 Location Map ...... 3
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph ...... 5
Figure 3 Approved GPA 07-05/TM10-05 Site Plan ...... 7
Figure 4 Proposed GPA 14-02/TM 14-04 SVCC-North Plan ...... 9
Figure 5 HPSP Residential Projects ...... 13
Figure 6 Syngenta Mill Building Relocation Plan ...... 17
Tables
Table 1 Dwelling Unit Distribution Status ...... 12
Appendices
Appendix A Proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendments
Appendix B Trip Generation Analysis
Appendix C Revised Mitigation Recommendations for the Conrotto Winery Property in the County of Santa Clara
Appendix D Noise Assessment Study
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. CITY OF GILROY
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title Hecker Pass Specific Plan (HPSP) Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) Lead Agency Contact Person Melissa Durkin, Planner II and Phone Number City of Gilroy Community Development Department Planning Division (408) 846-0440 Date Prepared February 25, 2015 Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 (831) 649-1799 Ashley Hefner, Associate Planner Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal Ron Sissem, Principal Planner Andrea Edwards, Senior Biologist/Arborist Project Location HPSP area, City of Gilroy, South of State Route 152 (Hecker Pass Highway) and north of Uvas Creek Project Sponsor Name and Address Mr. Scott Kramer Meritage Homes 1671 E. Monte Vista Avenue, Suite #214 Vacaville, CA 95688 General Plan Designation Hecker Pass Special Use District Zoning Hecker Pass Special Use District
Setting
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan (HPSP) Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) project (hereinafter “proposed project”) is located within the HPSP area in the western portion of the City of Gilroy (hereinafter “City”), south of Hecker Pass Highway and north of Uvas Creek. Figure 1, Location Map, presents the regional location and project vicinity. Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, presents an aerial view of the project site.
The proposed project consists of two sites, considered as the comprehensive project site, which are not contiguous, but are both located south of Hecker Pass Highway, as follows:
1 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
. The first site is the northern 11-acre portion of the 18-acre South Valley Community Church (SVCC) site (assessor’s parcel number (APN) 810-21-009). Existing development on the site consists of a group of six buildings located along the Hecker Pass Highway frontage, and one building located further south on the property, that are all proposed for demolition. The remainder of the site is vacant. The adjacent uses include Hecker Pass Highway, residential and open space to the north; vacant land to the south (the remainder of the 18-acre SVCC site) that is entitled for 15 single-family residential units; senior housing to the east; and agriculture to the west. Uvas Creek corridor is located approximately 630 feet south of the southerly boundary of this first site.
. The second site consists of two abutting parcels; the eastern parcel is the Syngenta Flowers property (APN 810-20-005) and the western parcel, referred to as the Arias property, is (APN 810-20-004). Existing uses on the Syngenta Flowers property consist of the Syngenta flower facility, including an existing mill building, and agricultural uses. Existing uses on the Arias property consist of two residential buildings with surrounding landscaping, and vacant land. Adjacent uses consist of Hecker Pass Highway and agriculture to the north; open space and Uvas Creek to the south; and agriculture to the east and west.
Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed project consists of an amendment to the HPSP, a residential subdivision, the relocation of an existing mill building, and the demolition of seven buildings as described in detail below.
South Valley Community Church North (SVCC-North) Site
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR (HPSP EIR) was prepared in 2004 and is the original program EIR for the HPSP. As identified in the HPSP EIR, the SVCC originally sought approvals for the development of a church, daycare, wedding chapel, supporting administration building, and an elementary school on its entire 18-acre site.
Then in 2008, the SVCC sought and gained approvals to amend the Community Facilities designation on the southern seven acres of the 18-acre site (hereinafter “SVCC-South”) to Residential Cluster and to permit a 15-lot single-family residential subdivision (see Figure 3, Approved GPA 07-05/TM10-05 Site Plan), currently referred to as Heartland Estates (see “CEQA History” below for more details).
This current CEQA document, therefore, analyzes only the potential effects of the SVCC’s current proposed general plan amendment and tentative map that would enable development of a 33-lot single-family residential subdivision of the 11-acre “SVCC-North” site, and does not address the SVCC-South site. Figure 4, Proposed GPA 14-02/TM 14-04 SVCC-North Plan, reflects the proposed residential development of the SVCC-North site.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2 San Francisco UV99 ¨¦§580 Modesto ¨¦§680 §5 ¨¦§280 ¨¦ San Jose Project ¤£101 UV1 Location UV152 Santa Cruz kGilroy
Salinas Monterey
UV1 ¤£101
UV1 Regional Location
Monterey Rd. Project Site
Leavesley Rd.
WrenAve.
Santa Teresa Blvd. 152 UV Gillman Rd. GILROY ¤£101 UV152
Source: County of Santa Clara GIS 2012, ESRI Streetmap North America 2010. 0 1.5 mile
Figure 1 Location Map Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) Initial Study HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4 State Route 152 Proposed Mill Building Relocation Existing Buildings SVCC - North to be Removed (Proposed Project) Existing Building to be Relocated West DeNova
Uvas Creek
Cluster SantaTeresa Teresa Blvd. Blvd. Meritage
SVCC - South (Heartland Estates)
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Boundary Source: Google Earth 2014 0 800 feet Figure 2 Aerial Photograph Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) Initial Study HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 6 Use Century Gothic Font, 9 pt
Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2008, not to scale SVCC - North Site Source: archespace GWSC 2008 archespace GWSC 2008 0 200 feet Figure 3 Approved GPA 07-05/TM10-05 Site Plan Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) Initial Study HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 8 Use Century Gothic Font, 9 pt
not to scale SVCC - North Site Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar 2014 0 160 feet Figure 4 Proposed GPA 14-02/TM 14-04 SVCC-North Plan Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 10 CITY OF GILROY
Additionally, mitigation measures included in the HPSP EIR required specifically for the previously proposed Community Facilities use, including the church, daycare, wedding chapel, supporting administration building, and an elementary school no longer would apply to the proposed project, including Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17.
HPSP EIR Mitigation Measures 8 and 21 for the church project are redundant with HPSP EIR Mitigation Measures 6 and 20, which apply for all development projects within the HPSP area.
The proposed project proposes the following amendments to the HPSP associated with the changes to the SVCC-North Site:
. Amend HPSP figure 3-1, land use map, and table 3-1, land use, to change the Community Facilities designation of the SVCC-North site to Residential Cluster. With this change, no more Community Facility-designated land would exist within the HPSP boundary.
. Amend HPSP table 3-3, residential cluster lot size requirements, to redistribute lot types to account for the proposed 33 lots. Table 3-3 shows three lot sizes (e.g., lots typically 2,500-3,500 square feet, lots typically 3,500-6,000 square feet, and lots typically larger than 6,000 square feet) with a maximum number of dwelling units allotted for each lot size. The proposed 33 lots fall into the largest lot size category, as they range in size from 7,800 square feet to 13,600 square feet.
The HPSP Residential Cluster designation applies within three areas in the HPSP: the North Cluster, West Cluster, and East Cluster. The project site is located within the East Cluster. The proposed project would redistribute the maximum number of dwelling units within the three different lot types noted previously, but would not change the maximum permitted number of dwelling units within the East Cluster (e.g., lots typically 2,500- 3,500 square feet would change from 76 to 82 units, lots typically 3,500-6,000 square feet would change from, 157 to 118 units, and lots typically larger than 6,000 square feet would change from 26 to 59 units). Therefore, the proposed project would not lead to an increase in overall residential development ordinance (RDO) allocation or population beyond what was previously analyzed in the HPSP EIR or previous amendments.
Table 1, Dwelling Unit Distribution Status provides a status update of units that have been allocated to development projects to date within the Residential Cluster designation in the HPSP area and Figure 5, HPSP Residential Projects shows their locations.
. HPSP section 3.6, community facilities, would be removed from the HPSP.
11 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
Table 1 Dwelling Unit Distribution Status1
North West East Entire Cluster Cluster Cluster HPSP Area
Lot Remaining DeNova West Remaining/ Meritage SVCC- SVCC- Remaining2/ Remaining/ Types Units Cluster Total Units South North Total Units3 Total Units (Heartland (Proposed Estates) Project)
Typically 6 0 6 14/20 69 0 0 13/82 33/108 2500- 3500 SF Lots
Typically 27 51 36 22/109 107 0 0 11/118 60/254 3500- 6000 SF Lots
Typically 24 36 25 15/76 10 15 33 58/59 97/112 Larger Than 6000 SF Lots
Totals 57 87 67 51/205 186 15 33 25/259 190/521
Source: City of Gilroy 2009, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar 2014, EMC Planning Group 2014.
Notes: 1Calculations represent the number of dwelling units associated with each listing.
2With approval of the proposed project, there will be no more undeveloped lands with a Residential Cluster designation in the East Cluster, so the remaining 25 units allowed would not be implemented. 3The total units distributed to the East Cluster in this table accounts for the redistribution associated with the proposed project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 12 Use Century Gothic Font, 9 pt
STATE HIGHWAYS State Route 1 State Route 68 State Route 156
U.S. HIGHWAYS U.S. Highway 101 SVCC - North (Proposed Project) INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS West Cluster Interstate 5 or I-5
Proposed Mill
DRIVE Building Relocation Existing Buildings to be Removed Existing Building Meritage to be Relocated
DeNova SVCC - South (Heartland Estates) North West East Entire Cluster Cluster Cluster HPSP Area SVCC- SVCC- Remaining West Remaining/ South North Remaining/ Remaining/ Lot Types DeNova Meritage Units Cluster Total Units (Heartland (Proposed Total Units Total Units Estates) Project) Typically 6 0 6 14/20 69 0 0 13/82 33/108 2500-3500 SF Lots Typically 27 51 36 22/109 107 0 0 11/118 60/254 3500-6000 SF Lots Typically Larger 24 36 25 15/76 10 15 33 58/59 97/112 Than 6000 SF Lots Totals 57 87 67 51/205 186 15 33 25/259 190/521 Refer to Table 1 of this document for related notes not to scale Hecker Pass Speci c Plan Boundary Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar 2014, City of Gilroy 2009 0 800 feet Figure 5 HPSP Residential Projects Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) Initial Study HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 14 CITY OF GILROY
. Amend HPSP figure 9-2, conceptual development phasing plan, to reflect that the project site is now considered as Phase I (residential).
. Other minor textual amendments throughout the HPSP to account for the redesignation as reflected in Appendix A, Proposed Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendments.
Features/characteristics of the proposed tentative map for the SVCC-North site component of the overall proposed project include:
. Replacement of the Cobblestone Court cul-de-sac with a proposed knuckle adjacent to Lot 10, and right-of-way for the cul-de-sac adjacent to Lots 7 and 8 to be retracted. Cobblestone Court would run along the entire western property boundary, with an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) and maintenance road connecting to Hecker Pass Highway.
. New Street ‘B’ extending east from the terminus of Cobblestone Court at the northern end, connecting to new Street ‘A’.
. New Street ‘A’ extending south from the terminus of Street ‘B’, connecting to the proposed improvement extending south into the SVCC-South site at Tarragon Drive.
. A 1.6-acre open space parcel, Parcel ‘A’, running the length of the project site along Hecker Pass Highway. The open space would provide a buffer between the highway and residential development, meeting the HPSP requirement that a non-structural, non- building setback be maintained from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway.
. There is an existing Coastal Live Oak tree in the southeastern corner of the proposed Parcel ‘A’ near Lot 33 that would remain.
. A future trail and access easement runs parallel to the highway through Parcel ‘A’. Development of the future trail is not included in the proposed project and will be processed by the City and analyzed separately under CEQA.
. Grading consisting of 2,000 cubic yards of cut and 22,500 cubic yards of fill, for a net import of 20,000 cubic yards.
. Water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure improvements connecting to the City’s existing systems.
. The demolition of three single-family houses, a cottage, an agricultural building, two barns and two sheds.
15 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
Syngenta/Arias Site (Mill Building Relocation)
In addition to the general plan amendment and tentative map actions that apply to the SVCC- North site, the proposed project includes the relocation of an existing mill building located on the Syngenta Flowers property (APN 810-20-005) to the abutting Arias property (APN 810-20- 004). Relocation of the mill building requires a change in the land use designation of the Arias property from Hecker Pass Agriculture to Agricultural Commercial, as follows:.
. Amend Figure 3-1, Land Use Diagram, to reflect a change in the eastern portion of the Arias property from Hecker Pass Agriculture to Agricultural Commercial. This amendment is necessary because the Arias property’s current land use designation of Hecker Pass Agriculture will not permit commercial uses associated with agriculture. Amending the land use designation will allow Syngenta to relocate a mill building to the Arias property. The approved Third Street alignment passes through the existing mill building location, such that it is necessary to relocate the mill building to the Arias property allow construction of Third Street.
Two residential buildings and associated improvements located on the Arias site would be demolished to accommodate a future stormwater basin. See Figure 6, Syngenta Mill Building Relocation Plan. There is an existing Valley Oak tree next to the buildings to be removed on the Arias property that would be removed. This removal is further discussed in the biological resources section below.
The relocated mill building would be placed behind the stormwater basin with a 25-foot driveway running along the east of the basin to access the building. The purpose for this change is to accommodate the extension of Third Street through the HPSP area, consistent with previous approvals.
Additional text changes have been proposed to address fence design and location, as well as permitted uses in the agricultural land use areas. Other minor text amendments that do not create environmental impacts have also been proposed.
CEQA Compliance History
2004 Hecker Pass HPSP/South Valley Community Church EIR
EMC Planning Group Inc. prepared the HPSP EIR for the City in 2004. This is the original program EIR for the HPSP. The City of Gilroy City Council certified the final EIR and adopted the HPSP in January 2005.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 16 Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar 2014 125 feet
Figure 6 Syngenta Mill Building Relocation Plan Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Residential Subdivision (TM 14-04) Initial Study HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 18 CITY OF GILROY
The HPSP EIR evaluated the potential effects of implementing the HPSP as well as the effects of implementing a specific project planned within the HPSP area. A range of development types was proposed on the approximately 425 acres included within the HPSP boundary. Proposed uses included: open space (125 acres), residential (145 acres), agricultural uses including agricultural commercial uses (115 acres) and community facilities (18 acres). A total of 530 dwelling units were proposed within the HPSP boundary; the HPSP EIR analysis was based on this residential development capacity.
The Community Facilities designation within the HPSP applied only to two parcels owned by the SVCC. The SVCC had proposed and submitted an application to the City for the development of a church and school on approximately 18 acres of its property, with the remainder of about 10 acres (which crosses over Uvas Creek to the south) proposed for dedication to the City as part of the Uvas Creek Park. It was this proposal that was evaluated at the “project level” in the HPSP EIR as noted above. When the HPSP was adopted, no action was taken on the SVCC project, as the SVCC was not ready to move forward with the project.
2006 HPSP Amendment (GPA 06-02) MND
EMC Planning Group prepared the Hecker Pass HPSP Amendment (GPA 06-02) Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City in 2006. This initial study/mitigated negative declaration (MND) addressed the amendment to the HPSP that eliminated the “east intersection” on Hecker Pass Highway. This amendment was adopted by the City Council.
2006 Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan (A/S 05-54) MND
EMC Planning Group prepared the Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan (A/S 05-54) Mitigated Negative Declaration in 2006. This MND evaluated the specific impacts of the backbone infrastructure to support development within the HPSP. The details of the backbone infrastructure had not yet been planned when the HPSP was prepared and adopted. The master plan was adopted by the City Council.
2008 HPSP Amendment (GPA 07-05) EIR Addendum
EMC Planning Group prepared the Hecker Pass HPSP General Plan Amendment (GPA 07-05) EIR Addendum (2008 HPSP EIR Addendum) in 2008. In November 2007, the SVCC submitted an application to the City to amend the HPSP (GPA 07-05). The application requested that the HPSP be amended to allow a 15-lot single-family residential development on the southern seven acres of the SVCC parcel, redesignating it from Community Facilities to Residential Cluster, and changing the maximum allowed residential lots within the HPSP area from 506 to 521, with 259 in the East Cluster. The amendment included revisions to site plans and modifications to specific HPSP text, tables and graphics to reflect changes to total acreage in residential land use, total
19 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04) dwelling units within the HPSP area, population changes, etc., that would result from the amendment. No changes to HPSP policies were proposed. The City decided to prepare an addendum to the HPSP EIR based on its determination that none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 which would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR were met pursuant to section 15164. Development plans were not submitted with the amendment application. The City Council later approved the tentative map under TM 10-05, citing the addendum for CEQA compliance under the adopting Resolution No. 2011-28.
CEQA Guidelines section 15164(d) requires that the decision making body consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. As such, at its August 3, 2009 hearing, the Gilroy City Council considered the Final Hecker Pass HPSP EIR Addendum prepared by EMC Planning Group on December 8, 2008, and made CEQA findings associated with approval of GPA 07-05 through adoption of Resolution No. 2009-32.
Approach and Methodology
The approach used in this study is to identify whether the proposed project would result in new significant environmental effects, or cause previously-identified effects found to be less than significant to rise to a level of significance, as previously identified in the HPSP EIR or 2008 EIR Addendum. For the general plan amendment component of the proposed project, this is accomplished largely by using the results of the prior development intensity comparison shown previously in Table 1 to determine if and how the environmental effects of the proposed project may be different than those identified in the HPSP EIR and 2008 EIR Addendum. Where the potential for significant changes in the circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken are possible, these too are discussed.
The HPSP EIR analyzed a total of 530 dwelling units within the HPSP area. The SVCC-North site’s proposed 33-lot count is well within the total number of units analyzed previously, allowing a sufficient number of units available to be built within the remaining HPSP area. However, as shown in Table 1, Note 2 above, with approval of the proposed project, there will be no more undeveloped lands with a Residential Cluster designation in the East Cluster so the areas remaining for residential development would be within the North and West Clusters.
The HPSP EIR adequately addresses potential impacts of the proposed project, as the proposed project would not cause residential development capacity identified in the HPSP to be exceeded. As such, the HPSP EIR mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project, except for mitigation measures associated with the previously proposed Community Facilities that will no longer be included in the HPSP. The Community Facilities measures that would no longer apply include HPSP EIR Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 16.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 20 CITY OF GILROY
This study will also analyze the impacts of the proposed relocation of the existing mill building, the demolition of the two residential buildings and associated improvements, including the removal of the Valley Oak tree, on the Syngenta/Arias properties.
Consequently, all significant impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than- significant level unless otherwise noted in this study or noted in the HPSP EIR as significant and unavoidable.
The methodology used to evaluate each of the impact areas will be as follows:
1. Summarize the conclusions of the HPSP EIR, 2008 EIR Addendum, and Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND for each issue area.
2. Discuss whether the proposed project is consistent with the HPSP as it relates to each issue area.
3. Identify the mitigation measures from the HPSP EIR, 2008 EIR Addendum, and Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND to be applied to the proposed project.
4. Conclude whether or not any additional environmental analysis is necessary.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
1. Caltrans, District 4 – Encroachment permit and approval of improvements at the maintenance/emergency vehicle access road at the northwestern boundary of the project site.
2. Regional Water Quality Control Board – NPDES permit.
3. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Implementing Entity - HCP permit.
21 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Population/Housing Emissions
Agriculture and Forestry Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Resources Materials
Air quality Hydrology/Water quality Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Utilities/Service Systems
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance
Geology/Soils Noise
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 22 CITY OF GILROY
C. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. An Addendum to the Specific Plan EIR will be prepared to document the technical changes required.
Susan L. Martin, Planning Manager Date
23 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed project is contained in the following series of checklists and accompanying narratives. The following notes apply to this section.
1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures are described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document or negative declaration. [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)] In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following:
a. “Earlier Analysis Used” identifies and states where such document is available for review.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 24 CITY OF GILROY
b. “Impact Adequately Addressed” identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. “Mitigation Measures”—For effects that are “Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” mitigation measures are described which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.) are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. “Supporting Information Sources”—A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue identifies:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than significant.
25 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or degrade the existing visual character in the HPSP Area (GP Policy 1.07) or the hillside areas (GP Policy 1.16, GP Policy 12.04)? (18,19,20)
b. Substantially damage scenic resources viewed from Hecker Pass Highway or Pacheco Pass Highway (GP Policy 6.01, GP Policy 12.04)? (13,14)
c. Substantially damage scenic resources viewed from Uvas Park Drive, Santa Teresa Boulevard, or Miller Avenue from First Street to Mesa Road (GP Policy 6.02)? (1,13,14)
d. Substantially damage scenic resources (farmland and surrounding hills) viewed from Highway 101 (GP Policy 6.03, Action 1-H)? (13,14)
e. Result in unattractive entrances at the principal gateways to the City (north and south Monterey Street, Highway 152/Hecker Pass Highway, Highway 152/Pacheco Pass, north and south Santa Teresa Boulevard, and at the Highway 101 interchanges at Masten, Buena Vista, Leavesley, and Tenth Street) (GP Policy 1.10 and Action 1-H)? (18,19,20)
f. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (19,20.26)
g. Include or require a wall or fence higher than seven feet above the existing grade at the property line? (18,19)
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 26 CITY OF GILROY
Comments: a/b/e. The proposed project is located within the HPSP area. The HPSP EIR concluded that projects consistent with the land use and design controls in the HPSP would result in a less than significant impact to scenic resources viewed from Hecker Pass Highway. Residential development associated with the proposed SVCC-North tentative map would be consistent with the land use and design controls specified for the Residential Cluster designation, as amended by the proposed project.
Table 7-1 of the HPSP requires that minimum primary building setbacks are at least 250 feet from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway; however, it also notes that:
Setback requirements are guidelines only and may be modified to suit the unique characteristics of a project to allow for diverse product types.
and
Setbacks of less than 250 feet are permitted with noise mitigation but in no instances less than the 115 feet from the existing centerline of Hecker Pass Highway.
The nearest proposed residential lot identified in the SVCC-North site tentative map are set back approximately 185 feet from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway, and would meet the minimum 115 foot setback requirement.
The visual impacts of the proposed residential subdivision would be less than those previously identified with the Community Facilities development. The HPSP EIR found that mitigation measures were required for a landscaping plan (HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 1) and parking plan (HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 2) to screen the community buildings that were described as visually massive and to minimize the appearance of parking areas. These mitigation measures would no longer be necessary. The proposed residential subdivision would be set back from Hecker Pass Highway with the proposed open space and would be in keeping with the other abutting single-family residential uses typical of the area.
The mill building relocation would be setback approximately 300 feet from Hecker Pass Highway, in keeping with the existing Syngenta facility buildings. The existing driveway from Hecker Pass Highway to the two existing single-family residences proposed for demolition would be removed, and a new entrance and driveway would connect to Third Street to the south in keeping with General Plan policy 12.06. Parking for the mill building would be on the south elevation, so would not be visible from Hecker Pass Highway.
27 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04) c/d. The project site is not visible from Uvas Park Drive, Santa Teresa Boulevard, Miller Avenue, or U.S. Highway 101. f. The HPSP EIR concluded that light and glare impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable HPSP policies limiting lighting adjacent to Uvas Creek. The proposed project would be required to include lighting fixtures consistent with those identified in the HPSP policies. The HPSP EIR and 2008 EIR Addendum identified light and glare impacts associated with the lighting of sports fields associated with the school that was included in the original SVCC project. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3 was identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project retained one of the two originally proposed playfields, so the impact was reduced but still required HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3. As the proposed project eliminates the potential for a lighted school sports field altogether, and now includes only single-family residential development, HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3 would no longer be necessary. With the implementation of HPSP policies, the impact would be less than significant. g. Section 7.4.5 in the HPSP states, “Solid fencing or taller walls are allowed in moderation to screen unsightly production areas from public view but may not be taller than 6 feet and must be constructed of natural looking materials.” The proposed project does not include any walls over 6 feet in height.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant aesthetics effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant aesthetic effects, no changes in aesthetics related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant impacts on aesthetics than were identified under the original project or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 28 CITY OF GILROY
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA) (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Convert prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to an urban use (projects requiring a legislative act, such as zoning changes, annexation to the City, urban service area amendments, etc)? (17,19,20)
b. Conflict with a Williamson Act contract? (19,20,31)
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (19,20)
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (19,20)
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (19,20)
29 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
Comments: a-e. Build out of the HPSP area, including the original SVCC project, was found to have no significant impact on agricultural resources. Potential significant nuisance impacts on the school/church uses (noise, dust, etc.) from the potential future operation of agricultural activities on parcels adjacent to SVCC-North site on the west were identified, but mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of policies identified in the HPSP.
The proposed project does not include agricultural activities that could cause nuisance impacts, as the proposed SVCC-North component of the proposed project represents urban development that was assumed to occur within the HPSP and therefore, it too would have no significant impact on agricultural resources.
The project now proposes all residential use, which is considered sensitive to nuisances that could be created by future agricultural activities on adjacent parcels. The proposed project could result in an incrementally greater number of people being exposed to potential agriculture related nuisances. However, because potential nuisances are reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of HPSP policies, the effect of this incremental change does not rise to a level of significance.
The Syngenta/Arias relocation/demolition component would reduce existing impacts as the two existing single-family buildings would be demolished. Neither the SVCC-North Site nor the Syngenta/Arias are on lands enrolled in a Williamson Act contract and both are considered Grazing Land under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant agricultural resources effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in agricultural resource related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant impacts on agricultural resources than were identified under the original project or the revised GPA 07- 05/TM10-05 project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 30 CITY OF GILROY
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD CAP)? (20,32)
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? BAAQMD indicates that any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. (15,20,32)
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (15,20,32)
d. Expose sensitive receptors (residential areas, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) to substantial pollutant concentrations (CO and
PM10), as determined in b. above? (13,20)
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (20)
Comments: a-d. The HPSP EIR concluded that the HPSP was inconsistent with the population projections and vehicle miles traveled projections used in preparing the Clean Air Plan. The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations when adopting the HPSP.
The population growth generated at build out is based on the HPSP EIR assumption of a 530 unit residential development capacity within the HPSP area. With the addition of 33 units as proposed on the SVCC-North site, the proposed project would be “participating” in the significant and unavoidable operational emissions impacts identified for the HPSP project as a whole. The removal of the two single-family
31 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
residences at the Arias site would also add to the decrease in operational emissions. The relocation of the mill building would maintain the status quo for operational uses since it would be just relocated and nothing else would change. Because the proposed project would not cause residential development capacity within the entire HPSP area to exceed 530 units, the proposed change would not create vehicle trips (and operational emissions) over and above those already evaluated in the HPSP EIR.
In fact, there would actually be a decrease in the volume of operational mobile source air emissions associated with the proposed project due to a decrease in air quality impacts associated with the proposed project, directly resulting from a decrease in vehicle trips generated, as reported in Appendix B, Trip Generation Analysis.
The project proposes the demolition of seven buildings, two on the Arias property, and five on the SVCC-North site. There is a chance that some or all of these existing buildings contain asbestos and that demolition activities could result in the release of asbestos into the air. All demolition activities that could result in asbestos emissions are required to be performed in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing.
The original SVCC project and the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project were identified
as having a potentially significant impact arising from violation of the PM10 construction emission thresholds and exposure of adjacent sensitive receptors (residents in the Village Green project to the east) to those emissions. The proposed project would require a similar level of demolition, site preparation and construction activities. Therefore, it
would not be expected to generate a greater volume of PM10 than was previously assumed. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 4 and Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measure AQ-1, as reflected in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 below, identified potentially significant short-term construction-related air quality impacts and provided the following mitigation measure that would apply to the proposed project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. The applicant shall specify in project plans the implementation of the following dust control measures during grading and construction activities for any proposed development. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust, subject to the review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division:
The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily;
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 32 CITY OF GILROY
• 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.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division e. The HPSP EIR concluded that land uses identified in the HPSP, including the residential land use associated with the proposed project, are not expected to enable commercial or industrial development that would release odors or toxic chemicals into the air, and that the existing commercial agricultural uses are not known to release odors or toxic chemicals into the air. Residential land uses are typically not associated with the release of odors that could impact sensitive receptors.
Conclusion:
The demolition of existing structures are regulated by the BAAQMD to ensure that hazadarous materials in older structures are properly disposed of during demolition acitivities. Additionally, the proposed project would result in a decrease in mobile source air emissions as discussed above, and no changes in air quality related circumstances have occurred.
33 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (12,18,19,20,21,22,23)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (12,18,19,20,21)
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (12,18,19,20)
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (12,18,19,20)
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (12,18,19,20,25)
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (12,18,19,20,24)
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 34 CITY OF GILROY
Comments:
The HPSP area was originally found to have potentially significant impacts on several special- status species as identified in the HPSP EIR. These impacts were based on possible loss of habitat due to conversion of the site to developed uses and possible disturbance of the riparian habitat associated with Uvas Creek. Implementation of policies contained in the HPSP and implementation of HPSP EIR mitigation measures reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project does not create potential biological resource impacts of a different character or intensity than the original project or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project. Further, the proposed project is consistent with the biological resource protection policies identified in the HPSP (with incorporation of the associated EIR mitigation measures) and with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.
This section is based on a biological reconnaissance field survey conducted by EMC Planning Group senior biologist Andrea Edwards on January 12, 2015 to document existing habitats and evaluate the potential for special-status species to occur on the project sites. Prior to conducting the site visits, Ms. Edwards reviewed site plans; aerial photographs; database accounts; and scientific literature/project reports describing natural resources on the sites and in the vicinity.
Biological resources were documented in field notes, including species observed, dominant plant communities, and significant wildlife habitat characteristics. Qualitative estimations of plant cover, structure, and spatial changes in species composition were used to determine plant communities and wildlife habitats, and habitat quality and disturbance level were described. The project site is situated on the Gilroy U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map. The SVCC-North site ranges in elevation from about 225 to 250 feet, and the Syngenta/Arias site ranges in elevation from about 235 to 240 feet.
The SVCC-North site contains mainly non-native grassland, along with disturbed areas and residential development (and one agricultural building) with ornamental landscaping; the central portion of the site also contains disturbed coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) scrub. Active construction is underway to the south of the site, with staging areas located in the southernmost portion of the site. The Syngenta/Arias site contains mainly non-native grassland, along with disturbed areas and residential development with ornamental landscaping. Both sites also contain a scattered assortment of non-native ornamental (landscaped) vegetation including mature trees, mainly around the edges of the sites and adjacent to existing residences. a. A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted for the Morgan Hill, Mount Sizer, Mississippi Creek, Mount Madonna, Gilroy, Gilroy Hot Springs, Watsonville East, Chittenden, and San Felipe USGS quadrangles in order to generate a list of potentially occurring special-status species in the project vicinity (CDFW 2015). Records of
35 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
occurrence for special-status plants were reviewed for those USGS quadrangles in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2015). A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Database threatened and endangered species list was also generated for Santa Clara County (USFWS 2015). Special-status species in this report are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or Candidates for listing by the USFWS and/or CDFW; as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected species by the CDFW; or as special-status (Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B) by the CNPS.
The HPSP contains several policies that apply to special-status species, policies 5-27 through 5-31. Previous mitigation measures from the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND includes several project elements including circulation, grading, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, potable water, and recycled water plans. The circulation plan includes the extension of Third Street and construction of Cobblestone Court.
Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND mitigation measures that would not apply to the proposed project are Mitigation Measure BI-1, BI-2, BI-3, BI-5, BI-6, BI-8, BI-10. These either do not apply because the proposed project is not within 100 feet of the Uvas Creek riparian habitat, the species or their habitats are not present in the area, or surveys for certain Habitat Plan-covered species are no longer required in the areas. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 5 also does not apply to the proposed project as it is for areas north of the Hecker Pass Highway.
Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measures BI-4, BI-9, and BI-11, as reflected in Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 below, apply to the proposed project and Mitigation Measure BI-7, as reflected in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 below, applies to the Syngenta/Arias site only as it is located within 300 feet of the Uvas Creek riparian habitat.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1. In order to prevent the spread of invasive non-native species, the project proponent shall prepare and implement a landscaping and re-vegetation plan to include the following requirements:
• An eradication plan for plants listed on the Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2006) currently growing on the project site to be implemented during the grading phases of the project in those areas subject to grading work (excluding the Uvas Creek corridor, where the SCVWD implements their own weed eradication program);
• Use of plants listed on the Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2006) shall be prohibited;
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 36 CITY OF GILROY
• Exposed soil areas shall be planted, mulched, or covered between October 15 and the following April 15 each year;
• Plant materials used in landscaping, erosion control, or habitat restoration shall consist of plants that are included in an appropriate native California plants as identified by a qualified biologist or landscape architect;
• Information regarding the removal of invasive species and landscaping plant preferences shall be distributed to each homeowner prior to occupancy;
• To prevent erosion and conserve water during construction, bare soil between newly installed plant materials shall be mulched, covered with jute netting, or seeded with a mix of seeds best suited for the climate and soil conditions, and native to the Santa Clara County region; and
• Lots graded but left vacant pending sale and construction of a house and landscaping shall be monitored for invasive plants. If deemed necessary, bare soils should be covered, seeded, or invasive species actively removed.
The landscape and revegetation plan shall be included in the final improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, prior to approval of the final improvement plans.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-2. Pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors will be conducted by a qualified biologist if construction is to occur during the nesting season (April 15 – August 1) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If raptor nests are located during pre-construction surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish a 300-foot buffer around each nest for the duration of the breeding season (until such time as the young are fully fledged) to prevent nest harassment and brood mortality. Work may proceed prior to August 1 only if a qualified biologist conducts nest checks and establishes that the young are fully fledged. Every effort will be made to avoid removal or impact to known raptor nests within project boundaries. If trees known to support raptor nests cannot be avoided, removal of these trees will only occur during the non-breeding season to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This mitigation measure is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. A report documenting survey results shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-3. Pre-construction surveys for roosting bats will be performed no more than 30 days prior to construction. If roosts are found, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
37 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
CDFG will be obtained by the contractor in order to remove bat species. Alternatively, the construction schedule will be modified to initiate construction after August 1, within the specified exclusion zone, when young have fledged. If bats are found, a suitable construction exclusion zone shall be established based on the number and species of bats observed. Alternative habitat will need to be provided if bats are to be excluded from maternity roosts. If this is the case, a roost with comparable spatial and thermal characteristics will be constructed and provided. CDFG shall be consulted regarding specific designs. This mitigation measure is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. A report documenting survey results shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-4. Prior to conducting any work adjacent to the Uvas Creek buffer area (Syngenta/Arias site), a qualified biologist shall survey for the presence of yellow-breasted chat and yellow warblers at and within the immediate vicinity of the project area. If swallows, chats, and/or warblers are present, appropriate mitigations shall be developed in consultation with the CDFG, including, but not be limited to, timing construction within a 300-foot buffer of the nesting area to avoid nesting seasons (March through August) or until young have fledged. A report documenting survey results shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
Due to the absence of suitable habitat, no special-status species are expected to occur in the proposed development areas, with the exception of protected nesting birds that may occur in trees on the sites and in adjacent vegetated areas. Implementation of the policies indicated below will reduce potentially significant project impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
Trees located on the project sites and along the nearby Uvas Creek riparian corridor have the potential to provide nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and/or protected nesting species. If active bird nests should occur in the trees, then 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. Compliance with HPSP policy 5-44 would be required. HPSP policy 5-44 requires pre-construction surveys for protected birds when development would occur in or adjacent to potential nesting habitat if development is proposed during the nesting season of loggerhead shrike (generally February through June) or raptors (generally
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 38 CITY OF GILROY
March through August), which also includes the nesting season for other native birds. 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. b. At the nearest point, the SVCC-North site is located about 1,000 feet from the center of Uvas Creek and about 700 feet from the edge of the Uvas Creek riparian habitat. At the nearest point, the Syngenta/Arias site is located about 300 feet from the center of Uvas Creek and about 150 feet from the edge of the Uvas Creek riparian habitat. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur on the project sites; therefore, no impacts to such resources are anticipated. c. According to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, no areas of the project sites contain protected wetlands or waterways. However, there is a minor drainage swale at the northwestern corner of the SVCC-North site. It starts with a pipe opening, draining from the north under Hecker Pass Highway, and forms an approximately 40-foot-long open drainage swale, about one foot to two feet deep. It contains non-native grassland vegetation, with no wetland or riparian plants present, and was dry at the time of survey. It ends at a second pipe and flows under the existing on-site dirt road, towards the adjacent active construction area. This feature would not be impacted by the proposed project. d. Wildlife movement corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness and diversity, and usually also provide cover, water, food, and breeding sites. Project development will occur in the vicinity of the Uvas Creek riparian habitat which functions as a wildlife movement corridor (located only 150 feet away from the Syngenta/Arias site), which may indirectly impact wildlife movement.
If any special-status species occur in or along Uvas Creek near the project sites, nighttime lighting and/or people and unleashed pets wandering into the area 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 impact. Implementation of the policies indicated below will reduce potentially significant indirect project impacts to wildlife movement to a less-than-significant level.
The HPSP includes numerous policies that protect wildlife movement habitat. Policy 5-29 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. Policies 5-32 and 5-42 are aimed at discouraging human intrusion and access into the riparian corridor, as well as promoting environmental awareness and education for residents and visitors of the area. Policy 5-39 requires landscaping plans for
39 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
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. e. Section 6.0 of the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy (City of Gilroy 1999) states that the following trees shall be designated significant: existing native trees (naturally occurring species in Gilroy) six inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one half (4.5) feet above the ground.
Regarding native trees, the SVCC-North site contains several coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), including one massive specimen located in the northeastern portion of the site between two houses and a storage shed; a few willows (Salix sp.) are also present in the central portion of the site. The Syngenta/Arias site contains one massive valley oak (Quercus lobata) located in the fenced residential yard in the central portion of the site; a few coast live oaks are also present in the eastern portion of the site. There are two massive oak specimens (a Coastal Live Oak on the SVCC-North site and a Valley Oak on the Arias site). The Coastal Live oak would remain and the Valley Oak is anticipated to be removed with the building demolition activities. Some other native trees present on both sites are large enough to qualify as significant trees.
The loss of native significant trees due to the proposed project is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the policies indicated below will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level.
The HPSP includes several policies that would minimize adverse impacts to native trees. Policy 5-31 is a provision to design projects in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts to native trees and habitats. Policy 7-8 requires a certified arborist to prepare a written report that identifies the trees to be removed and the specifications for replacing trees. Policy 7-9 requires a tree protection zone to be established and fenced prior to construction for trees to be retained. A tree removal permit and replacement mitigation will be required as a condition of project approval, consistent with the City’s Landscaping Policy.
Previous mitigation measures from the Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND includes several project elements including circulation, grading, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, potable water, and recycled water plans. The circulation plan includes the extension of Third Street and construction of Cobblestone Court.
Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measures BI-12 and BI-13, as reflected in Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-6 below, apply to the proposed project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 40 CITY OF GILROY
Mitigation Measures BIO-5. Prior to construction, a qualified arborist shall complete an inventory and assessment of any trees proposed for removal and/or trees that may be impacted by disturbance. Included in this survey will be recommendations for the following:
a. Avoidance of tree removal whenever possible;
b. Transplanting of trees if possible; and
c. Recommendations for replacement planting areas, replacement ratio, and monitoring after replanting.
Project developers shall implement the recommendations in the arborist report. To compensate for the loss of protected trees, any protected tree(s) that are removed shall be replaced. The typical ratio of replacement is 3:1; however the arborist may make recommendations regarding the ratio based on the results of the tree assessment and planting plan and depending on size and health of the trees. Replacement locations should focus on areas within the specific plan boundary.
This mitigation measure is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
BIO-6. In order to protect oak trees on the project site from inadvertent damage by construction equipment during grading and construction activities, native trees that are to be retained and are located within or adjacent to the construction zone shall be identified in grading plans, and the following protective methods employed during construction.
a. For trees under 12 inches in diameter, wrap trunks with protective materials;
b. For trees 12 inches in diameter or greater, install protective fencing 0.5- to 0.75-feet from the trunk per inch trunk diameter; work within the protected area shall be overseen by a qualified arborist of biologist;
c. Bridge or tunnel under roots greater than four inches in diameter where exposed. Smaller roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment. Any roots damaged during grading or excavation shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly; and
d. Avoid soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and/or dumping of materials under dripline of trees.
This mitigation measure is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
41 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04) f. The project sites are located within the permit area of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Habitat Plan), a combined Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) incorporating the southern portion of Santa Clara County, including the cities of San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. Other partners/permittees of the Habitat Plan include the County of SCVWD, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Habitat Agency 2014). The Habitat Plan was developed in association with the USFWS and CDFW. The Habitat Plan is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in specific areas of Santa Clara County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on threatened and endangered species. Partner agencies began implementation of the Habitat Plan in October 2013.
Land covers for the entire Habitat Plan permit area were mapped at a coarse scale based on aerial photography. The northern quarter of the SVCC-North site is mapped as Urban-Suburban, and the remainder of the site as Grain, Row-crop, Hay and Pasture, Disked/Short-term Fallowed. The northern half of the Syngenta/Arias site is mapped as Grain, Row-crop, Hay and Pasture, Disked/Short-term Fallowed, and the remainder of the site as Agriculture-Developed.
As is apparent in the aerial photograph and described earlier in this section, both sites contain mainly non-native grassland, along with disturbed areas and residential development with ornamental landscaping; the central portion of the SVCC-North site also contains disturbed coyote brush scrub. Overall, though high quality habitats are not present on the sites, the land cover verification conducted during the biological reconnaissance survey indicated that the Habitat Plan general land cover type data is not representative of the current project site conditions. No wetland/serpentine/burrowing owl fee zones, special-status species survey areas, or priority reserve areas are located on either of the project sites.
The HPSP includes urban (residential) and rural (agricultural and park/recreational) land uses. Specifically, the City has clarified that “the Hecker Pass Specific Plan is an urban development that incorporates rural features.” The proposed project is a “Covered Activity” pursuant to the Habitat Plan (Chapter 2, page 2-39), and is located inside the planning limits of urban growth pursuant to figure 2-2 of the Habitat Plan. Also, the HPSP includes open spaces as defined in Chapter 2 of the Habitat Plan, including the Uvas Creek preserve and buffer area, Hecker Pass agricultural area, and Hecker Pass open space area north of Hecker Pass Highway.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 42 CITY OF GILROY
As a covered activity, an HCP permit application and the payment of applicable fees will be required, but the proposed project does not conflict with the Habitat Plan reserve system nor preclude the ability to implement aspects of the Habitat Plan conservation strategies; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Habitat Plan.
Conclusion:
Other than the mitigation measures identified in the HPSP EIR, along with the numerous policies of the HPSP and compliance with native significant tree replacement associated with the City’s Landscaping Policy, no further mitigation measures are required. The proposed project would not result in new significant biological resource effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified effects, no changes in biological resource conditions have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant impacts on biological resources than were identified for the original project or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
43 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 15064.5? (20,29,30,33)
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? (20)
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (19,20)
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (13,20)
Comments: a. Neither the mill building that would be relocated nor residences to be removed on the Arias property are historic, or would be eligible as they were built in 1994, 1973, and 2000 respectively.
Construction of the original SVCC project and revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 projects would have resulted in the loss of the historic Conrotto winery complex, located in the northern portion of the SVCC-North site near Hecker Pass Highway. This was identified as a significant unavoidable impact and partial mitigation, Mitigation Measure 7, for this impact was identified in the HPSP EIR requiring the church project to retain a design theme in keeping with the Conrotto viniculture. Regardless of the change in use, implementation of the proposed project would have the same significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources as does the original and revised GPA 07- 05/TM10-05 projects.
Archaeological Resource Management prepared Revised Mitigation Recommendations for the Conrotto Winery Property in the County of Santa Clara for the proposed project (ARM 2015), which is included as Appendix C of this initial study. They reviewed the original reports and recommendations and analyzed the applicability of Mitigation Measure 7 with recommendations for modifications based on the proposed project. As such, Mitigation Measure CR-1 below should replace HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 7:
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 44 CITY OF GILROY
Mitigation Measure CR-1. The project applicant shall retain a theme of Conrotto viniculture within the new residential project. Options for design include developing a display along Hecker Pass Highway and integrating historic artifacts associated with the Conrotto Winery operation into décor and landscaping for the new development (structures, winemaking equipment, reproduction of signage and advertisements, etc.) or placing a commemorative statue within or near the SVCC-North site paying tribute to the former operation. Display and statue designs shall be submitted to the city prior to approval of improvement plans; displays and statues shall be completed and installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to tract acceptance. The maintenance mechanism for the display and statue shall be determined prior to approval of public improvement plans, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works and Community Development Directors.. The design shall be subject to review and approval of the community development director. It is also recommended that the name of the new development reflect the winemaking history of the property.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
While implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 above would reduce the impacts of the loss of the historic resource, it would continue to have the same significant and unavoidable finding that was identified previously in the HPSP EIR. b. According to the HPSP EIR, the HPSP area is located in an archaeologically sensitive area. Implementation of the proposed project would require site preparation and construction activities that could disturb/damage archaeological resources if such are uncovered. Because the proposed project would require a similar amount of site preparation and subsurface disturbance as the previous projects, its potential impacts on archaeological resources would be similar. Implementation of HPSP policies and HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 6, reflected in Mitigation Measure CR-2 below, would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 would not apply to the proposed project as it does not affect the drainage channel discussed in the MND or involve the widening of Hecker Pass Highway.
45 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
Mitigation Measure CR-2. 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 issuance of a grading or building permit:
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.
Party responsible for implementation: Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division c. There are no known unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features located within the project site. d. Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measure CR-6, reflected in Mitigation Measure CR-3 below, for the accidental discovery of human remains would apply and would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR-3. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that the language is included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e), subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division:
If human remains are found during construction there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 46 CITY OF GILROY
responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant cultural resource effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in cultural resources related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project would have new or more significant impacts on cultural resources than were identified for the original project or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
47 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (19,20)
(2) Strong seismic ground shaking? (19,20)
(3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (19,20)
(4) Landslides? (19,20)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (19,20)
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (19,20)
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? (19,20)
Comments: a-d. The HPSP EIR identified only one potentially significant impact of the original SVCC project – potential soil erosion that could impact sensitive biological habitat within Uvas Creek. However, that included the entire SVCC site, where the proposed project includes the northern 11 acres only. The northern 11 acres are about 700 feet from the creek riparian area, and any associated mitigation measures and standards would not apply to the SVCC-North or Syngenta/Arias sites.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 48 CITY OF GILROY
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant geological effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in geologic related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant geologic impacts than were identified for the original project or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
49 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- No Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Measures Incorporated Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (15)
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (15,32)
Comments: a-b. The HPSP EIR did not identify significant impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, as climate change had not yet been identified as a topic that requires analysis in CEQA documents. As discussed in above in Section 1, Aesthetics, and below in Section 15, Transportation/Traffic, the change in land use and development associated with the proposed project would result in a decrease in vehicle trips generated which would also directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with mobile sources.
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Table 3-1), the screening threshold as to whether a project would have a significant impact associated with GHG emissions for single-family residential uses is 56 units. Therefore, given current methodology for assessing GHG impacts of new development projects, the proposed SVCC-North 33-lot single-family residential component of the proposed project would not have a significant impact from generation of GHGs, nor would the demolition/relocation component at the Syngenta/Arias site.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in significant GHG emissions impacts because it would not meet the BAAQMD’s screening threshold for single family residential uses.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 50 CITY OF GILROY
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (20)
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (20)
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (20)
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (10,20)
e. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (19)
f. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (19,20)
Comments: a/c. Residential uses do not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b. The HPSP EIR identified a potential hazard due to exposure to residual agricultural chemicals. The proposed project would result in exposure of people to these potential hazards as it includes permanent residential uses. The Syngenta/Arias site component
51 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
would be removing a potential hazard through the demolition of the two existing residences, and the relocation of the mill building would not change any hazards as it would be maintaining the same use at a similar distance to existing agricultural operations. However, hazard potential will remain within the threshold identified in the HPSP EIR as the total number of people that could be potentially exposed does not exceed that identified in the HPSP EIR. This potential impact is reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of HPSP policies and HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 9, reflected in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 below, which includes specific performance measures.
Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1. 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.
Party responsible for implementation: Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division d. According to the HPSP EIR, there are no sites within the HPSP area on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List. A review of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Envirostor database confirmed that there are still no sites on the list. e. The proposed project includes adequate primary, secondary, and emergency access and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The relocation of the mill building includes a new access on Third Street, and removal of the existing access on Hecker Pass Highway, in keeping with General Plan Policy 12.06. Refer back to Figures 4 and 6. f. The HPSP EIR concluded that the HPSP area is located in a high fire hazard area. The HPSP EIR concluded that projects consistent with policies relating to areas of high fire hazard areas, along with project specific mitigations defined as standard conditions of
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 52 CITY OF GILROY
approval by the City of Gilroy Fire Department, would result in less than significant impacts related to exposure of future people or structures to significant risk from wildland fires.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant hazards or hazardous materials effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in hazards or hazardous materials related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts than were identified for the original project or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
53 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (18,19,20)
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., would the production rate of preexisting nearby wells drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (18,19,20)
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (18,19,20)
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? (18,19,20)
e. Create or contribute run-off water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? (18,19,20)
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (18,19,20)
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (18,19,20)
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 54 CITY OF GILROY
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (18,19,20)
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (18,19,20)
Comments: a-i. Several potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts of HPSP area build out (including the SVCC-North site) were identified in the HPSP EIR. These included erosion of Uvas Creek banks from storm water runoff resulting in increased bank instability, short-term and long-term water quality degradation and exposure to Uvas Creek flood hazards.
For environmental hydrology related effects that are population sensitive (i.e. demand for groundwater or exposure of people to flood or dam failure hazards), the proposed project does not result in an increase in population relative to that analyzed in the HPSP EIR. The proposed project development envelope on the SVCC-North site is no greater than that of the original SVCC project, and the demolition/relocation component on the Syngenta/Arias site would be reducing the overall development impact. Therefore, the revised project would not result in greater potential for site disturbance and Uvas Creek bank erosion/instability than identified in the HPSP EIR. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 10 would not apply to the proposed project as all components are well over 50 feet of the Uvas Creek top of bank. The closest point of the Arias/Syngenta site is about 150 feet away and the SVCC-North site is about 700 feet away from the riparian habitat which is closer than the top of bank.
Based on data contained in the 2008 HPSP EIR Addendum, the area of impervious surface associated with the GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project is was about three to 3.5 acres greater than what is proposed as part of the current SVCC-North site project. The range in acreage associated with the proposed project is due to a range in building coverage for each residence that is tentative at this phase. Therefore, no changes in proposed storm drainage infrastructure capacity are needed, nor will water quality impacts resulting for contaminated storm water runoff exceed those identified for the original or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
The demolition of the residences and relocation of the mill building on the Syngenta/Arias site would reduce overall building coverage, and would be removing the
55 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
existing driveway access on Hecker Pass Highway with a new entrance off of Third Street. Any changes in overall site coverage would be minor and would not result in a significant impact to water quality.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant hydrological or water quality effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in hydrology or water quality related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant hydrology or water quality impacts than were identified for the original or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10- 05 project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 56 CITY OF GILROY
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? (19,20)
b. Conflict with any applicable land-use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, HPSP, zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (19,20)
Comments: a-b. No significant land use and planning impacts were identified in the HPSP EIR, and the proposed project would not create any new components that would change the impact finding.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant land use effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in land use related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant land use impacts than were identified for the original or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
57 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (18,19,20)
Comments: a. According to the HPSP EIR, the entire segment of Uvas Creek and the adjoining margins of the creek located within the HPSP area are designated as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-2 (Page 2-139 in the HPSP EIR). 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." Such resources are considered to be of statewide importance and are to be conserved where possible.
The HPSP EIR concluded that the inability to mine for these resources in the future due to implementation of the proposed project was a significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with implementation of the HPSP. The City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations finding that the benefits of the HPSP outweighed the adverse impact associated with the loss of availability of this locally important mineral resource.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in a change in availability of designated mineral resources relative to the original project. Therefore, this significant and unavoidable impact remains unchanged. No changes in mineral resource related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant mineral resource impacts than were identified for the original or the revised GPA 07- 05/TM10-05 project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 58 CITY OF GILROY
12. NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan? (1,18,19,20,35)
b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (1,18,19,20,35)
c. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (1,18,19,20,35)
Comments: a/c. The HPSP EIR identified potentially significant noise impacts related to the original SVCC project associated with the Community Facility uses. Those impacts would not occur with the proposed project, and HPSP EIR Mitigation Measures 12 through 17 are no longer applicable. The 2008 EIR Addendum found no new or increased noise impacts would result from the GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
The HPSP EIR concluded that residential uses in the HPSP would be sufficiently set back from Hecker Pass Highway so that future traffic noise (City buildout) from Hecker Pass Highway would not exceed acceptable intensity at the residential uses and related impacts would be less than significant. As noted above in Aesthetics, the nearest proposed residential lot identified in the SVCC-North site tentative map is set back approximately 185 feet from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway, and noise mitigation is required under HPSP Table 7-1.
Appendix D, Noise Assessment Study for the Planned “South Valley Community Church-North” Single-Family Development, prepared for the proposed project, found that noise intensity at the exterior and interior living spaces of the nearest residential units would not exceed significance thresholds identified in the City of Gilroy Noise Element and as a result, noise impacts would be less than significant. Project-generated traffic volume noise impacts would also be less than significant, as the study found the increases would be no more than 0.5 decibels when compared to the GPA 07-05/TM10- 05 project.
59 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
Short-term demolition and construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project, including demolition of the existing structures at both the SVCC-North site and the Arias/Syngenta properties, could generate significant temporary noise impacts in keeping with the findings of the HPSP EIR. However, HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 11/Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan MND Mitigation Measure N-1, as reflected in Mitigation Measure 13 below, would still apply and would reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure N-1. All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and to Saturdays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction is allowed on Sundays or city holidays. In addition, temporary berms or noise attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary. This requirement shall be attached as a contractor work specification for all projects.
Party responsible for implementation: Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division b. The HPSP EIR concluded that development under the HPSP would not be a source of excessive groundborne vibration and no sources of such vibration are located within the project vicinity.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant noise effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no significant changes in noise related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant noise impacts than were identified for the original or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 60 CITY OF GILROY
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (18,19,20)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (18,19,20)
Comments: a-b. The HPSP EIR found no significant environmental impacts associated with population growth, or displacement of a substantial number of people. The HPSP EIR analyzed a total of 530 dwelling units within the HPSP area. The SVCC-North site’s proposed 33 lot count is within the number of units analyzed previously, allowing a sufficient number of units available to be built within the remaining HPSP area.
The proposed SVCC-North component of the proposed project would not result in this total dwelling unit number being exceeded. Therefore, it would not result in an increase in population relative to that evaluated in the HPSP EIR.
Conclusion:
The proposed project is consistent with maximum dwelling units allowed in the HPSP and no additional environmental analysis is necessary to evaluate the project’s impacts on population and housing.
61 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Fire protection? (18,19,20)
b. Police protection? (18,19,20)
c. Schools? (18,19,20)
d. Parks? (18,19,20)
e. Other Public Facilities? (18,19,20)
Comments: a-e. The HPSP EIR identified that build out of the HPSP area, including the original SVCC project, would not directly result in the need to construct new public services facilities (fire protection facilities, police protection facilities, public school facilities or recreation facilities). No impacts from construction of new fire, police or recreation facilities associated with the proposed project would occur that are not already addressed in the HPSP EIR. Potential impacts from construction of new public school facilities needed due to cumulative development within the entire Gilroy Unified School District boundaries, including residential development within the HPSP area, would be assessed by the school district at the time new facilities are proposed.
With the inclusion of 33 residential units in the proposed project, development at the SVCC-North site would incrementally participate in the overall cumulative demand for public school facilities and park and recreation facilities already identified in the HPSP EIR. However, the 33 units are within the 530 total residential unit threshold on which public services impacts were assessed in the HPSP EIR. The Syngenta/Arias component would be reducing the overall unit count by two single-family residences. Therefore, the conclusions reached in the HPSP EIR for HPSP build out public services impacts remain unchanged. Further, the incremental participation of the proposed project in those impacts is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 62 CITY OF GILROY
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant public services effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in public services related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant public services impacts than were identified for the original or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
63 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?(1,3,18,19,20) b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(1,3,18,19,20,26,27,28,34) c. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (18,19,20) d. Result in inadequate emergency access? (18,19,20) e. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (3,18,19,20) f. Conflict with any City of Gilroy General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element policies? (1,18,19,20)
Comments: a-c. The HPSP EIR identified a range of circulation impacts that would result from build out of the HPSP area. The circulation impacts of the original SVCC project were evaluated by Higgins Associates in 2004 in a report entitled Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Gilroy, California, Traffic Analysis Report for Proposed New Residential Development and Agri- Commercial Development. The report was included in a technical appendix to the HPSP EIR. The most significant of these impacts was generation of traffic that results in the
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 64 CITY OF GILROY
City’s level of service standards being exceeded at several intersections and on several road segments. These impacts were mitigated to a less-than-significant level in the HPSP EIR through improvements proposed as part of the HPSP project and/or by payment of traffic impact fees required by HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 20 and 21. These measures are somewhat redundant, as 20 requires the participation of all projects within the HPSP area to contribute traffic impact fees and 21 required it of the original SVCC project, but prior to approval of a conditional use permit. For the proposed project, HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 20 will not apply, and Mitigation Measure T-1 below will replace HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 21.
Mitigation Measure T-1. The project proponent 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 issuance of building permits.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
Impacts on a portion of Hecker Pass Highway were mitigated through a requirement to widen a portion of the highway under HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 18 and improve another portion of the highway under HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 19. Subsequent to certification of the HPSP EIR, landowners within the HPSP boundary requested an amendment to the HPSP that would, among other changes, eliminate the “east” intersection on Hecker Pass Highway. The potential circulation effects of this change were evaluated in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment East Access Elimination, Updated Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants in 2006. The analysis was included in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment (GPA (06-02) Initial Study and Negative Declaration (GPA 06-02 MND) prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. and adopted by the City in 2006. Hexagon Transportation Consultants concluded that elimination of the east access would not have significant circulation impacts. The amendment to eliminate the east intersection on Hecker Pass Highway from the HPSP was adopted by the City. This amendment replaced HPSP EIR Mitigation Measures 18 and 19, with revised Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2.
GPA 06-02 MND Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 (which replaced HPSP EIR Mitigation Measures 18 and 19), as reflected in Mitigation Measures T-2 and T-3 below would apply to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures T-2. Prior to issuance of the 75th building permit within the Specific Plan area, the Specific Plan developers shall be responsible for improving Hecker Pass Highway immediately west of
65 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
Santa Teresa Boulevard to include a second westbound travel lane. The second westbound travel lane on Hecker Pass Highway, and the appropriate lane-drop taper consistent with Caltrans’ Standards, should extend as far as possible beyond (west of) Santa Teresa Boulevard as can be accommodated within the existing public right-of-way, with the design subject to approval by the City Engineer in his/her reasonable discretion. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy Engineering Division to design and implement the widening project. Removal of deodar cedar trees along the highway must be avoided wherever possible and improvements must be consistent with State scenic highway guidelines. Traffic signal modifications should be made to the intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and First Street/Hecker Pass Highway to add vehicle detection for the second eastbound through lane.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
T-3. Prior to issuance of the 75th building permit within the Specific Plan area, the Specific Plan developers shall be responsible for shoulder improvements to Hecker Pass Highway, per Caltrans’ standards, between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the easterly limits of the planned Caltrans Uvas Creek Bridge Improvement project. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy Engineering Division to design and implement the shoulder improvements. Removal of deodar cedar trees along the highway must be avoided wherever possible and improvements must be consistent with State scenic highway guidelines.
Party Responsible for Implementation: Applicant
Party Responsible for Monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
The HPSP EIR also identified a potentially significant impact related to facilitation of transit service use. The HPSP EIR found that the original project would not create significant impacts; its cumulative impacts are evaluated as part of the overall HPSP cumulative impact assessment.
The 2008 EIR Addendum prepared for the GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project included the preparation of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment – South Valley Community Church Development Traffic Impact Analysis which was included as an attachment to the addendum. The results of that analysis found that the GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project would not result in new significant traffic and circulation effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no significant changes in circulation related circumstances had occurred, and no new information was identified that indicated the GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project would have new or more significant circulation impacts than were identified for the original SVCC project.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 66 CITY OF GILROY
For the proposed project, a trip generation analysis was prepared by Hexagon Traffic Consultants and is attached as Appendix B. The trip generation comparison indicates that the proposed project would result in a net decrease in project traffic of approximately 531 AM peak-hour trips and 347 PM peak-hour trips when compared to the GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in additional traffic impacts relative to those identified in the approved GPA 07-05/TM10- 05 project traffic impact analysis. d. The proposed project includes adequate primary, secondary, and Emergency Vehicle Access and maintenance road connecting to Hecker Pass Highway and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Refer back to Figure 4. e. The proposed project is entirely single family residential, and parking will be provided in compliance with the HPSP and Gilroy Zoning Ordinance. f. The HPSP EIR identified that the HPSP and the original SVCC project were consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan. The proposed project would have reduced impacts on the circulation network relative to development identified in the HPSP. Therefore, it would not conflict with the Transportation Element.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant traffic and circulation effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no significant changes in circulation related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant circulation impacts than were identified for the original or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
67 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially Less-than-Significant Less-Than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Measures Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (18,19,20) b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (18,19,20) c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (18,19,20) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (18,19,20) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (18,19,20) f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid-waste disposal needs? (18,19,20)
Comments: a/b/d/e. The HPSP EIR identified that build out of the HPSP area, including the SVCC-North site, would not result in significant impacts related to water and wastewater utility systems. Build out at the SVCC-North site and demolition/relocation component of the proposed project at the Syngenta/Arias site would not require new off-site water or wastewater treatment infrastructure whose construction might otherwise create adverse environmental effects. Potential impacts associated with demolition activities and construction of on-site facilities are mitigated through policy mitigations contained in the HPSP and typical construction activity mitigation measures (e.g., 4, 6, and 11) contained in the HPSP EIR.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 68 CITY OF GILROY
As discussed under Population and Housing, the proposed project would not result in an increase in population relative to that evaluated in the HPSP EIR. As such, the water and wastewater demand associated with the proposed project would not increase relative to that analyzed in the HPSP EIR. c. The HPSP identified potentially significant impacts from expansion of storm drainage facilities needed to serve the entire HPSP area, including the SVCC-North site. Construction of storm drainage outfalls on the banks of Uvas Creek was determined to have potentially significant impacts on riparian habitat quality and water quality within the creek. Implementation of storm drainage improvements consistent with policies contained in the HPSP and HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 22 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. HPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 22, reflected in Mitigation Measure U-1 below, would apply to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure U-1. Storm water detention shall be designed to prevent an increase in the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year peak discharge for the project area (refinement of existing HPSP policy 8-6), and consistent with the City of Gilroy Storm Water Management Guidance Manual For Low Impact Development & Post-Construction Requirements (March 6, 2014).
Party responsible for implementation: Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
Build out at the SVCC-North site and demolition/relocation component of the proposed project at the Syngenta/Arias site would not require changes in storm drainage infrastructure needs as identified for the entire HPSP area. Therefore, it would not result in storm drainage related impacts that were not already identified in the HPSP EIR and mitigated to a less-than-significant level. f. The HPSP EIR concluded that build out of the HPSP, including the SVCC-North site, would not require extension of gas, electric or telecommunications services that could adversely impact the environment. The same is true for solid waste disposal. Build out at the SVCC-North site and demolition/relocation component of the proposed project at the Syngenta/Arias site will not result in a change in demand for gas, electric, telecommunications or solid waste services that would result in significant impacts.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in new significant utilities related effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, no changes in utility related circumstances have occurred, and no new information has been identified that indicates the proposed project will have new or more significant utilities related impacts than were identified for the original or the revised GPA 07-05/TM10-05 project.
69 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
E. SOURCES
1. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan. 2002.
2. City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. 2002.
3. City of Gilroy. Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
4. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Storm Drainage System Master Plan. May 2004.
5. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Sewer System Master Plan. May 2004.
6. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Water System Master Plan. May 2004.
7. Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2004.
8. Carollo Engineers. South County Recycled Water Master Plan. October 2004.
9. City of Gilroy. Historical and Cultural Resources Map. 1978-1979.
10. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Cortese List of Toxic Substance Sites, Envirostor Database. Accessed January 23, 2015.
11. Department of Mines and Geology. Update of Mineral Land Classifications: Aggregate Materials in the Monterey Bay Production Consumption Region. 2000. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_99-01/OFR_99-01_Text.pdf
12. EMC Planning Group. Reconnaissance field survey conducted by Andrea Edwards, Senior Biologist. January 12, 2015.
13. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass Special Use District Backbone Infrastructure Master Plan (A/S 05-54) Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2006.
14. Google Earth Imagery. Accessed January 15, 2015.
15. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June 2010. Available on line at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/ CEQA-GUIDELINES.aspx
16. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara, California. September 1974.
17. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. Map. June 2011. Available on line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/scl10.pdf
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 70 CITY OF GILROY
18. City of Gilroy. Hecker Pass Specific Plan. Approved January 18, 2005. Revised August 18, 2009.
19. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Application Materials (Includes applications, maps, proposed HPSP amendments). 2014.
20. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church EIR. Prepared for City of Gilroy. May 24, 2004.
21. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Records of Occurrence for Morgan Hill, Mount Sizer, Mississippi Creek, Mount Madonna, Gilroy, Gilroy Hot Springs, Watsonville East, Chittenden, and San Felipe USGS quadrangles. Sacramento, California. Accessed January 2015 at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp
22. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Records of Occurrence for Morgan Hill, Mount Sizer, Mississippi Creek, Mount Madonna, Gilroy, Gilroy Hot Springs, Watsonville East, Chittenden, and San Felipe USGS quadrangles. Sacramento, California. Accessed January 2015 at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered Species Database. Species list for Santa Clara County. Washington, D.C. Accessed January 2015 at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
24. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency (Habitat Agency). Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan: Permitting for Private Projects. Accessed January 2015 at: http://www.scv-habitatplan.org/ www/site/alias__default/1/home.aspx
25. City of Gilroy, Community Development Department. Consolidated Landscaping Policy. Adopted January 19, 1988. Last amended October 18, 1999. Available online at: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy_files/city_hall/community_development/plan ning/policy_handouts/landscaping_policy.pdf
26. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass HPSP General Plan Amendment (GPA 07-05) EIR Addendum. Prepared for City of Gilroy. December 8, 2008.
27. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Trip Generation Analysis for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment. January 6, 2015.
28. EMC Planning Group. Hecker Pass HPSP Amendment (GPA 06-02) Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2006.
71 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN (HPSP) AMENDMENT #3 (GPA 14-02) AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (TM 14-04)
29. Archaeological Resource Management. Revised Mitigation Recommendations for the Conrotto Winery Property in the County of Santa Clara. February 20, 2015.
30. Archaeological Resource Management. Historic Evaluation of the Structures at the South Valley Community Church Property on Hecker Pass Road in the County of Santa Clara. 2003.
31. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 2013. Available on line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SantaClara_13_14_WA.pdf
32. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010 Clean Air Plan. Available on line at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air- Plans.aspx
33. Bob Cartier, Archaeological Resource Management. Email communication verifying CEQA adequacy of revised historic resource mitigation. February 25, 2015.
34. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Gilroy, California, Traffic Analysis Report for Proposed New Residential Development and Agri-Commercial Development. 2004.
34. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment East Access Elimination, Updated Traffic Impact Analysis. 2006.
35. Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Noise Assessment Study for the Planned “South Valley Community Church-North” Single-Family Development. January 23, 2015.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 72 APPENDIX A
PROPOSED HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
3 LAND USE
3.1 PURPOSE
The Land Use Chapter establishes the overall framework for the development and conservation of the Specific Plan Area. This Chapter sets forth specific land use goals, policies and standards applicable to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area and describes the overall development program including the type, extent, and intensity of future development.
The Land Use Chapter is to be used in conjunction with the other Chapters of this Specific Plan. More detailed information on community services and facilities is included in the Community Services and Facilities Chapter (Chapter 6) and additional information relating to open space and resource management is included in the Conservation and Resource Management Chapter (Chapter 5). The Land Use Map in this Chapter (Figure 3-1) illustrates the physical pattern of uses permitted in the Specific Plan Area. Table 3-1 provides an overall summary of the acreage breakdown for each Specific Plan land use category. Table 3-1: Land Use
Land Use Approximate No. of New Acreage Dwelling Units1 Open Space 145 0 Open Space 47 0 Park/Recreational Facility 983 0 Residential 151163 521 Hillside 49 01 Hecker Pass Cluster 944 503 Residential Low Density 8 182 Agriculture 115 0 Hecker Pass Agriculture 59 0 Agricultural Commercial 34 0 Agri-tourist 17 0 Agri-tourist Overlay 5 0 Community Facility 12 0 Total Specific Plan Area 423 521 1. Existing residences excluded unless otherwise noted 2. Includes 3 existing units 3. Includes 3-acre neighborhood park 4. Excludes 3-acre neighborhood park
Land Use Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 3-1
3.2 LAND USE CONCEPT
The land use concept for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan is to protect and enhance the Hecker Pass Area’s rural character, open space and agricultural uses as well as create a logical coherent pattern of rural style uses as part of the western gateway of Gilroy. A very unique land planning approach was taken to meet the challenge of preserving the character of the area while also allowing for future development. Generally, site planning principles dictate that existing site constraints first be identified then the primary proposed uses be located on the site. “Primary” uses are typically those uses that create the highest and best use for the property such as residential or commercial uses. In the case of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan, open space and agriculture were designated as the primary uses in order to maintain the scenic value of the area. During the site planning process, existing natural open space areas were identified and set aside for protection and enhancement. Secondary open spaces areas were then delineated to act as buffers and transition areas between proposed developments and Uvas Creek and to preserve the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway (State Route 152). Next, agricultural areas were defined along Hecker Pass Highway to preserve the scenic corridor, views to Uvas Creek and the Gabilan Mountains, and the rural character of the area. Agricultural areas were sited to be contiguous and large enough in size to ensure viable agricultural operation. The remaining areas were then evaluated as potential sites for future development. As a result of this unique approach, the Hecker Pass Specific Plan is, first and foremost, a plan for open space and agriculture.
Goal 3-1: Preserve the rural and scenic character of the Hecker Pass Area.
Goal 3-2: Integrate rural style urban development and agricultural uses in a manner that preserves and protects the rural agricultural character of the Hecker Pass Area.
Goal 3-3: Create a scenic gateway for the western entrance into the City of Gilroy.
Rather than extending existing urban development patterns into the Specific Plan Area, the Land Use Chapter will create a gradual and graceful transition from the existing rural uses to central clustered development. Transitional land use patterns will provide a softer edge between rural open space and the residential clusters where new agricultural and open space areas can grow up to and around new development. One example of this land use transition is the proposed South Valley Community Church. The South Valley Community Church development proposes an intensity of development that is less than the very dense existing Village Green project but more intensive than the proposed cluster residential and agricultural uses to the west. The church serves as a transition between the existing Village Green project and future uses within the Specific Plan Area. The southerly portion of the South Valley Community Church property will develop with 15 residential lots to integrate directly into the East Cluster area. To ensure consistency with the intent of the Specific Plan, a maximum of fifteen homes may be constructed on the South Valley Community Church site. By carefully integrating new development with agricultural and open space areas, the Specific Plan attempts to reduce the visual impact of development on the rural character of the area and increase the open space amenity value for the community.
Land Use Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 3-5
Policy 3-1: Designate natural open space areas to protect the scenic natural environment of these areas.
Policy 3-2: 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 3-3: Establish contiguous agricultural lands large enough to ensure viable agricultural operations to preserve the rural character of the Specific Plan Area.
Policy 3-4: Restrict the South Valley Community Church property to the development of 15 homes.
The Specific Plan emphasizes relatively compact development patterns separated into a few distinct clusters. Central to the Land Use Chapter is the concept of the Residential Cluster (RC) land use designation. The Residential Cluster (RC) land use designation allows for averaging densities over a site by developing at higher densities in certain areas while preserving natural features or open space within other land use designations as further discussed in Section 3.5. Instead of spreading housing units uniformly over an entire tract, structures are arranged in closely related groups or “clusters.” Unlike standard subdivisions where all land is divided among individual property owners, The Residential Cluster (RC) land use designation creates large open space generally held for the benefit of all residents. In the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area, these open space areas occur in the form of agricultural fields and natural open space areas. In the Specific Plan Area open spaces and agricultural areas can be maintained by either homeowner’s associations (HOA), Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts (LLMD), individual property owners or agricultural operators.
Policy 3-5: The Residential Cluster (RC) land use areas shall be separated from each other and non-contiguous to reduce impacts associated with urban development patterns.
This “clustering” land use concept conserves large agricultural and open space areas that would normally be subdivided as part of a conventional large lot rural development. It also allows for creation of well-defined, pedestrian-scale neighborhoods that will foster social interaction and a shared sense of community (see Figure 3-2: “Cluster Concept”).
Land Use 3-6 Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 6 = Must be visitor and local resident serving. No chain or franchise type convenience marts. May also include deli take-out food services. 7 = No chain or franchise type restaurants or fast food restaurants are permitted. 8 = Small Winery shall generally be defined as facilities that produce up to10,000 cases of wine per year and may consist of the following (1) Bottling/crushing facilities (2) Lab and office space (3) Tasting room, storage (4) Indoor events room (5) Small outdoor event or picnic area. 9 = Wine tasting facilities may be developed in conjunction with any of the food serving establishments permitted in the Agricultural Commercial category or the Agri-tourist Commercial category and may include tasting room, storage, office, and small indoor events room. 10= Conditional uses within the Hecker Pass Agriculture land use category should be located in the least viable agricultural lands.
3.5 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Residential development in the Specific Plan Area is intended to have a “rural” or “traditional” character that is consistent with the area’s scenic rural setting and enhances Hecker Pass’ historic, agricultural and wine country character. 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. The Residential Cluster land use areas will incorporate “Livable” and “Walkable” community design principles to encourage compact, multi-dimensional land use patterns that ensure a mix of uses, minimize the use of cars, and promote walking, bicycling and transit access. The Specific Plan designates approximately 145 163 acres, or 3439% of the total 423-acre Specific Plan Area, for residential uses. Approximately 17 homes already exist in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. The majority of these homes are located north of Hecker Pass Highway near the intersection of Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard, in areas designated Hillside Residential on the Land Use Diagram. New residential development will be located in three distinct clusters: One north of Hecker Pass Highway adjacent to the Municipal Golf Course, and two south of Hecker Pass Highway. At maximum build out, the residential uses allow up to 521 new dwelling units resulting in an overall residential density of just over 1.2 du/ac for the Specific Plan Area.
Goal 3-7: Create a unique rural residential environment with a character that reflects that of the Hecker Pass Area.
New residential development should be designed to facilitate interaction between neighbors and foster a sense of community. Designs for residential areas should illustrate the development of “walkable,” pedestrian-scale neighborhoods, and the creation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that make the area easily accessible to all residents and visitors by foot or bicycle (See Section
Land Use Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 3-17
Policy 3-17: Adequate park and recreational facilities shall be provided within each Residential Cluster as determined through the Planned Unit Development process.
Three areas have been designated Residential Cluster to allow for rural type clustered development within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. The north cluster is located entirely on the Hoey property north of Hecker Pass Highway. The west cluster is located on the South Valley National Bank/Raley’s , Hoey and Arias properties, south of Hecker Pass Highway near the existing Lone Oak properties. The east cluster covers the Filice, Vanni, Goldsmith Seeds, Hoey properties south of Hecker Pass Highway, and a portion of the South Valley Community Church property.
The Residential Cluster land use designation is designed to allow for a diverse mix of residential unit types, similar to the City of Gilroy’s Neighborhood District land use designation. By establishing a “target mix” of lot types, the Specific Plan ensures that numerous housing types are provided. Lot types have been generally described as falling into three lot type or typical lot size categories: Typically 2500-3500 SF Lots, Typically 3500-6000 SF Lots, and Typically greater than 6000 SF Lots. Individual lot sizes within each category may vary according to Policy 3-18. By providing a bulk of the residential units in the mid-range of lot types (typically 3500-6000 SF Lots) and requiring a certain percentage of smaller lot types (typically 2500-3500 SF Lots), the Specific Plan provides greater affordability than would occur if the site were developed with only large lot residential units such as typically found in rural development. The Specific Plan also allows for units to be transferred among Residential Clusters, so long as the total in any cluster does not increase by more than 25 units as a result of the transfers, and as long as the percentage of lot types in each cluster is consistent with Figure 3-6. Allowing a transfer of units between development clusters provides greater flexibility to provide innovative and creative residential neighborhood designs that incorporate “livable community” design concepts.
Goal 3-9: Provide varied housing types with connectivity in each residential cluster.
Policy 3-18: The boundaries separating the Residential Clusters from the Hecker Pass Agriculture areas may differ from the boundary locations indicated in the Specific Plan document as long as there is no change in the net acreage of Hecker Pass Agriculture-designated land.
Policy 3-19: Individual lot sizes within each lot type category may exceed the maximum limit of that category where unusual lot placement (i.e. cul-de-sacs, knuckles, etc), lot
Land Use Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 3-19 configuring, topography, or grading requirements require the maximum lot size to be exceeded.
Policy 3-20: Units may be transferred among Residential Clusters, so long as the total in any cluster does not increase by more than 25 units as a result of the transfers, and as long as the percentage of lot types in each cluster is consistent with the charts in Figure 3-6.
New residential unit distribution by housing type is based on a target percentage of lot types throughout the Specific Plan Area. The intent is to ensure a diverse housing type within each residential cluster while at the same time providing creativity and flexibility of design. Figure 3- 5 shows the overall target percentage of each type within the overall Specific Plan Area:
Figure 3-5: Distribution of New Housing Types within entire Specific Plan Area Typically Larger than 6000 SF Lots Typically 2500-3500 SF Lots 126 159 Dwelling Units 102 108 Dwelling Units 2430.5% 2020.7%
Typically 3500- 6000 SF Lots 293 254 Dwelling Units 5648.8%
521 Total Dwelling Units
Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage.
These various lot types have been distributed among the three designated Residential Cluster areas. Lot types have been distinguished by typical lot size and may consist of a variety of housing types and lot sizes. The distribution of lot types for each residential cluster is shown as a percentage of the total number of units per cluster in Figure 3-6.
Land Use 3-20 Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 Figure 3-6: Distribution of New Housing Types by Residential Cluster North Cluster (57 Dwelling Units): Typically 2500-3500 SF Lots 6 Dwelling Units 11% Typically Larger than 6000 SF Lots 24 Dwelling Units 42%
Typically 3500-6000 SF Lots 27 Dwelling Units 47%
West Cluster (205 Dwelling Units):
Typically 2500-3500 SF Lots 20 Dwelling Units Typically Larger than 6000 SF Lots 10% 76 Dwelling Units 37%
Typically 3500-6000 SF Lots 109 Dwelling Units 53%
East Cluster (244 259 Dwelling Units):
Typically Larger than 6000 SF Lots
26 59 Dwelling Units 1022.8%
Typically 2500-3500 SF Lots 76 82 Dwelling Units 2931.7%
Typically 3500- 6000 SF Lots 157 118 Dwelling Units 6145.6%
521 Total Dwelling Units Note: Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage.
Land Use Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 3-21 Table 3-3 also shows the distribution of lot types in each cluster and throughout the entire Specific Plan Area:
Table 3-3 Residential Cluster Lot Size Requirements
North West Cluster East Cluster Total Cluster du % du % du % du % Typically 2500- 6 11% 20 10% 7682 2931.7% 3500 SF Lots 78108 2020.7% Typically 3500- 27 47% 109 53% 157118 6145.6% 6000 SF Lots 340254 5648.8% Typically Larger than 6000 SF 24 42% 76 37% 2659 1022.8% 2430.5% Lots 112159 Total 57 100% 205 100% 259 100% 521 100% Density 2.7 du/ac 6.6 du/ac 6.2 du/ac 5.54 du/ac net
A detailed description of the housing types appropriate for each lot type listed below is provided in Section 7.2 of the Community Design Chapter.
Typically Typically Typically Larger 2500- 3500 SF Lots 3500-6000 SF Lots Than 6000 SF Lots
• Multi-Family • Small lot single- • Standard lot single- • Mixed Use family attached family detached • Small lot single- • Small lot single- • Large lot single- family attached family detached family detached • Small lot single- • Standard lot single- family detached family
Accessory dwelling units and structures are allowed on all single-family lots provided they meet the requirements set forth in the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance. These units are allowed as a separate rental unit and are not subject to the RDO since these units are intended to provide an affordable housing alternative and do not require separate sewer and utility connections. By providing secondary dwelling units on single-family lots, families may rent the unit to elderly relatives, children who have moved back home and other dependants. In addition, rent from secondary units can be used to supplement the income of first time homebuyers who would otherwise be unable to afford the mortgage associated with single-family homes.
Land Use 3-22 Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009
X= Unconditionally Permitted C = Permitted only with Conditional Use Permit granted by Planning Commission D = Permitted subject to approval of the Planning Director T = Temporary Use N = Not Permitted
Footnotes for Residential Use Table: 1 = Accessory Dwelling Units and Structures must meet the current zoning ordinance requirements (See City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance) 2 = Permitted only if regulations of the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance are met.
3.6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES
There is one area designated Community Facilities within the Specific Plan Area. Land uses within the Community Facilities district include schools, religious and social centers, community centers, recreational centers and other institutions that provide a community service. All new community facility uses in the Hecker Pass Area are limited to 25% gross area maximum building coverage. The remaining area can include landscaping, play areas, playfields, other recreational areas, gardens, outdoor event and seating areas, tree and plant growing areas, landscaped parking areas and driveways, gazebos, patio covers, tents, etc. A detailed description of the goals and policies for community facilities can be found in the Community Facilities Chapter (Chapter 6).
Goal 3-10: Provide institutional, educational, community and recreational opportunities for the Gilroy Community.
Uses permitted under the Community Facilities land use designation within the Hecker Pass area include social and religious institutions, community centers and recreational centers or any combination of these.
3.6.1 INSTITUTIONAL USES
Institutional facilities may include public or private religious and social institutions, educational facilities, or other large assembly uses as approved by the City via a Conditional Use Permit. These facilities shall be consistent with the rural character of the area, shall be subject to the design guidelines provided in Chapter 7, and shall be subject to the Planned Unit Development Architectural and Site Review process. Institutional facilities may consist of a main structure and ancillary structures. Ancillary structures may include offices, wedding chapels, small bookstores and gift shops that sell institutional related merchandise, playfields, or any other ancillary uses deemed appropriate by the City of Gilroy during the Architectural and Site Review process. Conditional uses may include day care facilities, special needs facilities, and long-term
Land Use Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 3-25 public or private use of facilities by organizations other than the primary user. Religious and social institutions shall be consistent with the rural character of the area, shall be subject to the design guidelines provided in Chapter 7 and shall be subject to Planned Unit Development Architectural and Site Review. Nighttime lighting of playfields shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
3.6.2 COMMUNITY CENTER
A community center that serves the needs of the Hecker Pass Area may include auditoriums, meeting halls, art galleries, small-scale stage theaters, meeting rooms, indoor and outdoor event and seating areas, gardens, and studios for art and music. The community center should be designed to serve the needs of Specific Plan Area and should provide a connection to the Uvas Creek Park Preserve and the recreational trail. Nighttime lighting of outdoor event areas shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
3.6.3 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
With the exception of those recreational facilities deemed ancillary to the above institutional uses, a Conditional Use Permit will be required for recreational facilities. Recreational facilities should provide recreational opportunities for residents of the Specific Plan Area, as well as Gilroy residents as a whole. Indoor and outdoor recreational uses may include facilities such as playfields, sport courts, skate rinks, parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, fitness centers, health clubs, gymnasiums, or any other recreational use deemed appropriate by the City of Gilroy through the Conditional Use Permit process. Recreational uses should be consistent with the rural character of the area. Both buildings and outdoor recreational facilities should be screened from Hecker Pass Highway. Recreational uses, especially outdoor uses, should also emphasize a connection to the Uvas Creek recreational trail. All recreational uses shall be subject to design guidelines established in Chapter 7 and shall be subject to Planned Unit Development Architectural and Site Review by the City of Gilroy. Nighttime lighting of playfields shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
3.6.4 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Private and public educational facilities including preschools, elementary schools, high schools, and other educational facilities may be provided under the Community Facility land use designation. Educational facilities may consist of classrooms, gymnasiums, multi-purpose rooms, cafeteria, bathrooms, playgrounds, playfields, and other uses deemed appropriate by the City of Gilroy during the Planned Unit Development Architectural and Site Review process. Conditional uses may include day care facilities, and other uses that the City deems consistent with the intent of the land use designation. Nighttime lighting of playfields shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
Land Use 3-26 Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 7.3.2 SETBACK AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
Minimum setback requirements have been established for each Agri-tourist, and Agricultural Commercial and Community Facility use within the Hecker Pass Community. Table 7-2 lists the minimum setback requirements:
Table 7-2: Minimum Agri-tourist, & Agricultural Commercial, and Community Facility Site and Building Requirements
Site Coverage (max.) 30% Minimum Improvement Setback1: Highway 152 Existing Centerline (roadways, fences, and parking areas): 115 Feet Building Setbacks2: Building to Hecker Pass Highway Existing Centerline: 115 Feet Building Front to All Other Public Right-of-Way: 30 Feet Building Side to All Other Public Right-of-Way: 10 Feet Building Side to Lot Line (all other side yard): 6 Feet Rear to Lot Line: 03 Max. Height (from the lowest ground point to the highest roof element): Church Sanctuary/Multi-Purpose Room/Gymnasium: 35 Feet All Other Buildings: 35 Feet; 2 stories Towers and other similar architectural elements: 45 Feet Off-street Parking Requirements4 See Gilroy Zoning Ordinance and Section 7.3.4 Fencing See Section 7.4.5 Signs 15 SF Max. (See Section 7.4.6) Landscaping See Section 7.4 Lighting See Section 7.4.7 Performance Standards See Gilroy Zoning Ordinance
Residential Site and Building Requirement Notes:
1- The only allowable uses within the Hecker Pass Setback Corridor, which extends 115-feet from the existing centerline of the Highway are agriculture, natural landscaping, pedestrian pathways, limited signage, and limited roadway improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service along Highway 152. Please refer to Section 4.4.2. 2- Setback requirements are guidelines only and may be modified to suit the unique characteristics of a project such as characteristics that might preserve the aesthetic integrity of the site. Modifications to these setback requirements will be subject to Architectural and Site through the Planned Unit Development application that shall be reviewed by the City of Gilroy.
Community Design 7-20 Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 Table 5-1: Agricultural and Open Space Areas
Land Use Open Space Land Use Open Space within Land use Acreages1 Acreages Open Space 100% 47 47 Park/Recreational 100% 98 98 Facility Hecker Pass 100% 59 59 Agriculture Agricultural 50%2 34 17 Commercial Agri-tourist 50%3 17 8.5 Commercial Agri-tourist 80%3 5 4 Commercial Overlay Low Density 50%4 8 4 Residential Hecker Pass 50%4 21 10 Cluster North of Hecker Pass Highway Hecker Pass 5%4 7385 3 Clusters South of Hecker Pass Highway Hillside 90%4 49 44 Residential Community 60%5 12 11 Facility Total 72% 423 305 1 All acreages are approximate 2 Acreage is based on existing uses on Goldsmith Seeds property. 3 Assumes a minimum percentage of landscaped, unpaved area. 4Assumes a minimum percentage of private open space or common open space. 5 Acreage is based on the most current site plan for South Valley Community Church available at the time.
Uvas Creek provides the largest open space area within the Specific Plan Area. The riparian corridor provides an important path through the site because it allows for the continued free movement of wildlife through the area and contains the most sensitive habitat within the Specific Plan Area. The hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway also provide a major open space element to the area and contain valuable habitat. The oak woodlands to the north and Gabilan Mountains to the south provide a scenic backdrop for the Hecker Pass Area. Agricultural areas sited along Hecker Pass Highway and around development clusters serve to reduce the impact of future
Conservation and Resource Management 5-2 Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 Plan Area. Refer to Section 5.7 for a detailed discussion of fire hazards in the Hecker Pass Area, including policies related to fire prevention and safety.
6.5 CHURCH
Churches, although not a public facility, provide an important quasi-public facility to the community. Churches serve as a gathering place for residents and can address numerous community needs. One church already exists in the Specific Plan Area. The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church and vineyard preschool are located on the north side of Hecker Pass Highway, near the Santa Teresa Boulevard intersection. A second church has beenwas proposed within the Specific Plan Area. South Valley Community Church purchased the properties formerly owned by the Conrotto and Takeyatsu families with the intent to build a new church and private school. The church was an active participant in the specific plan process and was represented by a member of the Advisory Committee. The proposed church offers numerous community facilities in addition to typical church facilities including a private school, wedding chapel, a multi- purpose room that could be made available for limited public use, and playfields.In 2014, South Valley Community Church determined that the subject property could not accommodate the proposed facilities, and abandoned its vision within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area. The property has been redesignated for Residential Cluster use.
6.6 NEARBY COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area is adjacent to two additional community facilities that provide considerable recreational opportunities for area residents and visitors: Bonfante Gardens Theme Park and the Gilroy Municipal Golf Course. Although both facilities are not part of the Specific Plan Area they provide benefits to the area and were considered during the planning process for the Specific Plan.
6.6.1 BONFANTE GARDENS AND THEME PARK
Bonfante Gardens Theme Park provides a major tourist draw for the Hecker Pass Area and exciting recreational opportunities for Gilroy residents. The 75-acre theme park features beautifully landscaped grounds, rides, picnic grounds, amusements, miniature golf, food, animal characters, and entertainment. Bonfante Gardens offers valuable resources to the Hecker Pass Specific Plan by providing a major attraction for tourism. Tourists visiting Bonfante Gardens are potential customers for all of the agri-tourist uses proposed in the Specific Plan Area. To take full advantage of these visitors, the Specific Plan Area should maximize the interface between the agri-tourist uses and the theme park. This must be done carefully, however, so as not to compromise the rural character of the overall Hecker Pass Area. To achieve this goal, pedestrian connections should be provided between the Hecker Pass Specific Plan Area and Bonfante Gardens in strategic locations. These access points should encourage free and easy movement between the two areas. Agri-tourist uses should be visible to these access points and along Hecker Pass Highway to the greatest extent possible.
Community Services and Facilities Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 6-7 The storm water collection system for the Specific Plan Area will primarily consist of natural drainage ways and vegetated drainage swales (bio-filters) within the right-of-way of proposed streets. Natural drainage ways, including the channel adjacent to Two Oaks Lane and in the hillsides north of Hecker Pass Highway, will continue to be utilized and will be preserved and enhanced to the greatest extent possible. New on-site swales will be utilized throughout the Specific Plan Area to collect and convey local storm water. Once the capacity of these swales is reached, additional storm water will flow into inlets that connect to underground piping systems in the streets. Primary storm drain pipes will be located in portions of Third Street as shown in Figure 8-4.
The new storm drains and swales will convey the Specific Plan Area’s storm water as well as tributary drainages to up to three detention/pretreatment basins unless the City for Gilroy determines more basins are needed. Basins shall be sufficient to meet the criteria set forth by the City of Gilroy and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Hydrology Unit. Due to hydraulic grade constraints, the residential development on the South Valley Community Church site will be required to provide on-site detention for the church and school siteresidential development, which will ultimately connect to the existing storm drain outfall constructed by the adjacent Village Green project. According to Schaaf and Wheeler’s letter, detention facilities must provide storage for 2.4 acre-feet, the difference between the existing and post-development 24- hour run-off volume. An additional 25% of the total basin volume should be added to each basin for freeboard. These basins will prevent an increase in the 10-year and 100-year peak discharges from the Specific Plan Area. Detention facilities should be designed to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution (see Section 8.2.1 and sections 7.4.4 for additional information on BMP’s and vegetated swales).
Policy 8-7: Stormwater detention shall be designed to mitigate an increase in the 10-year and 100-year peak discharge for the project area, as determined by permitting agencies.
Once the storm water has been pretreated within the swales and detention basins, the drainage will then be release through outfall and/or weir structures into the Uvas Creek channel. Outlet pipes and/or weirs should be designed to allow the 2.4-acre storage volume to be drained within 24-hours, prior to the next storm event. The outlets and weirs shall be designed so that storm water released into Uvas Creek does not exceed the existing 10-year peak discharge. Existing outfalls will be improved and utilized to the greatest extent possible to reduce the need for new outfalls and reduce impacts to Uvas Creek. All improvements to existing outfall structures and the construction of new outfall structures will be subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, the California Department of Fish and Game and possibly the United States Army Corp of Engineers.
Policy 8-8: 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.
Public Utilities 8-10 Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 As discussed earlier in this chapter, it is likely that most improvements will be directly financed by developers of the properties through a variety of mechanisms including:
• Cost allocations or assessments for basic infrastructure benefiting all participating properties; • Proportionate cost sharing for mutually benefiting adjacent properties; and • Project direct costs associated with individual projects.
In order to facilitate these financing mechanisms, participating property owners will enter into a private development agreement to ensure the equitable allocation and reimbursement of costs for basic infrastructure.
Basic Infrastructure Costs - Basic infrastructure consists of those improvements that directly benefit all of the participating Specific Plan Area properties. Portions of the basic infrastructure will be constructed as each phase of the Specific Plan Area is developed. Costs for the improvements will be allocated to each development based on the types of proposed land uses and the intensity. In order to equitably distribute the improvement costs, the Specific Plan establishes a methodology for weighing different land uses and associated costs. Each type of land use was evaluated based upon demand and use factors for various types of infrastructure including trip generation rates, storm drainage, sanitary sewer demands, and water consumption and irrigation requirements.
Based upon these weighted land use factors, each type of dwelling unit was allocated a “unit cost” proportionate to its “use/demand” factor. For commercial land uses, an equivalent unit per acre cost was established. Cost burdens on some of the proposed commercial uses suggest that these land uses may not be able to bear their fair share of the basic infrastructure costs. The relatively high cost burdens on commercial uses result largely from the significant allocation of roadway and utilities costs to these uses. Even though the use/demand factors for the higher intensity commercial uses and residential uses are roughly comparable, the majority of the allowable commercial uses have much lower use/demand factors. Because the Specific Plan requires a relatively high amount of infrastructure compared to the low overall density, the commercial uses would have to bear higher improvement costs than comparable urban commercial uses. Additionally, Agri-tourist and , Agricultural Commercial and Community Facility uses in the Specific Plan Area must not exceed 25% building coverage (10% within the Agri-tourist overlay designation) resulting in a minimum of 75% non-structural area (90% in the Agri-tourist overlay designation), thus increasing the relative cost of improvements. Compounding this situation is the relatively high risk and failure rate for tourism dependent businesses in uncertain markets. Since the Agriculture Commercial and Agri-Tourist Commercial uses are key components for implementing the goals of the General Plan, it is desirable to create special provisions to compensate for the cost burdens on the commercial uses. Similarly, the church and school site (quasi-public land use) would assume a disproportionately high share of the basic improvement costs relying on use/demand factors.
Based on the use/demand factors for all permitted commercial uses in the Specific Plan Area, Equivalent Cost Units (ECU’s) ranged generally from 5 to 7 units per acre depending on the type
Implementation & Financing Final Hecker Pass Specific Plan August 2009 9-5
9.8 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM POLICIES
9.8.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.
The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented.
9.8.2 MONITORING PROGRAM
The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the project environmental impact report. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures become conditions of project approval, which the proponents of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan (HPSP) and the proponent of the Church project are required to complete.
The attached checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. This monitoring checklist contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the environmental impact report. The monitoring checklist is divided into two sections. The first section includes mitigation measures for the HPSP related actions. Mitigations for the HPSP consist largely of requirements to include new policies in the HPSP with which subsequent individual projects must be consistent.
9.8.3 MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES
The City of Gilroy shall use the attached monitoring checklist for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan project. The monitoring program should be implemented as follows.
Implementation & Financing 9-12 Final Hecker PassSpecific Plan August 2009
APPENDIX B
TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
Memorandum
Date: To: From: Subject:
Approved HPSP Development Proposed HPSP Amendment Trip Generation Comparison
–
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment South Valley community Church Development Trip Generation, Ninth Edition Conclusions
Page | 2 –
Table 1 Trip Generation Estimates Comparison
ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Daily Daily Pk-Hr Splits Trips Pk-Hr Splits Trips Land Use Use # Size Trip Rate Trips Rate In Out In Out Total Rate In Out In Out Total
Approved SVCC Development /a/ Passby Trips Associated with School
New Proposed SVCC Development /b/
New Net Project Trips For SVCC Development -301 -230 -531 -159 -188 -347
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Amendment SVCC Development
Page | 3
APPENDIX C
REVISED MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CONROTTO WINERY PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Archaeological Resource Management Robert R. Cartier, Ph.D. 496 North 5th Street San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 295-1373 FAX: (408) 286-2040 email: [email protected]
Ms. Ashley Hefner February 20, 2015 EMC Planning Group 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940
RE: REVISED MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CONROTTO WINERY PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Dear Ms. Hefner,
As requested, please find attached a brief report providing revised recommendations for the SVCC Property. This report includes the following:
- review of the original reports and recommendations - review of new proposed plans with a focus on the northern portion of the SVCC property - analysis of the applicability of Mitigation Measure 7 as described in the original EIR to the new proposed development - recommendations for modifications to Mitigation Measure 7
Thank you for your attention in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Cartier, Ph.D. Principal Investigator
RC/dj
REVISED MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CONROTTO WINERY PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
FOR
EMC PLANNING GROUP ATTN: MS. ASHLEY HEFNER 301 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE, SUITE C MONTEREY, CA 93940
BY
Archaeological Resource Management Dr. Robert Cartier, Principal Investigator 496 North Fifth Street San Jose, CA 95112 Phone: (408) 295-1373 FAX: (408) 286-2040 Email: [email protected]
FEBRUARY 20, 2015
REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL REPORTS
Historic Evaluation
The original historic evaluation for the Conrotto Winery complex included in the report “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” (2003, with revisions in 2008) found that the winery complex was historically significant, and potentially eligible for both the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP):
“The winery complex and the associated vernacular home appear to be potentially eligible for inclusion in both the CRHR and the NRHP. The founder of the Conrotto winery, Anselmo Conrotto, and the Conrotto family, have made a significant contribution to the history of the Gilroy area. The Conrotto winery was selected in 1989 to be featured in an exhibit and accompanying manuscript on Italian Americans in the western states by the Library of Congress American Folklife Center. Information on the Conrotto family, photography, and symbolic items such as Anselmo Conrotto's hat (which had been bronzed by the family after his death) were displayed at this exhibit. The manuscript based upon research gathered during fieldwork for the project is an edited volume entitled Old Ties, New Attachments: Italian-American Folklife in the West, and includes an article entitled "Tradition in a Bottle: The A. Conrotto Winery of Gilroy, California." This article gives a detailed history of the Conrotto family and winery operations.”
Based upon the potential eligibility of the Conrotto Winery for both the CRHR and the NRHP, the original report made the following recommendations:
“…the winery complex and the associated vernacular home appear to be potentially eligible for inclusion in the CRHR (California Register of Historic Resources) and the NRHP (National Register of Historic Places.
It is concluded that a significant historic cultural resource would be impacted by this demolition. Therefore, it is recommended that the development plans be changed to include the preservation/restoration of the Conrotto house and main winery building.
In addition, there is a large Oak tree located on the South Valley Community Church property, 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, and should be retained.”
Environmental Impact Report
The Draft Environmental Impact Report: Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church (completed in 2004), found the loss of the resource to be “significant and unavoidable”:
Section 3.1 Cumulative Impacts: “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 (italics added), reduce impacts to a less than significant level and as such, cumulative impacts should not be cumulatively substantial.”
Section 3.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts: “The church site plan indicates that existing historical structures on the site would not be preserved. A mitigation measure included in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, requires the applicant to incorporate 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 (italics added). Consequently demolition of this resource is considered to be significant and unavoidable.”
The EIR (Section 2.5: Cultural Resources) notes that the Hecker Pass Specific Plan provided a list of mitigation alternatives for the Conrotto Winery including: retention and re-use of the original structures, movement of the structures to another area along Hecker Pass Highway, merging some or all of the historic structures into the proposed new structures, and “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.”
The EIR goes on to state that:
“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.”
As noted above, the EIR provided a partial mitigation in lieu of the original recommendation from the historic evaluation, based upon the fourth mitigation option from the original HPSP:
“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.”
REVIEW OF NEW PROPOSED PLANS
As originally proposed, the northern 11 acres of the SVCC property was approved for the development of a church, school and related improvements. In 2014 the original proposal was rescinded and a new proposal was developed for a 33-lot single family residential subdivision (See Site Plan, attached). These plans significantly alter the nature and scope of the original project. However, as did the original plans, the new project as currently proposed calls for the demolition of the remaining Conrotto Winery structures.
REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the proposed new project plans, a rewording of the original Mitigation Measure 7 (Section 2.5 of the EIR) was designed to reflect this new proposal. This new proposed working is included below:
“The project applicant shall retain a theme of Conrotto viniculture within the new residential project. Options for design include developing a display along Hecker Pass Highway, and integrating historic artifacts associated with the Conrotto Winery operation into décor and landscaping for the new development (structures, winemaking equipment, reproduction of signage and advertisements, etc.) It is also recommended the name of the new development reflect the winemaking history of the property. The design shall be subject to review and approval of the city prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.”
Based upon the current proposed plans, the northern portion of the property adjacent to Hecker Pass Highway will consist of open space, traversed by a new pedestrian/bike trail. This area would be ideally suited for an historic display.
SOURCES CITED AND CONSULTED
Cartier, R. 2003 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. Report on file at Archaeological Resource Management.
Conrotto, E. 2003 Personal communication with Eugene Conrotto regarding the history of the Conrotto family
EMC Planning Group 2004 Hecker Pass Specific Plan /South Valley Community Church Volume I: Draft Environmental Report.
Taylor, D. and J. A. Williams, Editors 1992 Old Ties, New Attachments: Italian American Folklife in the West Library of Congress, Washington D.C.
US Department of the Interior 1990 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
US Department of the Interior 1982 Bulletin 15 - "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
APPENDIX D
NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1975 HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-1195 SUITE 26 FAX: 408-371-1196 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 www.packassociates.com
NOISE ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR THE PLANNED
“SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH – NORTH”
SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
STATE ROUTE 152 – HECKER PASS HIGHWAY
GILROY
Prepared for EMC Planning Group, Inc.
Prepared by Jeffrey K. Pack
January 23, 2015 Project No. 46-093
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... i
I. Background Information on Acoustics...... 1
II. Standards and Descriptions A. Noise Standards...... 6 B. Area Description...... 7 C. Project Description...... 7
III. Noise Impacts A. Exterior Noise Impacts to the Project...... 9 B. Interior Noise Impacts to the Project...... 10 C. Project-Generated Traffic Noise...... 10 D. Construction Noise Impacts...... 11 IV. Description of the Noise Measurement Methodology and Evaluations A. Existing Noise Levels...... 12 B. Future Noise Levels……...... 14 C. Evaluations of the Noise Exposures...... 14 V. Mitigation Measures A. Construction Noise Mitigation...... 16
VI. Conclusions...... 17
APPENDIX A References...... A-1
APPENDIX B 1. Noise Standards...... B-1 2. Terminology...... B-2 3. Instrumentation...... B-4
APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables...... C-1
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned single-family development along State Route (Highway) 152 (Hecker Pass Highway) west of Santa Teresa Boulevard in Gilroy. This study includes the analysis of traffic noise impacts to the project and project-generated traffic noise and construction noise impacts to existing residences in the vicinity of the site for evaluations against the standards of the City of Gilroy Noise Element of the General Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The following report includes background information on acoustics, noise standards applicable to the project, existing noise exposures, project-generated noise impacts and future noise impacts to the project, project construction noise and mitigation measures for noise impacted receptor locations. The results of this study reveal that the noise exposures at the site under the existing and future cumulative scenarios are within the limits of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards. Project-generated traffic noise will not add significantly to the existing and cumulative noise environments and will comply with CEQA thresholds. Mitigation measures for noise impacts to the project and for project-generated traffic noise impacts will not be required.
Project construction noise has a potential to generate significant but short-term noise impacts to existing residences to the east of the site. Construction noise mitigation measures are recommended.
In terms of the City of Gilroy CEQA compliance checklist, this analysis has determined the following: a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan? Less Than Significant b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No impact ii
c) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Yes, unless mitigated
- 1 -
I. Background Information on 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 under near perfect or laboratory conditions.
The decibel scale is logarithmic, similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes, whereby a sound 10 dB higher than another contains 10 times the sound energy. The combining of sound levels is not simply arithmetic addition or subtraction. Decibels are added or subtracted using the equation,
SL/10 SL/10 sum (difference) = 10log10(10 10 ....).
The sum of two sound sources of the same level is 3 dB higher than the sound level of one of the sources. For example, 60 dB + 60 dB = 63 dB. The sum of two sound levels that are 10 dB apart is merely the higher of the two levels, that is, the lower level does not add to the higher level. For example, 50 dB + 60 dB = 60 dB.
A sound level that is 10 dB or more below the ambient level will usually not be audible or may be slightly audible, depending upon the range of frequencies of the ambient and the tonal characteristics of the new sound.
Most of the sounds which 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 which filters down low and very high frequencies.
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. All environmental noise is reported in terms of A-weighted decibels, notated as dBA. All sound levels used in this report are A- weighted unless otherwise noted. Table I provides the typical human response and noise sources for A-weighted noise levels.
- 2 -
TABLE I 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)
100-120 Physical Discomfort Discotheque (115 dBA) 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)
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a mixture of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L1, L10, L50 and L90 are commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels exceeded during 1%, 10%, 50% and 90% of a stated time period. The continuous equivalent-energy level (Leq) is that level of a steady state noise which has the same sound energy as a time varying noise and is often considered the average noise level over a given time period. The noise measurements and data in the report of the “L” exceedance values are over 1 hour periods. - 3 -
In determining the daily level of environmental noise, 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 more noticeable. Furthermore, most people sleep at night and are sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise, the Day-Night Level (DNL), often notated as Ldn, 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 noise descriptor which includes 5 dB evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and 10 dB nighttime penalties. The DNL and CNEL are typically numerically equivalent.
The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: - subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; - interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning, relaxing;
- physiological effects such as startling, 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, i.e., the "ambient". 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 receptors. - 4 -
With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this report.
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.
Sound from stationary noise sources attenuate at a rate of 20log10(r1/r2), where, r1 is the measurement distance and r2 is the distance to the receptor. This equates to a 6 dB reduction for every doubling of the distance and is accurate for conditions where the distances are within approximately 1,000 ft. and the intervening ground surface is flat and somewhat porous, such as a vacant field. Sound from moving traffic (moving point source) attenuates at the rate of approximately 15log10(r1/r2) or 4.5 dB per doubling of the distance. Rail noise attenuates at 4.5 - 6 dB per doubling of the distance.
Since sound is merely a fluctuation of air pressure, a sound barrier must be an air tight structure. Solid walls, earthen berms or topography are the most common sound barriers. Vegetation does little for blocking sound unless the vegetation is a thick forest of high density planting a minimum of 100 ft. thick. Over great distances, heavy vegetation can cause excess scattering of sound waves, which reduces sound slightly more than the normal attenuation rate. - 5 -
Sound reduction provided by a barrier, whether the barrier is natural or manmade, is calculated using Fresnel diffraction equations, which calculate the amount of reduction of sound due to the diffraction, or bending, of sound over or around a barrier. Low frequency sound has long wavelengths, therefore, it bends around barriers rather easily. High frequency sound has short wavelengths and cannot bend around a solid material as easily. Light, for instance, contains extremely short wavelengths, thus, we cannot see around a corner but we can hear sounds from around a corner. The amount of sound reduction from a barrier is a function, not only of the frequency of the sound, but of the difference in the length of the direct (unshielded) sound path and the length of the sound path traveling over or around the barrier.
The Fresnel Diffraction equation used to calculate the amount of sound reduction, termed Insertion Loss, provided by a barrier is:
Insertion Loss = 10log10(3+10(2f/v)/d), where,
f = frequency of sound (Hz) v = speed of sound in air (1,128 ft./sec.) d = sound path length differential (ft.)
The sound path difference is usually determined using Pythagorean calculations as the distances from the source, to the top of the barrier and to the receiver locations can be described by the hypotenuses of the three triangles formed by this geometry. - 6 -
II. Standards and Descriptions
A. Noise Standards
The noise exposures at the project site were evaluated against the standards of the City of Gilroy General Plan Noise Element, Ref. (a), which utilizes the DNL and specifies an exterior noise exposure limit of 60 dB DNL for residential exterior areas. The Noise Element limits the interior noise exposures to 45 dB DNL or lower.
The project-generated noise exposure increases were evaluated against the City of Gilroy adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance (2004)
The City of Gilroy CEQA thresholds of significance state that a project may 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 general plan, i.e. exceed permissible maximum outdoor and indoor noise levels adopted in GP Policy 26.02, Figure 8-3;
Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground- borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, as determined by a project-specific study; or
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. All construction projects have the potential to result in substantial temporary increases in noise levels. The City’s approach to mitigating construction related noise impacts is to condition General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-B on all construction projects. - 7 -
B. Area Description
The planned project site is an approximate 11 acres of farmland and a former commercial winery with a few single-family residences at the front of the site. The site slopes down from Hecker Pass Highway within approximately 150 ft. of the road. The remaining parcel is relatively flat. Surrounding land uses include the Village Green multi-family development adjacent to the east, a single-family development under construction adjacent to the south, multi-family residences and a church across Hecker Pass Highway to the north and agricultural land to the west.
The noise environment at the site is created primarily by traffic on Hecker Pass Highway and Santa Teresa Boulevard. The traffic volume on Hecker Pass Highway was 9,300 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in 2013, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (b). Under future conditions, the traffic volume was estimated to increase to 20,630 ADT. The traffic volume on Santa Teresa Boulevard was 11,600 ADT in 2008. Under future conditions, the traffic volume was estimated to increase to 25,530 ADT. Future Hecker Pass Highway and existing and future Santa Teresa Boulevard traffic information was provided by the project traffic consultant, Ref. (c).
C. Project Description
The planned project includes a General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the site to change the zoning from Community Facilities to Residential Cluster and the construction of 33 single-family homes with an open space area at the front of the site along Hecker Pass Highway. Ingress and egress to the site will be by way of a project street off of Third Avenue. There will be no site access off of Highway 152. The Site Plan, Ref. (d), is shown on Figure 1 on page 7.
- 8 -
FIGURE 1 – SITE PLAN - 9 -
III. Noise Impacts
A. Exterior Noise Impacts to the Project
The noise exposure impacts to the site described below are without the application of mitigation measures and represent the noise environments for existing and project site conditions.
The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted side and rear yard closest to Hecker Pass Highway (183 ft. from the centerline) is 55 dB DNL. Under future cumulative conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 58 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 60 dB DNL limit of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards.
The existing exterior noise exposure along the easterly property line of the site that would be most impacted by traffic sources on Santa Teresa Boulevard with some influence from Hecker Pass Highway sources, but not affected by existing construction operations (690 ft. from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway and 550 ft. from the centerline of Santa Teresa Boulevard) is 50 dB DNL. Under future cumulative conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 53 dB DNL. Thus, the exterior noise exposures at the site are within the limits of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards.
As shown above, the exterior noise exposures at the site are within the limits of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards. Noise impacts to the project are less than significant. Noise mitigation measures will not be required. - 10 -
B. Interior Noise Impacts to the Project
The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Hecker Pass Highway will be up to 30 and 33 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 45 dB DNL limit of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards.
The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces along the easterly boundary of the site will be up 25 and 28 dB DNL under existing and future traffic conditions, respectively. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the 45 dB DNL limit of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards.
The interior noise exposures will be within the limits of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards. Noise impacts to the project will be less than significant. Noise mitigation measures for the interior living spaces will not be required.
C. Project-Generated Traffic Noise Impacts
A detailed traffic study has not been prepared at this time that would provide existing, project and future traffic volumes on nearby streets to calculate the effects of project traffic on the existing and future noise environments. However, the subject project is expected to generate much lower project trip volumes than the previous church and school projects at the site, Ref. (e). The daily trip generation is estimated to be 480 vehicles. This is a very low volume and is expected to add less than 0.5 dB to the traffic noise levels on the roadway network in the project vicinity. The project-generated traffic noise impact will be less than significant. - 11 -
D. Construction Noise Impacts
Short-term construction impacts may be created during construction of the development. Construction equipment generates noise levels in the range of 75 to 95 dBA at a 30 ft. distance from the source. Because of the close proximity of the site to the nearest residences, there is potential for construction noise to impact the residences. Noise from construction equipment dissipates at the rate of 6 dB per doubling of the distance from the source to the receiver. At receptor locations approximately 20 ft. from the site, construction noise will be in the range of 79 to 99 dBA, which would result in noticeable to loud noise conditions. Since construction is carried out in several reasonably discrete phases, each has its own mix of equipment and consequently, its own noise characteristics. Generally, the site preparation requires the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and diesel trucks. Upon completion of the project, the area's sound levels will reduce essentially to the predicted traffic noise exposures analyzed in this study.
Over the course of a construction day, the noise exposure is expected to be up to 70 dB DNL at the residences adjacent to the east and up to 50 dB DNL at existing residences across Hecker Pass Highway to the north during the noisiest periods of construction.
As construction noise is predicted to be significant to nearby residences, general mitigation measures are recommended to minimize the potential for annoyance. The recommended measures are described in Section V. - 12 -
IV. Description of the Noise Measurement Methodology and Evaluations
A. Existing Noise Levels
To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made at two locations on the site. Location 1 was 183 ft. from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway, which corresponds to the planned minimum setback of the lot closest to the highway. Location 2 was along the easterly property line where the noise impact from Santa Teresa Boulevard traffic would be the greatest and with the least noise impact from construction on the site to the south. Location 2 was 690 ft. from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway and 550 ft. from the centerline of Santa Teresa Boulevard. The noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 2 below.
FIGURE 2 - 13 -
The noise level measurements were made on January 8-9, 2015 for a continuous period of 24 hours and included representative hours during the daytime and nighttime periods of the DNL index. The noise level data were acquired using Larson-Davis Model 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meters. The meter yields, by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, which are commonly used to describe community noise, and as described in Appendix B. The measured descriptors include the L1, L10, L50, and L90, i.e., those levels exceeded 1%, 10%, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured were the maximum and minimum levels and the continuous equivalent-energy levels (Leq), which are used to calculate the DNL’s. The results of the measurements are shown in the data table in Appendix C.
Noise from construction at the site to the south was sometimes audible at measurement Location 2, but due to the intermittent nature of the significant sources of noise at that site (heavy equipment operations) and no nighttime operations, construction noise did not affect the noise measurement data.
The results of the field survey reveal that the Leq's at measurement Location 1, 183 ft. from the centerline of Hecker Pass Highway, ranged from 50.6 to 56.0 dBA during the daytime and from 39.3to 52.3 dBA at night.
The Leq’s on at measurement Location 2 along the easterly boundary ranged from 43.0 to 55.6 dBA during the daytime and from 35.2 to 40.0 dBA at night.
Traffic noise dissipates at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source (centerline of the roadway) to the receiver. Therefore, other locations on the site at greater distances from Hecker Pass Highway or Santa Teresa Boulevard will have lower noise levels. Additional acoustical shielding will be provided by interposed buildings of the project. - 14 -
B. Future Noise Levels
The future noise exposures at the site were determined from future traffic volume data provided by the consulting traffic engineer. The future cumulative traffic volume for Hecker Pass Highway along the site is expected to increase from the existing (2013) 9,300 vehicles ADT to 20,630 vehicles ADT. This increase in traffic volume yields a 3 dB increase in the traffic noise levels. The traffic volume on Santa Teresa Boulevard is expected to increase from the previous 2008 volume of 11,600 vehicles ADT to 25,530 vehicles ADT. This increase in traffic volume also yields an increase of 3 dB in the traffic noise levels. More recent traffic volume data for Santa Teresa Boulevard were not available at the time of this study. However, if the more recent volume on Santa Teresa Boulevard is higher than the 2008 volume, the increase in the traffic noise levels would be somewhat less than 3 dB. Therefore, using the 3 dB increase for future traffic noise is a conservative value.
C. Evaluations of the Noise Exposures
Exterior Noise
To evaluate the on-site noise exposures against the City of Gilroy standards, the
DNL’s for the survey locations were calculated by decibel averaging of the Leq's as they apply to the daily time periods of the DNL index. A ten decibel penalty was added to noise created in the nighttime period to account for the increased human sensitivity to noise during these hours. The DNL is a 24-hour noise descriptor that uses the measured
Leq values to calculate a 24-hour time-weighted average noise exposure.
Adjustments were made to the measured traffic noise levels to account for the various setback distances from the measurement locations to various receptor or analysis locations using methods established by the Highway Research Board, Ref. (f). The formula used to calculate the DNL is described in Appendix B. - 15 -
The results of the calculations indicate that the exterior noise exposure at measurement Location 1 and the planned minimum setback of the residential lot closest to Hecker Pass Highway was calculated to be 55 dB DNL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 58 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures at the homes impacted by Hecker Pass Highway traffic sources will be within the limits of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards.
At measurement Location 2 along the easterly property line the noise exposure was calculated to be 50 dB DNL. Under future traffic conditions, the noise exposure is expected to increase to 53 dB DNL. Thus, the noise exposures at the homes of the project closest to Santa Teresa Boulevard will be within the limits of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards.
The results of these evaluations indicate the exterior noise exposures will be within the limits of the standards. Mitigation measures will not be required.
Interior Noise
To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces, a 25 dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposures at the building setback to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under a closed window condition. This condition assumes that windows and glass doors have standard dual-pane thermal insulating glass and are kept closed at all times for noise control. The windows and glass doors to living spaces may be kept closed at all times as adequate mechanical ventilation will be required by the Mechanical Code. Note that although the windows and doors may be kept closed for noise control, this condition does not imply that the windows and doors are inoperable.
The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Hecker Pass Highway were calculated to be up to 30 dB DNL under existing conditions and up to 33 dB DNL under future conditions.
The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to Santa Teresa Boulevard were calculated to be up to 25 dB DNL under existing conditions and up to 28 dB DNL under future conditions. - 16 -
The interior noise exposures will be within the standards of the City of Gilroy Noise Element. Mitigation measures for the project interiors will not be required.
V. Mitigation Measures
A. Construction Noise Mitigation
Mitigation of the construction phase noise at the site can be accomplished by using quiet or "new technology" equipment. The greatest potential for noise abatement of current equipment should be the quieting of exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers. It is recommended that all internal combustion engines used at the project site be equipped with a type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment should be in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive-train and other components. Construction noise can also be mitigated by the following:
- Scheduling noisy operations for the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
- All diesel powered equipment should be located more than 200 ft. from any residence if the equipment is to operate for more than several hours per day.
- Dirt berming and stockpiling materials can also help reduce noise to sensitive receptor locations.
As noise reduction benefit can also be achieved by appropriate selection of equipment utilized for various operations, subject to equipment availability and cost considerations, the following recommendations for minimizing impacts on the surrounding area are offered:
Earth Removal: Use scrapers as much as possible for earth removal, rather than the noisier loaders and hauling trucks. - 17 -
Backfilling: Use a backhoe for backfilling, as it is less costly and quieter than either dozers or loaders.
Ground Preparation: Use a motor grader rather than a bulldozer for final grading.
Building Construction: Powers saws should be shielded or enclosed where practical to decrease noise emissions. Nail guns should be used where possible as they are less noisy than manual hammering.
Construction Phasing: Construct buildings or other significant structures at the site perimeter to help shield existing sensitive receptors from noise generated on the site.
VI. Conclusions
In conclusion, noise impacts to the exterior and interior living spaces of the project will be within the limits of the City of Gilroy Noise Element standards and will be less than significant. Noise mitigation measures for the project will not be required. Project- generated noise impacts from traffic will also be less than significant as the increases will be no more than 0.5 dB. Construction of the project will likely generate significant temporary noise impacts. Mitigation measures to minimize construction noise are recommended.
This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned General Plan Amendment and rezoning for a single-family development along Hecker Pass Highway in Gilroy. The study findings for existing conditions are based on field measurements and other data and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise levels were based on information provided by the consulting traffic engineer. However, significant changes in the predicted traffic volumes, vehicles speeds, site layout or planning, motor vehicle technology, noise regulations or other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from our estimates. - 18 -
If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me.
Sincerely,
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC.
Jeffrey K. Pack President
Attachments: Appendices A, B and C
APPENDIX A
References:
(a) Noise Element of the General Plan, City of Gilroy, updated 2002 (b) State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Operations, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2013all/Route134-161.html (c) Information on Area Wide Traffic Volumes Provided by Ms. Gicela Del Rio, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, by email to Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., March 3, 2014
(d) Site Plan, South Valley Community Church – North, by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, October 30, 2014 (e) “Noise Assessment Study for the Planned South Valley Community Church and School and Single-Family Development, Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy” , by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., Project No. 35-003-1, October 18, 2008 (f) Highway Research Board, “Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Highway Engineers”, Report 117, 1971
APPENDIX B
Noise Standards, Terminology, Instrumentation, and General Building Shell Controls
1. Noise Standards
A. City of Gilroy Noise Element Standards
The Noise Section of the City of Gilroy General Plan, Chapter 26, specifies the following permissible maximum limits:
Land Use Category Max. Outdoor DNL (Ldn) Max. Indoor DNL (Ldn) Residential 601 45 Commercial 65 61
Industrial 76 65 dBA L10,
60 dBA L50
1 - The outdoor sound levels for residential properties shall be measured from a location that is no less than: - 15 feet outside the rear-most proposed household wall; - 20 feet outside the front-most proposed household wall; - 6 feet outside the side-most proposed household wall; and - 10 feet outside the side-most proposed household wall when adjacent to a street
Residential interior living spaces are limited to 45 dB DNL.
B-1
2. Terminology
A. Statistical Noise Levels
Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows:
L1 - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time.
L10 - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level.
L50 - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level.
L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level.
Leq - The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a steady-state noise having the same sound energy as a given
time-varying noise. The Leq represents the decibel level of the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and DNL.
B-2
B. Day-Night Level (DNL)
Noise levels utilized in the standards are described in terms of the Day-Night Level (DNL). The DNL rating is determined by the cumulative noise exposures occurring over a 24-hour day in terms of A-Weighted sound energy. The 24-hour day is divided into two subperiods for the DNL index, i.e., the daytime period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the nighttime period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A 10 dBA weighting factor is applied (added) to the noise levels occurring during the nighttime period to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during these hours. The DNL is calculated from the measured Leq in accordance with the following mathematical formula:
DNL = [(Ld+10log1015) & (Ln+10+10log109)] - 10log1024
Where:
Ld = Leq for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Ln = Leq for the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 24 indicates the 24-hour period & denotes decibel addition.
C. A-Weighted Sound Level
The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear.
B-3
3. Instrumentation
The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy level
(Leq). Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI S1.4 for Type 1 instruments. The "A" weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy.
Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer
B-4
APPENDIX C
Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables
DNL CALCULATIONS
CLIENT: EMC PLANNING GROUP FILE: 46-093 PROJECT: SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH SITE DATE: 1/8-9/2015 SOURCE: HECKER PASS HIGHWAY
LOCATION 1 Hecker Pass Highway LOCATION 2 East Property Line Dist. To Source 183 ft. Dist. To Source 690 ft. from Hecker Pass Highway
TIME Leq 10^Leq/10 TIME Leq 10^Leq/10 7:00 AM 54.3 269153.5 7:00 AM 43.5 22387.2 8:00 AM 54.2 263026.8 8:00 AM 48.9 77624.7 9:00 AM 52.8 190546.1 9:00 AM 52.4 173780.1 10:00 AM 53.6 229086.8 10:00 AM 43.0 19952.6 11:00 AM 53.1 204173.8 11:00 AM 47.9 61659.5 12:00 PM 53.5 223872.1 12:00 PM 48.0 63095.7 1:00 PM 56.0 398107.2 1:00 PM 52.8 190546.1 2:00 PM 54.4 275422.9 2:00 PM 55.6 363078.1 3:00 PM 54.5 281838.3 3:00 PM 55.4 346736.9 4:00 PM 54.5 281838.3 4:00 PM 50.6 114815.4 5:00 PM 54.7 295120.9 5:00 PM 48.2 66069.3 6:00 PM 53.7 234422.9 6:00 PM 45.7 37153.5 7:00 PM 51.6 144544.0 7:00 PM 44.6 28840.3 8:00 PM 51.1 128825.0 8:00 PM 44.5 28183.8 9:00 PM 50.6 114815.4 SUM= 3534794 9:00 PM 44.0 25118.9 SUM= 1619042 10:00 PM 47.2 52480.7 Ld= 65.5 10:00 PM 39.6 9120.1 Ld= 62.1 11:00 PM 44.0 25118.9 11:00 PM 38.2 6606.9 12:00 AM 41.5 14125.4 12:00 AM 37.9 6166.0 1:00 AM 39.3 8511.4 1:00 AM 37.5 5623.4 2:00 AM 40.6 11481.5 2:00 AM 38.3 6760.8 3:00 AM 40.7 11749.0 3:00 AM 35.2 3311.3 4:00 AM 42.5 17782.8 4:00 AM 37.7 5888.4 5:00 AM 48.8 75857.8 5:00 AM 40.0 10000.0 6:00 AM 52.3 169824.4 SUM= 386932 6:00 AM 35.2 3311.3 SUM= 56788 Ln= 55.9 Ln= 47.5
Daytime Level= 65.5 Daytime Level= 62.1 Nighttime Level= 65.9 Nighttime Level= 57.5 DNL= 55 DNL= 50 24-Hour Leq= 52.1 24-Hour Leq= 48.4