Loading...
Sports Park - USA Amendment 98-03CERTIFIED FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 98-03 State Clearing House #1998102079 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy March 18, 2002 CERTIFIED FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA 'AMENDMENT 98 -03 State Clearing House #1998102079 Planning ,Commission Hearing: City Council Hearing: City Council Certification: The Draft Subsequent EIR and Certified ,Subsequent Final EIR February 7, 2002 March 7, 2002 March 18, 2002 March 18, 2002 Final Subsequent EIR together make up the PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Planning Division Cydney Casper, Planner II 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 408 846 -0440 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 emcgroup@emcplanning. com www.emcplanning.com March 18, 2002 s n v r g, w; RESOLUTION NO. 2002-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS CONCERNING IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE r7 WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT• IN CONNECTION WITH A SPORTS PARK COMPLEX AND A ry REQUEST FOR URBAN SERVICE AREA EXPANSION TO I ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAVE BEEN PREPARED, AND ADOPTING MITIGATION MEASURES AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING A MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy initiated an Urban Service Area expansion application USA 98 -03 to incorporate 133.2 acres of land into Gilroy's Urban Service Area ( "Project "), and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, ( "CEQA ") requires that, in the approval of a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been prepared, the decision - making body shall review the EIR and make certain findings regarding the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the Project was the subject of a Final EIR entitled "Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment (USA 98 -03) Draft Environmental Impact Report" and "Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment (USA 98 -03) Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum" (together, "1999 EIR ") prepared by the City of Gilroy as the lead agency in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the 1999 EIR was recommended for certification by the City of Gilroy Planning Commission on May 6,1999; and WVM546343.1 _1 _ 01 -031202 -04706002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -17 WHEREAS, the City Council on May 17, 1999, certified that as the decision - making body, it reviewed and considered the information contained in the 1999 EIR, and other information in the record, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, and found that the 1999 EIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflected the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Gilroy as lead agency for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City determined to prepare a Subsequent Final EIR ( "SEIFn to reflect a proposed General Plan land use - designation change of certain Project land from open space use to residential and commercial uses; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City held a hearing on the SEIR for the Project at which hearing the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the document as having been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that in connection with the approval of a project for which an EIR identifies one or more significant environmental effects, the decision - making agency must make certain findings regarding those effects; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Project approval is based is the office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the City Council does hereby find that the SEIR has been presented to it, that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the SEIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, including the written and oral comments 1NM546343.1 -2 -. 0"31202 -04706002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -17 received at the public hearing on the SEIR and on the Project, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, and has found that the SEIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City as lead agency for the Project, and designates the City Clerk at her office at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020, as the custodian of the documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based; and 2. That the City Council does hereby find that the SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and 3. That the City Council does hereby make the findings with respect to the potentially significant and significant effects on the environment of the Project and Project alternatives as identified in the SEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A(I) and incorporated by this reference. 4. That the City Council does hereby adopt the mitigation measures as set forth in the SEIR, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program as set forth in the SEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. That the City Council does hereby, after review of the entire administrative record, including the SETR, the staff report, and the oral and written testimony and evidence presented at public hearings, find that specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations justify the approval of this Project in spite of the existence of unavoidable environmental effects that were deemed significant and that cannot be completely mitigated to a level of significance as set forth in Exhibit A(11) regarding agricultural considerations, potential loss of prime farmland through growth- inducement on adjacent parcels, long -term and short-term noise from Gilroy Sports Park activities, exterior traffic noise at residential areas along Monterey Street, and exterior traffic noise at residential areas along West Luchessa Avenue. The City Council adopts and makes a INVH1546343.1 -3- 01 -031202 -04706002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-17 Statement of Overriding Consideration regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, finding that each of the benefits set forth in the Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit A(In, and incorporated herein by this reference, constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the risks of its potential significant adverse environmental impact. 6. That the City Council does hereby reject the Alternatives to the Project described in the SEIR for the reasons set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEST: Rhonda Pellin, City Clerk ARELLANO, DILLON, GARTMAN, MORALES, PINHEIRO, VELASCO, and SPRINGER NONE NONE 1 Gv Thomas A. Springer, Mao 1NVH7546343.1 -[l_ 01 -031202 -04706002 - RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -17 GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 98 -03 SUBSEQUENT FINAL EIR SCH# 1998102079 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Planning Division February 2002 GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 98 -03 SUBSEQUENT FINAL EIR SCH# 1998102079 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Contact: Cydney Casper 408.846.0440 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 emcgroup@emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.com February 2002 1.0 Introduction The City of Gilroy, acting as lead agency, determined that the proposed addition of 140.21 acres to its Urban Service.Area, (hereinafter "proposed project ") may result in significant adverse environmental effects, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15064. Therefore the City of Gilroy determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared to evaluate the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. The City of Gilroy certified the Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1998102079) on June 7, 1999. The certified EIR was prepared using the existing Gilroy General Plan land use designations for the project site. The City of Gilroy is in the process of adopting an updated general plan. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan includes changes in the land use designation for some of the parcels included in the USA amendment request. These parcels were evaluated in the certified EIR with an OPEN SPACE designation but are designated RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The City of Gilroy applied to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) for the addition of the project site to the City's USA. Because of the probable upcoming changes to the general plan land use designations for the project site, LAFCO required further environmental analysis based on the expected new designations. The Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (Subsequent Draft EIR) was prepared, and circulated for public review on April 11, 2000. The public review period ended on Thursday, May 25, 2000. CEQA Guidelines section 15200 indicates that the purposes of the public review process include sharing expertise, disclosing agency analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns and soliciting counter proposals. The Gilroy Urban Services Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR (Subsequent Final EIR) has been prepared to address comments received during the public review period and, together with the Subsequent Draft EIR, constitutes the Gilroy Urban Services Area Amendment 98 -03 EIR. Planning Group Inc. 1.0 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Supplemental Final EIR Overview The following is a brief overview of the organization of this Subsequent Final EIR. It is intended to inform the reader how this document was prepared and presented, and to identify the general contents within. Section 1 contains an introduction to the Subsequent Final EIR well as this overview. Section 2 contains written comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR, as well as the responses to those comments. No oral comments were submitted. Section 3 contains a revised summary of the Subsequent Draft EIR, identifying the changes in the impacts and mitigation measures resulting from comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR. Section 4 contains the revisions to the text of the Subsequent Draft EIR resulting from comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR. 1 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. r 2.0 Response to ,Comments CEQA Guidelines section 15132(c) requires that the Subsequent Final EIR contain a list of persons, organizations,. and public agencies who have commented on the Subsequent Draft EIR. A list of the correspondence received during the public review period is presented below. CEQA Guidelines section 15132(b) and 15132(d) requires that;the Final EIR contain the comments that raise significant environmental points in the review and consultation process, and written response to those comments. A copy of each correspondence received during the public review period is presented on the following pages. Numbers along the left -hand side of the letter identify each comment. A response to each comment that raises a significant environmental point is presented immediately following the letter. Where required, revisions have been made to the text of the Subsequent Draft EIR based on the responses to comments, and these are included in Section 4, Changes to the Draft EIR Text. The following correspondence was received during the 45 -day public review period, which ended on May 25, 2000. 1. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department (Roads and Airports) (May 1, 2000); California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (May 22, 2000); 3. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (May 23, 2000); 4. County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (May 24, 2000); 5. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) (May 25, 2000). Table 1 summarizes. the significant environmental issues raised in each letter. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -1 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR TABLE l.. Response to Comments Summary by Topic Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Commenter Draft EIR Topic Roads and Airports Caltrans VTA SCVWD LAFCO No Environmental Comment Project Description X Policy Consistency X, Adequacy of Mitigation X EIR Uses Aesthetics Agricultural Resources X Air Quality Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Geology Hydrology and Flooding X Noise Public Services Utilities Transportation /Circulation X X X Cumulative Impacts Alternatives Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department Land Development Services 101 Skyport Drive San Jose Califonya 9SIO4302 May 1;2000 Mr. Bty rice P er I Community Development City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 . RECEIVED MAY 32000 Gilroy Planning Div. Subject: USA 98- 03— Gilroy Sports Park ]Draft Environmental Impact Report (ElR) bear Mr. Stice: Your letter dated April 7, 2000 along with the Draft Environmental Report for the subject project has been reviewed. Our comments are as follows: 1. Items 2, 3, and 4 from our previous letter dated March 8, 1999 are not addressed in this Draft EIR. 30% of the project traffic is using (Fig. 22) Santa Teresa and Thomas Road intersection, but EIR does not analyze it (Item 2). 2. Please submit bevel of Service calculation using TRAFFDL Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject project. If you have any questions, please call me at 573 - 2464. Sinceirely. R - - Project Engineer RN :rtj Attachment: Letter dated 03108199' cc: SK, RVE, File Board of�Npervl S: Donald P. Gabe, Blanca Alvarado, Pete MCHUgh. James T. Beall. Jr. S. Joseph Simitian Cam cCUtivG Richard wlttenberg rA 4V UTAoj WA I.Y -MAAC" �Aq,LA Roads and Airports Department Land Development Services 101 Skypott.Drive San Jose, California 951I0 March 8, 1999 Mr. Bryan Stier Engineering Division City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street 'Gilroy, CA 95020 Subject: USA 98 -03 — Gilroy Sport Park Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Stice: Your Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February 11, 1999 for the subject project has been reviewed. We have the following comments. I. Please submit the Traffic Impact Report (TIR) reference mentioned on Pages 2-47 and 2-48. , 2. The project needs to analyze Level of Service (LOS) at the intersections of Thomas / Road/Santa Teresa Blvd. and Miller Avenue /Santa Teresa Blvd 3. Table 9, Page 2 -64 lists the Level of Service (LOS) as '77 for Saturday peak for Phase V„ but on Page 2 -76 under "Significant Impact" the LOS is listed as "E". Please let us know which one is right. 4. The LOS for Phase VI and VII is listed "P', but no analysis is performed. The delay under Phase V is 45 seconds and it is mitigated by a proposedsignal. The delay for Phase VI and VII is 117 seconds. Is any mitigation proposed for these two Phases. Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall, Jr., S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Richard Wittenberg . Mr. Bryan Stice Page 2 March 8, 1999 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please call me at 573 -2464 if you have any questions. Siztce ly II Rallrca Nitescu Project Engineer RN:rtj cc: S. Kandah File 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR 2.0 Response to Comments i Response to the Letter from County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department (May 1, 2000) 1. A revised traffic impact analysis (TIA), using updated traffic counts, was prepared for the proposed project by Fehr and Peers Associates in January 2002. The text and exhibits of the revised TIA are included in Appendix A. The calculation tables are available for review at the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. (Item 2 from March 8, 1999 letter) The revised TIA includes an analysis. of the intersection of Thomas Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard, The intersection operates at LOS C under existing conditions, and would continue to operate at LOS C at project build -out conditions and cumulative conditions. The geometry of the intersection of Thomas Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard has been improved, and signal lights added, with funding from the City of Gilroy and the developer of the Eagle Ridge residential development. (Item 3 from'March 8, 1999 letter) There was an error in the Draft EIR.prepared in February 1999. This was corrected in the Final EIR, prepared in April 1999. (Item 4 from March 8, 1999 letter) This comment was addressed in the Final EIR prepared in April 1999. Mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR for other identified impacts also mitigated the Phase VI and Phase VII impacts to a less than significant level. 2. LOS calculations were prepared using TRAFFIX modeling software. The complete TIA, including the calculation tables, has been forwarded to Roads and Airports, and is also available for review at the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -7 DEPARTMENT OF 7( TRANSPOR q P 0902"" Fee (B10J sk (610) 2864"4 700 Q86�4451 26644M (s10) May 22, 2000 Mr. Bryan Stice City of Gilroy, Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Mr. Stice: SCL -101 -5.26 1998102079 SCL1o1599 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEHO for the Gilroy Sports Park, City of Gilroy Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the enviromunental review process for the proposed Gilroy Sports Park project. We have examined the DEM and offer the following comments: 1. Detailed calculation for ail analyses should be included in the DEM_ 2. Freeway segments and ramps on US 101 should be analyzed for traffic weaving and level of service (LOS) under all conditions for both AM and PM peak periods I Queuing analysis and . vehicle storage lengths for the Monterey Street at Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Frontage Road intersectons. and US 101 southbound and northbound ramps should be provided. 4: Please explain bow the trips generated by the proposed project will be distributed over various phases of construction. The should also s DE1R shcify the number of trips generated during each construction phase pe , 5. After implementing all relevant mitigation measures, please provide the LOS for the intersections on Monterey Street at Luchessa Avenue and Monterey frontage Road. Bryap Stice, City of Gamy/SCL101599 May 22, 2000 Page 2 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Haiyan Mang of my staff at (510) 622 -1641. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director By W JEAN C, R. FIIVNEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Katie Shulte, State Clearinghouse 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final E1R Response to the Letter from California Department of Transportation (May 22, 2000) 1. LOS calculations were prepared using TRAFFIX modeling software. The complete TIA, including the calculation tables, has been forwarded to Caltrans, and is also available for review at the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. 2. The revised TIA includes an analysis of level of service on the U.S. Highway 101 segments and ramps. The freeway segments would operate at LOS B and LOS C at project conditions. According to the traffic engineer, there are no weaving sections on the studied segments of U.S. Highway 101. The TIA was prepared in accordance with VTA requirements. VTA does not require a cumulative level analysis of freeway segments. 3. The revised TIA includes an analysis of queuing and vehicle storage lengths at six locations, including the four U.S. Highway 101 ramps, and two locations along Monterey Road. While vehicle queuing would extend beyond the left turn pockets on north bound Monterey Road at Monterey Frontage Road and at Luchessa Avenue under unmitigated project conditions, with mitigation measures presented in the Subsequent Draft EIR, this situation would be mitigated to a less than significant level. There would be no impacts from queuing at the U.S. Highway 101 ramps. 4. Figure 21 on page 2 -91 summarizes the project trip generation for each phase of the sports park, and for both the commercial and residential components of the proposed project. Because there are no specific development projects proposed for the commercial and residential components of the proposed project, it in not possible to assign trips associated with those components to a particular time frame. The sports park is expected to be built during a 20 -year period, but the timeframe for build -out of the commercial and residential components is unknown. For purposes of the TIA, it is assumed that build -out of the commercial and residential components would occur within 20 years. Construction - generated traffic would be spread out over at least a 20- year timeframe, with only relatively small portions of the sports park developed at any given time. Construction traffic would be a small portion of overall traffic generated by the proposed project during the approximately 20 -year build -out timeframe. 5. At project build -out, with mitigation incorporated, the intersection of Monterey Road and Luchessa Avenue, and the intersection of Monterey Road and Monterey Frontage Road would both operate at LOS C during the peak periods. EMC Planning Group low s A A 7 A C L A Y A �® Valley Transportation Authority May 23, 2000 City of Gilroy Department of Community Development 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 -6141 Attention: Bryan Stice, Planner I RECEIVED MAY 2 5 2000 Gilroy planning Div. Subject: Gilroy Sports Park Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Draft Dear Mr. Stice: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Draft (DSEIR) for the development of the Gilroy Sports Park, a 133.2 -acre sports park accommodating a variety of activities, at the southwest corner of Thomas Road and Highway 101. We have the following comments. On November 20, 1998, April 2, 1999 and May 10, 1999, VTA staff commented on the first NOP, Draft EIR and Final EIR for this project. Then on January 12, 2000, we commented on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent EIR for this project. - Existing Transit Service On Page 2-82, the DSEIR identifies Route 17A as a bus route currently operating within one -half mile of the project site. References to Route 17A should be deleted from the DSEIR as the route was discontinued effective January 2000 due to low ridership. The other bus route identified in the DSElR, Route 68, continues to operate on Princevalle Street, West Luchessa Avenue and Thomas Road, north and west of the project site. The nearest bus stops are approximately one -half mile walking distance from the northern edge of the sports complex. 2 In the section discussing consistency with Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission Policies on Page 1 -51, the DSEIR, notes that "The Santa Clara vailey Transportation Authwrity would continue to provide public transportation at the project site." With the nearest bus stops about one -half mile away, service is just outside the range of being within comfortable walking distance of the project. Therefore, the language should be changed to "The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation in the vicinity of the project site. " Currently, VTA has no plans to provide tiansit services directly to or adjacent to the project site. 3331 Borth First Street • Son Jose, (A 95134 -1906 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Ustomur Service 408.321.2300 3 City of Gilroy May 23, 2000 Page 2 On Page 2 -85, the SDEIR states that "A sidewalk is provided along the north side of West Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. Sidewalks are not provided along Monterey Frontage Road or Monterey .Road." . To allow patrons of the project to safely and conveniently access the nearest existing bus stops on Thomas Road, VTA staff recommend that the City also consider providing a sidewalk along the south side of Thomas Road. The sidewalk could connect with the Uvas Creek Trail, which will be extended by the project, to create a continuous pedestrian and bicycle pathway from the sports complex to the bus stops. Desil,T,n Elements As the design of the project continues, VTA staff urge the City to ensure that urban design for this and other related projects in the area feature the following elements: • Narrow local streets with sidewalks which directly connect the neighborhood, commercial areas and sports park. This allows residents to access the park and commercial areas by car, foot or bike without burdening the regional transportation network. • A local street network that could accommodate efficient delivery of transit services. • Building design in which parking garages and lots are not the prominent feature facing the streets. • A network of walking and biking paths that connect the sports park, the neighborhood and commercial services. • Buildings that front the streets with small setbacks. This creates a pedestrian- friendly environment. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project and request that future plans and additional information about this project be forwarded to VTA for review and comment. M- noted.in our previous letters, we are still considering the possibility of bringing bus service to the sports park. VTA staff would like to work with City and project staffs on this possibility. If you have any questions, please call Lauren Bobadilla of my staff at (408) 321 -5776. Sincerely, Derek A. Kantar Environmental Program Manager u7:A:filCe3eA?i;1 cc: Roy Molseed, VTA Senior Environmental Analyst Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR 2.0 Response to Comments Response to the Letter from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (May 23, 2000) 1. The comment is noted. The reference to Route 17A will be deleted. The comment is noted. The text will be changed to reflect this information. 3. With development of the parcels fronting on Luchessa Avenue (formerly Thomas Road), sidewalks would be installed, consistent with the City of Gilroy street improvement standards. 4. The comment is noted. Additional environmental review will be required at the time that specific development proposals are submitted to the City. The Revised Draft General Plan contains policies aimed at achieving many of the project designs recommended in this comment. EMC Planning Group County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission county Govemment Center, East wing 70 west Hedding Street, 10th Floor San Jose. CalRomla 951 10 (409) 299 -2424 FAX 295-1613 Autumn Atlas, executive Director RECEIVED MAY 31 2000 may 24, ZUU Gilroy Planning Iv. Melissa Durkin, Planner City of Gilroy Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Re: USA 9803 Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Subs�egAueennt; Mk- Dear Environmental Impact Report I v`k- Dear Thank you for the opportunity to review the Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has a number of comments regarding the DEIR, specifically relating to the project's conformance with County and LAFCO plans and policies. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN A. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 1 (Page 1 -44) "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 1: Most of the future urban growth of Santa Clara County should be accommodated within the existing urban areas, through inftll development, rather than expansion of the urbanized area into hillsides and resource areas. Consistency: The proposed project would expand growth into an area that contains prime farmland, a valuable resource. However, the land is contiguous with developed portions of the City of Gilroy to the north and east and additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project site. The project is a pocket of agricultural land that is largely surrounded by urban development. A review of the approved but not yet developed or completed projects in the City of Gilroy indicates that growth does take place within, or adjacent to, urban areas. The proposed project is consistent with this policy." Comments This proposal is not within the existing Urban Service Area (USA). It is not within the existing city limits. 'There may be available infill sites that could accommodate this proposal (i.e., the Sports Park as well as residential and commercial development.) The Comralssloners: Blanca Alvarado. Donald F. Gage, Manny Diaz, Suzanne Jackson, Susan vlcklund Wilson CommLsslon Secretary: (409) 299 -4321 u,r findings of the Vacant Land Inventory should be included in the SEIR to assist in explaining the conclusion that infill opportunities are unavailable within the USA and so expansion into resource areas is necessary. In addition, the fact that development of other areas takes place adjacent to urban area is irrelevant to consistency of this project with this policy. Therefore, this proposal is not consistent with this policy. B. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 7 (Pages 1-46 and 47) "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 7: Urban expansion should be planned on a staged, orderly basis, consistent with applicable plans (e.g. city, County, countywide plans) and the availability of needed urban services and facilities. The discouragement of expansion of cities' Urban Service Areas should be recommended to the LAFCO. Consistency: The project site has been in the City of Gilroy planning area since 1979 when the current general plan was adopted The 20 -year planning area is expected to accommodate approximately 20 years of urban growth. The City of Gilroy USA is expected to accommodate growth for an approximate five -year period As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain approximate five -year inventory of developable land The City has determined that the project site should now be added to the USA. The project site is contiguous with developed portions of the City of Gilroy to the north and east and additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project site. The project site is a pocket of agricultural land that is largely surrounded by urban development. Development of the project site would result in orderly expansion of the City. Urban services are available close to the project site and will be extended into the project site to serve the approved Sports Park. The proposed project is consistent with this policy." Comments �. The fact the City needs more land in the USA to maintain a five years supply should be corroborated by information from the vacant land inventory. The analysis should include the inventory of vacant land available for a specific land use and the rate of consumption of land for that specific purpose. C. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 8 (Pages 1-47 and 48) "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 8: Proposals to annex land or expand a city's urban service area boundaries shall be approved only if-- a. the city, special districts and affected school districts have the ability to provide all needed public services and facilities to the area within five years and without lessening existing levels of service; b. the existing supply of land within the city's USA accommodates no more than 2 3 five years of planned - growth; c. the area proposed for urban development is contiguous to existing urban areas. Consistency: Each of these factors is considered below: The City of Gilroy approved the Gilroy Sports Park for a portion of the project site and will provide potable water, recycled water and sewer service to the project site for that project. The city has adequate potable water and recycled wastewater supplies and sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would be served by the city police and fire department without the need for new facilities. The Gilroy Unified School District will collect development impact fees from development that occurs on the project site as allowed by State law. Land within Gilroy's Urban Service Area is expected to be substantially developed within five years. As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain an approximate five -year inventory of developable land. The City of Gilroy last requested a USA amendment in October 1992 The City has determined that the project site should now be added to the USA. The project site is contiguous with urban development on the north and east. The proposed project is generally consistent with this policy." Comments As the project includes the residential and commercial aspects in addition to the Sports Park, an evaluation of services to these specific projects should also be included. Again, the vacant land inventory should be used to quantify and determine the vacant land available to analyze if the recreational, residential, and commercial development proposed for this site could be alternatively located on sites within the USA. D, Growth and Development Policy C -GD 9 (Page 1 -48) "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 9: "Proposals to annex land or expand the USA of a city for the purpose of adding lands for employment should be approved only if.• lands planned for employment overall do not exceed the capacity of the city's planned housing supply; or the city's housing element of its General Plan can document that the housing needs of all segments of the community population are being met as stipulated by state law. Consistency: Each of these factors is considered below: 3 The maximum probable development of the project's commercial parcels does not exceed the capacity of the City of Gilroy's planned housing supply. The City of Gilroy has recently updated its Housing Element, although it has yet to be certified by the State. Figure 5 -1 of the housing element contains a summary of quantified objectives, 1988 -2001. The estimates are based on past program performance, construction trends, land availability, and future program funding assumptions. The objectives address below market rate units, rehabilitated or replaced units, very low, low, moderate and above moderate income units. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Comments Lf IThe policy requires that employment overall, not just that proposed by this project, does not exceed the capacity of City's planned housing supply. The total figures for the number of jobs and housing units created by this project should be used to establish this fact. The proposed project cannot be evaluated for consistency without supporting housing and commercial figures. 11. CONSISTENCY WITH.LAFCO POLICIES A. LAFCO Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 4 (Pages 1 -49, 50, 51) 'Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 4: LAFCO will consider factors such as the fallowing to determine the local and regional impacts of a proposed Urban Service Area amendment: The ratio of lands planned far residential use to land planned for employment - producing use; The existence of adequate regional and local transportation capabilities to support the planned city growth; Ability of the city to provide urban services to the growth areas without detracting from current service levels; The ability of school districts to provide school facilities; VMether the conversion of agricultural and other open space lands is premature, or if there are other areas into which to channel growth The role of special districts in providing services; Environmental considerations which may apply; The impacts of proposed city expansion upon the County as a provider of services; Fiscal impacts on other agencies. Consistency: Each of these factors is discussed below: The proposed project would include approximately equal acreage of residential use and commercial use. The residential uses would generate approximately 500 9 residents. A fiscal analysis has been prepared that evaluates the number of job opportunities expected to be generated by the proposed commercial development. The proposed project is served by U.S. highway 101, Monterey Street and other local streets, and the extension of the Uvas Creek Trail, which has been approved. ,Bus service is planned to serve the Sports Park and the sports park master plan includes a bus turn- around and stop. The City of Gilroy would extend domestic and recycled water supply lines and sewer and storm drain lines to the project site as part of the approved sports park project. The City of Gilroy police and fire departments would provide public safety services to the project site. The City has existing or planned capacity to accommodate the proposed project without any decrease in the level of service available to other areas of the city. The project site was included in the City's Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan. The proposed project will add approximately 135 students to Gilroy schools. The Gilroy Unified School District would collect impact fees as allowed by State law. The proposed project would result in the conversion of 54.8 -acres of agricultural land to urban uses. The project site has been in the City of Gilroy 20 -year planning area since the adoption of the current Gilroy General Plan in 1979. Most of the land surrounding the City of Gilroy ahs development constraints, such as the presence of valuable wildlife habitat, flooding risks or prime farmland Much of the land on which the existing City is built had similar characteristics. The alternative site that was identified for study in this SEIR also contained substantial areas offarmland. As the City grows, a certain amount of these valuable resources are often convened into urban land. 77M City is preparing a vacant land analysis to quantify the type and extent of vacant land available within its USA. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation at the project site. An additional service may be extend into the project site. The City of Gilroy would provide most direct services. The USA amendment is subject to the environmental analysis of this SEIR. The proposed project would result in the conversion of prime agricultural land to non- agricultural uses, which is an unavoidable significant impact. Other potential impacts have been identified in this E1R and mitigation measures are presented to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The City of Gilroy would provide police, fire and general government services currently provided by the county if the proposed project is approved No water or sewer services are currently provided to the project site. The County would continue to provide some community health and social .services to residents at the project site. Demand for these would increase with the increase in population. An increase in population within city limits would to some extent also impact County services for law enforcement and parks. A fiscal analysis has been prepared for the proposed project. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority may incur increased costs to serve the project site. -The proposed project is generally consistent with this policy." Comments S The number of jobs and the housing units proposed should be clearly stated to determine if a jobs- housing balance can be established. The proposed project would be removing these parcels from agricultural production prematurely. Again, growth should be channeled within the existing Urban Service Area. A clear distinction can be made between agricultural land inside and outside of an Urban Service Area; in order to promote orderly development, land inside of an Urban Service Area should be used first. With this in mind, it is clear that this land is being removed from agricultural production prematurely, and therefore this proposal is not consistent with this policy. III. Other Items The Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area: The existence of an agricultural preserve is mentioned in the SEIR as a mitigation for conversion of agricultural land for recreational, commercial, and residential purposes. Although the SEIR acknowledges this does not mitigate the impact to a less than significant level, it nonetheless overly emphasizes the compensation for conversion of agricultural land as part of this project in light of the City of Gilroy's possible plan/recent discussion to remove lands from the agricultural preserve. 7 1 Additional Information: The fiscal analysis and vacant land analysis should be included in the SUR to provide factual information that supports the document's conclusions. Also, information on the schedule for adoption of City's General Plan Amendment process is needed as the land uses on which this analysis is conducted are not finalized. If you have any questions regarding these comments, you can reach me at 408/299 -3800 x7027. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report. We look forward to your responses to comments. Sincerely, Neelima Palacherla Executive Director 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR Response to the Letter from County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (May 24, 2000) 1. The sports park is an approved project. The sports park was approved for the project site by the City on June 7, 1999. Although the sports park remains outside the City limits and USA, it is located within the 20 -year planning area for Gilroy. The site on which the sports park was approved is designated as OPEN SPACE and PARK /PUBLIC FACILITIES in the Gilroy General Plan and as PARK /RECREATION FACILITY in the Revised Draft General Plan. Three alternative sites for the sports park were analyzed in the EIR certified by the City of Gilroy on June 7, 1999. Because a large, level site is required for the sports park, the range of potential alternative sites was limited. The approved sports park site is closer to utility infrastructure, regional transportation infrastructure, and lodging compared to the alternative sites. The sports park will draw users from throughout the region, and good regional access to the site is important. Traffic impacts were worse at all of the alternative sites. The commercial and residential land proposed for inclusion in the USA amendment was included for the purpose of attaining a largely contiguous extension of the USA. A reduced project size alternative is evaluated in the Subsequent Draft EIR, which excludes the four commercial parcels south of the sports park access road from the USA amendment request, while retaining the contiguity of the area to the existing USA. This alternative reduces the project site from 140.2 acres to 125.2 acres, and the commercial area from 27.1 to 12.1 acres. The commercial parcels north of the sports park access road, and the residential parcels north of the sports park site, are necessary in conjunction with the sports park site, to avoid an island or narrow peninsula of land outside the USA. Alternative sites for the commercial and residential uses are analyzed in the Subsequent Draft EIR. A vacant land inventory was prepared in conjunction with the proposed project, but was not complete at the time the Subsequent Draft EIR was released for public review. The vacant land inventory was completed in June 2000, reflecting project approvals as of March 15, 2000, and has been updated for inclusion in the Subsequent Final EIR to reflect RDO allocations as of April 2000 (RDO allocations are approved by the City in April of even - numbered years), and site and architecture approvals through December 21, 2001. The Vacant Land Inventory is included in Appendix B. The vacant land inventory indicates that there is a nine -year supply of residential land, a 23 -year supply of General Services Commercial land, and a four -year supply of Commercial Industrial land. Although the residential and commercial uses could be located on sites already within the USA, the sports park, is an already approved project, and alternative sites within the USA were less appropriate. 2. The vacant land inventory indicates that the City has a nine -year supply of residential land, a 23 -year supply of General Services Commercial land and a four -year 2 -20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR:. _ 2.0 Response to Comments supply of Commercial Industrial land. A five -year supply of land is approximately 44 acres for General Services Commercial land, approximately 15 acres for Commercial Industrial land, and approximately 2,000 units for residential land. Therefore, the project,site would accommodate approximately a three -year supply of General Services Commercial land and a nine -year supply of Commercial Industrial land. At an average density of nine units per acre, the project site would accommodate approximately 250 housing units, or a half -year supply. The City has approved the sports park on the project site and desires to include it within its USA. No equally appropriate site was available for the sports park within the existing USA. The residential and commercial area are included in the USA amendment request to achieve a more contiguous USA area than would be possible with inclusion of the sports park site alone. 3. Fire protective services, police protective services, schools, water supply, and wastewater disposal were analyzed for the entire proposed project, including recreational, residential, and commercial components. No significant adverse environmental impacts were identified. 4. There are currently approximately 20 commercial jobs for every acre of commercial development in the City of Gilroy: Based on this current ratio, the 27 acres of proposed commercial development could be expected to generate approximately 540 jobs. According to the fiscal analysis prepared for the sports park, the sports park'would generate approximately four full- time - equivalent jobs. Thus, the total jobs generated would be approximately 544. At an average density of nine units per acre, the project site would accommodate approximately 250 housing units. Therefore, the jobs - housing balance of the project site alone would be approximately 2.17. The proposed general plan jobs - housing balance of between 2.59 and 3.03 indicates a surplus of jobs compared to housing. However, the Draft EnWronmemal impact Reportfor the City of Gilroy Revised Draft General Plan found the high jobs - housing balance to have a less than significant impact on the regional jobs - housing balance (Denise Duffy and Associates, September 2001). The proposed project land uses are consistent with those of the Revised Draft General Plan. As a component of the proposed general plan's build - out, the proposed project would contribute towards thatchange in the jobs- housing balance. However, the job - housing balance on the project site is lower than that of the overall general plan area, so the proposed project serves to moderate the overall jobs - housing balance. 5. Refer to'the response to Comment 4. 6. The Subsequent Draft EIR acknowledges that the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area does not reduce impacts to agricultural lands to a less than significant level. Although the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 133.2 acres of prime farmland, the proposed project would not remove any land from the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area. 7. The comment is noted. The vacant land inventory is included in Appendix Band the fiscal analysis is included in Appendix D. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -21 Santo. Clara Volley Water District Community Projects Review Unit, Main Building 5750 Almaden Expressway, Son Jose, CA 95118 My PhoneNumber: (408).265 -2607 eat. 2319 My Fax Plumber: (408) 266-9751 My E -mail: yr d.dst.ea.us Data; 5/2S /OD , voaaro °� evw To Company or Agency Fax Numbeir Mr'- Bryan Stice City of Gilroy 846-0429 From: Yvonne Arroyo Total Pages, including cover sheet: 2 Sub jeCt: Gilroy Sports Park DEIR, City of Gilrmy File USA 98 -03 Message: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental impart Report (DEiR) for the subject project, received on April 10, 2000. The District has the following comments on the D E IR The original letter will follow in the mail. Page 2=36, Mitigation Measure 3 The potential introduction of non - native invasive plant species to the Uvas Creek riparian corridor was identified in the AF,iR as•a potentially significant impact: The mitigation measure consists of making provisions in the landscape plans that only native grasses or other native non - invasive species will be allowed in the Uvas Creek habitat corridor. The District recommends that this measure be modified to allow only native, non 4nvasive species grown from local (preferably within 5 miles of the project site or within the uvas Creek watemhed) parent stock. Z Page 2-49, Project Site Setting The first line in the fast paragraph on this page states that the hydrology study VmPared by Schaaf and Wheeler m May 1999 encompasses all but the northern-most portions of the project site. However, the hydrology study also does not include the prnposed commercial areas of the project site. The 1,mits of the hydrology study assumed that the proposed commercial area was to be open space in its developed condition in addition, the 3 hydrology shy was based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency 100 -year flow rate of 14,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) for existing conditions. The District and the Army Corps of Engineers have calculated a 100 -year design flow rate of 17,000 cfs. The design flow rate of 171000 cfs should be used in the hydrology study to determine the potential impacts of the future sports park, proposed residential areas and proposed commercial areas. r} Page 2 -30, Storm Water Runoff' The District disagrees that the increase in land use from open space/agricultural to commercial and residential will not have any impact on the existing flood flows in Uvas Creek without verification through a hydrology W1y. Analysis should be provided showing that the post- developed runoff from the proposed commercial and Ileadquarters/Mailing Address, 5750 Almaden Ezpressway,'San Joae, CA 95118, (408) 265 -2600 a >.. icsidential areas will not be greater than the pre-developed condition. The analysis should show that there will not be any increase in flood flows to Uvas Creek after mom de�elopment..The W analysis should study the 100 ye flood condition as well te. freq 00-yea u fl ent flood events. Mitigation measures, such as detention ponds, should be designed on an area -wide or regional basis rather than on an individual basis. S IPage 2-56, Less Than Significant Impact - Increased Flood Rows on Uvaa Creek See above comment. 6 Id' age 2 -56, Mitigation Measure .0 sed hydrology study should include the aformnemtioned analysis of pre - developed runoff and post. eveloped runoff: 71te development should be designed such that any inerrase in runoff will be mitigated for. Any questions may be referred to Ms. Yvonne Aaoyo at (408) 265 -2607, extension 2319. We look forward to reviewing the Environmental impact Report when it is available. Sincerely, Sue A.'llppcts. P.E. Engineering Unit Manager Community Projects Review link Headquarters/Mailing Address, 5750 Mmaden Expressway, sau Joses CA 95118, (408) 265 -2600 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR Response to the Letter from Santa Clara Valley Water District (May 25, 2000) 1. The comment is noted. The wording of the mitigation measure has been revised to include the condition that plant material be locally obtained. It should be noted that the equivalent mitigation measure that was adopted by the City when the Gilroy Sports -Park and USA Amendment EIR was certified on June 9, 1999, and which applies to the sports park portion of the project site, did contain a provision that plant materials be locally obtained. 2. The hydrology study prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler in May 1999 included almost all of the commercial areas of the project site, with the exception of approximately 1.5 acres at the northern end of the proposed commercial area. Most of the residential area was not included in the study. A revised hydrology study was prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler in January 2002, and includes the proposed residential and commercial portions of the project site. The revised hydrology study is included in Appendix C. 3. The revised hydrology study addresses both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) flow rates for Uvas Creek in analyzing potential storm flooding on the project site. Using the Corps 100 -year flow rate of 17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), the overflow onto the project site would be 6,600 cfs, compared to 4,640 cfs using the FEMA 100 -year flow rate of 14,000 cfs. Mitigation Measure 13, requiring a hydrology study prior to approval of specific development plans within the 100 -year flood areas of the project site, has been revised to require the use of the Army Corps of Engineers flow rates for Uvas Creek. 4. The revised hydrology report analyzes existing and projected storm water run -off from the project site at build -out. Construction of the proposed project would increase run -off from the project site. However, the hydrology report concludes that the peak run -off times would be off -set from the peak storm flows in Uvas Creek and therefore would not contribute significantly to flood conditions in Uvas Creek. Due to grading of the sports park site, which lowers the middle of the sports park site to provide a reservoir during flood conditions, no increase in local off -site flood levels would occur as a result of the proposed project. 5. Refer to the response to Comment 4. 6. Refer to the response to Comment 4. 2 -24 EMC Planning Group Inc. r -, 3.0 Revised Summary Project Background and History To address a lack of sports facilities for City residents, the City of Gilroy proposed the construction of a sports park on land immediately south of the City. The proposed project included the construction of the sports park and related off -site improvements and a USA amendment request for the 78.36 -acre sports park site and 61.85 acres of surrounding land. Because only a 100 -foot wide driveway connected the sports park site to the existing USA, the surrounding land was included in the USA amendment to make the amendment area more contiguous to the existing USA. The City of Gilroy certified the EIR for the sports park and USA amendment and approved the sports park master plan on June 7, 1999. A USA amendment request was submitted to the Santa Clara County LAFCO on June 23, 1999. Santa Clara County LAFCO requested additional environmental review of the USA amendment request based on proposed new land use designations in the Revised Draft General Plan. The parcels that were a part of the USA amendment request but not proposed for sports park development were analyzed in the certified EIR based on the existing Gilroy General Plan designation of OPEN SPACE. The Revised Draft General Plan designates 27.72 acres of this area as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and the remaining 27.13 acres of this area as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. This SEIR addresses the anticipated change in general plan designation for these parcels. Proposed Project The proposed project includes a USA amendment for the entire 140.21 -acre project site, _o which includes the approved Gilroy Sports park and habitat buffer on 78.36 acres, an approved trail extension and habitat buffer on 7.00 acres, proposed residential land use designation on 27.72 acres and proposed commercial land use .designation on 27.13 acres. The entire 140.21 -acre project site is proposed for inclusion into the City's USA, and, annexation to the City. The proposed project includes 27.13 acres designated in the Revised Draft General Plan as COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES. Commercial development would take place on two portions of the project site along Monterey Frontage Road, straddling the sports park entry road. Two parcels totaling 12.12 acres are located north of the sports park entry road and four parcels totaling 15.01 acres are located south of the sports park entry road. The proposed project includes 27.72 acres designated in the Revised Draft General Plan as RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The residential area would be immediately north of the approved Gilroy EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -1 3.0 Revised Summary Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR Sports Park and the area proposed for COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES designation along Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15063 an initial study was prepared to determine the potentially significant effects of the proposed project. The initial study determined that certain issues would have a potentially significant impact on the environment. These issues concerned agricultural considerations, geology, hydrology, public services and service systems, biological resources, transportation /circulation, air quality, noise, archaeological resources, and aesthetics. Those issues determined to have a potentially significant environmental impact were studied in greater depth in an EIR. The City of Gilroy certified that EIR on June 7, 1999, Based on proposed new land use designations in the Revised Draft General Plan, this SEIR was prepared for the annexation of the entire project site and for commercial and residential development on land previously studied as open space. Environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed project are presented in Table S -1. Summary of Other CEQA Considerations Unavoidable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the'implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that a lead agency make findings of overriding considerations for unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts before approving a proposed project. Loss of Agricultural Land The loss of prime farmland is considered a significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impact. The proposed project would result in the loss of the 54.8 acres of prime farmland (though some of this land is used for commercial and rural residential uses). In conjunction with the approved Gilroy Sports Park, which is within the project site, the loss of prime farmland would be 133.21 acres. The implementation of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area by both the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara serves as a partial mitigation for losses of prime farmland in southern Santa Clara County. However, it does not reduce the loss of prime farmland to a less than significant level and the proposed project would still be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on prime farmland. 3 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment Subsequent Final E1R 3.0 Revised Summary Noise Impacts Activities at the approved. but not yet constructed sports park including athletic events and traffic entering and exiting the project site would generate long -term noise. The noise generated by these activities would be up to 63 dBAnNT. thereby exceeding acceptable City standards (60 dBAD r) at the proposed residential area north of the sports nark. In addition, activities at the approved, but not yet constructed sports park including spectator shouting and public address system announcements would eng erate short -term annoyance noise at the residential area. The short-term noise generated by these activities would be W to 80 dBA. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce both long -tern and short-term operational noise impacts to a less than significant level. To reduce the long -term noise to a less than significant level a six -foot tall acoustically effective barrier would be required along the northern boundary of the sports park site. To reduce flanking noise the barrier would continue along the east boundary of the residential area for a distance of 100 feet. Implementation of the mitieation measures necessary to reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level would not be feasible. The location of the barrier is partly within the SCVWD flood flowage easement and placement of the barrier would potentially impede the flow of floodwaters and could result in increased flooding impacts in other areas Therefore, sorts park noise impacts on the proposed residential area would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build -out. exterior noise levels from traffic on Monterev Street would exceed City standards at adjacent proposed residential areas. Noise exceeding City noise standards would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Although a noise attenuation barrier would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, this portion of the project site is located within a flood zone and a sound attenuation barrier would not be feasible if the barrier were to interfere with flood flows or affect off -site flood levels. Additionally, a noise barrier would place a visually obtrusive element along southern Monterey Street a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan This could result in a secondary visual impact Because of the potential for secondary impacts to hydrology and aesthetics exterior noise levels in excess of City standards in this location would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build -out exterior noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street A. sound attenuation barrier would be required to reduce the level of noise to within City standards. Because of unknown variables, the exact requirements for mitigation of the noise impact cannot be determined at this time. It is probable that reducing noise to an acceptable level would require a sound attenuation barrier that is taller than would be considered aesthetically acceptable by the City. Implementation of a mitigation measure presented in Section 2.8 Noise would reduce the impact, but because the height of the attenuation barrier would be limited the impact would probably not be reduced to a less than significant level. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -3 3.0 Revised Summary Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those environmental impacts resulting from the cumulative effects of approved but not.yet built projects and probable projects in the area of the proposed project. Cumulative impacts were based on projects in the southern part of Gilroy. Investigation indicated that the proposed project might make significant contributions to cumulative impacts in the areas of agricultural resources, air quality hydrology, and transportation /circulation. Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to transportation were found to be mitigated to a less than significant level by project level mitigation measures. No cumulative impacts were found in the areas of air quality and hydrology. Agricultural Considerations The proposed project would add 133.2 acres of prime farmland to the City of Gilroy Urban Service Area. Land within the Urban Service Area is generally expected to be developed within an approximate five -year timeframe. Prime farmland is a non - replaceable resource. Each cumulative project that involves the conversion of prime farmland to non- agricultural uses contributes to the depletion of this resource. Transportation /Circulation A traffic impact assessment prepared for the proposed project determined that the increase in traffic associated with the proposed project and other proposed or existing development would result in traffic congestion at three intersections and along one roadway segment. Mitigation measures in Section 2.14 Transportation/ Circulation would reduce tiis these impacts to a less than significant level. - Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of prime agricultural land. While this loss is mitigated in part by the establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area, the prime agricultural land lost to the proposed project is not replaceable. The loss of prime agricultural land would be a significant irreversible change. Growth Inducing Impacts The proposed project itself is an extension of urban services into a previously un -served . area. Although all urban service infrastructure is currently available near the project site, the approval of the USA amendment would make that infrastructure available to the ` project site itself and would result in future growth and development in that area. The project site is currently within the City of Gilroy 20 -year development area. The proposed project would transfer the project site into the City of Gilroy USA. Provision of urban services and development within a USA is generally expected to occur within EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment Subsequent Final EIR 3.0 Revised Summary an approximate five -year timeframe. The Gilroy Sports Park has previously been approved for a portion of the project site, and a residential development is undergoing the RDO process for the northern portion of the project site. Approval of the USA amendment request would encourage and facilitate development within the project site. Extension of services to the southern parcels on the project site and development of these parcels could result in development pressure on the land south of the project site. Although this area is designated in the Revised Draft General Plan as OPEN SPACE, the landowners may request a USA amendment and a change in general plan designation to open their land to development. Similar pressures may be felt to the west of Uvas Creek where a finger of land less than one -half mile wide would remain outside the Gilroy USA. These areas were included in the Water Master Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. Summary of Alternatives Analysis The following alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed to determine if they would achieve project objectives while minimizing, environmental impacts. The following project alternatives were analyzed: • Alternative #1 "No Project' alternative; The USA request is not approved by Santa Clara County LAFCO and no development takes place on the portion of the project site outside the sports park. The approved sports park is developed outside the urban service area at its approved location. • Alternative #2 Reduced Project Size alternative; The USA request is reduced by 15.01 acres by eliminating the four parcels located south of the sports park access road. The resulting project site has a total of 125:20 acres, with 27.72 acres of proposed residential area and 12.12 acres of proposed commercial area. The sports park is added to the USA as part of this alternative. • Alternative #3 Alternative Site alternative; An addition to the Gilroy USA is made on the west side of Monterey Street at Day Road in northern Gilroy. The project has approximately 25 acres of proposed residential area and 25 acres of proposed commercial area. The approved sports park is developed outside the USA at its already approved location. The "No Project " alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, because it eliminates the unavoidable significant impact of loss of prime farmland and it results in reduced environmental impacts. Although there are no environmental impacts for the "No Project" alternative, it does result in the highest water use because it retains the project site in water - intensive agricultural use. For this reason it is considered worse than the proposed project and other alternatives in terms of impacts to the water supply. The Reduced Project Size alternative is the next best alternative. It reduces the magnitude of the unavoidable significant impact to agricultural resources, and also reduces impacts on air quality, hydrology and transportation. The Reduced Project Size EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -5 3.0 Revised Summary Gilroy USA Amendment 96 -03 Subsequent Final EIR alternative would not significantly reduce the potential noise impacts at the residential development along Monterey Road and West Luchessa Avenue. If mitigation fails to fully mitigate noise in those areas, the noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Alternative Site alternative reduces conversion of agricultural land, and especially conversion of Prime Farmland. More of the Alternative Site is already developed than the project site. The Alternative Site alternative may have slightly reduced impacts on biological resources, and would eliminate the possibility of a significant unavoidable impact from noise. The Alternative Site alternative also reduces the hydrological impacts of the proposed project. 3 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. F) w V 1 _ , TABLE S -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Area of Concern Impact Levelof Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Aesthetics Change in Rural Character Less Than N /A. None Less Thad Development of the project site Significant Required Significant would permanently alter the existing rural character of the area. The view from U.S. Highway 101 would become more' urban than it is currently. However, surrounding parcels to the north and east are already developed and the approved sports park will provide an area of transition between the built and rural environments. Aesthetics. Nighttime Lighting The proposed Potentially 1 Residential development on the parcels Less Than project would. place residences near Significant north of the sports park shall provide a Significant the planned athletic field lights of landscape plan that includes a double row the approved Gilroy Sports Park. of trees along the sports park boundary, Several of the planned lights are utilizing tree species that will attain a within 400 to 500 feet of, and crown between 30 and 50 feet above street aimed towards the nearest homes. level prior to occupancy of the houses These field fights would be directly located within 100 feet of the sports park. visible from these houses' windows. Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Agricultural Loss of Prime Farmland Unavoidable N/A The establishment of the Gilroy Unavoidable Resources Approval of'the Urban Service Significant Agricultural Lands Area by both the City Significant Area amendment and development of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara of parcels adjacent to the sports serves as a regional mitigation for losses..of park site, would.result in the loss prime farmland in southern Santa Clara of 54.85 acres of designated prime County outside of the agricultural lands farmland. Approximately 49.85 area. Although this regional mitigation acres of this farmland would be has been implemented, it does not reduce converted from agricultural the loss of prime farmland to a less than production. significant level and the proposed project would still be considered to have a Cumulative Project Loss of Prime . significant and unavoidable impact on Farmland. prime farmland. Approval of the Urban Service Area amendment and development of parcels adjacent to the sports park site, in conjunction with development of the approved sports park, would result in the loss of 133.21 acres of designated prime farmland. Approximately 128.21 acres of this farmland would be converted from agricultural production. Agricultural Conflict With Williamson Act, No N/A None No Resources Contract.. Six of the parcels on Impact Required Impact the.project site were previously under Williamson Act contract. None. of these contracts is currently in effect. The parcels most recently in Williamson Act contract were non- renewed effective in January 1999. Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Agricultural Effect on Adjacent Agricultural Potentially N/A The establishment of the Gilroy Potentially Resources Uses. Implementation of the Unavoidable. Agricultural Lands Area by both the City Unavoidable proposed project could induce the Significant of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara Significant adjacent farmland to the south of serves as a regional mitigation for losses of the project site and nearby prime farmland in southern Santa Clara farmland to the west of the project County outside of the agricultural lands site to be converted to non- area. Although this regional mitigation agricultural uses. These parcels has been implemented, it does not reduce adjacent to the project site are the loss of prime farmland to a less than within the proposed City of Gilroy significant level and the proposed project 20 -year planning area but are would still be considered to have a proposed to be designated for open significant and unavoidable impact on space uses. Development pressures prime farmland. could result in a change of general plan designation and subsequent development. Air Quality Proposed Project Operations Less Than N/A None Less Than BAAQMD determines the Significant Required Significant thresholds of significance for general plans, master plans annexations and similar projects based on the project's consistency with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan, which is in turn consistent. with the Clean Air Plan. Air Quality Project Construction Potentially 2 Dust control measures shall be incorporated Less Than Significant into all permits for any phase of proposed Significant construction on the ro'ect site. M n Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Biological Loss of Habitat. Due to No N/A None No Resources continuous human interaction, Impact Required Impact agricultural fields typically provide little habitat for wildlife and do not represent a significant biological resource. Biological Invasive Plant Species. The Significant 3 Project plans shall include a habitat buffer Less Than Resources riparian habitat along Uvas Creek designed to include appropriate locally Significant could be affected by the presence of obtained native plant species and shall not non - native, invasive plant species. include plantings of non - native, invasive plant species. Wherever possible, the east side of the trail shall be planted with native grasses or other native species to provide additional native habitat. Biological Raptors. Construction activities in Potentially 4 A field survey shall be conducted by a Less Than Resources or near the riparian woodland Significant qualified biologist to determine if active Significant habitat found along Uvas Creek raptor nests are present in the construction could result in the direct loss of zone or within 250 feet of the construction white -tailed kite, northern harrier, zone if any construction would occur Cooper's hawk, and short -eared ' during the nesting and /or breeding season owl nests, including eggs and of raptors potentially nesting in the areas young, or the abandonment of an proposed for development (generally March active nest by the adults. 1 through August 1). If active nests are found, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until the nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. No w 0 j m m n a M - no Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Biological Burrowing owing Owls. Construction Potentially 5 surveys shall be conducted to determine if burrowing owls are present in Less Than Resources activity along the slope of the Significant the construction zone or within 250 feet of Significant levee in the northwest corner of the construction zone if any construction the project site, could result in the would occur during the nesting and /or direct loss of burrowing owl nests, breeding season of burrowing owls including eggs and young, or the potentially nesting in the area (February 1 abandonment of an active nest by through August 31) and /or during the the adults. winter residency period (December 1 and January 31). If active nests are found, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall be prepared. Biological Riparian Special- Status Species Potentially 6 A qualified biologist shall inform workers Less Than Resources Several special - status species may Significant of the potential presence of the all special- Significant potentially occur in Uvas Creek status species, their protected status, work and in the riparian habitat adjacent boundaries, and measures to be to Uvas Creek. Any adverse effects implemented to avoid loss of these species on these special- status species, if during construction activities. present, resulting from construction All food - related trash items shall be activities associated with the residential area adjacent to the enclosed in sealed containers and regularly riparian habitat would be a 7 removed from the project area to deter Significant impact. attraction of potential predators Biological Effects of Nighttime Lighting on Potentially g Luminaires in the proposed residential area shall be limited in height to 20 feet and Less Than Resources Wildlife Lighting of roads in the Significant shall be of a full cutoff design to reduce Significant proposed residential area could spill light spillage to adjacent areas. Luminaires over into the riparian habitat and located along a street adjacent to the Uvas disturb wildlife, restrict the Creek levee shall be located to the east side movement or activity of wildlife, or of the street. facilitate increased predation of wildlife species. m Z3 s c� 0 a Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual I Concern Significance Number Impact Cultural Historic Horses The project site Potentially g Prior to removal of any of the potentially historic houses on the project site an Less Than Resources contains four potentially historic Significant historical evaluation shall be completed. Significant houses. These houses are likely to The historic evaluation shall include an be removed to accommodate future architectural description of the structure, an development on the project site. historic background for the property and the The houses may also have completion of an appropriate State significant buried historic resources Department of Parks and Recreation form associated with them. with photographic documentation Cultural Currently unidentified buried Potentially 10 The city shall contract with a qualified Less Than Resources cultural resources may be found Significant archaeologist to arrange a schedule for Significant during construction on the project monitoring the project site during grading site. and excavation activities. 11 If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted and the area shall be staked off. The project developer shall notify a qualified professional archaeologist. If human remains are found during 12 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. Geology Seismic Hazards. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than project exposes people or structures Significant Required Significant to a small risk of potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic hazards. w 0 m 0 w m A Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Hydrology Flood Flows in Uvas Creek. Storm Less Than N/A None Less Than water run -off from impervious Significant Required Significant surfaces could increase the rate of storm water discharge into Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River draina e. Hydrology On -Site Flooding. The proposed Potentially 13 A hydrology report, based on the Arm v Less Than commercial area and portions of the Significant Corps of Engineers flow rates for Uvas Significant proposed residential area are Creek shall be prepared to address the within 100 -year flood zones as following requirements: er identified on the FEMA maps. Site plans and building designs shall The Gilroy Floodplain Control comply with the City of Gilroy Unavoidable Ordinance allows development Flood Plain Control Ordinance. Signifieaut within 100 -year floodplains Development on the project site provided certain measures are shall not impede the flow of taken to prevent potential damage floodwaters. from flooding. Portions of the Procedures shall be developed and commercial area are within a 25- site plans designed that will assure year flood zone based on a that any materials, supplies or hydrology study conducted for the goods used, stored or hold for sale sports park. Development within at the proposed use that may these areas prone to flooding present health hazards or risks of presents potential risks to health water contamination during flood and safety of people and damage to conditions are securely kept at least buildings and property. one foot above the 100 -year flood level. Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in floodwater levels off the project site. Area of Impact I Level of I Mitigation Mitigation Measure I Residual Concern Significance Number ,Impact Hydrology Secondary l,npact Off -Site Potentially 13 See Above. Less Than Flooding. Mitigation required for Significant Significant construction within the floodplain could potentially result in diversion of floodwaters and increases in flood levels off the project site. Hydrology Flood Flowage Easement. SCVWD Potentially 13 See Above. Less Than holds a flood flowage easement that Significant Significant restricts land use and development on a large portion of the project site. Inappropriate development within this easement could put structures at risk of damage and people at risk of injury or death from storm - related flooding. Hydrology Surface Water Quality During Significant 14 The City shall submit a Notice of Intent Less than Construction. Grading will and detailed engineering designs to the Significant expose sediments to rain or wind Central Coast Regional Water Quality erosion and subsequent Control Board, and implement a Storm transportation of sediments to Uvas Water Pollution Prevention Plan that uses Creek. Materials used and wastes storm water "Best Management Practices" generated during construction to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation would degrade water quality also. from the site. Non -point source pollutants from urban activity at the project site 15 The City shall submit plans for review by, would be released and obtain an approved permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. c� °c a Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Hydrology Surface Water Quality During 16 A sedimentation basin shall be included in Less Than Operation. Contaminants common plans. Additional. "best practices" Significant to urban area storm water and operational measures may be required for irrigation run -off could potentially specific projects. result in the pollution of Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River. These contaminants could be transported to the drainage system, polluting downstream water systems. Noise Long -Term and Short-term Noise . Unavoidable N/A To reduce the long -term noise to a less Unavoidable from _Sports Park Activities. Significant than significant level, a six-foot tall Significant Athletic events and traffic entering acoustically effective barrier would be and exiting the project site would required along the northern boundary of generate long -term noise at the the sports park site. The location of the proposed residential area north of barrier is partly within the'SCVWD flood the sports park. Spectator shouting flowage easement. Placement of the and public address system barrier would potentially impede the flow announcements, would generate of floodwaters and could result in increased short-term, annoyance noise authe flooding impacts in other areas. residential area: Noise Exterior Traffic Noise at Residential Unavoidable N/A This portion of the project site is located Unavoidable, Areas along Monterey Street. At Significant within a flood zone, and a sound Significant. General Plan build -out, noise ., attenuation barrier would not be feasible if levels from traffic on Monterey the barrier were to interfere with flood Street would exceed City standards flows or affect off -site flood levels. at adjacent proposed residential Additionally, a noise barrier would place a areas. visually obtrusive element along southern Monterey Street, a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 19992020 General Plan. This would result in a secondary visual impact. m m` CL W J Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Noise Exterior Traffic Noise at Residential Unavoidable 17 A sound attenuation barrier eight feet in Unavoidable Areas along West Luchessa Significant height shall be constructed along West Significant Avenue. At General Plan build- Luchessa Avenue. out, noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street. Noise Interior Noise Levels at Residential Potentially 18 An acoustical study shall establish Less Than Areas. Traffic and sports park noise Significant engineering requirements to be included in Significant at the proposed residential area construction plans to maintain interior would exceed 45 dBA. noise levels at no greater than 45 dBADNL• Noise Short-term Construction Noise. Significant 19 Construction activities shall be limited to Less Than Construction activities at the specified hours. Significant project site.could result in high levels of noise. Fire Protection Fire Services The proposed project No Impact N/A None No Impact Services does not result in the need for Required additional facilities for the provision of fire protective services, and would not decrease the level of these services provided to any part of the community. m a w V Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Police Police Services. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than Protection project does not result in the need Significant Required Significant Services- for additional facilities for the provision of police services, and would not decrease the level of these services provided to any part of the community. Schools Student Enrollment Exceeding Las Than N/A None Less Than Capacity The proposed project Significant Required Significant would add approximately 120 students to the GUSD. Enrollment is currently over capacity at the District's elementary schools and high school. However, since some students drop out each year, actual attendance is close to capacity. The District is constructing a new.elementary school and has plans to construct a new middle school. In addition, grade level re- distribution among schools ,will bring kindergarten through 8th grade enrollment close to capacity for each of those grade levels. w 0 A bi CD G CO d w S CO w 0 N A a a Ana of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure : Residual a Concern Significance Number Impact 6 C Water Supply Construction of Potable Water and Less Than N/A None Less Than n Recycled Water Infrastructure. The Significant Required Significant proposed project. does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing potable or recycled water supply infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of -ways would serve the proposed proiect. Water Supply City Water Supply. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than project would result in an Significant Required Significant incremental increase in demand for potable water that is within the City of Gilro s ability to provide. c Water Supply Groundwater Supply. The Beneficial N/A None Beneficial proposed project would result in an Required C overall decrease in water use. i Less groundwater would be x required from the Llagas Groundwater Sub Basin to supply the project site. m Wastewater Construction of Wastewater Less Than N/A None Less Than Infrastructure. The proposed Significant Required Significant project does not require substantial c extensions or upgrades to the m existing wastewater infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of -ways would serve the proposed project. m N A P G Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual ` Concern Significance Number Impact i Transportation West Luchessa Avenue /Princevalle Less Than N/A None Less Than a Circulation Street. Traffic impacts at this Significant Required Significant intersection would improve to acceptable levels with signalization that is already included in the City's Capital Improvement Budget, a and is programmed for `a implementation in 2001 or 2002. Transportation West Luchessa Avenue /Church Significant 20 The following street improvements shall be Less Than Circulation Street. The addition of project made to the intersection of West Luchessa Significant traffic to the West Luchessa Avenue and Church Street: Avenue /Church Street installation of a traffic signal with two- intersection would cause both phase operation; overall intersection operations and re- configuration of the northbound and the worst approach to deteriorate southbound approaches as necessary to from acceptable operating levels to provide one approach lane for all LOS F during both the PM and movements; Saturday peak hours, provision of one left-turn lane and one shared through and right -rum lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Transportation Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue. Significant 21 The following street improvements shall be Less Than Circulation The intersection of Monterey made to the intersection of Monterey Street Significant Street and Luchessa Avenue is and Luchessa Avenue: projected to degrade from LOS C to construction of a second northbound LOS F during the PM peak hour left -turn lane and an exclusive S with the addition of project- eastbound right -turn lane; ` generated traffic. addition of a right -tum arrow for the eastbound right -turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move C while the northbound left -turn e movement has a green arrow). P Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure I Residual Impact Following or in conjunction with the Transportation Monterey Street/Monterey Significant 22 signalization of the intersection of Less Than Circulation Frontage Road. The operation of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Significant the Monterey Street /Monterey Road, the following street improvements Frontage Road intersection is shall be made: projected to deteriorate from re- configuration of the southbound acceptable level under Background approach as necessary to provide one Conditions to LOS F during the left -turn lane, two through lanes, PM and Saturday peak hours with two right -turn lanes; the addition of project traffic and re- configuration of the westbound construction of the proposed traffic approach as necessary to provide one signal. shared lane for all movements; re- configuration of the northbound approach as necessary to two left- turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through /right - turn lane; re- configuration of the eastbound approach as necessary to provide one exclusive left -turn lane, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -turn lane. right -turn arrows shall be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three study periods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound approaches. w 0 m 4.0 Changes t0 the Draft EIR Text The following discussion ofsignicant unavoidable noise impacts is added to page S -2. The unavoidable significant noise impacts were included in the summary table on pageS -15 and S -16, and identified in the project noise analysis on page 2 -60 through 2 -68, but were inadvertently omitted from the summary text in the Subsequent DEIR. Activities at the approved but not yet constructed sports park including athletic events and traffic entering and exiting the project site would generate long -term noise The noise generated by these activities would be up to 63 dBA„Nr . thereby exceeding acceptable City standards (60 dBADNr) at the proposed residential area north of the sports park. In addition. activities at the approved, but not yet constructed sports park, including spectator shouting and public address system announcements would generate short -term. annoyance noise at the residential area. The short-term noise generated by these activities would be up to 80 dBA. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce both long -term and short-term operational noise impacts to a less than significant level To reduce the long -term noise to a less than significant level a six -foot tall acoustically effective barrier would be required along the northern boundary of the sports park site To reduce flanking noise, the barrier would continue along the east boundary of the residential area for a distance of 100 feet. Implementation of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level would not be feasible The location of the barrier is partly within the SCVWD flood flowage easement and placement of the barrier would potentially impede the flow of floodwaters and could result in increased flooding impacts in other areas. Therefore sports park noise impacts on the proposed residential area would be an unavoidable significant impact At General Plan build -out exterior noise levels from traffic on Monterey Street would exceed City standards at adjacent proposed residential areas Noise exceeding City noise standards would be a significant adverse environmental impact Although a noise attenuation barrier would reduce this impact to a less than significant level this on rtion of the eject site is located within a flood zone and a sound attenuation barrier would not be feasible if the barrier were to interfere with flood flows or affect off -site flood levels. Additionally a noise barrier would place a visually obtrusive element along southern Monterey Street a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. This could result in a secondary visual impact Because of the potential for secondary impacts to hydrology and aesthetics exterior noise levels in excess of City standards in this location would be an unavoidable significant impact At General Plan build -out exterior noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street A EMC Planning Group Inc. q -q 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR considered aesthetically acceptable by the City. Implementation of a mitigation measure presented in Section 2.8 Noise would reduce the impact, but because the height of the attenuation barrier would be limited, the impact would probably not be reduced to a less than significant level. The following grammatical error on Page S -3 is corrected. A traffic impact assessment prepared for the proposed project determined that the increase in traffic associated with the proposed project and other proposed or existing development would result in traffic congestion at three intersections and along one roadway segment. Mitigation measures in Section 2.14 Transportation/ Circulation would reduce this these impacts to a less than significant level'. The following change is made to page 1 -51 to reflect the cessation of transit service on Route 174: f. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation at near the project site. An additional service may be extend into the project site. The City of Gilroy would provide most direct services. Mitigation Measure 3 on page 2 -36 has been revised to require the use of locally obtained plant materials, and to remove a grammatical error. Mitigation Measure 3. A landscape plan consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy shall be prepared. for common and street side planting areas areas abutting the Uvas Creek habitat corridor, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The landscape plan shall include appropriate locallYobtained native plant species and shall not include plantings of non - native, invasive plant species. Native grasses or other native species shall be preferred in the areas adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee to provide additional native habitat in association with the Uvas Creek habitat corridor. Mitigation Measure 6 on page 2 -38 has been revised to state the correct party responsible for implementation of the measure. Mitigation Measure 6. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the eity applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to inform workers of the potential presence of the all special- status species, their protected status, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during construction activities. 4 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Mitigation Measure 13 on page 2 -56 has been revised to require the use of the Army Corps of Engineers flow rates in the preparation of development - specific hydrology studies. Mitigation Measure 13. Any applicant for development within FEMA - delineated 100 -year flood zones on the project site shall have a hydrology report, based on the Army Corps of Engineers flow rates for Uvas Creek, prepared for that development by a qualified hydrologist or engineer, to specify hydrology- related design requirements for the site and buildings, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and SCVWD prior to issuance of a building permit. The hydrology report shall address the following requirements: Site plans and building designs shall comply with the City of Gilroy Flood Plain Control Ordinance. Development on the project site shall not impede the flow of floodwaters. Procedures shall be developed and site plans designed that will assure that any materials, supplies or goods used, stored or hold for sale at the proposed use that may present health hazards or risks of water contamination during flood conditions are securely kept at least one foot above the 100 =year flood level. Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in floodwater levels off the project site. Calculations for both the 25 -year and 100 -year flood events shall be submitted in support of these requirements. All grading, design or other recommendations of the hydrology report shall be incorporated into project plans. Mitigation Measure 13 on page 2 -59 has been revised to accurately state the City department responsible for review and approval. Mitigation Measure 16. Project plans for any development proposed for the project site, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy PlanpAn g Engineering Division shall include a sedimentation basin adequate for filtering out heavy storm water contaminants such as silt, and grease traps suitable for filtering out other urban pollutants to the extent feasible. Additional measures as presented in "Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection," prepared by the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association and "Parking Lot Best Management Practices Manual," prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Run -off Pollution Prevention Program may be required for specific projects. Any physical water quality safeguards shall be installed prior to EMC Planning Group Inc. 4 -3 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR occupancy of the proposed development, and any best management practices plan must be implemented upon occupancy. The following change is made to page 2 -82 to reflect the cessation of transit service on Route I M: Transit Service. Bus service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Currently, there are twe is one bus routes operating within one -half mile of the project site, Route 68 araeate 17i. Route Al p�evides commute ser-viee between the interseedens ef Sixth and Hann Stteets and veuthside Drive and R essi Lane Two nerti•T"etmd buses are ide during the no e ute r ..:.a and h a w a b the evenin eammute peried. Route 17A operates along Menterey Street, nefth ef Luehessa, 6 Thefollowing discussion ofsignficant unavoidable noise impacts is added to page 3 -1. The unavoidable significant noise impacts were included in the summary table on pages -15 and S -16, and identified in the project noise analysis on page 2 -60 through 2 -68, but were inadvertently omitted from Section 3 Related Issues in the`SubsequentDEM. Activities at the approved but not yet constructed sports park including athletic events and traffic entering and exiting the project site would generate long -term noise The noise generated by these activities would be up to 63 dBAr) T. thereby exceeding acceptable City standards (60 dBAnN1) at the proposed residential area north of the sports park In addition activities at the approved but not yet constructed sports park including spectator shouting and public address system announcements would eng erate short -term, annoyance noise at the residential area. The short-term noise generated by these activities would be up to 80 dBA. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce both long -term and short-term operational noise impacts to a less than significant level. To reduce the long -term noise to a less than significant level, a six-foot tall acoustically effective barrier would be required along the northern boundary of the sports park site. To reduce flanking noise the barrier would continue along the east boundary of the residential area for a distance of 100 feet. Implementation of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level would not be feasible. The location of the barrier is partly within the SCVWD flood flowage easement and placement of the barrier would potentially impede the flow of floodwaters and could result in increased flooding impacts in other areas. Therefore sports park noise impacts on the proposed residential area would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build -out exterior noise levels from traffic on Monterey Street would exceed City standards at adjacent proposed residential areas. Noise exceeding City noise standards would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Although a noise attenuation barrier would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, this portion of the project site is located within a flood zone, and a sound attenuation barrier would 4-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR . 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text not be feasible if the barrier were to interfere with flood flows or affect off -site flood levels. Additionally, a noise barrier would place a visually obtrusive element along southem Monterey Street, a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. This could result in a secondary visual impact. Because of the potential for secondary impacts to hydrology and aesthetics. exterior noise levels in excess of City standards in this location would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build -out, exterior noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adj acent to that street. A sound attenuation barrier would be required to reduce the level of noise to within City standards. Because of unknown variables, the exact requirements for mitigation of the noise impact cannot be determined at this time. It is probable that reducing noise to an presented in Section 2.8 Noise would reduce the impact, but because the height of the attenuation barrier would be limited, the impact would rn obably not be reduced to a less than significant level. Figures 29 and 30, showing the alternative site location and uses, were inadvertently omitted. Thesefigures are presented on the following pages. The following persons contacted have been added to page 4 -1: Ms. Cydney Casper, Planner I City of Gilroy Planning Division. Ms. Kristiann Choy. Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. The following sources have been added to page 4 -2: City of Gilroy. Revised Draft General Plan. September 2001. Denise Duffy and Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the QUofGilrox Revised Draft General Plan. September 2001. Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Gilroy Sports Park / USA Amendment SubseguentEIR TIA. January 2002. Schaaf and Wheeler. Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment Draft Hydrology Study. January 10, 2002. EMC Planning Group Inc. 4 -5 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR This side intentionally left blank. 4 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: California Automobile Association and EMC Planning Group Inc. Scale: 1" = 2,200' Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Land Use Planning Planning Alternative Site Location and Design Firm Figure 29 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR This side intentionally left blank. 4 -8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Agricultural Rural Residence Fields Pet Supl Alternative Site ' 7 r t Agricultural Fields Agricultural \ pay Road Fields — Orchard Agricultural Vacant Fields � � s Agricultural Fields Avenue Agricultural Fields Agricultural Fields Rural sidence Agricultural Fields Agricultural Fields l EXISTING USA I � , '• m Antonio del Buono I G ' ' School CD School Construction) i Source: City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc. Vacant Rural i1 Residence Transient Apartments Pizza Groce Grain e Fa < i y Res idences Scale: 1" = 500' Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Alternative Site and Vicinity and Design Firm Figure 30 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR This side intentionally left blank. 4 -10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Appendix A Updated Traffic Report FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GILROY SPORTS PARK AND USA AMENDMENT SUBSEQUENT EIR (Gilroy, California) Prepared for: EMC Planning Group, Inc. Prepared by: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. February 2002 Final Report TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the GILROY SPORTS PARK AND USA AMENDMENT SUBSEQUENT EIR (Gilroy, California) Prepared for: EMC Planning Group, Inc. Prepared by: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. February 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chanter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................ ............................... iv 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................. ............................... 1 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................... ............................... 8 RoadwayNetwork .......................... ............................... 8 - Transit Service ............................. ............................... 9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............... ............................... 9 Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations .......................... 10 Level of Service Methodologies ............... ............................... 10 Existing Levels of Service ................... ............................... 17 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................ ............................... 22 Background Traffic Estimates ................ ............................... 22 Background Levels of Service ................ ............................... 24 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................... ............................... 27 Project Traffic Estimates .................... ............................... 27 Project Intersection Levels of Service .......... ............................... 33 Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service ..... ............................... 47 Two -Lane Highway Segment Levels of Service .. ............................... 48 Freeway Segment Levels of Service ........... ............................... 49 Left -Turn Pocket Storage and Queuing Analysis . ............................... 50 5 - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ................. ............................... 53 Cumulative Traffic Estimates ................. ............................... 53 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ...... ............................... 53 Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service . ............................... 55 Cumulative Two-Lane Highway Level of Service . ............................... 56 6 - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS .... ............................... 57 General Plan Buildout Traffic Estimates ........ ............................... 57 General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service ............................. 57 General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service ....................... 61 General Plan Buildout Two -Lane Highway Segment Level of Service ............... 62 7 - SITE ACCESS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW ...... ............................... 63 Gilroy Sports Park ......................... ............................... 63 Residential Development .................... ............................... 68 Commercial Parcels ........................ ............................... 68 8 - CONCLUSIONS .............................. ............................... 70 Technical Appendices 1015 -425 LIST OF TABLES Table Page ES-la. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................... vii ES-lb. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summa "' ES -2. Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ... ............................... xi 1. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay ............. ............................... 14 2. Two -Way Stop - Controlled Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Delay ............... ............................... 14 3. Level of Service Threshold Volumes For Various Roadway Types ................. ............................... 16 4. Density -Based Freeway Level of Service Criteria . ............................... 17 5a. Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................... 18 5b. Existing Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................. 19 6. Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service .... ............................... 20 7. Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service .... ............................... 21 8a. Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................ 24 8b. Background Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service .......................... 25 9. Background Roadway Segment Levels of Service ............................... 26 10. Trip Generation Estimates ................... ............................... 28 11 a. Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service .................. 38 1 lb. Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service ................ 40 12. Background and Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service ...................... 48 13. Freeway Segment Analysis Requirement Determination (PM Peak Hour) ............. 50 14, Project Freeway Segment Analysis (PM Peak Hour) ............................. 52 15a. Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................ 54 15b. Cumulative Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service ...................:...... 55 16. Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service .. ............................... 56 17a. General Plan Buildout Signalized Intersection Levels of Service .................... 58 17b. General Plan Buildout Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service .................. 60 18. General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service ....................... 62 19. Parking Demand and Supply Summary ......... ............................... 67 LIST OF FIGURES Pi ure Page 1. Site Location ............................... ............................... 2 2. Project Land Uses ........................... ............................... 3 3. Sports Park Site Plan ........................ ............................... 5 4. Existing Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes ....... ............................... 11 5. Existing Lane Configurations ................. ............................... 12 6. Background PM Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes ............................... 23 7. Trip Distribution Pattern .................... ............................... 32 8a. Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment (Project Buildout) ............................ 34 8b. Project Trip Assignment at Site Driveways and Nearby Intersections ................ 35 9. Background Plus Project Buildout Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes ..................... 36 10. Intersection Lane Configurations at General Plan Buildout ................ I ....... 59 Gih-oy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Services Area (USA) amendment in Gilroy, California. A TIA was prepared in January 1999 forthe sports park, while aJanuary2000 TIAwas conducted to include the USA amendment. Since that time, the residential development proposed for some of the USA parcels has been withdrawn. The analysis contained in this report addresses the maximum allowable development on the amendment parcels; no specific commercial or residential developments are proposed at this time. Project Description The project site is located on the west side of Monterey Street, south of Luchessa Avenue, and is bounded on the west byUvas Creek and on the south by Uvas Creek and Farman Lane. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the likely transportation impacts oftheproject on the surrounding roadway system and to identify improvements to mitigate significant impacts. The project includes three components: a sports park (approximately 78 acres), residential uses (approximately 28 acres), and commercial uses (approximately27 acres). The Gilroy Sports Park will contain 10 softball fields, threebaseball fields, seven soccer fields (which are overlaid ontheball fields), a commercial recreation area, and apark area. The commercial recreation area will house a community meeting room and have the potential to house additional indoor athletic activities (rollerhockey, indoor soccer, and BMX). The park area includes picnic areas, children's play areas, two sand volleyball courts, six bocce ball courts, and six horseshoe pits. The sports park will be developed in nine phases. Direct access to the project site will be provided via a main entryway on Farman Frontage Road. There is no specific development proposed for the commercial or residential parcels. The commerical parcels will be zoned Commercial General Services, while the residential parcels will be zoned Neighborhood District. Per City staff direction, this analysis assumed the development of approximately 590,000 square feet (s. f.) ofretail space on the commercial parcels and 147 units on the residential parcels. The commercial parcels front on Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road. Direct access was assumed to be provided via one right -turn driveway on Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. The residential parcels are located on the south side of Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Uvas Creek. Direct access to the residential parcels was assumed to be provided by new public streets that will intersectwith Luchessa Avenue at two locations and with Monterey Street at one location. Fehr & Peers Associates, Ina iv Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Project Traffic The amount of traffic generated by the sports park was based on the planned operation ofthe park. The traffic generated by the residential and retail components was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates (Trip Generation, 6th edition). A 30 percent pass -by reduction was applied to the trips generated by the retail component to account for traffic already traveling along Monterey Street that would be attracted to the shopping center. Theproject is estimated to add 20,738 weekday, 495 AM peak -hour trips (273 inbound and 222 outbound), 2,091 PM peak -hour trips (1,019 inbound/ 1,072 outbound), and 2,851 Saturday peak -hour trips (1,485 inbound /1,366 outbound) to the surrounding roadways. Theproject - generated traffic was assigned to specific roadway segments, intersections, and turning movements based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses. Off -Site Traffic Impacts The impacts ofthe proposed project were estimated following guidelines ofthe CityofGilroy and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The operations ofthe seven key intersecti ons, four roadway segments, one two - lane highway segment, and two freeway segments were evaluated. Three ofthe key intersections are unsignalized underExisting Conditions. The intersections oftheUS 101 ramps with Monterey Street and the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection are signalized. Signalization ofthe intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road is proposed as part of the fultal phase ofthe Gilroy Sports Park and was assumed to be completed prior to buildout ofthe commercial and residential parcels. The methodology presented in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (199411CM) for two-way stop-controlled intersections was used to evaluate the unsignalized intersections. Signalized intersection operations were evaluated using the approved CMP methodology. This methodology has also been adopted by the City of Gilroy. The operations ofthe key intersections were evaluated during the mondng (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours under Existing, Background, Project, Cumulative, and General Plan Buildout Conditions. In addition, four key intersections were evaluated for Saturday peak -hour conditions of the sports park.' Using existing counts, estimate traffic projections for approved and pending developments inthe area, intersection lane configurations, signal phasings, and the proj ect- generated trips, level of service calculations were conducted for Existing, Background, Project Buildout, Cumulative, and General Plan 'The analysis of Saturday peak -hour conditions for these intersections was carried over from the Gilroy Sports Park EIR TIA (Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., January 1999) analysis for consistency purposes. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Buildout Conditions. The results ofthe level of service calculations arepresented inTables ES -1 a and ES -lb. Intersection Impacts The level of service calculation results indicate that the project will have a significant adverse impact on four of the seven key intersections: Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road Mitigation measures were identified for these intersections. The installation of traffic signal at the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection would mitigate project impacts to a less -than- significant level. With the existing lane configuration, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM, PM, and S aturday peak hour with traffic volumes estimated for Project Conditions. The installation ofa traffic signal and the provision of left-turn pockets on the eastbound and westbound approaches would mitigate project impacts at the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection. With the estimated Proj ection Conditions volumes and these improvements, this intersection is proj ected to operate at LOS B during.the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The addition of a second northbound left -turn lane and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane will improve the operation ofthe Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersections from LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour with estimated Proj ect Conditions volumes. In order to further improve operations to LOS C, either a right -turn arrow would need to be provided for the eastbound right -turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left-turn movement has a green arrow) or the eastbound right -turn movement would need to be removed from the intersection by a pork chop island and controlled by a yield sign. With these improvements, the intersection is proj ected to operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours, thus mitigating the project impact. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road prior to the completion ofPhase rV of the sports park. With installation ofthe traffic signal, the intersection is proj ected to operate at LOS C during all three study periods through the final phase of the sports park with the existing lane configuration. With the development ofthe commercial parcels, additional turn lanes would be needed to serve traffic entering and exiting the retail uses. Two exclusive southbound right -turn lanes, two northbound left -turn lanes and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. vi Table ES -la Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Background Project Buildout Cumulative General Plan Buildout' Avg. Avg. A Crit. A Crit. Peak Intersection Hour Delay' LOS' Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Delay' v/C 4 Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Luchessa Avenue/ AM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.9 B+ 8.8 B Princevalle Street PM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.9 B+ 6.3 B+ Sat n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.7 B+ 8.1 B Monterey Street/ AM 18.7 C 20.2 C 22.3 (17.5) C (C) +1.5 +0.089 >120 (21.2) F (C) >120 (21.9) F (C) Luchessa Avenue PM 22.7 C 23.1 C- >120 (21.4) F (C) +176.4 +0.630 >120 (23.0) F (C) 76.2 (24.9) F (C -) Monterey Street/ AM n/a n/a n/a n/a 20.5 (21.4) C (C) n/a n/a 12.4 (9.8) B (B) 51.0 (13.7) E (B -) Farman Frontage Roads PM n/a n/a n/a n/a >120 (20.8) F (C) n/a n/a >120 (19.0) F (C) >120 (21.8) F (C) Sat n/a n/a n/a n/a >120 (21.4) F (C) n/a n/a >120 (17.5) F (C) * ** *'(24.9) F (C -) Monterey Street/ AM 12.6 B 13.7 B- 14.2 B- 0.0 +0.044 16.0 C+ 17.7 C US 101 SB Ramps PM 13.8 B- 14.9 B- 16.2 C+ +0.4 +0.173 17.2 C 23.9 C- Monterey Street/ AM 17.1 C 20.1 C 19.9 C -0.3 +0.014 20.9 C 34.4 (22.9) D (C) US 101 NB Ramps PM 20.6 C 20.4 C 20.0 C -1.1 +0.051 21.8 C 27.2 (24.0) D+ (C -) Santa Teresa Boulevard/ AM 18.6 C 19.2 C 19.6 C +1.2 +0.041 25.0 C- 19.9 C Thomas Road PM 16.2 C+ 17.7 C 18.0 C +4.2 +0.162 20.4 C 16.5 C+ Sat 16.3 C+ 17.5 C 17.2 C +5.0 +0.260 18.7 C 17.0 C+ Notes: ' whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. r Level of service calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, and the 1985 Highuny Capacity Manual cperations analysis methodology for signalized intersections. 3 Change in critical movement delay from Background to Project Conditions. 4 Change in critical volume- to- capacity ratio from Background to Project Conditions. s This intersection is controlled by stop signs under Existing and Background Conditions (see Table ES -lb for LOS results for these scenarios). The approved sports park project was conditioned to signalized this intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. Under Project Buildout, Cumulative, and General Plan Buildout Conditions, this intersection is assumed to be signalized and retain the existing lane configuration. 6 General Plan Buildout Conditions include planned General Plan intersection improvements. ' Volume -to- capacity ratio exceeds 2.0. Average stopped delay cannot be calculated. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Vii Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Table ES -lb Unsi nalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Worst Case Approach Average Average Peak Scenario Hour Dela ' LOS z Dela LOS Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Existing Conditions AM 1.9 A 5.5 A PM 1.3 A 6.1 A Sat 1.0 A 4.1 A Background Conditions (Existing AM 1.3 A 5.9 B Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.3 A 7.6 B Sat 0.9 A 4.7 B Project Conditions (Existing Conditions + AM 7.0 B 8.6 (7.6) B (B) Approved Projects + Project Buildout) PM 8.4 B 65.6 (5.5) E (B +) Sat 8.0 B 61.9 (5.7) F B+ Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Existing Conditions AM 1.1 A 5.5 B PM 0.9 A 6.8 B Sat 0.9 A 4.9 A Background Conditions (Existing AM 1.4 A 7.5 B Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.1 A 10.2 C Sat 0.9 A 6.1 B Project Conditions (Existing Conditions + AM 2.5 (6.4) A (B) 12.8 C Approved Projects + Project Buildout) PM >120 (7.5) F (B) >120 F Sat >120 8.5 F B >120 F Cumulative Conditions (Project Conditions AM >120 (9.6) F (B) >120 F + Other Pending Projects) PM >120 (23.7) F (C -) >120 F Sat >120 8.9 F B >120 F General Plan Buildout Conditions AM >120 (17.3) F (C) >120 F PM >120 (14.0) F (B -) >120 F Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. viii Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table ES- lb(cont.) Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Worst Case Intersection Approach Average Average Peak Scenario Hour Dela LOS z Delay LOS Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road' Existing Conditions AM 0.5 A 10.6 C PM 0.5 A 24.6 D Sat 0.4 A 10.0 B Background Conditions (Existing Conditions AM 0.5 A 13.0 C +Approved Projects) PM 0.9 A 60.1 F Sat 0.4 A 14.6 C Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersection, expressed in seconds per vehicle. 3 LOS calculations performed using the CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two-way stop - controlled intersections. ' The approved sports park project was conditioned to signalized this intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. The results of the analysis contained in this report indicate this intersection should be signalized prior to completion of Phase III of the sports park (see Table FS -la for signalized intersection operations). LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. widening ofthe eastbound approach would be needed to serve the project volume. In addition, right - turn arrows would need to be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three studyperiods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation ofthe eastbound and westbound approaches and will require widening ofFarman Frontage Road. Some realignment ofFarman Frontage Road maybe required to provide adequate turning radii as it approaches-its intersection with Monterey Street. The feasibility ofthis improvement is subject to more detailed engineering studies. Without implementation of all the mitigation measures, the project's impact would not be fully mitigated. The General Plan Buildout scenario includes intersection improvements that are included in the City of Gilroy General Plan. With these improvements, five ofthe seven key intersections are projected to operate at deficient levels during at least one peak hour with the estimated General P Ian Buildout traffic volumes. The intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels under General Plan Buildout Conditions were also evaluated with the improvements identified to mitigate proj ect impacts. The improvements recommended to mitigate proj ect impacts at the two unsignalized intersections (Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Streetand Luchessa Avenue /Church Street), in combination with the General Plan improvements, would restore intersection operations to acceptable levels. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. ix Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Additional improvements would be required at the intersections ofMonterey Street with Luchessa Avenue and with Farman Frontage Road. To attained LOS C operations, the provision of a northbound free right -turn and an overlap phase (right -turn arrow) for the westbound right -turn movement would be needed at the Monterey Street /Luchessa Avenue intersection. Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection operations are projected to improve to LOS C during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours with the identified project mitigation. The intersection ofMonterey Street with the northbound US 101 ramps is projected to operate at an unacceptableLOS D during the AM and PMpeak hours with the estimated General Plan Buildout traffic volumes. The proposed projected is estimated to have a less - than- significant impact on this intersection, and therefore, no project mitigation measures were identified at this location. Intersection operations under General Plan Buildout Conditions would be improved to LOS C byre- striping the eastbound approach (the US 101 off -ramp) to permit left turns from the existing through onlylane. The resulti ig lane configuration on this approach would be two exclusive left-turn lanes, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -turn lane. Intersection operations are projected to be LOS C during both the AM andPMpeakhours withthis striping revision. Alternatively, the Cityis proposing to lower the LOS standard for the US 101 ramp intersections with Monterey Street to LOS D with the proposed General Plan. With this LOS standard change, this intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service without the striping revision. Roadway Seument Impacts Roadway segment operations are summarized in Table ES -2. The proposed prof ect is estimated to have a significant impact on one of the four segments. The operation of the segment of Luchessa Avenue between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street is projected to deteriorate from LOS A to LOS F with the addition ofproject traffic. The remaining segments are prof ected to continue to operate at LOS C or better. Wideningthe segment ofLuchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street from two to four lanes would provide adequate capacityto serve the estimated project buildout traffic volumes and mitigate the project impact. The City's General Plan includes widening of Luchessa Avenue between Chestnut Street and Thomas Road (including thebridge overUvas Creek) to six lanes. An ultimate roadway with of approximately 116 to 120 feet is anticipated for Luchessa Avenue. Two -Lane Highway Impacts The impact of the proposed project on State Route 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway), east of US 101, was evaluated using the methodology presented in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. The results indicate that the project would not have a significant impact on the segment of SR 152 Fehr & Peers. Associates, Inc. X Table ES -2 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary - General Plan Existing Background Project Cumulative Buildout LOS C Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Roadway Volume Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Segment Type' 2 Threshold' Volume LOS Volume. LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial Thomas Road to Princevalle (6 -Lane Divided 14,500 (43,000) 5,485 A 7,320 A 13,365 C 15,430 D (A) 16,000 A St. Arterial) Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial Princevalle St. to Monterey (6 -Lane Divided 14,500 (43,000) 6,030 A 8,035 A 16,965 E (A) 20,575 F (A) 22,000 A St. Arterial) Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided Tenth St. to Luchessa Ave. Arterial 29,000 (6 -Lane Divided (43,000) 7,835 A 9,765 A 13,005 A 15,860 A 23,000 A Arterial) Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided Luchessa Ave to US 101 Arterial 29,000 (6 -Lane Divided (43,000) 12,970 A 14,550 A 28,060 C 31,800 D A ) 36,000 B Arterial) Note:' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 City of Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program reports. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. 2 Roadway types and LOS C threshold volumes in parentheses are assumptions for General Plan Buildout Conditions. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA between Llagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road. SR 152 is currently being widened between US 101 and Llagas Creek. This segment would operate as a four -lane arterial with these improvements, which include roadway widening, intersection improvements, and a traffic signal at Gilroy Foods. Freeway Segment Impacts Potential project impacts on area freeway segments were evaluated using the CMP methodology. The key freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS B and C during the PM peak hour with the addition ofproj ect- generated traffic. Therefore, the project is estimated to have a less- than- significant impact on the nearby segments of US 101 according to the criteria established in the Santa Clara County CMP. Queuing Anal The queuing analysis indicated that the estimated queues for the northbound left -turn movement at Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue and the northbound left-turn movement at Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road would extend p ast the existing left -turn storage pockets for the under Project Conditions. Implementation of the proj ect mitigation measures for these two intersections would accommodate the expected queues. Other Issues Site access, on -site circulation, and parking for the sports park were reviewed in the January 1999 TIA for that project. The review was updated in the context of the current project description (with development ofthe USA amendment parcels). The site plan for the proposed residential development was review in terns of site access and a cursory review ofon -site circulation was conducted. General access issues related to development on the commercial parcels were also reviewed. Snorts Park Site access, on -site circulation and parking were assessed for the sports park. The proposed parking supply of 1,049 was found to be adequate to serve the estimated demand. However, a shortfall is projected to occur after the completion of Phase V. It is recommended that 180 ofthe 298 parking spaces that will be constructed with Phase VI be constricted instead with Phase V to offset the projected shortfall. Sports park site access was found to be adequate to serve sports park traffic, with sufficient storage provided for queued vehicles betweenFarman Frontage Road and the main entrybuilding, where a parking fee will be collected. It was recommended that the intersection of the sports park driveway Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xii Gilroy Sport PaYIVUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 with Farman Frontage Road be monitored forpossible traffic signal installation after buildout of the commercial parcels. The intersection ofthe sports park driveway should be designed and constructed to accommodate the possible signal installation. On -site circulation was reviewed and generally found to be adequate. The following recommendations were made: • The outbound lanes ofthe entry road near Farman Frontage Road should be narrowed to one lane with paint to allow two outbound lanes (with park personnel directing traffic), if needed. All -way stop sign control is recommended at the intersection ofthe entryroad and the main north -south road. All - waystop sign control will provide saferconditions forpedestrians crossing this intersection. It is recommended that the first driveway on the entrance road (closest to Farman Frontage Road) be widened to allow both inbound and outbound traffic and the landscape median along the entry road be cutback to allow left turns from this parking area onto the entry road. Currently, the on -site traffic is concentrated at the intersection ofthe entry road and the main north -south circulation road. Allowing left turns out ofthe eastern most drivewaywill diffuse some of this traffic. Landscaping in the median should be low (two to 2.5 feet in height) or taller trees with thin trunks, which should be pruned to maintain adequate sight distance. The provision of an additional north -south circulation aisle in the western most parking areais recommended to break up the long rows ofparking spaces. In addition, the parking bays and circulation aisles shouldbe extended eastward, eliminatingthe isolated landscaped barrier atthe east end of the parking area. Recommendations were made in regard to other improvements proposed as part ofthe sports park project, including: A crosswalk across Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road should not be provided until the traffic signal is installed at this intersection. The proposed Farman Frontage Road bus stop should be designed to VTA standards. Pedestrian access should be provided from the bus stop to along Farman Frontage Road that connects to the internal pedestrian paths. • The proposed sidewalk along the west side ofMonterey Street should connect to signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Monterey Street. It is recommended that the sidewalks Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xiii Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 along Monterey Street be installed when the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection is signalized. • Due to travel speeds along Luchessa Avenue (in excess of 40 mph), a crosswalk is not recommended without the protection of a traffic signal with pedestrian heads forpedestrian crossing or all -way stop sign control (stop signs on all three intersection approaches). The recommended pedestrian and bicycle facility is the connection of the existing trail north of Luchessa Avenue with the proposed trail to the south via the future under - crossing of the Luchessa Avenue bridge. It is recommended that this location be monitored forboth vehicular and pedestrian/bicyclevolumes, and an all- waystoportraffic signals (with pedestrian heads) be installed ifwarrant requirements are met. (Signalization ofthis intersection is recommended as mitigation under Project Buildout Conditions.) Commercial and Residential Parcels Specific commercial and residential developments are not proposed at this time, and site plans have not been developed forthe corresponding parcels. Therefore, only general review of site access was conducted. Detailed reviews of the site plans should be conducted when specific projects are is proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Direct access to the commercial parcels was assumed to be provided via one right -tum drivewayon Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. Based on the projected traffic volumes, a southbound right -turn lane is recommended to serve the traffic entering the northern commercial parcels via the Monterey Street driveway. Itwas noted that the estimated queues on the southbound approach ofthe Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection may at times extend back past this drivewayblocking the exiting vehicles. This could result in additional traffic being added to Farman Frontage Road and the west leg ofthe Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection. Thenorthern commercial driveway on Farman Frontage Road was assumed to be controlled bya stop sign on the driveway approach and is projected to operate at an acceptable level duringthe AM peak hour and unacceptable levels during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements fortraffic signal installation are satisfied with volumes projected forthe PM and Saturday peak hours with projectbuildout. However, the proximity ofthis driveway to the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection and the sports park driveway may make signalization infeasible. As discussed in regard to improvements at the Monterey Street/Farman Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xiv Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Frontage Road intersection and the sports park driveway, it may be necessary to realign Farman Frontage Road. This realignment mayprovide opportunities forimproved access to the commercial center. The conflicting traffic at the intersection ofthe souther commercial drivewaywith Farman Frontage Road is projected to be minimal, and the driveway is projectedto operate at acceptable levels during all studyscenarios. However, one access point maynot be sufficient for emergency access. When a site plan is proposed, it should be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. Direct access to the residential parcels was assumed to be provided via two full access driveways, one at the intersection of Church Street and Luchessa Avenue, the other on Luchessa Avenue east of Church Street, and a right -turn only driveway on Monterey Street east ofLuchessa Avenue. Based on the projected traffic volumes, the assumed site access would be adequate. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xv Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Transportation hnpactAnalysis (TIA) conducted for the Gilroy Sports Park and proposed Urban Services Area (USA) amendment in Gilroy, California. A TIA was prepared in January 1999 for the sports park and an update was prepared in January 2000 to include the USA amendment, with maximum allowable development on the amendment commercial parcels and a specific residential development proposed for the remaining amendment parcels. Since that time, the proposed residential development has been withdrawn. This analysis evaluates impacts of the Sports Park and the USA amendment with maximum development on both the commercial and residential parcels. The project site is located on the west side ofMonterey Street, south ofLuchessa Avenue (formerly Thomas Road), and is bounded on the west by Uvas Creek and on the south by Uvas Creek and Farman Lane. The site location and surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. The proposed project includes three components: a sports park (approximately 78 acres), residential uses (approximately 28 acres), and commercial uses (approximately 27 acres). The locations ofthe proposed land uses are illustrated on Figure 2. The Gilroy Sports Parkwill contain 10 softball fields, three baseball fields, seven soccer fields (which are overlaid on the ballfrelds), a commercial recreation area, and apark/casual recreation area. The commercial recreation area will house a community meeting room and has the potential to house additional indoor athletic activities (rollerhockey, indoor soccer, andBMX). The park area includes picnic areas, children's play areas, two sand volleyball courts, sixbocce ball courts, and six horseshoe pits. The sports parks's Master Plan indicates that it will be developed in nine phases, as follows: Phase I - Utility infrastructure, entrance, corporation yard, and Uvas Creek Trail extension (rough grading) Phase H- Two premier Little League fields (over-laidwith one soccer field), parking, and Uvas Creek Trail extension Phase III - One ball field (over -laid with one soccer field) and commercial recreation PhaselV- Northmulfi -use field areaandparking( foursoftball fields over- laidwithtwo soccer fields); signalization ofthe Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection (a Condition ofApproval ofthe currently approved sports park project) Phase V- South multi -use field area and parking (four softball fields over-laid with two soccer fields) Phase VI- One premier softball/baseball field (overlaid with one soccer field) Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Key: Study Intersection O N Not to Scale Figure 1 SITE LOCATION azs a -m 1 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. arld yam:- �✓..•'�',.- Rec `_ i'. -• zoo �.\ �s iaz,ac. \� 4lesrd ntial Neighborhood Di *trrclt � +� Z0.87M f" LEGEND F.i<tingUSA (—� USA Amendment Rajugt IN . 1_ (Project sire) /�{ PzoposedSports Park Proposed Rmdenhid ®` Y Proposed Commensal Gilroy Sports Park and USA Atnendnrent Subsequent EIR TIA Februan,2002 Residential LowDeRsity. - -' - - .t Yu,l^Y4- Rkide6tialjr eighb6idi istr'lct 3 Gilroy General Plan I" Neignu01"e -tt :aorta Santa Clara Comayo ie.Ithe ASSesorand PMCPivu 9C —PInc 2 ofnnief'Glar 3 VItSIiQr`$21t!I17Q:•� N r \ Open Space OGilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment I Figure A mNu u :a rmnnms Subsequent EIR NOP an "1,Va. Urban Service Area Request s Figure 2 PROPOSED LAND USES " r 42s1241 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februa ,2002 Phase VII- Informal recreation area (park areawith volleyball and bocce ball courts and horseshoe pits) Phase VIII- Farman Frontage Road improvements Phase IX- Uvas Creek Trail extension to Gavilan College The sports park will be constructed over twenty years, with the first ballfields readyforuse in Spring 2002. Direct access to the sports park site will be provided via amain entryway on Farman Frontage Road. The sports park site plan is shown on Figure 3. There is no specific development proposed for the commercial or residential parcels. The commerical parcels will be zoned Commercial General Services, while the residential parcels will be zoned Neighborhood District. Per City staff direction, this analysis assumed the development of approximately 590,000 square feet (s.f.) ofretail space on the commercial parcels and 147 units on the residential parcels. The commercial parcels front on Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road. Direct access was assumed to be provided via one right -turn driveway on Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. The residential parcels are located on the south side of LuchessaAvenue between Monterey Street andUvas Creek. Direct access to theresidential parcels was assumed to be provided bynew public streets that will intersect with LuchessaAvenue at two locations and with Monterey Street atone location. The Monterey Street intersection will be restricted to right -turns only (due to the existing raised median on Monterey Street). The purpose of the analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed development on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. The impacts ofthe proposed project were estimated following the guidelines set forth by the City of Gilroy and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agencyfor Santa Clara County. Seven key intersections, four roadwaysegments, one two -lane highwaysegment, and two freeway segments were evaluated: Intersections 1. Luchessa Avenue at Princevalle Street* 2. Luchessa Avenue at Church Street* 3. Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue 4. Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road* 5. Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps 6. Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps 7. Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road* *Intersections also analyzed during the Saturday peak hour. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 GJroy Sports camples -Orstl AfaslerPlan Figure 3 SPORTS PARK SITE PLAN azsum Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. N Not to Scale Gilroy Sport Par1dUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 RoadwaSegments 1. Luchessa Avenue, between Thomas Road and Princevalle Street 2. Luchessa Avenue, between. Princevalle Street and Monterey Street 3. Monterey Street, between Tenth Street and Luchessa Avenue 4. Monterey Street, between Luchessa Avenue and US 101 Two -Lane Highway Segment 1. SR 152, between US 101 and Frazier Lake Road FreewaLSe ments 1. US 101, between Leavesley Road and Monterey Street 2. US 101, between Monterey Street and State Route 25 (SR 25) The operations of the key intersections, two -lane highway segment, and freeway segments were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours (the time periods when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways are highest). A subset ofintersections (denoted with an asterisk above) was also evaluated during the Saturdaypeak hour (the time period when traffic generated by the sports park will be highest). The roadway segments were evaluated using weekday daily volumes. The intersections, roadway segments, and two -lane highway segment were evaluated forthe following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one -hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods and on a Saturday afternoon. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak -hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the area. Scenario 3a -g: Project Conditions. Background peak -hour volumes plus project - generated traffic estimated for theproposed development. The project was evaluated for six levels of sports park development and buildout of the proj ect (including development on the residential and commercial parcels). Scenario 4: Cumulative Conditions. Traffic volumes estimated for conditions with buildout of the proj ect (Scenario 3g) plus traffic associated with other pending (proposed but not approved) developments. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport ParldUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Scenario 5: General Plan Buildout Conditions. Traffic volumes projected for the buildout of the General Plan. Potential project impacts on the adjacent freeway segments were evaluated following CMP guidelines. Site access, on -site circulation, and parking were reviewed for the sports park. This report is divided into eight chapters. Chapter2 describes Existing Conditions regarding roadway facilities, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic volumes, and traffic operations ofthe study intersections. Chapter 3 describes the approved developments in the area and traffic operations for Background Conditions. Chapter 4 describes the methodologyused to estimate the project traffic and its impacts on the transportation system (intersections and roadway and freeway segments). Cumulative Conditions and General Plan Buildout Conditions are presented in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. Site access, on -site circulation, and parking are discussed in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of this transportation impact analysis. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter provides a description ofFxisting Conditions in terms ofthe roadway facilities, traffic volumes, and intersection operations. Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided byUS 101 and State Route 152 (SR 152), while local access is provided by Monterey Street, Farman Frontage Road, Luchessa Avenue, Thomas Road, Princevalle Street, and Church Street: US 101 provides access to the project site via an interchange at Monterey Street. North of its interchange with Monterey Street, US 101 is a six -lane freeway, narrowing to four lanes north of Cochrane Road. South ofMonterey Street, US 101 becomes a four -lane conventional highway. US 101 extends northward through San Jose and San Francisco and southward through the California Central Coast. SR 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway) connects US 101 to Interstate 5 and Highway 99 in the California Central Valley. This segment of SR 152 is two to four lanes wide. SR 152 is also designated on portions ofUS 101, LeavesleyRoad, and Monterey Street. West ofMonterey Street, SR 152 extends westward along First Street. Monterey Street is, generally, afour -lane arterial through the City of Gilroy. Through downtown Gilroy (between Third and Seventh Streets), Monterey Street narrows to two travel lanes, with angled parking on the east site of the street separated from northbound through traffic by a raised median. North of the City Limits, Monterey Streetbecomes MontereyRoad, arural highway with four travel lanes and a center turn lane. Monterey Road continues northward into San Jose. South ofits interchange with US 101, Monterey Street becomes Bolsa Road. Near the project site, the speed limit on Monterey Street is 50 miles per hour (mph). Farman Frontage Road (formerly Monterey Frontage Road) is a two -lane road that extends southward from Monterey Street, near the Monterey Street/US '101 interchange, ending in acul -de -sac south of the proj ect site. Farman Frontage Road is a frontage road located along the west side ofUS 101 that provides direct access to the project site (and other properties). Santa Teresa Boulevard is a two -lane, north -south arterial. Santa Teresa Boulevard extends north from Castro Valley Road in the south part of Gilroy to Morgan Hill. Luchessa Avenue is a two- to four -lane roadway, which extends eastward from GreenficldDrive and terminates east ofUS 101, east ofits intersection with Rossi Lane. The segment ofLuchessaAvenue Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Par1dUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA between Thomas Road and Monterey Street was recentlyrenamed from Thomas Road to Luchessa Avenue. Near the project site, Luchessa Avenue is two lanes wide, and the speed limit is 40 mph. Thomas Road is a two -lane roadway that extends northward from Santa Teresa Boulevard to its all - way stop controlled intersection with Luchessa Avenue. Princevalle Street is a two -lane residential collector street that extends southward from First Street to Luchessa Avenue. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Church Street is a two -lane street in the vicinity oftheproject site. Church Street extends northward from Luchessa Avenue through downtown Gilroy to north ofFarrell Avenue. Church Street, between Luchessa Avenue and Farrell Avenue, is designated an arterial in the current General Plan and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Transit Service Bus service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Currently, there is one bus route operating within one - halfmile oftheproject site, Route 68: Route 68 operates along Princevalle Street, north ofLuchessa Avenue and along Luchessa Avenue and Thomas Road, west ofPrincevalle Street. Route 68 provides service between San Jose Diridon CalTrain Station and Gavilan College in Gilroy. Hours of operation are 4:30 am to 1:00 am on weekdays and 6:00 am to 12:30 am on weekends. Route 68 operates on a 15- minute headway during the commute hours and a 30- to 60- minute headway during other hours. Commuter rail service (CalTrain) is provided from Gilroy to San Francisco by the Joint Powers Board. CalTrain provides frequent train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. Extended service is provided to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during the commute hours only. The Gilroy CalTrain station is located east of Monterey Street between Seventh and Ninth Streets. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Near the site, there are generallyno pedestrian facilities. A sidewalk is provided along the north side ofLuchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. Sidewalks are not provided along Farman Frontage Road or Monterey Street. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths, bike lanes, andbike routes. Bikepaths arepaved trails that are separated from the roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways that are designated for use bybicycles by sniping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated forbicycle use Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Par1dUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 ` with signs. Currently, there is a bike path along the eastern side ofUvas Creek between Luchessa Avenue and Westwood Avenue, north of the site. Bike lanes are designated on Princevalle Street between LuchessaAvenue and Sixth Street. The Gilroy Sports Parkwill extend the Uvas Creek Trail southward to Gavilan College. Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations The operations ofthe key intersections were evaluated for morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak -hour traffic conditions. In addition, four ofthe key intersections were evaluated for Saturdaypeak -hour conditions. Peak conditions generally occur during the morning and evening commute periods between 7:00 and 9:00 am and 4:00 to 6:00 pm, respectively, on a weekday. The Saturdaypeak conditions generally occur between noon and 2:00 pm, based on information provided by City staff (machine counts conducted on Luchessa Avenue in October 1998). Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one -hour volume counted during each of these periods. New peak -hour traffic volumes were obtained for all of the key intersections during November and December 2001. Figure 4 shows the existing AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak -hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections. The intersection lane configurations are presented on Figure 5. Level of Service Methodologies The operations ofroadway facilities are described with the term level ofservice. Level of Service is a qualitative description oftraffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, or the worst operation conditions. LOS E represents "at- capacity" operations. When volumes exceed capacity, stop- and -go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. The City ofGilroy's standard for intersections and roadway segments is Level of Service C. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 10 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TM February 2002 V-85 (101 0(o)[01 10(5)[3] 4(11�5 1 lye, 0(0 01 1(6)[41 mom lk- 45 (79) 47 (41 6 (12) ) Key: 471 (279) - 5D (33) — *1 t 40 (31) asS� - Study Intersection N 00(00)[00] =AM (PM)[Saturday] Not to Scale Figure 4 _[EXISTING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4 1401 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc I 22 (64) 46 (110) 46 (243) 10 (60 90 (173) _�k k1 vvv V-85 (101 0(o)[01 10(5)[3] 4(11�5 1 lye, 0(0 01 1(6)[41 mom lk- 45 (79) 47 (41 6 (12) ) Key: 471 (279) - 5D (33) — *1 t 40 (31) asS� - Study Intersection N 00(00)[00] =AM (PM)[Saturday] Not to Scale Figure 4 _[EXISTING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4 1401 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc I Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TM February 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport ParIVUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 LOS D or better.is an acceptable operating level for the worst case movement /approach at an unsignalized intersection. The CMP standard for freeway segments is LOS E. Intersections The level ofservice calculation methodology for intersections is dependent onthe type oftraffic control device (traffic signals or stop signs). Four of the key intersections are currently controlled by traffic signals: Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue, Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps, Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps, and Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road. The remaining intersections are T- intersections that are controlled by stop signs on one approach.. The intersection level ofservice methodologyused in this analysis to evaluate the signalized intersections is the approved VTA method. This method evaluates an intersection's operations based on the average stopped vehicular delay calculated using the method described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with saturation flow rates adjusted to reflect local conditions. The average stopped delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a level of service designation as shown in Table 1. Intersection levels of service were calculated using the methodologypresented in Chapter 10 ofthe 1994 Highway Capacity Manual for two -way stop - controlled intersections. This methodology evaluates an intersection's operation based on the total average delay at an intersection. The total delay for the unsignalized intersections was calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software and then correlated to a level of service. The level of service thresholds for two -way stop - controlled intersections are presented in Table 2. Roadway Segments Roadway segment operations were evaluated by comparing the measured traffic volume to LOS C volume thresholds. The thresholds used in the analysis were established in the 1997 City of Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program and used in citymonitoring programs in subsequent years. The threshold volumes are based on the roadway type and number of lanes (see Table 3). These thresholds are approximate and serve as a general guide as to whether existing (or projected) volumes exceed roadway capacity. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 13 Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay A Average B Level of Stopped Delay 10.1 to 20.0 Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) Description A < 5.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994. p.10 -12. and/or short cycle length. B+ 5.1 to 7.0 Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and /or short B 7.1 to 13.0 cycle lengths. B- 13.1 to 15.0 C+ 15.1 to 17.0 Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and /or C 17.1 to 23.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. C- 23.1 to 25.0 D+ 25.1 to 28.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D 28.1 to 37.0 progression, longcycle lengths, orhigh V /Cratios. Manyvehicles stop and D- 37.1 to 44.0 individual cycle failures are noticeable. E+ 40.1 to 44.0 Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E 44.1 to 56.0 lengths, and high V /C. ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent E- 56.1 to 60.0 occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F > 60.0 Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over - saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 1998 and Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. Table 2 Two -Way Stop - Controlled Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Delay Level of Service Average Total Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle) A < 5.0 B 5.1 to 10.0 C 10.1 to 20.0 D 20.1 to 30.0 E 30.1 to 45.0 F > 45.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994. p.10 -12. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 14 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Two -Lane Highway Segments SR 152 is a rural highway on the CMP roadway network. It was therefore evaluated using the methodology presented in Chapter 8 ofthe 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, as requiredbythe CMP. The level of service ofthe two -lane highway segment was determined by comparing the actual measured flow rates against calculated threshold maximum flow rates for LOS A through LOS E. These service flow rates were calculated by adjusting the ideal capacity for a two -lane rural highway segment (2,800 vehicles per hour) to account for directional distribution oftraffic, percentage ofheavyvehicles, lane widths, shoulder widths, type ofterrain, and the maximum volume- to- capacityratio for the segment based percentage of no passing zones and terrain. Freeway Segments Freeway segments were evaluated using the methodology required bythe VTA. The VTA's analysis procedure is based on the density of the traffic flow using methods described in the 1994 Highway CapacityMazual. Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. The CMP freeway segment level of service criteria are shown in Table 4. These criteria are based on the 1994 HCM level of service criteria with adjustments to reflect local (Santa Clara County) conditions. Fehr &Peers Associates, Inc. 15 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 3 Level of Service Threshold Volumes For Various Roadway Types' Roadway Type Maximum Daily Volume (both directions) LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOSE 8 -Lane Freeway 51,000 79,000 112,000 136,000 146,000 6 -Lane Freeway 39,000 59,000 85,000 102,000 110,000 8 -Lane Expressway 35,000 54,000 75,000 90,000 98,000 6 -Lane Expressway 28,000 42,000 56,000 67,000 74,000 4 -Lane Freeway 26,000 39,000 57,000 68,000 73,000 8 -Lane Divided Arterial (with left-turn lanes) 40,000 47,000 54,000 61,000 68,000 6 -Lane Divided Arterial (with left -turn lanes) 32,000 38,000 43,000 49,000 54,000 4 -Lane Expressway 18,000 27,000 36,000 45,000 50,000 4 -Lane Divided Arterial (with left-turn lane) 22,000 25,000 29,000 32,500 36,000 4 -Lane Undivided Arterial (no left-turn lane) 16,000 19,000 22,000 24,000 27,000 2 -Lane Rural Highway 4,000 8,000 12,000 17,000 25,000 2 -Lane Arterial (with left-turn lane) 11,000 12,500 14,500 16,000 18,000 2 -Lane Collector 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 2 -Lane Local Street2 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1 -Lane Freeway Ramp' 5,000 7,500 10,500 13,000 15,000 2 -Lane Freeway Ramp 10,000 15,000 21,000 26,000 28,000 Notes: ' Based on LOS threshold volumes established in the City of Gilroy 1997 - 1999 Traffic Monitoring Program reports. All volumes are approximate and assume ideal roadway characteristics. Y The capacity limitation is related to neighborhood quality of life rather than the physical carrying capacity of the road. This assumes a standard suburban neighborhood, 40 -foot roadway width, and 25 aide per hour speed limit with normal speed violation rates. ' Capacities given for each level of service assume the same level of service for adjoining merging roadway as well as level of service being determined by volume to capacity and not attainable speed. Level of service will be controlled by freeway level of service if worse than ramp. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 16 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 4 Density-Based Freeway Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Density (vehicles /mile /lane) A <10.0 B 10.1 to 16.0 C 16.1 to 24.0 D 24.1 to 46.0 E 46.1 to 55.0 F > 55.0 Source: VTA, Transportation Impact Analyds Guidelines, May 1998. Existing Levels of Service Intersections Current operations of the key intersections were evaluated with the existing volumes, existing lane configurations, traffic control devices, and signal phasings /timings used as inputs to the TRAFFIX level of service calculation program. The results are presented in Tables 5a and 5b for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. The level ofservice calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 5b presents both the level of service based on the delay for all movements at the unsignalized intersections and the level ofservice based on the worst case movement or lane group, usually the left - turn movement from the minor (stop sign - controlled) street. The results ofthe level of service calculations indicate thatall of the key intersections are operating at acceptable levels under Existing Conditions. The four signalized intersections are operating at LOS B or C during both the AM and PM peak hours. Overall intersection operations at the key unsign alized intersections are at LOS A during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 17 E Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table Sa Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Peak Count Intersection Intersection Hour Date Delay' LOS' AM 11 /01 18.7 C Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue PM 11 /01 22.7 C AM 11 /01 12.6 B Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps PM 11 /01 13.8 B- Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps AM 11/01 17.1 C PM 11 /01 20.6 C AM 11 /01 18.6 C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 11 /01 16.2 C+ Sat 1 12/01 1 16.3 1 + Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the approved Clvtl' level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which is based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manunl delay methodology for signalized intersections. At all of the unsignalized intersections, the minor street approaches have no separate turn lanes. The worst casemovement/lane groups at the intersections ofLuchessa Avenue withPrincevalle Street and with Church Street are the southbound approaches (Princevalle and Church Streets). The Princevalle Street southbound approach is operating at LOS A during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The southbound Church Street approach is operating at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours and LOS A during the Saturday peak hour. At the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection, the worst case approach is the eastbound (Farman Frontage Road) approach, which is currently operating at LOS C during the AM peak hour, an unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour, and LOS B during the Saturday peak hour. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 18 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Table 5b Existing Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Count Intersection .Hour Date Delay' LOS 2 Delay LOS Luchessa Avenue and AM 11/01 1.9 A 5.5 B Princevalle Street PM 11/01 1.3 A 6.1 B Sat 12/01 1.0 A 4.1 A Luchessa Avenue and AM 11/01 1.1 A 5.5 B Church Street PM 11 /01 0.9 A 6.8 B Sat 12/01 1 0.9 1 A 4.9 A Monterey Street and AM 11 /01 0.5 A 10.6 C Farman Frontage Road PM 11 /01 0.5 A 24.6 D Sat 12/01 0.4 A 10.0 B Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersections expressed in seconds per vehicle. 3 LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity . Manual nethodology for two -way stop - controlled intersections. Roadway Seements Existing roadway segment operations are summarized in Table 6. Existing daily traffic volumes on Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Street were obtained from machine counts conducted in November 2001. All four segments are currently operating at good levels (LOS A). Two -Lane Highway Segment Existing traffic volume data and roadway characteristics for the segment of SR 152 between US 101 and Frazier Lake Road were obtained from the Gilroy Retail Center TrafficbnpactAnalysis (Higgins Associates, July 26, 2001). Traffic counts were conducted on SR 152, west ofFrazier Lake Road in Feburary 2001. Level of service calculations were conducted using the Retail Center TIA data. Calculation sheets are included in Appendix I. The results indicate that this segment of SR 152 is currently operating at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours, unacceptable operating levels based on the City of Gilroy standard (LOS Q. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 19 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Table 6 Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service LOS C Existing Volume Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Segment Type' (vpd2) Volume LOS Lucbessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 5,485 A between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 6,030 A between Princevalle St. and Monterey St. Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 7,835 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 12,970 A between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note: ' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 City of Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program report. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. 2 Vebicles per day. Freeway Segments Table 7 contains the existing freeway segment levels of service based on the segment densities reported in the CMP's 1998Monitoring and Conformance Report. The 2000 monitoring report did not survey freeway segments in the City of Gilroy. In addition, the 1998 monitoring report did not include freeway segments south ofthe City ofMorgan Hill during the AM peak hour. Therefore, onlyPM peak hour information was used and presented in Table 7. The segments ofUS 101 reported in this table were chosen to be consistent with the segments in the VTA's monitoring report. Based on the monitored freeway segment densities, all of the segments are operating at LOS B during the PM peak hour under Existing Conditions. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 20 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februar92002 Table 7 Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service' Peak Segment' Hour Direction Density' LOS US 101, Leavesley Road to Tenth Street AM NB &SB n /a° nW PM NB 12.9 B SB 12.0 B US 101, Tenth Street to SR 25 AM NB & SB n /a° nle PM NB 10.6 B SB 15.1 B Note:' Segment densities obtained from Appendices E and F of the VTA's 1998 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Repoli. (these segments were not monitored in the 2000 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report) Levels of service reported here based on the monitoring report densities. ' Segments of US 101. presented here are based on those in the 1998 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Repoli. The study segments for this analysis are located within those segments. ' Density expressed in vehicles per mile per lane. < Not available. Not included in the VTA's 1998 monitoring report. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 21 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion ofthe proposed development. Traffic volumes forBackgiound Conditions comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area. This chapter first describes the procedure used to estimate the background traffic volumes. Then, the results ofthe level of service analysis for Background Conditions are presented. Background Traffic Estimates The traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding existing volumes and traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects in the vicinity ofthe site. The list of approved projects was developed with input from City of Gilroy Planning staff. Eleven approved developments were identified in the vicinity ofthe project site (see Table C -1 in Appendix Q. These developments include Eagle Ridge (450 homes), the Highway 152 Retail Center (929,200 square feet), Wellington Business Park (90 acres), and Ramada Inn (96 rooms). Thetraffic associated with these projects was estimatedbased on trip generationrates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6h edition). Trip generation estimates for the approved developments are included in Table C -1. The trips associated with eachprojectwere then assigned to the roadwaynetwork based on the trip distribution patterns contained in the Cityof Gilroy 2001 Traffic Monitoring Program TRAFFIX model, relative locations ofcomplementary land uses, and existing travel patterns. The traffic associated with the approved developments was added to the existing volumes at the key intersections and roadway segments to estimate traffic volumes for Background Conditions.' Figure 6 illustrates the traffic volumes estimated at the key intersections for Background Conditions. 'It should be noted that the Saturday peak -hour traffic estimates assume that all the uses included in the approved developments peak at the same time, producing a conservatively high estimate. of Saturday peak -hour volumes. Furthermore, the method used to estimate traffic volumes added by the approved developments duringall study periods is conservative. The approved developments include both residential and commercial/industrial developments. Some of the trips originating in the residential developments will be destined forthe industrialicommercial uses. No reduction was applied to take into accoumthis internalization between approved developments within Gilroy, resulting in some "double counting." Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 22 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport ParldUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Background Levels of Service Intersections The results ofthe intersection level of service calculations forBackground Conditions are presented in Tables 8a and 8b. The LOS calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. The results indicate that the key intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels with traffic added by approved developmentproj ects. All of the key signalized intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or C duringboth peak hours. The overall operating levels at the three unsignalized intersections are projected to be LOS A. The worst case approach at the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours and LOS A during the Saturday peak hour. The worst case approach at the intersection of Luchessa Avenue and Church Street is projected to operate at LOS B during the weekday AM and Saturday peals hours and LOS C during the S aturdaypeak hour. At the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road, the operation of the worst case approach (eastbound Farman Frontage Road) is proj ected to be LOS C during the AM and Saturday peak hours and an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour volumes at this intersection did not meet the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant for traffic signal installation (see Appendix E). Table 8a Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Intersection Peak Hour Delay' LOS' Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue AM 20.2 C PM 23.1 C- Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps AM 13.7 B- PM 14.9 B- Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps AM 20.1 C PM 20.4 C AM 19.2 C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 17.7 C Sat 17.5 C Notes: Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. LOS calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis progmm, TRAFFIX, which is based on the 1985 Highway Capacio, Manual delay methodology for signalized intersections. , Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 24 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February2002 Table Sb Background Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Intersection Hour Delay' LOS 2 Delay' LOS 2 Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street AM 1.3 A 5.9 B PM 1.3 A 7.6 B Sat 0.9 A 4.7 A Luchessa Avenue and Church Street AM 1.4 A 7.5 B PM 1.1 A 10.2 C at 0.9 A 6.1 B Monterey Street and Farman Frontage. Road AM 0.5 A 13.0 B PM 0.9 A 60.1 F Sat 0:4 A 14.6 C Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersection expressed in seconds per vehicle. Z LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual nTthodology for two -way stop - controlled intersections. Roadway Segments The operations of the key roadway segments with the addition of traffic associated with already approved developments is presented in Table 9. The keyroadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels. Two -Lane Highway lway Segments SR 152 will be widened from US 101 to Llagas Creek with widening to Gilroy Foods completed in November 2002. The widening would also include a traffic signal at Gilroy Foods. With these improvements, the section ofSR 152 betweenUS 101 and Llagas Creek would operate as afour -lane arterial. The segment of SR 152 between Llagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road would still operate as atwo -lane highway. With the addition oftraffic associated with already approved developments, this segment is projected to continue to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and degrade from LOS E to F during the PM peak hour. These operating levels are unacceptable based on the City's standard. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 25 W H Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Table 9 Background Roadway Segment Levels of Service LOS C Volume Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Segment Type' (vpd2) Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 7,320 A between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 8,035 A between Princevalle St. and Monterey St. Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 9,765 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 14,500 A between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note: ' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 Cityof Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program report. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. ' Vehiclesperday. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 26 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed Gilroy Sports Park and buildout of the USA amendment parcels on the surrounding roadwaysystem are discussed inthis chapter. First, the methodology used to estimate the amount oftraffic generated by each component ofthe project is described. Then, the results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions are presented. Project Conditions are defined as Background Conditions plus traffic generated by the proposed project. Project Conditions were evaluated in sevenphases. A comparison of intersection and roadway segment operating levels under Background and Project Conditions is then presented, and the impacts of the project on the key intersections and roadway segments are described. The potential impacts of the project on freeway segments in the vicinity of the project site are also discussed. Project Traffic Estimates The amount oftraffic, associated with the project was estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amounts oftraffic entering and exiting the site were estimated for the study periods. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site were estimated. The trips were assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results oftheprocess for the Gilroy Sport Park and USA amendment are described in the following sections. Trip Generation Project trip generation was estimated for the individual project components and then summed to estimate the total number of trips generated by the project. Table 10 presents a summary ofthe trip generation estimated for the project. The methodologies used to estimate the trip generation for each component are described in the following sections. Sports Park Peale -hour trip generation for the sports park component of the project was estimated based on the proposed number and types ofplaying fields and otheruses, as well as input from the project architect on the expected operation of the sports park. The trip generation estimates assumed the use of all softball/baseball fields at one time. These ball fields are overlaid with soccer fields, which would not be in use during softball or baseball games. Basing the trip generation on the use ofall softball/baseball fields was more conservative than assuming the use of all soccer fields because soccer teams are likelyto have slightly fewer players than softball/baseball teams (12 per team versus 15 to 18 per team) and there are fewer proposed soccer fields than ball fields (seven soccer fields versus 13 softball and baseball fields). Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 27 Table 10 Trip Generation Estimates PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Weekday Daily AM AM Peak Hour Trips PM Trips Sat. Trips Trip Trip Trip Component Use Rate' Trips Rate' In Out Total Rate' In Out Total Rate' In Out Total Sports Park Entry Road Phases I& II Colt Baseball (1) n/a 940 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 56 56 112 n/a 74 74 148 Little League (2) Phase III Softball (1) n/a 570 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 34 34 68 n/a 58 58 116 Comm. Rec. Phase IV Softball (4) n/a 1,300 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 78 78 156 n/a 110 110 220 Phase V Softball (4) n/a 1,300 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 78 78 156 n/a 110 110 220 VI & VII Softball (1) n/a 490 n/a 20 20 40 n/a 29 29 58 n/a 48 48 96 General Park Other Roadway Phases VIII&LX Improvements & n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 Uvas Creek Trail south Subtotal 4,600 40 40 80 275 275 550 400 400 800 Residential Single- Family 9.57 861 0.75 17 51 68 1.01 58 33 91 0.94 46 39 j 85 Condo /Townhouse 5.86 334 0.44 4 21 25 0.54 17 14 31 0.47 14 12 27 Subtotal 1,195 21 71 93 75 47 122 60 51 111 Commercial Shopping Center 36.17 21,347 0.78 281 180 460 3.43 973 1,054 2,027 4.69 1,441 1,330 2,770 Pass -by Reduction 30% 6404 30% (69) (69) (138) 30% (304) (304) (608) 30% 4416) (415) 8( 311 Subtotal 14,943 212 111 322 669 750 1,419 1,025 915 1,939 Total 20,738 273 222 495 1,019 1,072 2,091 1,072 1,366 2,851 Notes:' Sports park trip generation is estimated based on expected usage of the park. Daily sports park trips were estimated assuming 12 percent of daily trips occur during the PM peak hour. Residential trip generation rates are from ITE Trip Generation (6th al.) for single-famity detached and townhouse/condominiumland uses. Cormnercial trip generation is estimated based on ITE regression equations for shopping center trip generation. The presented rates are calculated by dividing the estimate number of trips by the size of the commercial space in thousands of square feet. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Trip generation estimates were first developed for theworst case condition, the S aturdaypeak hour. hz addition to those described above, other assumptions include: (1) 30 players per field for softball and Little League and 36 players per field for colt baseball; (2) One spectator per player for softball and colt baseball and 35 spectators per Little League game (slightly more than one per player to reflect more parents watching their children); (3) An auto occupancy of 2.0 persons per vehicle for softball and colt baseball and 2.1 persons per vehicle for Little League (the higher occupancy for Little League was assumed due to more parents arriving with children). (4) Seventy five percent (75 %) ofthe games were assumed to begin or end during the peak hour. It was further assumed that the players and spectators associated with these games would arrive or leave during that hour. (5) Commercial recreation, general park use, and special events were estimated to add 200 trips (50% inbound and 50% outbound) during the Saturday peak hour. (6) PM peak -hour trip generation was assumed to be 75 %of the Saturday peak -hour trip generation for softball and baseball games and 50 %of Saturdaypeak-hour trip generation for general park use, commercial recreation and special events. (7) AMpeak -hour trip generationwas assumed to be primarily associated with drop-in use ofthe park and no organized events are expected during the morning commute hours. City staffestimated that amaximum of50 peoplewouldbe likelyto use the park during this time period.2Itwas assumed that 80 percent ofpark users during the morning peak hour would . travel by car and would enter and exit the site duringthe AM peakhour. The AM peak - hour trip generation for the sports park was therefore estimated to be 80 trips (40 inbound and 40 outbound).' (8) In order to estimate weekday daily trip generation for the sports park, a peak -hour factor was developed based on the relationships of daily to PM peak -hour trip rates 'Personal communication with Bill Hedley, City of Gilroy Department of Community Development, December, 14, 1999. 'This trip generation estimate is believed to be conservative. The AM peak -hour trip generation for a 78 -acre park based on Institute of Transportation Engineers AM peak -hour trip generation rates for a "County Park" land use is one trip. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 29 Gilroy Sport ParldUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 for similar uses contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). It is estimated that 12 percent of the daily sports park trips will enter and exit the site during the PM peak hour. This factor was used to expand PM peak -hour trip generation to estimate weekday daily sports park trip generation. A summary ofthe trips generation estimates is contained in Appendix D, including phase by phase estimates and estimates for use of all soccer fields (for informational purposes). The sports park, as proposed, is estimated to generate a total of 4,600 weekday dailytrips, 80 AM peals -hour tips (40 inbound and 40 outbound), 550 PM peak -hour trips (275 inbound and 275 outbound), and 800 Saturdaypeak -hour trips (400 inbound and 400 outbound). The trip generation estimates are presented in Table 10 by phase. Residential Development The amount oftraffic generated bythe residential parcels was estimated by applying appropriatetrip generation rates, corresponding to the land use type, to the development size. It was assumed that the residential parcels wouldbe developed forthe maximum development of 90 single - familyhomes and 57 multi- family homes. The standard source used to estimate vehicular trip generation is the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (6th edition). The ITE trip generation rates for "Single- FamilyDetached Residential" and "Condominium/Townhouse" land uses were applied to the size of the proposed development in number of units. The trip generation rates and resulting trip generation estimates are presented in Table 10. The proposed residential development is estimated to generate a total of 1,195 weekday daily trips, 93 AM peals -hour tips (21 inbound and 71 outbound), 122 PM peak -hour trips (75 inbound and 47 outbound), and 111 Saturday peak -hour trips (60 inbound and 51 outbound). Commercial Parcels There is no specific development proposed for the commercial parcels. The parcels will be zoned Commercial General Services. At the direction of City staff, it was assumed that approximately 590,000 square feet (s. f.) ofretail space would be developed. This development size was estimated based on a 25 percent floor - area -ratio (FAR)' and an average building height of two stories on approximately 27 acres. The ITE trip generation regression equations for shopping centers were used °This FAR is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. City staff has indicated that the commercial parcels are located within floodway, and therefore, development on the commercial parcels is likely to be limited to an FAR of 25 percent or less. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 30 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 to estimate the project trip generation. The buildout size of 590,000 s.f was input to these equations to estimate daily and AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak -hour trip generation. The results are presented in Table 10. It was assumed that 50 percent of the trips would be generated by the northen parcels and 50 percent would be generated by the southern parcels. A 30 percent reduction factorwas applied to the shopping center trip generation estimates to account for pass-by trips. Pass- bytrips are trips generated by the proposed project that are attracted from the traffic alreadypassing the project site on an adjacent street. A 30 percent reduction is the maximum allowed under VTA guidelines. With the application ofthe pass- byreduction, the commercial parcels are estimated to add 14,943 new dailytrips, 322 AM peak -hour trips (212 inbound and 111 outbound), 1,419 PM peak-hour trips (669 inbound and 750 outbound), and 1,939 Saturdaypeak -hour trips (1,025 inbound and 915 outbound). Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for the proj ect was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. Separate distribution patterns were developed for each proj ect component. The major directions for project- generated traffic to approach and depart the project site are estimated to be: Roadway /Direction Luchessa Avenue West Santa Teresa Boulevard North Santa Teresa Boulevard South Princevalle Street North Church Street North Monterey Street North US 101 North US 101 South SR 152 East Luchessa Avenue East Princevalle /Church neighborhood The trip distribution pattern is illustrated on Figure 7. Sports Park Residential Commercial 5% 5% 5% 20% 7% 20% 5% 3% 5% 10% 3% 5% 15% 5% 8% 10% 20% 17% 15% 40% 19% 10% 15% 15% 5% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 5% 0% 5% 100% 100% 100% Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 31 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TM — F bruary 2002 20%,/' // 0 Cl) e u7 Study Intersection XX/XX/XX = Sports Park/ Residential/ rn 0 1Ln 0 N In 0 r U I I 19 %/40 %/19% 5 %/15% 1%/0%/1% H O N Not to Scale Figure 7 I TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN I f� I azsnni Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Trip Assignment The trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. The pass -by trips (30 percent of the commercial development) were assigned based on the existing distribution oftraffic (northbound versus southbound) on Monterey Street at the site driveways. Figure 8a presents the peak -hour project trip assignments by turning movement at the study intersections and on nearby roadway segments for buildout conditions. Figure 8b shows project trips at the site driveways and the intersection of Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road. The project trips for each analysis phase were added to the traffic volumes for Background Conditions to achieve turning- movement volumes at the key intersections for each analysis phase. The total traffic volumes at each of the key intersections under project buildout conditions are shown on Figure 9. Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating conditions ofthe key intersections withproject traffic and the potential impacts ofthe proposed project on the local roadway system. Intersection operations were evaluated for seven levels of development of the project. The results ofthe intersection level of service calculations for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Tables 11a and l lb. The signalized intersections ofMonterey Street with the US 101 southbound ramps and with the US 101 northbound ramps and the Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road intersection are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through buildout of the proposed proj ect. The signzlied intersection ofMonterey Street and LuchessaAveue is projected to operate at acceptable levels thought the final phase ofthe Sports Park. Withbuildout ofthe residential and commercial parcels, intersection operations are projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 33 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Figure 8a PEAK -HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 4�1", (PROJECT BUILDOUT) _ 1" Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Key: Study Intersection XX (XX)[XX] = AM(PM)[Saturday] O N Not to Scale Figure 8a PEAK -HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 4�1", (PROJECT BUILDOUT) _ 1" Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TM February 2002 Note: Tdp assigment at commercial driveways and the Monterey StreeWarman Frontage Road Not to Scale intersection includes pass-by trips. Figure 8b PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT AT SITE ,�, ", DRIVEWAYS AND NEARBY INTERSECTIONS fp Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. t Key: = Study Intersection 00(00)(00) = AM(PM)[Saturday) Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 f- 0(0)[0] 10(5)[3] V° gg51,43' 0 81 2AA3j�A1 X35(121) 56(159) 4 (79 ) 56 (290) [ 47 (41) 6 N [ 66 (77) R 162(74) -► 1 369 (700) _�k M a 6 �ky5 �y; m `✓� � m O N f- 0(0)[0] 10(5)[3] Figure 9 1 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT BUILDOUT „� „�, PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. V° gg51,43' 0 81 2AA3j�A1 2 4 (79 ) 47 (41) 6 m2 p 4 � m O N Not to Scale Figure 9 1 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT BUILDOUT „� „�, PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 The overall operations ofthe unsignalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street are projected to be acceptable (LOS C or better) during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours through projectbuildout. The worst case approach is projected to operate at an acceptable level through the final phase ofthe sports park. With buildout ofthe commercial parcels and the residential development, the worst case approach is projected to deteriorate to LOSE during the PM peak hour and LOS F during the Saturdaypeak hour. Operations during the AM peak hour areprojected to continue to be LOS B, an acceptable level. The overall operations of the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection are projected to be acceptable through the final phase of the sports park. With the buildout of the project, overall intersection operations areprojected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturdaypeak hours. Operations during the AM peak hour are projected to continue to be LOS A. The worst case approach is also projected to operate at acceptable levels through the final phase of the sports park (LOS D or better) and deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours with buildout of the residential and commercial parcels. As currently approved, the sports park proj ect is required to install a traffic signal at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection prior to completion of Phase N of the park. For this analysis, it was assumed that no lane additions would be made at this intersection as part of the proposed project. Overall intersection operations at the unsignalized intersection are projected to be acceptable through completion of Phase III ofthe sports park during AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The operations of the worst case approach, eastbound Farman Frontage Road, are projected to remain at acceptable levels during all three peak hours through the completion ofPhase H ofthe sports park. With the completion of Phase III, this approach is projected to deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour. With signalization, the intersection of Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road is projected to operate at acceptable levels during the AM, PM and Saturdaypeak hours (with no lane additions) from Phase IV through the final phase ofthe sports park. With buildout of the commercial and residential parcels, the operations of this intersection are projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and S aturday p eak hours. Operations during the AM p eak hour are proj ected to b e LOS C, an acceptable operating level. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 37 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 11a Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Delay' LOS: Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Background Conditions AM 20.2 C (Existing Conditions +Approved Projects PM 23.1 C- Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 20.8 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic ) PM 23.4 C- Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 20.8 C (Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic ) PM 23.6 C- Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 20.8 C Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 24.2 C- Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 20.8 C (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic ) PM 24.8 C- Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 20.9 C Phase V Conditions + Park Phases Vl &VII Traffic) PM 25.1 D+ Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 20.9 C (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic ) PM 25.1 D+ Project Buildout Conditions AM 22.3 (17.5) C(C) Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic PM >120 21.4 F C Monterey Street and US 101 Southbound Ramps Background Conditions AM 13.7 B (Existing Conditions +Approved Projects ) PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 13.7 B (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic ) PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 13.7 B Phase 11 Conditions+ Park Phase III Traffic PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 13.7 B (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic ) PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 13.7 B (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic ) PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 13.7 B- Phase V Conditions +Park Phases VI &VII Traffic PM 15.0 B- Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 13.7 13- (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic ) PM 15.0 B- Project Buildout Conditions AM 14.2 B- S orts Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic PM 16.2 C+ Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 38 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table I I (cont.) Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Delay' LOS z Monterey Street and US 101 NB Rams ' Background Conditions AM 20.1 C (Existing Conditions +Approved Projects) PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 20.1 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I&II Traffic ) PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase III Conditions+ Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 20.4 - C Sports Park. Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 20.1 C (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic ) PM 20.4 C. Project Buildout Conditions AM 19.9 C (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic ) PM 20.0 C Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road' Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 9.9 B (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 12.0 B Sat 15.2 C+ Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 10.0 B (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 14.7 B- Sat 17.9 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 8.5 B (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 15.7 C+ Sat 19.2 C Sports. Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 8.5 B (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 15.7 C+ Sat 19.2 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 20.5 (21.4) C (C) (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM >120 (20.8) F (C) Sat >120 21.4 F C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road Background Conditions AM 19.2 C (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) mat 17.7 C Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 39 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table Ila (cont.) Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Delay' LOS z Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 19.2 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 17.7 C Sat 17.7 C Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 19.2 C (Phase 11 Conditions + Park Phase llI Traffic) PM 17.8 C Sat 17.8 C Sports Park Phase IV Conditions 19.2 C (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) AM 17.9 C PM 17.9 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 19.2 C (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 17.9 C Sat 17.9 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 19.2 C (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 17.9 C Sat 17.9 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 19.2 C (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 17.9 C Sat 17.9 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 19.6 C (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 18.0 C Sat 17.2 C Notes: Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which is based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual d§ay methodology for signalized intersections. ' These phases of the sports park include roadway and Uvas Creek Trail improvements. The park is not estimated to generate any additional traffic over Phase VI &VII conditions. ° This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs. The approved sports park project was conditioned to signalized this intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. See Table. I Ob for LOS results for phases of the project prior to signalization. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 40 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table I1b Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Worst Case Intersection Movement Average Average Peak Total Total Scenario Hour Dela ' LOS' Dela 'LOS Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Background Conditions AM 1.3 A 5.9 B (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.3 A 7.6 B Sat 0.9 A 4.7 B Sports Park Phases 1 &II Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.5 B (Background Conditions+ Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 1.4 A 8.3 B Sat 1.0 A 5.2 B Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.5 B (Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 1.5 A 8.7 B Sat 1.0 A 5.6 B Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.6 B (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 1.5 A 9.9 B Sat 1.0 A 6.6 B Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.6 B (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 1.9 A 11.4 C Sat 1.4 A 7.8 B Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.8 B (Phase ..V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 2.0 A 12.0 C Sat 1.5 A 8.4 B Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 1.9 A 6.8 B (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 2.0 A 12.0 C Sat 1.5 A 8.4 B Project Buildout Conditions AM 7.0 B 8.6 (7.6) B (B) (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 8.4 B 65.6 (5.5) E (B +) Sat 8.0 B 61.9 5.7 F (B+ Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Background Conditions AM 1.4 A 7.5 B (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.1 A 10.2 C Sat 0.9 A 6.1 B Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 1.4 A 6.3 B (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 1.3 A 11.9 C Sat 1.0 A 5.0 B Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 1.5 A 6.4 B (Phase 11 Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 1.5 A 13.0 C Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 41 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table Ilb (con't) Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Worst Case Intersection Movement Average Average Peak Total Total Scenario Hour Oelav' LOS Delav LOS Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 1.5 A 7.8 B (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 1.9 A 16.5 -C Sat 1.5 A 10.5 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 1.5 A 7.9 B (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 2.5 A 21.5 D Sat 2.0 A 13.8 B Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 1.5 A 8.2 B (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 2.9 A 24.4 D Sat 2.3 A 15.9 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions3 AM 1.5 A 8.2 B (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 2.9 A 24.4 D Sat 2.3 A 15.9 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 2.5 (6.4) A (B) 12.8 C (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM >120 (7.5) F (B) >120 F Sat >120 (8.5) F (B ) >120 F Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road Background Conditions AM 0.5 A 13.0 C (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 0.9 A 60.1 F Sat 2.2 A 29.1 D Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 0.6 A 13.2 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 14.1 A >120 F Sat 6.6 B 62.7 F Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 0.7 A 13.2 C (Phase 11 Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 54.4 F >120 F Sat 113.1 F >120 F Notes: ' Average total intersection delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two-way stop - controlled intersections. ' These phases of the sports park include roadway and Uvas Creek Trail improvements. The park is not estimated to generate any additional traffic over Phase VI &VII conditions. ° This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs. The project proposes for this intersection to continue to be stop sign controlled until Phase VIII of the project when a signal will be constructed. See Table I Oa for LOS results for sports park phases VII& IX and buildout of the project when the signal will be in place. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 42 Gilroy Sport Park1USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Intersection hnpacts The impacts ofthe proposed project were evaluatedby comparing the results of the level of service calculations underProject (Buildout) Conditions to the results underBackground Conditions. For this analysis, traffic impacts at signalized intersections are defined to occurwhen the addition ofproject traffic causes: 1. Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E, or F); or 2. Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS D, E, or F). Traffic impacts atunsignalized intersections are defined to occur when the addition ofproject traffic causes: 1. Overall intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E, or F); or 2. The peak -hour volume traffic signal warrant to be satisfied and the worst case approach operations to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. The results indicate that the project will have a significant adverse impact on four ofthe seven key intersections: Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road The addition ofproject traffic to the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection causes the worst case approach to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS E during the PM peak hour and from LOS B to LOS F during the Saturdaypeak hour. The addition ofproject traffic to the LuchessaAvenue /Church Street intersection causes both overall intersection operations and the worst case approach to deteriorate from acceptable operating levels to LOS F duringboth the PM and Saturdaypeak hours. The intersection of Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue is proj ected to degrade from LOS C to LOS F during the PM peak hour with the addition ofproject - generated traffic. The operation ofthe Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection is projected to deteriorate from acceptable level under Background Conditions to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours with the addition of project traffic and construction of the proposed traffic signal. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 43 Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Intersection Mitigation Measures The proposed project is estimated to have a significant impact on four ofthe seven study intersections. Mitigation measures are discussed below for each intersection. Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street The estimatedPM and Saturdaypeak -hour traffic volumes at the LuchessaAvenue/Prineevalle Street intersection satisfy the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant for traffic signal installation under Project Buildout Conditions (see Appendix E). The operation of this intersection would improve to LOS'B during AM, PM, and S aturday peak hours with the installation ofa traffic signal, with the exisfing lane configuration and two -phase signal operation. (Level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.) Therefore, installation of a traffic signal would mitigate the project's impact at this intersection. Luchessa Avenue and Church Street The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements are also satisfied with the Project Buildout Conditions volumes estimated for the intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Church Street during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The project's impact at this intersection would be reduced to a less - than- significant levelwith the installationofatraffic signal, two -phase signal operation, and the following lane configuration: Northbound and Southbound Approaches One approach lane for all movements Eastbound and Westbound Approaches One left -turn lane One shared through and right -turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection is projected to operated at LOS B during the AM, PM, and Saturday peals hours with traffic volumes estimated for Project Buildout Conditions. This mitigation measure requires the addition ofleft- tumpockets onthe eastbound andwestbound approaches at this intersection. With buildout of the City's General Plan, Luchessa Avenue will be widened to six lanes. The future roadwaywidth is anticpated to be of 116 to 120 feet. This widthwill be more than adequate to accommodate the addition of left -turn pockets. Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 44 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 The addition of a second northbound left -tum lane and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane will improve the operation of the Monterey Street/LuchessaAvenue intersections from LOS F to LOS E during the PM peak hour. In order to further improve operations to LOS C, either aright -tam arrow would need to be provided for the eastbound right -tam movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left -turn movement has a green arrow) or the eastbound right -tum movement would need to be removed from the intersection by a pork chop island and controlled by a yield sign. With these improvements, the intersection is proj ected to operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours, thus mitigating the project impact. As noted above, an ultimate width of 116 to 120 feet is anticipated on Luchessa Avenue. A separate eastbound right -turn lane at the Monterey Street /Luchessa Avenue intersection could be accommodated within this width. The City's General Plan includes the addition ofa separate eastbound right -turn lane at this intersection. Currently, there is a wide landscaped median island on Monterey Street. Adequate width maybe available within the median to provide the second northbound left -turn lane with median modifications. A second westbound through lane would also need to be added to Luchessa Avenue, west of Monterey Street, to serve as areceiving lane for the second northbound left -turn lane. The General Plan includes widening Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Street (between Luchessa Avenue and US 10 1) to six lanes and providing a second northbound left -turn lane at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection. The third northbound through lane on Monterey Street will need to end at the intersection of Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue, mostly like as a "trap" right -turn or left -tum lane. The second northbound left -tum lane could be provided in this manner. Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road As currently approved, the sports park project is required to install a traffic signal at the Monterey Street /Farman Frontage Road intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. With the proposed proj ect, it is recommended that this traffic signal be installed prior to completion ofPhase III ofthe sports park and that additional improvements to this intersection be made to mitigate impacts associated with buildout of the commercial parcels. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant for signal installation' in the Caltrans TrafficManualwas investigated to determine when traffic volumes at the intersection would satisfy the warrant requirements. The estimated traffic volumes forBackground Conditions, sports park Phase I &II, and sports park Phase Ili were compared to the requirements for rural areas because travel speeds on Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road exceed 45 mph (the speed limit is 50 mph). Traffic volumes after the completion ofPhases III through project buildout satisfy the warrant requirements during both peak hours. Traffic projections for the PM peak hour after completion ofPhase II would marginallymeet Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 45 Gilroy Sport Par]dUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA the requirements. The signal warrant sheets are included in Appendix E. With installation ofthe traffic signal, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during all three studyperiods through the Enalphasc of the sports park with the existing lane configuration. Withthe development ofthe commercial parcels, additional turn lanes would be needed to serve traffic entering and exiting the shopping center. Two exclusive southbound right -turn lanes, two northbound left -turn lanes and widening of the eastbound approach would be needed to serve the projected volumes. The recommended lane configuration is: Southbound Approach - one left -turn lane, two through lanes, two right -turn lanes Westbound Approach - one shared lane for all movements Northbound Approach - two left-turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right -turn lane Eastbound Approach - one exclusive left -turn lane, one shared through and left-turn lane, and one right -turn lane. In addition, right -turn arrows would need to be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three study periods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound approaches. This improvementwill need to be coordinatedwith futureplans to widen Monterey Streetto six lanes. Therecommended lane configuration mayrequirewidening onthewest side (beyond thatplannedby the City) to provide one orboth southbound right -tam lanes andpossiblythe second northbound left- turn lane. The northbound left-turn lane may be able to be added' with median modifications alone. The improvements to the Farman Frontage Road leg of the intersection will require substantial widening on Farman Frontage Road, which is currently 50 feet wide at the intersection and narrows to 30 feet approximately 100 feetwest ofMonterey Street. The TRAFFIX design queues estimated for the Farman Frontage Road approach to its intersection with Monterey Street indicate that a 250 - foot right -turn pocket and two 475 -foot left-turn pockets will be needed to accommodate the projected queues. It is also recommended that the secondwestbound lane onFannan Frontage Road (to accommodate the second northbound left-tum lane from Monterey Street) be continued to the sports park entrance road, approximately 600 feet from the intersection. Farman Frontage Road currently curves to the south just west ofits intersection with Monterey Street. Some realignment of the roadway maybe necessary (Farman Frontage Road mayneed to be extended fartherto the west before it curves to the south) to provide adequate turning radii at its intersection with Monterey Street. Feasibility of the improvements to Farman Frontage Road and its intersection with Monterey Street issubjectto more detailed engineering studies. Without implementation of all the mitigation measures, the project's impact would not be fully mitigated. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 46 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Proiect Site Access Evaluation ofthe project site access is discussed in Chapter 7. Recommendations for improving the site access are also described:'- _ Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service Table 12 presents the operating levels ofthe keyroadway segments under Background and Project Conditions. With the addition ofproject-'generated traffic one ofthe fourkey segments is prof ected to operate at an unacceptable level: Luchessa Avenue between Princevalle and Monterey Streets is projected to operate atLOS Ewiththe additioriofprojectbuildouttraffic. Theremaining segments are projected to continue to operate at LOS C. or better, acceptable levels based on the City of Gilroy standard. Roadway Segment Impacts With the addition of project - generated traffic, one of the key roadway segments is projected to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. The segment ofLuchessa Avenue between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street is projected to degrade from LOS A to LOS E, an unacceptable level based on the City ofGilroy. standard. This deterioration in roadway segment level of service constitutes a significant impact. The three remaining segments are projected to continue to foperate at acceptable levels, and therefore, the project's impact on these segments is less than significant. Roadway Segment Mitigation Measures , Widening the segmentofLuchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street from two to four lanes would provide adequate capacityto serve the estimated project buildout traffic volumes and mitigate the project impact. The City's General Plan includes widening of Luchessa Avenue between Chestnut Street and Thomas Road (including the bridge over Uvas Creek) to six lanes. An ultimate roadway width of 116 to 120 feet is anticipated on Luchessa Avenue Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 47 1 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 13 Freeway Segment Analysis Requirement Determination (PM Peak Hour)' 1 1% of Project Requires Segment - Capacity' Capacity Trips' Analysis? Northbound US 101, Monterey Street to Leavesley Road 6,900 69 224 Yes 'Southbound US 101, Leavesley Road to Monterey Street --• 6,900 69- 219 Yes Northbound US 101, SR 25 to Monterey Street 4,400 44 139 Yes Southbound US 101, Monterey Street to SR 25 4,400 44 147 Yes Notes: t A ca�acity of 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane was used for four -lane highway segments, while,a capacity of.2,300 - vehic es per hour per lane was used for eeway segments with six or more Canes. 3 Greatest number of project trips added at any one location withiri this segment. The project is estimated to add traffic that will'exceed one percent of the capacityto all four ofthe nearby freeway segments. Table 14 presents the levels of service ofthese segments with the addition ofproject- generated traffic. All ofthe segments are projected to operate at LOS B or C duringthe PM peak hour, acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the project impact on these segments is less than significant. - Left -Turn Pocket Storage and Queuing Analysis Queuing analyses were conducted at four key intersections. The analysis looked at the potential for queues in the through lanes to spill back from one traffic signal to an upstream intersection. Left-turn pockets on intersection approaches to which the proposed project is projected to add a significant number of vehicles were also evaluated. Six locations were analyzed: • Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue (northbound) • Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road (northbound) • Monterey Street/US 101 Southbound ramps (northbound) • Monterey Street/US 101 Southbound ramps (southbound) • Monterey Street/US 101 Northbound ramps (northbound) • MomereyStreet/US.101 Northbound ramps (southbound)' TRAFFIX was used to calculate the design (95s'peicentile) queues. The queuing analysis indicated that the estimated queue lengths would extend past the existing.left-turn storage pockets for the Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 50 1 t� Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 northbound left -tum movement at Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue and the northbound left-turn movement at Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road with the addition ofproject traffic during the PM peak hour However, with implementation ofthe intersection mitigation measures, the left -turn queues would be accommodated. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 51 Table 14 Project Freeway Segment Analysis PM Peak Hour) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Average Project Freeway Study Segment CMP Segment' Direction Lanes Speed Volume Density LOS' Trips Density LOS % Impact 101 Monterey to Leavesley Tenth to Leavesley NB 3 65 2,510 12.9 B 224 14.0 B 3.25% 101 Leavesley to Monterey Leavesley to Tenth SB 3 65 2,330 12.0 B 219 13.1 B 3.17% 101 SR 25 to Monterey SR 25 to Tenth NB 2 65 1,550 10.6 B 139 13.0 B 3.02% 101 Monterey to SR 25 Tenth to SR 25 - SB 2 65 2,210 15.1 B 147 18.1 C 3.20% Notes: Lanes, volute, speed and density from VTA 1998 CMP Monitoring Data. (These segments were not monitored in th(2000 CMP Monitoring and Conformmnce Report. ) Segment contained in1998 CMP Monitoring mrd Conformance Report that was used to estimate operating conditions on the study segment. LOS based on density presented in CMP monitoring report. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 5 - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS This chapterpresents the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions are defined as existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by the proposed prcj ect, plus traffic associated with other proposed but not approved developments in the study area. Cumulative Traffic Estimates Traffic volumes for Cumulative Conditions were estimated byaddingtraffic associated withpending developments to traffic volumes estimated for Proj ect Conditions. There are nine pending developments in the study area including the Glen Loma Specific Plan (670 homes and 360 apartments) and the South Valley Technology Park. The pending developments are presented in Table C- 1(Appendix Q. Traffic volumes for these developments were estimated in a manner similar to the traffic projections for approved developments. Trip generation rates were obtained from ITE Trip Generation (see Table C -1). Peak -hour trips were assigned to the roadwaynetwork based on existing travel patterns, relative locations of complementary land uses, and trip distribution patterns contained in the Gilroy traffic monitoring program TRAFFIX model.' Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service The operations ofthe key intersections were evaluatedwith level of service calculations. The results are presented in Tables 15a and 15b for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. The intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road, at which a traffic signal is proposed as part of the Gilroy Sports Park, was assumed to be signalized under Cumulative Conditions. In addition, the City is also planning to signalized the Princevalle and Luchessa Avenue intersection when traffic signal warrants are met. Therefore, this intersection was also assumed to be signalized under Cumulative Conditions. All of the other study intersections used existing lane configurations. Under Cumulative Conditions, the intersection ofMonterey Street and Luchessa Avenue is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peals hour and the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. These intersections are projected to operate at LOS C during th'e AM peak hour. The Monterey Street intersections at US 101 southbound ramps and US 101 northbound ramps are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or C during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road is projected to continue to operate atLOSB or C during both the AM, 'It should be noted that the Saturday peak hour traffic estimates assume that all the uses included in the approved and cumulative developments, as well as the proposed project, peak at the same time, resulting a conservatively high estimate of Saturday peak -hour volumes. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 53 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue andPrincevalle Street is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS B during AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. Table 15a Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Intersection Peak Hour Delay' LOS' AM 6.9 B+ Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street PM 5.9 B+ Sat 5.7 B+ Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue AM >120 (21.2) F (C) PM >120 (23.0) F (C) Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road AM 12.4 (9.8) B (B) PM >120 (19.0) 'F (C) Sat >120 17.5 F C AM 16.0 C+ Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps PM 17.2 C AM 20.9 C Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps PM 21.8 C AM 25.0 C- Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 20.4 C Sat 18.7 C Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which isbased on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual delay methodology for signalized intersections. ' Volume- to- capacityratio exceed 2.0. Average stopped delay cannot be calculated. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. The intersections that areprojected to operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative Conditions were also evaluatedwith the improvements identified to mitigate project impacts. The improvements identifiedto mitigateproject impacts at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection would improve Cumulative operations to LOS E during the AM peak hour and remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. In addition to some of the General Plan improvements at this intersection which includes three southbound through lanes on Monterey Street, two westbound left -turn lanes, and separate westbound through and right -tam lanes on Luchessa Avenue, the provision of northbound free right -turn would be needed to improve the operations to LOS C during both peak hours. The Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection operations areproj ected to improve to LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM and Saturday peak hours with the identified project mitigation. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 54 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Table 15b Cumulative Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Intersection Hour Delay' LOS 2 Dela ' LOS 2. Luchessa Avenue and Church Street AM >120 (9.6) F (B) >120 F PM >120 (23.7) F (C -) >120 F Sat >120 8.9) F (B) >120 F Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersection expressed in seconds per vehicle. LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Mthodology for two -way stop - controlled intersections. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Overall intersection operations at the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection are projectedtobe LOS F during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The worst case approach is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The project mitigation of installing a traffic signal would improve the operations to LOS C or better. Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway segment operations withprojected Cumulative Conditions volumes arepresented in Table 16. One of the four key roadway segments, Monterey Street between Tenth Street and Luchessa . Avenue is projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels (LOS C or better). The segments of Luchessa Avenue between Thomas Road and Princevalle Street and Monterey Street between Luchessa Avenue and US 101 would deteriorate to LOS D with the addition oftraffic from pending developments. The segm ent ofLuchessa Avenue b etween Monterey S treet and Princevalle Street is projected to deteriorate to LOS F with the addition of traffic associated with pending developments (from LOS A under Existing and Background Conditions and LOS E under Project Conditions). The widening of the Luchessa Avenue to four lanes would improve the operations to an acceptable level. The widening ofMontereyStreet south ofLuchessa Avenue to six lanes would also improve the operations ofthis segment to an acceptable level. The General Plan includes widening ofLuchessa Avenue and Monterey Street south of Luchessa Avenue to six lanes. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 55 Gilroy Sport Par1dUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 16 Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service LOS C Volume Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Segment Type' (vpdr) V01ume' LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 15,430 D (A) between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 20,575 F (A) between Princevalle St. and Monterey St. Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 15,860 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 31,800 D (A) between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note:' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 City of Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program report. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. 3 Vehicles per day. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold.. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Cumulative Two -Lane Highway Level of Service Levels of service were calculated for the AM andPMpeakhours usingtraffic volumes projected for Cumulative Conditions. The results indicate thatthe segment of SR 152, east ofLlagas Creek, will degrade to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and will continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour with the addition oftraffic associated with cumulative developments (see Appendix 1). Widening of this segment would be necessary to improve the level of service. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 56 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 6 - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under General Plan Buildout Conditions. General Plan Buildout Traffic Estimates Traffic volumes for this scenario are based on traffic volume forecasts prepared forthe current General Plan Update by Higgins Associates and from the South Valley Technology Park Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Higgins Associates, December 12, 2001). The daily volumes projected for the General Plan buildout alternative (2020) were compared to the daily base year (1997) volumes from the General Plan update analysis to develop growth factors. These growth factors were applied to the existing (2001) turning- movement volumes at the key intersecti ons to expand the volumes to Year 2020. In general, growth factors were developed on an intersection approach by approach basis and ranged from 1.0 on Princevalle Street to 5.9 on the east approach ofthe Luchessa Avenue/Monterey Street intersection. Traffic projections for the south approach ofthe Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection and the west approach of the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection, which will primarily serve the proposed project, were obtained from the Project Conditions scenario. Roadway segment volumes were obtained, where available, directly from the General Plan update projections for buildout conditions. General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service The operations of the key intersections were evaluated with level of service calculations. Intersection improvements that are included in the City of Gilroy General Plan were assumed to be in place. The lane configurations with these improvements are shown on Figure 10. The LOS calculation results are presented in Tables 17a and 17b for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 57 Gilroy Sport ParIVUSA Amendment Subsequent.EIR TIA Februarv2002 Table 17a General Plan Buildout Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection - Intersection Peak Hour Delay' LOS' AM 8.8 B Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street PM 6.3 B+ Sat 8.1 B Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue AM >120 (21.9) F (C) PM 76.2 (24.9) F (C -) Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road AM 51.0 (13.7) E (B -) PM >120 (21.8) F (C) Sat * * * *' 24.9 F (C-) Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps AM 17.7 C PM 23.9 C- Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps AM 34.4 (22.9) D (C) PM 27.2 (24.0) D+ (C -) AM 19.9 C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 16.5 C+ Sat 17.0 C+ Notes: Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the approved CW level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which is based on the1985 Highway Capacity Manual dday methodology for signalized intersections. ' Volume- to- capacityratio exceed 2.0.. Average stopped delay cannot be calculated. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 58 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TM February 2002 Mkl Not to Scale Figure 10 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS <z I 1�1 s l AT GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT . Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent LIR TIA February 2002 Table 17b General Plan Buildout Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Intersection Hour Delav' LOS 2 Delavt LOS a Luchessa Avenue and Church Street AM >120 (17.3) F (C) >120 F PM >120 (14.0) F (B -) >120 F Sat 72.4 15.6 F (C +) >120 F Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersection expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual nethodology for two-way slop - controlled intersections. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. The results indicate that, with the (General Plan) planned lane configurations, the signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Monterey Street will operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, unacceptable levels. The Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection is also projected to operate at unacceptable levels: LOSE during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The intersection of Monterey Street and the southbound US 101 ramps is projected to operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak flours. The intersection of Monterey Street and the northbound US 101 ramps is projected to degrade to an unacceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour and continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road is projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C during the AM, PM and Saturdaypeak hours. The signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue andPrincevalle Streetwould operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The unsignalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Church Street is projected to operate at overall LOS F during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours, with the worst case approach also operating at an unacceptable level. The intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels under General Plan Buildout Conditions were also evaluated with the improvements identified to mitigate project impacts. The improvements recommended to mitigate proj ect impacts at the one unsignalized intersection, Luchessa Avenue and Church Street, would restore intersection operations to acceptable levels with the General Plan Buildout projections. With traffic signal installation and the provision of left -turn pockets on the eastbound and westbound approaches (proj ect mitigation), the intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 60 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Church Street is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM, PM and Saturdaypeak hours with the projected General Plan Buildout volumes and Luchessa Avenue roadway widening. The improvements identified to mitigate prof ect impacts at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection would improve General Plan Buildout operations to LOS D duringboth the AM and PM peak hours. To attained LOS C operations, the provision of a northbound free right -turn and an overlap phase (right -turn arrow) for the westbound right -turn movement would be needed. Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection operations are projected to improve to LOS C during the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours with the identified project mitigation. The intersection ofMonterey Street with the northbound US 101 ramps is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours with the estimated General PlanBuildout traffic volumes. The proposed project is estimated to have a less- than- significant impact on this intersection, and therefore, no project mitigation measures were identified at this location. Intersection operations under General Plan Buildout Conditions would be improved to LOS C by re- striping the eastbound approach (the US 101 off -ramp) to permit left turns from the existing through only lane. The resulting lane configuration on this approach would be two exclusive left -turn lanes, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -tam lane. Intersection operations are projected to be LOS C during both the AM and PM peals hours with this striping revision. Alternatively, the City is proposing to lower the LOS standard for the US 101 ramp intersections with Monterey Street to LOS D with the proposed General Plan. With this LOS standard change, this intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service without the striping revision. General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service The General Plan includes roadwaywidening on three ofthe four key roadway segments. Monterey Street, south ofLuchessa Avenue, and both studysegments ofLuchessa Avenue will be widened to six lanes. With these roadway improvements, all four of the key segments will operate at acceptable levels with General Plan Buildout projections. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 61 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februart, 2002 Table 18 General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service LOS C Weekday Roadway Volume Daily Segment Type' Threshold Volume' LOS Luchessa Avenue, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 16,000 A between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Arterial Luchessa Avenue, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 22,000 A between Princevalle St. and Monterey St. Arterial Monterey Street, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 23,000 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 36,000 B between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note:' Based on General Plan improvements. ' Traffic volumes taken directly from General Plan UpdateYear 2020 projections, except for the segment on Luchessa Avenue, between Tlromas Road and Princevalle Street, which is estimated based on estimated volumes and growth factors derived from General Plan traffic forecasts. General Plan Buildout Two -Lane Highway Segment Level of Service Under General Plan Buildout Conditions, SR 152 between US 101 and Frazier Lake Road was assumed to be widened and have traffic signals installed. Therefore, this segmentwill no longer function as two -lane highway. Its operationwill be constrained by the operations ofthe signalized intersections. The General P1anBuildout analysis included in the Gilroy Retail Center TIA indicates that SR 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway) will operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. G2 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 7 - SITE ACCESS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW This chapter discusses issues associated with theproposed site plans for the GilroySports Park and the residential component of the project. Site access, parking, and on -site circulation for the sports park were reviewed in detail for the January 1999 Gilroy Sports Park TIA. Park access in the context ofthe currently proposed project (with development on the USA amendment parcels) is discussed in this chapter. The recommendations of the previous review ofparking and on -site circulation for the sports park are also presented. Currently, specific proj ects have not been proposed for the residential or commercial parcels, and therefore, site plans are not available for review. However, general site access issues for the commercial and residential parcels are discussed. Gilroy Sports Park Site access, on -site circulation, and parking were reviewed in detail in the January 1999 TIA for the sports park. An updated review is presented in the following sections. The sports park site plan is illustrated on Figure 3. Site Access Vehicular Access The Gilroy Sports Park will be served by one driveway on Farman Frontage Road. The intersection of the driveway with Farman Frontage Road will be controlled by a stop sign on the driveway approach. During the worst case peak hour on a Saturday, 400 vehicles are proj ected to exit the site during one hour. Under conditions with completion ofthe sports park alone, the intersection of the driveway with Farman Frontage Road is projected to operate at acceptable levels —overall LOS A operations with LOS B operations for the park driveway approach due to the low volumes along Farman Frontage Road. However, with buildout of the commercial parcels, the overall operation of this intersectionwill deteriorate to LOS F duringthe Saturdaypeak hour and theworst case movement, the left -turn from the sports park driveway, will operate atLOS F during thePM and Saturdaypeak hours. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements are satisfied with the project estimated buildout traffic volumes during thePM and Saturdaypeak hours. (See Appendix F for level of service calculation sheets and the signal warrant analysis worksheet.) This intersection should be monitored and a traffic signal installed, ifwarranted, with buildout ofthe commercial parcels. It is recommended that this intersection be designed and constructed to accommodate the possible signal installation. Entryto the parkwill be controlled by a cashier at the entrybuilding located approximately 500 feet from intersection of the park entry road with Farman Frontage Road. A flat parking fee would be charged to vehicles entering the parkwith somepark users (such as tournament players andmembers Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 63 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendrnent Subsequent EIR TIA of league teams) using passes provided in advance. The hourlydesign capacity for aparking entrance with a cashier and a flat fee is approximately 300 vehicles perhourper entry lane (vpltpl). Theproject proposes to have at least two entry lanes. The highest inbound volume to the park is expected to occur during the Saturdaypeak hour. The estimated hourlypeak volume is 400 vehicles. The Wpercentile queue was calculatedusing aPoisson distribution, a capacityof300 vphpl, two entry lanes, and apeak volume of 400 vph (see Appendix F). The results indicate that the maximum queue would be approximately 175 feet in each oftwo lanes. The 500 -foot storage length would be sufficient to serve this queue. Two turn around areas are provided along the entryroad: one between the park gates and Farman Frontage Road and a second west ofthe entrybuilding. These locations will allow vehicles arriving after the park has closed (or drivers wishing to exit for other reasons) to make U -tums and exit the park. Pedestrian Access As part of the sports park component of the project, six -foot wide sidewalks are proposed to be constructed along the west side of Farman Frontage Road between Monterey Street and the park entrance and along the west side ofMonterey Street between Luchessa Avenue and Farman Frontage Road. A crosswalk is proposed across the north leg of the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection. It is recommended that the crosswalk across Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road not be provided until the traffic signal is installed at this intersection. Project- sponsored improvements along Monterey Street should be coordinated with the city's recent improvements to the intersection of Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue. (A traffic signal was constructed inFall 1999.) City standards require 10 -foot sidewalks along Monterey Street. (The site plan shows six -foot sidewalks.) In addition, it is recommended that the sidewalks along Monterey Street be installed when the other improvements (i.e., the installation ofthe traffic signal) occur at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection prior to the completion ofPhase III ofthe sports park. During earlierphases pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided via the Uvas Creek Trial, which links the park to the residential neighborhood to the north and is, therefore, likely to carry the majority of pedestrian traffic to the site. Uvas Creels Trail The project proposes to extend theUvas Creek Trail from Luchessa Avenue through the sports park and then southward to Gavilan College. The trail extension will allow pedestrians and bicyclists to access the sports park from Luchessa Avenue and the neighborhoods to the north. The ultimate trail connection at Luchessa Avenue is an under - crossing at the bridge located west of Princevalle Street. It is planned but is not proposed as part of the sports park project. The proposed near -term trail Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 64 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Febmarv2002 crossing ofLuchessaAvenue is an at -grade crossing located at the intersection ofLuchessaAvenue with Princevalle Street. Improvements will be constructed along both the north and south sides of Luchessa Avenue to continue the pedestrian/bicycle trail between tlneUvas Creek and the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection. The intersection ofLuchessa Avenue at Princevalle Street is aT- intersection and is controlled bya stop sign on the Princevalle Street (southbound) approach. The installation oftraffic signals, crosswalks, and stop signs on all approaches to support of the near -term Uvas Creek Trail connection were investigated. (The ultimate trail connection via the fixture under- crossing ofthe Luchessa Avenue bridge is the recommended pedestrian and bicycle facility.) Due to travel speeds along Luchessa Avenue (in excess of 40 mph), crosswalks are not recommended without the protection of traffic signals with pedestrian heads for pedestrian crossing or all -way stop sign control (stop signs on all three intersection approaches). The installation of signals were investigated via Caltrans traffic signal warrants. The vehicular volumes projected after the completion of the sports park do not satisfy the Peak Hour Volume Warrant requirements (see Appendix E). Caltrans' "Warrant 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume" for traffic signal in stallation requires apedestrian volume crossing the major street of 100 or more for each ofany four hours or 190 or more during any one hour during an average day.' Data provided in the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan (July 1995) indicates that usage ofthe Uvas Creek Trail (measured at Miller Avenue) was about 260 persons on a Saturday and 150 persons on a Tuesday in May 1994. The most likely users of the hail for park access will be residents living in the neighborhoods immediately north of Thomas Road/Luchessa Avenue. As shown on Figure 6, five percent of the project - generated traffic is estimated to originate or be destined for this area. Assuming avehicle occupancy of2.0 persons per vehicle, 80 person -trips during the Saturdaypeak hour and 55 person -trips during the PM peak hour would be generated by these neighborhoods. This projection does not meet the minimum volume required. Therefore, signals are not recommended in the near -term. It is recommended that this location be monitored forboth vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle volumes, and an all -way stop ortraffic signals (with pedestrian heads) be installed ifwarrant requirements are met. As discussed in Chapter 4, with buildout ofthe project (and in particular, the commercial parcels), signalization of this intersection is recommi ended to mitigate proj ect impacts. Under Proj ect Buildout Conditions, the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied with both the prof ected PM and Saturday peak -hour volumes. 'In addition to the minimum pedestrian volume, less than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross during the same time period must be observed. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 65 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Transit Access The project master plan indicates that the VTAwill extend bus service to serve the sports park. City staffhas indicated that the VTA will extend service when other development in this area (including hotels and othercommercial uses along Monterey Street) generate sufficient demand forbus service. The site plan shows abus stop and turn around area on Farman Frontage Road south oftheproject entrance. This bus stop and turn around should be designed to VTA standards. Pedestrian access should be provided from the bus stop to the park, including a sidewalk along Farman Frontage Road that connects to the internal pedestrian paths. On -Site Circulation On -site circulation for the sports park was reviewed and generally found to be adequate. Pedestrian paths and sidewalks are located throughout the park and provide adequate internal pedestrian circulation and connections to the Uvas Creek Trail and Farman Frontage Road. Pedestrians paths along theperimeter of the park are 12 feet wide and double as emergency vehicle access roadways. Some recommended improvements forvehicular circulation are listed below. Sketches illustrating the changes are included in Appendix G. • The outbound lanes of the entry road near Farman Frontage Road should be narrowed to one lane with paint to allow two outbound lanes (with park personnel directing traffic), if needed. All -way stop sign control is recommended at the intersection of the entry road and the main north -south road. All - waystop sign control will provide safer conditions forpedestrians crossing this intersection. It is recommended that the first driveway on the entrance road (closest to Farman Frontage Road) be widened to allow both inbound and outbound traffic and the landscape median along the entry road be cut back to allow left turns from this parking area onto the entry road. Currently, the on -site traffic is concentrated at the intersection of the entryroad and the main north -south circulation road. Allowing left turns out of the easternmost drivewaywill diffuse some ofthis traffic. Landscaping in the median should be low (two to 15 feet in height) ortaller trees with thin trunks, which should be pruned to maintain adequate sight distance. • The provision ofan additional north-south circulation aisle in the western most parking area is recommended to break up the long rows ofparking spaces. In addition, the parking bays and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 66 I Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 circulation aisles should be extended eastward, eliminatingthe isolated landscaped barrier at the east end of the parking area. Parkin The parking demand was estimated in a manner similar to trip generation, based on the planned operation ofthe sports park and assumptions regarding numbers ofpersons pervehicle for the different uses within the park. The parking demand estimates byphase are presented in Table 19. Details ofthe parking estimate calculations are contained inAppendix H. The parking demand afterbuildout of the park is estimated be 996 parked vehicles. The recommended parking supply is the parking demand plus five percent to account for circulating vehicles. Therefore, the recommended parking supply for the Gilroy Sports Park is 1,047 parking spaces. The recommended parking supply by phase is presented in Table 19. The site plan (date June 16, 1998) includes 1,049 parking spaces, which will adequately serve the projected demand. Table 19 presents a comparison ofthe recommended parking supplybyphase to the proposed parking supply by phase. A shortfall is projected to occur after the completion ofPhase V. It is recommended that 180 of the 298 parking spaces that will be constructed with Phase VI be constructed instead with Phase V to offset the projected shortfall. Table 19 Parking Demand and Supply Summary Sports Park Phase Cumulative Estimated Demand Cumulative Supply Recommended Provided Difference 1 0 0 117 +117 II 196 206 278 +72 III 326 343 439 +96 IV 606 637 751 +114 V 886 931 751 -180 VI & VII 996 1047 1049 +2 VIII & IX 996 1047 1049 +2 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. G7 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 The City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance does not include an off-street parldng requirement forballparks. Themost similar land use included in the ordinance is a theater or auditorium with fixed seats. The parking requirement for this land use is one parking space per four seats or seven feet ofbench space. The sports park will have approximately 300 feet of bench space for each of the 13 ballfields, for a total of 3,900 feet of bench. The required off - street parking supply would be 558 spaces. The proposed 1,049 parking spaces would be sufficient to meet this requirement. Residential Development A specific project for the residential parcels is not proposed at this time, therefore, a site plan has not been developed for the residential parcels. Only a general review of site access was conducted. A detailed review of the site plan should be conducted when a specific proj ect is proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Access to the residential parcels was assumed to be provided via two new public streets that will intersectwith LuchessaAvenue and one newpublic street thatwill intersection with Monterey Street. The intersection at Monterey Street will be restricted to right turns only (due to the existing raised median on Monterey Street). These new residential streets are projected to serve 31 to 56 vehicles during apeak hour at their intersections with Luchessa Avenue, while the site roadway that intersects with Monterey Street will serve 16 to 18 peak -hour vehicles. The number of access locations is adequate to serve the estimated project - generated traffic. The intersection of the western residential site roadwaywith Luchessa Avenue was assumed to form the south leg of the existing Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection. This intersection is a key study intersection and was evaluated with LOS calculations. Overall intersection operations are projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturdaypeak hours under Project Buildout Conditions. The installation of atraffic signal at this intersectionwas recommended to mitigateproject impacts. (Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements are satisfiedwith the estimated PM and Saturdaypeak- hourvolumes underProjectBuildout Conditions.) Level of service results indicate that with signalization this intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. Commercial Parcels A specific commercial development is notproposed at this time, and a siteplan has notbeen developed for the commercial parcels. Therefore, only a general review of site access was conducted. A detailed review of the site plan should be conducted when a specific proj ect is proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Fehr- & Peers Associates, Inc. 68 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that access to the commercial parcels would be provided via one right -turn only driveway on Monterey Street (serving the northern commercial parcels) and two full access driveways on Farman Frontage Road (one each serving thenorthern and southern commercial areas). The right-turn driveway on Monterey Street is projected to serve 316 inbound trips and 158 outbound trips during the Saturdaypeak hour (the studyperiod with the greatest retail trip generation). A right - turn lane on Monterey Street would be recommended to serve the projected inbound traffic volume. The TRAFFIX projected design queue in the southbound right turn lanes at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection with the recommended project mitigation (including the provision of southbound two right -turn lanes) is 300 feet. The commercial frontage along Monterey Street extends approximately400 feet north ofthis intersection. Therefore, the right -turn pocket lanes are likely to extend past the shopping center driveway, and at times ofpeak demand, the southbound right -turn queue from the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection could block the driveway (depending upon the location ofthe driveway in relation to the intersection). This could result in additional traffic being added to Farman Frontage Road and the west leg ofthe Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection. Thenorthem full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road was assumed to be controlledby a stop sign on the shopping center driveway. This intersection is projected to operate at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour and at unacceptable levels during the PM and Saturday peak hours. During the Saturday peak hour 362 vehicles are projected to exit the shopping center via a left turn from this driveway, while during the PM peak hour 296 vehicles are projected to exit. With the estimated volumes on Farman Frontage Road under project buildout, the calculated delay to the outbound left - turn movement is veryhigh, resulting in LOS F operations for this movement. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements for traffic signal installation are satisfied with the volumes projected for the PM and Saturdaypeak hours with project buildout. However, the proximity ofthis driveway to the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection and the sports park driveway may make signalization infeasible. As discussed in regard to improvements at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection and the sports park driveway, it may be necessary to realign Farman Frontage Road. This realignment mayprovide opportunities for improved access to the commercial center. At the southern full access commercial driveway, 512 inbound and 457 outbound project - generated trips are proj ected to travel through the driveway intersection during the Saturdaypeak hour. The conflicting traffic at this intersection is projected to be minimal, and therefore, the driveway is projected to operate at acceptable levels during all study scenarios. However, one access point may not be sufficient for emergency access. When a site plan is proposed, it should be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 69 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSIONS The proposed Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Services Area amendment is estimated to generate 20,738 new weekday daily trips, 495 AM peak-hour trips (273 inbound/222 outbound), 2,091 PM peak -hour trips (1,019 inbound/1,072 outbound), and 2,851 Saturday peak -hour trips (1,485 inbound/1,366 outbound). The impacts oftheproposed development onthe surrounding roadway system were evaluated following guidelines of the City of Gilroy and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Project Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures The level ofservice calculation results indicate that the project will have a significant adverse impact on four of the seven key intersections: Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road Mitigation measures were identified forthese intersections. The installation ofatraffic signal at the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection would mitigate project impacts to a less -than- significant level. The traffic signal installation and the provision of left -turn pockets on the eastbound and westbound approaches would mitigate project impacts at the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection. At the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection, the addition of a second northbound left -turn lane and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane will improve the operation of the Monterey Street /Luchessa Avenue intersections from LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour with estimated Project Conditions volumes. In order to fiuther improve operations to LOS C, either aright-turn arrow would need to be provided for the eastbound right -turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left -turn movement has a green arrow) or the eastbound right -turn movement would need to be removed from the intersection by a pork chop island and controlled by a yield sign. The currently approved sports park project is required to signalize the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road prior to completion ofPhase fV ofthe park. With installation ofthe traffic signal, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during all three studyperiods through the final phase ofthe sports park with the existing lane configuration. With the development ofthe commercial Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 70 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 parcels, additional turn lanes wouldbe needed to serve traffic entering and exiting the retail uses. Two exclusive southbound right -turn lanes, two northbound left -turn lanes and widening ofthe eastbound approachwould be needed to serve the projected volume. In addition, right -turn arrows would need to be provided for the eastbound and southbound right- tummovements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three studyperiods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound andwestbound approaches and will requirewidening ofFarmanFrontage Road. Some realignment of Farman Frontage Road may be required to provide adequate turning radii as it approaches its intersection with Monterey Street. The feasibilityofthis improvementis subjectto more detailed engineering studies. Without implementation ofall themitigationmeasures, theproject's impact would not be fully mitigated. Roadway Segment Impact Analysis The proposed project is estimated to have a significant impact on one of the four key roadway segments, Luchessa Avenue between Princeville Street and Monterey Street. The remaining segments are projected to continue to operate at LOS C or better with buildout of the project. Widening the segment of Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street andPrincevalle Street from two to four lanes would provide adequate capacityto serve the estimated project buildout traffic volumes and mitigate the project impact. The City's General Plan includes widening ofLuchessa Avenue between Chestnut Street and Thomas Road (including the bridge over Uvas Creek) to six lanes. Two -Lane Highway Segment Impact Analysis The impact of the proposed project on State Route 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway), east of US 101, was evaluated using the methodology presented in the 1994Highway CapacityManual. The results indicate that the project would not have a significant impact on the segment ofSR152 between Llagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road. SR 152 is currentlybeing widened between US 101 andLlagas Creek. This segment would operate as a four -lane arterial with these improvements, which include roadway widening, intersection improvements, and a traffic signal at Gilroy. Foods. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 71 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Project Impact Freeway Analysis Potential project impacts on area freeway segments were evaluated. The key freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS B and C during the PM peak hour with the addition ofproject- generated traffic. Therefore, the project is estimated to have a less than significant impact on the nearby segments of US 101 according to the criteria established in the Santa Clara County CMP. Queuing Analysis The queuing analysis indicated that the estimated queues for the northbound left -turn movement at Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue and the northbound left-turn movement at Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road would extend past the existing left-tam storage pockets for the under Project Conditions. Implementation of the proj ect mitigation measures for these two intersections would accommodate the expected queues. Sports Park Site Access, On -Site Circulation, and Parking Site access, on -site circulation and parking were assessed for the sports park. The proposed parking supply of 1,049 was found to be adequate to serve the estimated demand. However, a shortfall is projected to occur after the completion of Phase V. It is recommended that 180 ofthe 298 parking spaces that will be constructed with Phase VI be constructed instead with Phase V to offset the projected shortfall. Site Access Sports park site access was found to be adequate to serve sports park traffic, with sufficient storage provided for queued vehicles between Farman Frontage Road and the main entrybuilding, where a parking fee will be collected. Itwas recommended that the intersection ofthe intersection ofthe sports park drivewaywith FarmanFrontage Road be monitored forpossible traffic signal installation after buildout ofthe commercial parcels. The intersection of the sports park driveway should be designed and constructed to accommodate the possible signal installation. On -Site Circulation On -site circulation for the sports park was reviewed and generally found to be adequate. The following recommendations were made: The outbound lanes of the entryroad near Farman Frontage Road should be narrowed to one lane with paint to allow two outbound lanes (with park personnel directing traffic), if needed. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 72 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 All -way stop sign control is recommended at the intersection of the entry road and the main north -south road. All - waystop sign controlwill provide saferconditions forpedestrians crossing this intersection. It is recommended that the first driveway on the entrance road (closest to Farman Frontage Road) be widened to allow both inbound and outbound traffic and the landscape median along the entry road be cut back to allow left turns from this parking area onto the entry road. Currently, the on -site traffic is concentrated at the intersection of the entryroad and the main north -south circulation road. Allowing left turns out ofthe easternmost drivewaywill diffuse some ofthis traffic. Landscaping in the median should be low (two to 2.5 feet in height) or taller trees with thin trunks, which should be pruned to maintain adequate sight distance. The provision of an additional north -south circulation aisle in the western-most parking areais recommended to breakup the long rows ofparking spaces. In addition, the parkingbays and circulation aisles should be extended eastward, eliminating the isolated landscapedbarrier at the east end of the parking area. , Other Access Recommendations Recommendations were made in regard to other improvements proposed as part of the sports park project, including: • It is recommended that the crosswalk across Monterey Street at Fannan Frontage Road not be provided until the traffic signal is installed at this intersection. • The proposed Farman Frontage Road bus stop should be designed to VTA standards. Pedestrian access should be provided from the bus stop to along Farman Frontage Road that connects to the internal pedestrian paths. • The proposed sidewalk along the west side ofMonterey Street should connected tosignalized intersection of Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Street. It is recommended that the sidewalks along Monterey Street be installed when the Monterey Street /Farman Frontage Road intersection is signalized. • Due to travel speeds along Luchessa Avenue (in excess of 40 mph), a crosswalk is not recommended without the protection of a traffic signal with pedestrian heads for pedestrian crossing or all -way stop sign control (stop signs on all three intersection approaches). The recommended pedestrian and bicycle facility is the connection of the existing trail north of Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 73 Gilroy Sport Par /d USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Luchessa Avenue with the proposed trail to the south via the future under - crossing of the Luchessa Avenue bridge. It is recommended that this location be monitored for both vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle volumes, and an all -way stop or traffic signals (_with pedestrian heads) be installed if warrant requirements are met. Residential Development Site Access A general review of site access was conducted for the residential parcels since aspecific project is not proposed at this time. It was assumed that access to the residential parcels will be provided via two driveways on Luchessa Avenue and one right -turn only driveway on Monterey Street. Site access was found to be adequate. Commercial Development Site Access A specific commercial development is notproposed at this time, and asiteplan has not been developed for the commercial parcels. Therefore, only general review ofsite access was conducted. A detailed review of the site plan should be conducted when a specific project is proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Direct access to the commercial parcels was assumed to beprovided via one right -turn driveway on Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. Based on the projected traffic volumes, a southbound right -turn lane is recommended to serve the traffic entering the northern commercial parcels via the Monterey Street driveway. Itwas noted that the estimated queues on the southbound approach of the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersectionmay at times extend backpast this drivewayblocking the exiting vehicles. This could result in additional traffic being added to Farman Frontage Road and the west leg ofthe Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection. The northern commercial driveway on Farman Frontage Road was assumed to be controlled bya stop sign on the driveway approach and is prof ected to operate at an acceptable level during the AM peak hour and unacceptable levels during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements fortraffic signal installation are satisfied with volumes projected for the PM and Saturday peak hours with project buildout. However, the proximity ofthis drivewayto the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection and the sports park driveway may make signalizatiou infeasible. As discussed in regard to improvements at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection and the sports park driveway, it may be necessary to realign Farman Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 74 Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Frontage Road. This realignment mayprovide opportunities forimproved access to the commercial center. The conflicting traffic at the intersection ofthe southern commercial drivewaywith Farman Frontage Road is projected to be minimal, and the driveway is projected to operate at acceptable levels during all study scenarios. However, one access point may not be sufficient for emergency access. When a. site plan is proposed, it should be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. General Plan Buildout Intersection Recommendations The improvements recommended to mitigate project impacts at the unsignalized intersection of Luchessa Avenue and Church Street, in combination with the General Plan improvements, would also provide acceptable operating levels under General Plan Buildout Conditions. Additional improvements (over General Plan improvements and project mitigation measures) would be required at the intersections ofLuchessa Avenue/Monterey Street, Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road, and MontereyStreet/US 101 northbound ramps to provide acceptable operating levels (LOS C orbetter) during all of the study time periods (AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours). Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 75 Appendix B Vacant Land Inventory Background A city's urban service area (USA) is defined as that area to which the city provides urban services such as water and sewer, or expects to provide these services within five years of the adoption of a capital improvement program. Thus, the USA is expected to accommodate approximately five years of urban development. In Santa Clara County, jurisdictional boundary changes, including USA amendments, are reviewed and acted upon by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO). Santa Clara County LAFCO does not generally allow urban development to occur outside established USAs. The City of Gilroy is requesting an amendment to its existing USA. The Gilroy City Council approved a USA amendment request for a 140.21 -acre area south of the City on June 7, 1999 and staff was directed to submit the application to LAFCO. The USA amendment request is officially identified as Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03, and commonly known as the Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment. LAFCO will generally only accept one USA amendment request per year from each city. The most recent previous USA amendment request was filed in October 1997. In acting upon a USA amendment request, LAFCO requires the preparation of an appropriate environmental review document, a fiscal analysis, and a vacant land analysis of the existing USA. LAFCO utilizes the vacant land analysis in assessing the need for expansion of the USA, based on a goal of maintaining an approximate five -year supply of developable land within the USA. This vacant land analysis has been prepared to provide this information to LAFCO in their decision on Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03. The request for Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 includes 140.21 acres, of which 85.36 is the approved Gilroy Sports Park and Uvas Creek Trail extension, 27.72 acres is proposed for residential development, and 27.13 acres is proposed for general services commercial development. This vacant land analysis quantifies the amount of vacant land that carries any Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan land use designation of RESIDENTIAL (with any residential zoning), or a Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan land use designation of COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES and a zoning designation of C -3 (Shopping Center Commercial) or CM (Commercial Industrial), which are the commercial zone districts consistent with the COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES land use designation. Locations within the existing USA on which development of a sports park is possible are also quantified in the analysis. EMC Planning Group Inc. t Vacant Land Survev Gilrov USA Amendment 98 -03 Determination of Five -year Supply A determination of what constitutes a five -year supply of vacant land in Gilroy was established for residential and C -3 and CM commercial development. The method for determining a five -year supply of each of these is outlined below. Since the sports park is a unique use, alternative sites within the USA were determined rather than a five -year supply. Residential Residential development in the City of Gilroy is largely controlled through the Residential Development Ordinance (RDO). The RDO sets a 10 -year goal of 4,000 residential units. An averaged number of 2,000 units was used as a basis for establishing a five -year supply of residential land. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) issues a regional housing needs determination for each City in the greater Bay Area. ABAG has determined that the City of Gilroy should provide 3,677 new housing units from 1999 through 2006. This is an annual average of 490 housing units, or 2,450 units in a five -year period, about 20 percent higher than is expected under the Gilroy RDO. Commercial There is no commercial parallel to the RDO. To determine the number of acres required for five typical years of commercial development, City of Gilroy Architecture and Site Approval records were analyzed for the five -year period from July 1994 through June 1999. The total acreage was calculated for commercial projects in the C -3 and CM zones that received Architecture and Site approval during that time span, and were later issued building permits. This acreage figure was used as the basis for a five -year supply of commercial land. Based on this recent five -year sample, the City of Gilroy can expect a demand for 44 acres of C3 and 15 acres of CM designated land over the next five years. Sports Park The sports park is a large scale project that will meet the City's organized sports needs for many years. In this regard, the sports park is unique from other parkland; such as neighborhood and community parks. Although the sports park is already approved at the selected site, this analysis looks at alternative sites within the USA that are of suitable size and terrain for placement of a similar facility. 9 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Vacant Land Survey Existing Vacant Land Supply The survey of vacant land reflects RDO allocations as of April 2000, and for residential properties exempt from RDO, site and architecture approvals thorough December 21, 2001. The survey reflects commercial site and architecture approvals through December 21, 2001. Residential The number of probable future dwelling units in the City was calculated. For residential development projects in which a known number of units will be built, information from the City's RDO process was used to determine how many additional RDO allocations will be made. Lands for which an RDO allocation had been granted by the City were considered not to be vacant, although there is a lag period between RDO allocation and construction of houses. Table 1 summarizes the land for which RDO allocations remain available. TABLE 1 Remaining RDO Allocations of Major Projects Project Name Neighborhood Medium Density Low Density Hillside Hecker Pass Carriage Hills 75 Country Estates 94 Deer Park/ Rancho Hills 118 Eagle Ridge 134 Glen Loma 1,159 Village Green 107 TOTAL 1,277 107 75 228 0 Source: City of Gilroy For other properties, a list of all vacant land with a residential designation under the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan was compiled. Land that was in rural residential use, but planned for higher densities was considered vacant. The gross acres of residential land was reduced by 25 percent to account for street rights -of -way, park dedications, and other non - residential uses. The number of acres of each land use was multiplied by its average potential density to determine the probable number of dwelling units. The amount of vacant land in each general plan residential category and the potential average build -out is listed in Table 2. Planning Group Inc. Vacant Land Survey Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 TABLE 2 Vacant Residential Land Within the Existing Gilroy USA General Plan Designation Gross Acres Vacant Net Acres Vacant Average Net Density Allowed Potential Units (at average net density) Neighborhood 181.5 136 9 1,224 Medium Density 16.6 13 12 156 Low Density 87.8 66 5 330 Hillside 51.5 39 2 78 Hecker Pass Area 248.2 186 1 0.4 74 TOTAL 585.6 490.2 1 1,862 Note: Excludes lands contained in Table 1. Source: City of Gilroy Table 3 summarizes the probable residential build -out within the Gilroy USA. Residential Capacity of the Gilroy USA General Plan Designation Units from RDO Analysis Units from Acreage Analysis Total Units by Land Use Five -year supply Neighborhood 1,277 1,224 2,501 Medium Density 107 156 263 Low Density 75 330 405 Hillside 228 78 1 306 Hecker Pass Area 0 74 74 TOTAL 1,687 1,862 3,549 1 2,000 Note: Five -year supply is based on RDO and goals established by Gilroy City Council. Source: City of Gilroy Commercial A list was compiled of all vacant land within the existing Gilroy USA with a Draft 1999- 2020 Gilroy General Plan designation of COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES and one of the two compatible zoning designations: C -3 or CM. Land for which site and 1-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -63 Vacant Land Survey architectural review had been approved, through December 21, 2001, was considered not to be vacant. Land that was in non - structural commercial use, such as pallet storage, was considered vacant. The total amount of land in each of the two commercial categories is listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 Vacant General Services Commercial Land Within the Existing Gilroy USA Commercial Zoning Gross Acres 5 -year Supply C -3 199.2 44 CM 11.7 15 TOTAL 210.9 69 Note: Five -year supply is based on C -3 and CM zoned Architecture and Site Approvals July 1994 -June 1999, for which permits were subsequently issued. Sports Park The sports park has several unique siting requirements. The site must be large enough to achieve the goal of providing a centralized sports facility and it must be sufficiently level for development of athletic fields without excessive grading. It should also be well located for local and regional access. The City determined that the city-owned location immediately north of the City limits and USA was the most suitable and approved the Gilroy Sports Park on that site. The.City looked at several alternative sites for the sports park. All of these sites are within the existing USA and two are in areas designated in the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan for residential development. The alternative sites are listed in Table 5. TABLE 5 Alternative Sports Park Sites Within the Existing Gilroy USA Location Gross Draft General Plan Displaced Area Designation Residential Units Bolsa Road 103 acres Open Space - -- Santa Teresa Blvd. and 97 acres Neighborhood District 655 Miller Avenue Hwy. 152 west of 120 acres Hecker Pass Area 36 Santa Teresa Blvd. Note: Displaced residential units is based on net area of the site (25 percent less than gross area) times the net density for the Draft General Plan land use. EMC Planning Group Vacant Land Survey Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Source: City of Gilroy Discussion Under the land use designations of the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan, the City of Gilroy has an approximate nine -year supply of residential land within its existing USA. There is an approximate 23 -year supply of COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES land zoned C -3 and a four -year supply of COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES land zoned CM. Table 6 summarizes the remaining supply of vacant land. rrr1pWi Supply of Vacant Land Remaining in USA Note: Residential land is designated RND, RMD, RLD, RH, and HPA Source: City of Gilroy Residential Land Designations Of the vacant residential land, the largest supply is that designated in the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan as RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. Most of the area covered by this designation is undeveloped land currently designated LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL or RURAL RESIDENTIAL. The LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL designation has an average density of five units per acre, compared to nine units per acre in the RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The RURAL RESIDENTIAL designation has a maximum density of 0.2 units per acre. These proposed reclassifications increase the number of dwelling units that could potentially be built within the USA, because the allowable net development density per acre is higher under the proposed RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT designation than the existing R -1 designation. 1 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 -Year Supply Remaining Supply Acres or Units Estimated Years Supply Residential 2,000 units 3,549 units 9 Commercial C -3 44 acres 199.2 acres 23 Commercial CM 15 acres 11.7 acres 4 Note: Residential land is designated RND, RMD, RLD, RH, and HPA Source: City of Gilroy Residential Land Designations Of the vacant residential land, the largest supply is that designated in the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan as RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. Most of the area covered by this designation is undeveloped land currently designated LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL or RURAL RESIDENTIAL. The LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL designation has an average density of five units per acre, compared to nine units per acre in the RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The RURAL RESIDENTIAL designation has a maximum density of 0.2 units per acre. These proposed reclassifications increase the number of dwelling units that could potentially be built within the USA, because the allowable net development density per acre is higher under the proposed RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT designation than the existing R -1 designation. 1 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Vacant Land Survey The RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT land use designation is a mixed -use designation that also permits some neighborhood- serving commercial and office uses. No commercial development is required, but some developments may have fewer residential units if commercial uses are incorporated into RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT developments. The supply of lowest density residential land within the USA is much less. In the 1995 vacant land survey, the City had a supply of 595 acres of vacant RESIDENTIAL HILL DISTRICT available. Much of the land under this designation has been developed or received RDO allocations. Commercial Designations The City's supply of COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES land that is zoned CM is the most limited of any covered by this survey, with an approximate four -year supply remaining. Some CM uses could be accommodated by the proposed CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL general plan designation in northeast Gilroy. If the sports park were to be located within the existing USA, rather than the approved site within the USA amendment area, the supply of vacant residential land within the existing USA could be reduced. Location of the sports park within the USA on the Bolsa Road site would have no effect on residential vacant land. Location of the sports park on the State Highway 152 /Santa Teresa Boulevard site would result in a small reduction in residential vacant land. If the sports park were located on the Santa Teresa Boulevard /Miller Road site, approximately 655 residential units would be displaced. This would amount to a reduction of approximately one and one -half years worth of vacant residential land. Planning Group Inc. Vacant Land Survey Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 This side intentionally left blank. 1 -8 EMC Planning Group Inc. a Appendix C Updated Hydrology Report GILROY SPORTS PARK USA AMENDMENT DRAFT HYDROLOGY STUDY PREPARED FOR EMC Planning Group PREPARED BY SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS January 10, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................... ..............................1 Introduction........................................................................................ ..............................2 ProjectDescription ............................................................................. ..............................2 UvasCreek ........................................................................................ ..............................2 FloodHistory .................................................................................... ............................... 5 Corps of Engineers Project ............................................................... ............................... 6 FloodInsurance Study ....................................................................... ............................... 6 Hydrology.......................................................................................... ............................... 6 DesignFlow ....................................................................................... ............................... 9 FloodPlains ....................................................................................... ............................... 9 Drainage............................................................................................... .............................10 SportsPark Design ............................................................................... .............................10 ProjectFacilities ................................................................................. ............................... 11 ProjectFlood Elevations ...................................................................... .............................17 ProjectDrainage ................................................................................... .............................18 Runoff................................................................................................ ............................... 23 Conclusions........................................................................................ ............................... 25 References........................................................................................... .............................25 DRAFT HYDROLOGY STUDY GILROY SPORTS PARK USA AMENDMENT Executive Summary The project site is located on the east bank of Uvas Creek in an area, which is an historic flood plain due to overflows from Uvas Creek. The site flooded in 1955, and 1986. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a levee project for the reach of Uvas Creek upstream from the project site. The levee was designed to provide 100 -year flood protection for the development areas upstream of Thomas Road. The levee ends near the northern edge of the sports park site. As local sponsor for the flood control project, the Santa Clara Valley Water District ( SCVWD) has jurisdiction over Uvas Creek and owns the flood control levee. Additionally, SCVWD holds a flood flowage easement that restricts land used and development on a majority of the sports park site. The flowage easement encompasses land that was calculated to suffer induced flooding due to the construction of the Uvas Creek levee. Areas of induced flooding would be flooded to a greater extent than would have been expected prior to the construction of the levee. E Potential land uses within the flowage easement are restricted to open space uses that would not inhibit the flow of flood waters across the land. The sports park design was developed to incorporate consideration of the potential flooding issues, to maintain the existing flow patterns on the site, avoid increased flow or flood depths on adjacent properties, and to provide storm drainage for the proposed park project. These objectives were reviewed with SCVWD to ensure that the project constraints would be consistent with the intent of the SCVWD flood flowage easement. The proposed Gilroy Sports Park USA area development would be consistent with the objectives of the SCVWD flood flowage easement. The sports park grading is generally lower than the existing ground elevations in the paved parking and access road areas to allow for blockage in other areas for park facilities. The proposed commercial development would balance cut and fill on the site to maintain flood conveyance. The estimated flood elevations for the Uvas design overflows and 100 -year flood overflows are at or below existing elevations. The Uvas Creek overflows would enter the site and leave the site in the same quantities and locations as the existing flood condition. The flood risk on other properties would not be affected by the proposed project. The estimated 10 -year and 100 -year peak runoff from the project site would increase due to the proposed development. The estimated increase would depend on the particular rainfall event. The increased peak flow would occur prior to the peak flow in Uvas Creek and would not affect flooding from the creek. The local contribution to the peak flow in the creek would not increase due to development. Therefore, the project would not affect peak flows in the creek or flooding from Uvas Creek. Schaaf & Wheeler 1 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 DRAFT HYDROLOGY STUDY GILROY SPORTS PARK USA AMENDMENT Introduction This report describes the hydrology analyses for the Gilroy Sports Park Urban Service Area (USA) Amendment project in the City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County. The proposed sports park would be located within the 100 -year base flood plain from Uvas Creek. The hydrology study was completed as part of the supplemental EIR studies for the proposed USA amendment. The purpose of this study was to: document the existing flood hydrology and hydraulics; 2. estimate the potential flood elevations and flow areas for the project; and 3. estimate the potential effects of the proposed development on drainage and flood flows. This report supplements the previous hydrology study for the Sports Park which was completed in May 1999. Project Description The project site is located at the south end of Gilroy, southwest of the intersection of Thomas Road and Monterey Road. The site is located on the east bank of Uvas Creek and extends from Thomas Road to Farman Lane, approximately 2500 feet south of Thomas Road. The site is extends from the east bank of Uvas Creek to Monterey Road. The project site is approximately 140.2 acres. The proposed USA amendment includes the sports park (78.36 acres), residential development (27.72 acres), and commercial development (27.12 acres). The sports park is an approved project. The residential development north of the park and the commercial development east of the park are proposed projects. Uvas Creek The project site is located in the Uvas Creek watershed southwest of the City of Gilroy. Uvas Creek is a tributary to the Pajaro River system which drains west through the Coast Range to Monterey Bay. The Pajaro River and its tributaries drain approximately 1300 square miles. The principal tributaries of the Pajaro River are San Benito River, San Juan Creek, Uvas- Carnadero Creek, Llagas Creek, Tequisquita Slough, and Salsipuedes Creek. Schaaf & Wheeler 2 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 Figure 1 5¢e Location heap Schaaf & Wheeler Uvas - Camadero Creek is located in southern Santa Clara County and drains an area of approximately 89 square miles with its headwaters in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The basin is primarily mountainous being bounded on the north, west, and south by the Santa Cruz Mountains and to the east by the Llagas Creek drainage basin. The creek generally flows southeast to join the Pajaro River approximately six miles south of the City of Gilroy. Uvas- Camadero Creek is approximately 32 miles in length with elevations ranging from 120 feet to 3800 feet above mean sea level. Upstream of U.S. Highway 101 the stream is known as Uvas Creek, and downstream as Camadero Creek. Stream flows in Uvas- Camadero Creek are regulated by Uvas Reservoir, constructed in 1958 by the South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District for water supply purposes. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 10,350 acre -feet. The drainage area at the reservoir is approximately 30 square miles. The reservoir is operated for water supply purposes, but does provide some incidental flood control benefits due to peak flow attenuation within the reservoir. The upland areas of Uvas Creek including the project site have soils mainly of the Los Gatos, Gaviota, and Vallecitos associations. They range in depth from shallow to deep, and are located on steep to very steep slopes. The vegetative cover includes oak, pine, brush, hardwoods, and grasses. The infiltration rates of water in the upland areas is generally slow. The upland soils have been classified to have a high to very high erosion potential, although sedimentation rates in the reservoir have not been unusually high in the past. This is probably due to the relatively undisturbed character of the upland areas of the watershed. The upland portions of the watershed has very little development at this time, and the County General Plan calls for only limited development in the future with mostly open space. The lowland valley areas of Uvas Creek including the project site have soils mainly of the Arbuckle, Pleasanton, and Yolo associations. They range in depth from deep to very deep, and are located on shallow to moderate slopes. The infiltration rates of water in the lowland areas is generally moderate to good. The lowland soils have been classified to have slight erosion potential. The area has a relatively mild climate, with ninety percent of the annual rainfall occurring in the late fall and winter months. January is usually the month with the most rainfall. The mean annual precipitation within the Uvas Creek watershed varies from a high of 40 inches in the Santa Cruz Mountains to a low of 20 inches near Gilroy. Flood History Damaging floods have occurred on Uvas Creek in 1937, 1940, 1955, 1958, 1963, and 1986. The flood of record before 1986 occurred in December 1955 with a flow of 14000 cfs at U. S. Highway 101. According to the local newspapers in Gilroy, the December 1955 flood event was reported to be the greatest event since 1880. Flooding was mainly limited to the area east of Thomas Road. The flood in February 1986 was larger than the 1955 event. The estimated peak flow was approximately 14500 cfs upstream of Thomas Road even with the attenuation effects of Schaaf & Wheeler 5 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 Uvas Reservoir. The reservoir was completed in 1958 after the 1955 flood. In 1986, Uvas Creek overflowed upstream of Thomas Road flooding the existing development area upstream of Thomas Road between the creek and Monterey Road. The creek also overflowed in the agricultural area downstream of Thomas Road. The flood flows generally continued south along Monterey Road to return to the creek channel near Highway 101. The flood flows also overflowed to the east across Monterey Road and Highway 101 near Luchessa Avenue and flooded the commercial area east of Monterey Road. Corps of Engineers Project The U. S. Army Corps "of Engineers has completed a levee project for the reach of Uvas Creek from 1100 feet downstream of Thomas Road to 4500 feet upstream of Miller Avenue. The project was designed to provide 100 -year flood protection in the development area on the east side of the channel. Construction started in 1988 and was completed in 1990. As local sponsor for the flood control project, the Santa Clara Valley Water District ( SCVWD) has jurisdiction over Uvas Creek and owns the flood control levee. Additionally, SCVWD holds a flood flowage easement that restricts land used and development on a majority of the sports park site. The flowage easement encompasses land that was calculated to suffer induced flooding due to the construction of the Uvas Creek levee. Areas of induced flooding would be flooded to a greater extent than would have been expected prior to the construction of the levee. Potential land uses within the flowage easement are restricted to open space uses that would not inhibit the flow of flood waters across the land. Flood Insurance Study Uvas Creek was studied as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study for Santa Clara County, completed in 1979. The channel has an estimated capacity of approximately 14000 cubic feet per second upstream of Thomas Road, decreasing to approximately 8300 cfs at U. S. Highway 101. Flows in excess of the channel capacity spill from the channel toward the east. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps ( FIRMs) for the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County were amended in 1991 by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The maps were revised to include the flood control levee upstream of the sports park site. The FIRMS were revised most recently by FEMA to consider current levee policies and topography in the area. The analysis also included more detailed analyses of the Uvas Creek overflows. The current FIRMS became effective in 1998. Hydrology Based on the FEMA detailed Uvas Creek hydraulic model for the current FIRMS, the estimated 100 -year flow rate for Uvas Creek downstream of Thomas Road is 14000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The 100 -year flow rate is contained within the Uvas Creek channel downstream to the end Schaaf 8 Wieeler 6 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 I ..... MASSEY THOMAS SURD. OF RANCH LOT 15 ON (799 LAS ANIMAS RANCHO PARTITION 1 ROAD 11.06 AC NET '421AC Figure 3 ZONE. C Z C 3421M.70TAL 11a A. L.T 16 SOurce: FEMA, City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc. w Rphpisf k whpPIp- I'm 6 V V, V - 3OCr ..... . . . . . . . . . . 7.42 I'm I OR 841 CSFJf am Acv ELF FLOOD FLOWAGE EASEMENT (CITY or clLq 010 n 3L53 MET 0,M) A MIT WIT L7 ZONE. C Z C 3421M.70TAL 11a A. L.T 16 SOurce: FEMA, City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc. w Rphpisf k whpPIp- e:3 FLOOD LEVEL AR A t1 +�,• ; U „' ,sa NzJ roan sea \ [q i� YIAVI ryMNSq LC 4 ® -Q—O- 100 ,. ..00[•.H �—n— SO FLOOD 'q1, '�' + o` ' � q '� -0- 25 YEAR LOOD�-.x. � �z 1 . C` ,9a.a ,HH.z ,aH.e rora /su FLOOD DEPTHS +t \ r 100YEAR 1 .n ' J YJ}.E EJ2J y'W SOYEAR + 081 25 YEAR 1.0' Yv2n i°7.7 ka 1 J ''a ' I ,a: oo ! l9 5.f '9n.� l9Si 100yr Flo. = 1.740 ds 50yI Flo. = 165 cfs 25,w Flo. = 0 afs ;ll 7CEf GILROYSPORiS PARK X m" '91g 110W 1 — ,qe.n 1s.r rax. Sr II raze ra.,.. 'SW 197.7 2 ,� 1 r <��r + 51r)frrt 1 rrr r r r rrr r \ ..0 �. . • sr ..aesr 5 »:. :..:. . .::. rrr rrr \ t.. a :.r ra • �7 ° 'per •�'•- -..+st .� :r.e \ . � p 1.: '.:'.'.Y344• I ' r Sys l'°�ar .+esl "r .v%a � �' ° � .>E'.r .,a'z rgecs r . .: � r r r rrr• r ..�% q,0' rrr \ ':. rrr,' rrr, \ � .1✓ r� .�+ 13' rrr 1' H r r r r rr r rr rr 5\ 'rr' r �-tn .per Er ' / r ° ^� .'f?ar .=➢lOr r iP&e� °r • rrr � , y - rrrr rrrr .rrrrr °{ r rrr r rrrr 111 i }. Y rs�- rrrr rY--• rr 'al r + Amar .ryi)^.,r 7'""�' —' •--� •(@g'++` r r r r r r ..� r r � �. $. r r rr rrrrrrr�rr rrrrr. =A\. -� �) r,� r r 1111111111 + 5 r rrrr .r ' r 111111111.1• � 1 r 1 1 r 1 r 1 r r f r r 1 r r 1 n rrr r JI-�° .--•/ �-py r r r 111-- \ --���" r r 6' rrr r rrr r rrr e r 1 r .�f- -• .--. r r r r .v-'' �.�-J r _ q r �- r r /^-> �• r l r�� ae ys`>" r r 'r r '�'r' ;� rs f1. r Jas 1, �•'r r r 1 Y� r r r ➢'CHSC i [F% %. O``\09 S CL F° ° NORTH 100yI Flow 2.900 ds , Scale: 50yr Flow = 1.965 cfs 1 " =250' 25yr Flow = 530 2 GILROY, CALIFORNIA of the flood control levee near the northwest comer of the sports park site. Downstream of the levee, approximately 1740 cfs overflows to the east into the sports park site. Further downstream, near the southeast corner of the sports park site, an additional 2900 cfs overflows into the sports park for the 100 -year flood. The FEMA hydraulic model was also used to estimate the potential overflows for the 25 -year and 50 -year flood events, based on the FEMA channel flow rates. The FEMA estimated 50 -year flow rate downstream of Thomas Road was 11000 cfs. The estimated 50 -year overflow at the end of the flood control levee was 165 cfs. An additional 1900 efs would overflow from the channel near the southeast corner of the sports park site. For the 25 -year event, there would be no overflow at the downstream end of the flood control levee. However, approximately 630 cfs would overflow at near the southeast comer of the sports park. For the 10 -year event, the FEMA flow rate was 5500 cfs. The channel has capacity for the 10- year flood and would not overflow within the sports park site. Design Flow The Corps of Engineers levee project on the east side of Uvas Creek upstream of the Sports Park was designed for a 100 -year design flow rate of 17000 cfs. This is greater than the 100 -year flow rate estimated for the FEMA flood insurance study. The design flow rate generally considers more conservative watershed conditions. The FEMA flood insurance study HEC -2 model was used to estimate the overflow from Uvas Creek on the project site. The upstream overflow at the end of the Corps levee was estimated to be 3900 cfs. The downstream overflow at the southeast comer of the sports park site was estimated to be 2700 cfs. The combined overflow was estimated to be 6600 cfs. This is approximately 2000 cfs greater than the 100 -year flood condition. Flood Plains The existing flood plain and flood elevations for the 100 -year, 50 -year, and 25 -year flood events on the project site were estimated using the Corps of Engineers HEC -2 computer model. The estimated flow rates were based on the FEMA Uvas Creek overflow flow rates. Existing condition cross sections on the project site were taken from topographic maps completed in 1998. The site flood plains and typical flow depths are shown in Figure 4. The figure includes the 100 - year, 50 -year and 25 -year flood areas. The flood plain areas differ in certain areas from the effective FEMA flood plain maps due to differences in the topographic mapping and the FEMA mapping standards. Schaaf & Wheeler 9 Dro t Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 In general, there are two separate flow paths associated with the two separate overflow locations. The existing ground slopes from the creek toward Monterey Road. There is a shallow Swale through the middle of the site which slopes from west to east, from the end of the flood control levee to approximately the access road area. Overflows from the creek flow as shallow sheetflow away from the creek toward the Swale. The existing 100 -year flood plain analyses from the flood insurance study were reviewed to establish an estimated water surface elevation at Monterey Road for the design flood condition. The existing 100 -year flood analysis was based on an overflow of 4640 efs on the sports park site. The water surface elevations on Monterey Road near the site were based on weir flow over Monterey Road north of the Highway 101 embankment. The Monterey Road weir was more restrictive than the flow over the railroad embankment east of Monterey Road. The elevation discharge curve for the weir was used to estimate a water surface west of Monterey Road of 192.4 ft for the combined overflow of 6600 cfs. Drainage There are no existing drainage facilities on the sports park site. Runoff from the site flows overland to Monterey Road. There is a City of Gilroy storm drain system in Monterey Road which discharges to a Caltrans storm drain to Uvas Creek at Highway 101. Based on the City of Gilroy Storm Drain Master Plan, the existing 54 -inch storm drain in Monterey Road south of Farman Lane has capacity for the proposed project area. Sports Park Design The Sports Park design philosophy was developed to guide the sports park plan and grading to incorporate consideration of the potential flooding issues into the park planning. The objectives of the design philosophy were to maintain the existing flow patterns on the site, avoid increased flow or flood depths on adjacent properties, and to provide storm drainage for the proposed park project. These objectives were reviewed with SCVWD to ensure that the project constraints would be consistent with the intent of the SCV WD flood flowage easement. Based on the existing flood plain information, the proposed residential area north of the Sports Park would be partially within the 100 -year flood plain. The lowest portion of the site, near Monterey Road would be flooded due to the Uvas Creek overflows. Because the overflows occur downstream of the residential development, the flooding on the site would be ponded water due to the depth of flow downstream in the commercial development area along Monterey Road. For evaluation purposes, the residential development was assumed to meet the minimum standards required for development in the floodplain, including building pad elevations above the 100 -year water surface elevation. The proposed commercial development areas are located in an area where the overflows from Uvas Creek turn to follow Monterey Road south toward Uvas Creek at Highway 101 or flow over Monterey Road toward the railroad. The creek overflows enter the commercial area from the west and leave on the south or east side. Schaaf & Wheeler 10 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10. 2002 202 200 • • d 196 c 194 w 192 190 Um Figure 5 Water Surface and Ground Elevations Design Flood at Section 2 E:III11 1300 :11 2300 Cross Section Station (feet) :11 Project WS - - - Existing WS Project Ground - - - Existing Ground i E:III11 1300 :11 2300 Cross Section Station (feet) :11 197 196 - 195 - a0i c 194- 0 ^> 193 - _W w 192 - 191 190 iM Figure 6 Water Surface and Ground Elevations Design Flood at Section 3 800 1300 1800 2300 2800 Cross Section Station (feet) lit I- -Project WS - - - Existing WS Project Ground - - - Existing Ground 800 1300 1800 2300 2800 Cross Section Station (feet) w i `.. .; 197 a� a� 196 0 195 _d W 194 193 192 191 Water Surface and Ground Elevations Design Flood at Section 5 w 1300 m 2300 Cross Section Station (feet) M Figure 7 l • Project WS - - - Existing WS Project Ground - - - Existing Ground w 1300 m 2300 Cross Section Station (feet) M Figure 7 Water Surface and Invert Profiles for Design Q 20: 200 im ,•. w w o 194 w m d w 192 190 im Project WS — — Existing WS — - Project Invert - - - Existing Invert Figure 8 fiE: I mmmmmmmmmmmmm, 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Distance from Monterey Road (feet) 2500 C For evaluation purposes, the commercial development was assumed to include building pad elevations above the 100 -year and design water surface elevations. In addition, it was assumed that the development would balance cut and fill on the site to maintain flow areas in the landscaping and parking areas. This would allow sheetflow to cross the site without significant increases in the water surface elevations. No site plans or grading plans have been established for the commercial development. Project Flood Elevations The project condition flood elevations and flood plains were estimated using the HEC -2 computer model used to estimate the existing condition flood elevations. The ground cross sections were modified to include the proposed project grading. Cross section areas which may be obstructed by buildings or softball backstops were blocked in the project condition cross sections. Representative cross sections are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7. The calculated design water surface elevations for the existing and project conditions are shown on the flood profile in Figure 8, along with the corresponding invert elevations. This condition corresponds to the estimated maximum overflows from Uvas Creek for the 17000 cfs design flow in Uvas Creek upstream of the site. The invert elevations are based on the lowest grade elevation on any cross section. The profile was taken along a line through the property which approximates the alignment of the proposed access road. It should be noted that the design water surface elevation for the project condition is below the existing ground elevations at the lowest portion of the cross sections close to Uvas Creek. The lowest portions of the parking areas and access road near the creek are approximately 4 feet below existing grade elevations to provide slope across the turf areas near the creek, and to allow ponding areas within the parking areas. For flood events in which the creek overflows, the ponding areas in the parking lots will act as sedimentation basins to allow silt to deposit on the parking areas. Paved parking areas would be easier to clean in comparison to turf areas. These ponding areas are shown as low points on the invert profile for the project condition. As shown on the flood profile in Figure 8, the flood elevations for the design flood condition are at or below the existing water surface elevation for all areas. No areas outside the project boundary would be affected by the increased water surface elevations due to the project. The project condition flood plains are shown in Figure 9. Project Drainage The proposed storm drain system for the sports park site is shown in Figure 11. The storm drain system would drain the 10 -year runoff from the sports park site. The storm drain system would include two separate pipe systems. The main system would drain the majority of the sports park site and would discharge to an outfall to Uvas Creek at the southeast corner of the site. The Schaaf & Wheeler 17 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA. Amendment January 10, 2002 F L 0 W I N C F S - - -NO2 -- 56: GTI Pf1V QPnPTQ PCPV. 1M -VCCP MMIT e Ib0 0200 0400 0600 0600 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000 2200 0000 OBJAN02 I EXI_9B SPORTS--COMPLEX FLOW PRJ_% SPORT-COMPLEX FLOW Figure 12 F L 0 W I N C F S 10JPNO2 14 :57:07 nTSrHARrF f mAS rRFFK. 1M -YFAR FVFNT 0000 0200 0400 0620 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 0000 E10 CLUVAS_CREEK FLOW P10 C�UVAS_CREEK FLOW Figure 13 F L 0 W voc 58:' 0000 0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 0000 08JAN02 I EXI-9B SPORT—COMPLEX FLOW PRJ 9B SPORTS_COMPLEX FLOW Figure 14 F L 0 W I N C F S IWAN02 141:59:02 DISCHARGE @ UVAS CREEK. 100 -YEAR EUFNT 0000 0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 0000 08JAN02 I E100 @_UVAS_CREEK FLOW P100 @_UVAS_CREEK FLOW Figure 15 second system would drain only the access road from Monterey Road and a portion of the parking areas generally near the park entrance. The access road storm drain would drain to the storm drain in Monterey Road. The City storm drain system in Monterey Road has capacity to serve the proposed project, and site drains to Monterey Road for existing conditions. However, a new outfall to Uvas Creek was recommended in consultation with the City staff to limit storm drain flows from the site during flood events. This intended to reduce potential sediment inflows to the City storm drain system during flood events. The proposed outfall to Uvas Creek would include a flapgate at the storm drain outfall to prevent back flow from the creek when the water levels in the creek are high. Therefore, when the creek overflows occur, there would be no significant flow though the storm drains and flood water would pond in the low areas in the parking lots and other landscaping areas. This would promote deposition of suspended silt and sediment on the project site, instead of adding to the sediment entering the City storm drain. The sports park stone drain system includes a sediment/water quality pond near the outfall to Uvas Creek. The pond would trap dust and suspended sediment washed off the parking lot during normal rainfall events. The pond would include a concrete bottom and access road to allow mechanical removal of trapped sediment. The pond would also allow more efficient clean up after a flood event. Trapped silt in the storm drains or on parking lots which cannot be removed mechanically can be washed off into the sedimentation pond, without discharging additional sediment into Uvas Creek. Runoff The runoff from the USA amendment project site was estimated for the 10- and 100 -year flood events for both the existing and project conditions, to evaluate the potential impact on flood flows in Uvas Creek. The runoff from the project site and the entire Monterey Road storm drain system drainage area were estimated using the SCV WD draft hydrology methodology. The hydrology is a unit hydrograph procedure based on the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number procedure. The procedure estimates the runoff hydrograph based on the 24 -hour rainfall, drainage area, time of concentration, and loss rates based on land use. For the project area, the loss rates were based on the estimated percent impervious for each land use. Pervious areas were assumed to be row crops for existing condition, and turf or for project conditions. For evaluation purposes, runoff from the portion of the sports park which drains directly to Uvas Creek was included in the project runoff estimates. No distinction was made between the runoff which enters at the site, and the runoff in the Monterey Road storm drain. The storm drain to the creek channel would not operate during large flood events when flood elevations are high in the creek. Therefore, for flood events it was assumed to contribute to the Monterey Road system. The estimated runoff hydrographs for the existing and project conditions are shown for the sports park project area for the 10 -year and 100 -year events in Figures 12 and 13. Schaaf& Wheeler 23 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 Table 1 Peak Flow Rates Sports Park USA Area 140.2 acres The estimated runoff hydrographs for the existing and project conditions are shown for the Monterey Road drainage area for the 10 -year and 100 -year events in Figures 14 and 15. Table 2 Peak Flow Rates Monterey Road Drainage System 333.2 acres Existing Project Percent Event Condition Flow Condition Flow Increase cfs cfs 10 Year 68 94 38 100 Year 125 162 30 The estimated runoff hydrographs for the existing and project conditions are shown for the Monterey Road drainage area for the 10 -year and 100 -year events in Figures 14 and 15. Table 2 Peak Flow Rates Monterey Road Drainage System 333.2 acres As shown in the flood hydrographs and the peak flow rate tables, the peak flows from the project site would increase with development. This is due to increased runoff from impervious areas, and the increased flow velocities in the site drainage systems. The site runoff would no longer flow overland to Monterey Road to the storm drain system. The estimated increase in peak flow from the site and the Monterey Road would not have a significant impact on flood conditions in Uvas Creek. The peak flow from the local Monterey Road drainage system represents a relatively small portion of the overall Uvas Creek watershed, and has a different timing that the overall watershed. The time of concentration for the Monterey Road drainage area is approximately 40 minutes. In comparison, the time to peak for the overall watershed, including the area above the Uvas Reservoir is approximately 10 hours. The time to the peak flow in the lower watershed below the reservoir is approximately 4 hours. Therefore, Schaaf& Wheeler 24 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10. 2002 Existing Project Percent Event Condition Flow Condition Flow Increase cfs cfs 10 Year 207 228 10 100 Year 353 378 7 As shown in the flood hydrographs and the peak flow rate tables, the peak flows from the project site would increase with development. This is due to increased runoff from impervious areas, and the increased flow velocities in the site drainage systems. The site runoff would no longer flow overland to Monterey Road to the storm drain system. The estimated increase in peak flow from the site and the Monterey Road would not have a significant impact on flood conditions in Uvas Creek. The peak flow from the local Monterey Road drainage system represents a relatively small portion of the overall Uvas Creek watershed, and has a different timing that the overall watershed. The time of concentration for the Monterey Road drainage area is approximately 40 minutes. In comparison, the time to peak for the overall watershed, including the area above the Uvas Reservoir is approximately 10 hours. The time to the peak flow in the lower watershed below the reservoir is approximately 4 hours. Therefore, Schaaf& Wheeler 24 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10. 2002 the peak flow in the Uvas Creek channel would occur at least 3 hours after the peak runoff from the local drainage area. As shown in the hydrographs in Figures 14 and 15, the runoff from the local drainage area after the local peak flow is lower for the project conditions than for the existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not increase flows during the peak flow in the creek. Conclusions The proposed Final Draft Master Plan for the Gilroy Sports Park would be consistent with the objectives of the SCV WD flood flowage easement on the project site. The project grading is generally lower than the existing ground elevations in the paved parking and access road areas to allow for blockage in other areas for park facilities. The flood elevations on the project site are at or below existing elevations on the site and at the project boundaries. The Uvas Creek overflows would enter the site and leave the site in the same quantities and locations as the existing flood condition. The flood risk on other properties would not be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project includes ponding areas in the paved parking areas to allow silt in the flood water to settle out before reaching Monterey Road. The ponding in paved portions of the project would simplify clean up after a flood event. The ponding in the parking areas would not occur for smaller local rainfall events less than a 10 -year storm. The increased impervious area on the project site would increase runoff from the site and local peak flows into Uvas Creek. Due to the difference in timing between the local drainage and the creek flows, the peak local drainage discharge would reach Uvas Creek before the peak flow in the creek. Based on the estimated flow hydrographs, the local runoff at the time of the peak flow in the creek would not increase due to the project. References The Beals Group, Gilroy Sports Park Final Draft Master Plan, April 1999. 2. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., City of Gilroy Storm Drain Master Plan, May 1993. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Santa Clara County, California, Revised February 1986. 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, City of Gilroy, California, February 1980. 5. Schaaf & Wheeler, City of Gilroy - Uvas Creek Floodplain Management Study, November 1995. 6. Schaaf & Wheeler, Gilroy Sports Park Hydrology Study, May 1999. Schaaf & Wheeler 25 Drnf1 Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 7. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Paj aro River, California, Uvas Creek Levee at Gilroy, General Design Memorandum, November 1984. 8. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pajaro River Basin, Uvas - Carnadero Creek, General Design Memorandum, Phase I, Main Report and Environmental Statement, July 1981. 9. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soils of Santa Clara County, August 1968. Sclmaj& Wheeler 26 DraJJ Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 Appendix D Updated Fiscal Analysis f' `l bq I," FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GILROY SPORTSPARK AND URBAN SERVICES AREA AMENDMENT March 21, 2000 BM JAAf 14 ?Op? CP���NG Prepared for the Group INC, City of Gilroy Prepared by Douglas H. Svensson, AICP Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue Berkeley CA 94704 510.548.5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310, Sacramento CA 95814 CONTENTS 1. Introduction ....................................... ............................... 2. Property Tax Distribution ............................. ............................... 3. Sports Park Fiscal Impact on the City of Gilroy ....................... 4. Residential and Commercial Fiscal Impact on City of Gilroy 5. Project Impact on Santa Clara County ................ Appendix A: LAFCO Cost Revenue Methodology. LIST OF TABLES A M77 .............................1 ..............................1 .............................1 ..............................2 ..............................5 ..............................7 1. Current And Estimated Future Property Tax Distribution ....................... ..............................2 2. Fiscal Impact Of Non- Sportspark Annexation Area On The City Of Gilroy .....................3 3. Project Characteristics .................................................................................... ..............................4 4. Assumed Development Phasing ................................................................... ..............................4 5. Cost/Revenue Impact On Santa Clara County ........................................... ..............................6 INTRODUCTION From a fiscal standpoint, the project involves three actions that would affect public costs and revenues for the County of Santa Clara, the City of Gilroy, and other taxing agencies serving the project site. The first is the annexation of the parcels into the City of Gilroy. This would change the jurisdiction of the property and affect the distribution of property tax revenues to many of the taxing agencies. Secondly, operation of the sports park complex will create additional jobs and possibly minor increases in population, which will create service costs for County government, as well as increase the operating budget of the City Parks and Recreation Department. Finally, development of the other land in the annexation into residential and commercial uses will also have a fiscal impact on both the City and the County. PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION When the City purchased the property for the sports park, it effectively removed it from the tax rolls. However, the parcels surrounding the sports park site still in private ownership will change jurisdiction with the annexation. Those parcels currently have an assessed value of approximately $1 million and generate total property taxes of about $10,900 per year. With the annexation, it is likely that the distribution of property taxes will change. The table below shows the current distribution and the anticipated distribution after the annexation is complete. The future distribution is estimated to be similar to that in the Tax Rate Area within the City boundaries immediately adjacent to the project site. The largest difference in the two columns is the transfer of service responsibility and taxes from the South Santa Clara Fire District to the City of Gilroy. SPORTS PARK FISCAL IMPACT ON THE CITY OF GILROY The City of Gilroy has not finalized an operating budget for the proposed Sport Park. Preliminary estimates indicate the total cost at full operation may be about $1 million, of which a portion may be funded by user fees.' The project planning consultant for the City estimates that the staffing for the park would include six maintenance, ranger and supervisorial positions? However, some of these positions would work only part time at the park. The planned phasing of the park is about 20 years, so the full cost and job base will not reach maximum levels for some time. 1 Mr. Bill Headley,Gilroy Facilities and Park Development, personal communication. 2 Mr. Derek McKee, Beals Landscape Architecture, Inc. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE/ TABLE I t14; =. � _ �`�nj ti CURRENT AND ESTIMATED FUTURE PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION Taxing Agency Current Distribution* Estimated Future Distribution* County General Fund 24.30% 23.40% County Library 4.40% 4.20% Educational Agencies 58.30% 56.30% So SC County Fire Dist. 9.80% 0.00% SCV Water 1.70% 1.70% Bay Area AQMD 0.20% 0.20% Gavilan Water Dist. 0.60% 0.60% SCVWD State Water Proj. 0.50% 0.50% City of Gilroy 0.00% 12.90% Other 0.20% 0.20% Total 100.00% 100.00% Source: ADE, based on data provided by the Santa Clara County Controllers Office. *Note: Neither the current nor the future tax distributions reflect the ERAF adjustment, which would increase the share to educational agencies. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY OF GILROY Full development of the residential and commercial property in the annexation would have a positive fiscal impact for Gilroy as shown in Table 2. Nearly all of this benefit is generated by the sales tax from the commercial property. The residential component of the development starts out creating a small positive cash flow from the City in the early years, but this declines in later years as the value of the property tax erodes in relation to escalations in City service costs (see bottom line of Table 2). The analysis is based on the project characteristics shown in Table 3 and the phasing shown in Table 4. The residential phasing and market prices are based on information provided by the project sponsor and reflects Greystone Homes' request to the City for RDO allocation. No market analysis exists for the commercial properties, and they are presumed in this analysis to follow the completion of the residential development. If the commercial property takes longer to develop, then the fiscal benefit to the City would be different than shown in Table 2. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGEZ TABLE 2 FISCAL IMPACT OF NON-SPORTSPARK ANNEXATION AREA ON THE CITY OF GILROY EXPENDITURES 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 REVENUES $0 $0 $1,803 $6,909 $13,390 $20,166 $21,073 $22,021 $22,021 $23,012 $24,048 $26,261 Property Tax $1,290 $1,316 $7,662 $26,666 $47,746 $69,269 $78,151 $101,162 $124,702 $127,577 $130,478 $133,447 Sales & Use Tax $0 $0 $11,136 $42,056 $80,334 $184,644 $288,246 $915,427 $1,565,589 $1,612,556 $1,660,933 $1,762,084 Franchise Fees $0 $0 $724 $2,734 $5,223 $8,919 $10,387 $14,335 $17,972 $18,511 $19,066 $20,227 Real Property Tsf. Tax $0 $0 $5,389 $16,987 $20,701 $19,138 $10,128 $14,702 $16,230 $11,747 $11,992 $12,271 Utility Tax $0 $0 $2,567 $9,696 $18,521 $27,492 $28,317 $29,167 $29,167 $30,042 $30,943 $32,827 Investment Interest $39 $39 $919 $3,301 $5,858 $10,297 $13,500 $33,318 $53,684 $55,120 $56,742 $60,035 Motor Vehicle -in -lieu $0 $0 $2,130 $8,045 $15,367 $22,810 $23,495 $24,200 $24,200 $24,926 $25,673 $27,237 Gas Tax $0 $0 $1,022 $3,862 $7,376 $10,949 $11,278 $11,616 $11,616 $11,965 $12,324 $13,074 SUBTOTAL $1,329 $1,355 $31,550 $113,347 $201,126 $353,519 $463,502 $1,143,928 $1,843,160 $1,892,443 $1,948,152 $2,061,203 EXPENDITURES Administration $0 $0 $1,803 $6,909 $13,390 $20,166 $21,073 $22,021 $22,021 $23,012 $24,048 $26,261 Police $0 $0 $13,843 $53,041 $102,793 $154,809 $161,776 $169,056 $169,056 $176,663 $184,613 $201,602 Fire $0 $0 $457 $1,752 $3,395 $5,113 $5,343 $5,584 $5,584 $5,835 $6,097 $6,658 Community Services $0 $0 $454 $1,740 $3,372 $5,079 $5,307 $5,546 $5,546 $5,795 $6,056 $6,614 Community Recreation $0 $0 $808 $3,095 $5,999 $9,034 $9,441 $9,865 $9,865 $10,309 $10,773 $11,765 Community Development $0 $0 $3,833 $14,688 $28,465 $42,869 $44,799 $46,815 $46,815 $48,921 $51,123 $55,827 SUBTOTAL $0 $0 $21,198 $81,225 $157,414 $237,070 $247,738 $258,886 $258,886 $270,536 $282,710 $308,727 NET (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $1,355 $10,351 $32,122 $43,712 $116,449 $215,764 $885,041 $1,584,273 $1,621,907 $1,665,441 $1,752,476 CUMULATIVE (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $2,684 $13,035 $45,157 $88,870 $205,319 $421,083 $1,306,125 $2,890,398 $4,512,305 $6,177,746 $7,930,222 RESIDENTIAL ONLY NET (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $1,355 $10,351 $32,122 $43,712 $40476 $27,437 $28,078 $29,862 $20,005 $16,051 $5,234 CUMULATIVE (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $2,684 $13,035 $45,157 $88,870 $129,346 $156,783 $184,861 $214,723 $234,728 $250,779 $256,014 r - Y TABLE 3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICSc, RESIDENTIAL Acres Units Population Unit Values TOTAL 15.0 147 504 Low Density (6,000 sq. t. lots) 5.8 42 144 $400,000 Medium Density(4,000 sq.ft. lots) 4.4 48 165 $325,000 Tri - plexes 4.8 57 196 $225,000 COMMERCIAL Acres Sq.Ft. Employment Unit Values TOTAL 27.1 590,891 1,085 Service Commercial 6.8 147,723 271 $75.00 Regional Commercial 20.3 443,169 814 $75.00 Parks 1.2 Regional Commercial 0 0 TABLE 4 ASSUMED DEVELOPMENT PHASING ANNUAL 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Units - Annual Low Density 0 20 22 0 0 0 Medium Denisity 15 20 13 0 0 0 Tri - plexes 0 0 12 45 0 0 Sq.Ft. - Annual Service Commercial 0 0 0 74,052 74,052 0 Regional Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 217,800 All of the costs and most of the revenues in Table 2 are calculated on a per capita basis including both population and employment from the project site. The per capita cost factors are calculated from information in the 1999/2000 City of Gilroy budget. For services that generate direct user fees, such as Recreation and Community Development (building permits, etc), the user charges have been netted out of the service costs before calculating the per capita measures. The service population used in the calculations is consistent with a "daytime population" concept that assigns 75 percent of the service burden to the residential population and 25 percent to the job base in the City. APPLIED DEVELOPMENJECONOMICS PAGE4 �aq Ne The property tax is calculated directly from the units values shown in Table 3. The sales tax in it i H� the early years is based on per capita spending by project residents. However, as the commercial property comes online, the sales tax shifts to a per sq.ft. calculation on the commercial space, to avoid double - counting resident purchases at the commercial center. PROJECT IMPACT ON SANTA CLARA COUNTY The County LAFCO methodology for estimating fiscal impacts to County government addresses the impact of population growth on County services. The residential portion of the project would increase population by 504 persons. The 1,072 jobs in the commercial portion of the project and the four FTE jobs at the Sportspark could generate 2,284 additional population, for a total project impact of 2,788.' The following table indicates the costs and revenues associated with this increase in population. The LAFCo methodology indicates that all population increases have a negative impact on County finances (see Appendix A for the LAFCo base data on costs and revenues). The cumulative negative impact of this project is estimated to exceed $6.6 million by 2010. ' Recent ABAG data indicates that Gilroy has about 1.6 workers per household. The average household size is estimated to be 3.43. APPLIED DEVELOPMEMECONOMICS PAGES TABLE 5 COST/REVENUE IMPACT ON SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Revenues 52,061 219,031 409,276 754,602 1,120,029 1,155,174 1,189,493 1,224,717 Law and Justice $13,813 $60,091 $116,176 $221,736 $340,869 $364,249 $388,763 $415,013 Health Services 19,253 83,963 162,720 311,247 479,460 513,392 548,965 587,129 Social Services 32,176 134,763 250,933 461,424 683,630 704,319 724,933 746,561 General Government 13,597 56,351 103,782 188,694 276,263 281,154 285,694 290,345 Subtotal 78,839 335,167 633,611 1,183,101 1,780,222 1,863,115 1,948,355 2,039,048 Law and Justice 52,061 219,031 409,276 754,602 1,120,029 1,155,174 1,189,493 1,224,717 Health Services 55,006 169,639 317,434 586,027 870,905 899,258 926,975 955,392 Social Services 53,987 224,965 416,589 761,586 1,121,309 1,147,681 1,173,197 1,199,627 General Government (655) (6,077) (17,151) (41,631) (75,767) (91,675) (107,525) (123,470) Subtotal 160,399 607,558 1,126,148 2,060,585 3,036,476 3,110,437 3,182,140 3,256,265 Net (Costs)/Revenue (81,560) (272,391) (492,537) (877,484) (1,256,254) (1,247,323) (1,233,785) (1,217,218) Cumulative $(81,560) $(353,952) $(846,489) $(1,723,973) $(2,980,227) $(4,227,549) $(5,461,334) $(6,678,551) Source: ADE, Inc., based on Santa Clara County LAFCO cost and revenue factors. APPENDIX A r LAFCO COST REVENUE METHODOLOGY APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PACE I' I•.� �I 1 L, I•, I LnI 11'111 Ill _X ltd- . i! .1 " I 01. rlU %16'9$ '.'13L 1.2 7 rA. 4 1 c:u; 1r.l.) lit I- v1.:u1 ..nr.. County of Santa Clara t,ocal .&,gcrtcy Formanon cununi56ion COLU11) C01QVIML111 CO!X5C,£0S Wing 70 Wt S1 H-001 i6' Sir c1. :rill. Fl.,r- San Jose. Cabforc,q 981 10 (4488 90 n3s V.I.X 29 &; ril_ : \t,lumn .�ruic; QXKUtlty D rcc'6r FISCAL IMPACTS OF LAFCO PROPOSALS It is a LAFCO requirement that applicants provide information regarding the fiscal impacts of proposals upon affected local agencies. Affected agencies usually include the city, county and elementary and high school districts, 'I,ut certain proposals may have a fiscal impact upon other agencies as well. The LAiCO executive director should be contacted regarding which types of districts should be included in the analysis. The attached tables have been prepared by the County Office of Budget and Analysis, for use in estimating, the fiscal impact of development proposals upon Santa Clara County Government. Fiscal impacts to the city and any affected special districts will also need to be analyzed. These agencies should be contacted directly to receive information regarding fiscal impacts. The fiscal impacts to affected agencies other than the county should be analyzed for the same base years, and should be formatted in the sarrie cost Vs. revenue manner. Please call LAFCO Executive Director Autumn Arias at 299 -3800, extension 7027, if you have any questions regarding either the County Government tables or the fiscal analysis process in general. FISCAL IMPACTS TO COUNTY (GOVERNMENT: The attached tables depict fiscal impacts on a per capita basis. One table indicates the per capita costs to the County General Fund and the other table depicts the per capita revenues that would be realized by the County General Fund. To use these worksheets, the number of residents genera" 3 by a specific proposal should first be determined. This number can then be multiplied by the per capita figures in each category. The analysis should include the following information: Fiscal -years: Analysis should be performed for the fiscal year in which the project is proposed to be built, as well as five years and ten years from this base fiscal year (example: FY 1998, 2003 & 2008). The year (or estimated l ear) of annexation should be used as the base year, if the project construction date is unknown. (- more-) CVmm�9411t1erP e'nnea A!'.'ara(Yi, M ?rgie FRrnaatlCS. "�+, F�eJt•n7fl, AhChaci M17. HanAn Snc�n vtcalu�a e: ;leu1? Corltfr!IS siotl - WrMMtl * 14CS: 2954331 Past-ie Fax Note -- X767711 vale ! fie I'll Fep "es� T y0V 1. SJr2+1 ss From �l 0.aP,e fi �4M�5 ca /Crcl /� D C:— - - - co�M,.( per., N 1 0 � rm1 Fk! ti : BIC. PLHI'1111I7U i_iKIJI H HHUHt 0-1. .J-Br. _G Yc 10,15, S6 iNC U :5 F':a dUY "It !biJ Aftk Costs to County Government: For each year to be analysed, show the breakdown of Costa to each of the four major areas shown to the table. Law & Justice (L & ),, health (Hith), Social Services (SocSves), and General Govenunent (GenGovt). Also show the total General Fund expenditures (GFEx) for each year. Revenues to County Government: For each year to be analyzed, show the breakdown of costs by subject area, as well as total revenues for each year. March 1996 Fh'UF'1 : tl °Ik_ FLHh +'N(NU UhOUP PHONE NO. 10/15•8N '1 HC' 1:: ex rn.� yu� .o.i ��.. ._.. .4A Jan. 26 1999 10:09AM F'3 -AWA, PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES IN PRESENT /FUTURE DOLLARS (General Fund Law & JustiOO. Health, Social Sarvices, General Govlt.) Other LW i31th WSW$ 0=00vt 47.56 64.07 50.86 68.82 54.29 • 73.75 '57.93 79.01 - al) nA &5.97. . 77.18 1993 78.35 1994 79.42 1995 80.56 '1996 82.06 1097 83.50 1998 85.10 1999 86.77 2000 88.60 .42 2002 92.23 2003 94.02 .44 95.79. 2005 9734 2006 99.25 2047 100,95 2008 102.56 2009 104.15 2010 1,.-1 I.IHP. I : P T "c Z, T. •q? •LIP f SO'891't s IIT" R%11t snuo' iecA umn sad m sysb j 1a1da� gad 'AS topbS'q+i� »,& aiWwsetr 8'£6L Otm I 600E Z6$) 00'Ziq$ LZ$) 48'Zo4$ E'L7Z 900z (ES'SI$) TS'48£S (4Cols) S£'SL£s (PtW) 61'99E$ s'z'IS ULM 46.9$ '49'14E$ 19'ZTS 9018££5 8Z'8IS 39'SZ£$ 161LS F8081£S L6'6ZS £L'BOE$ 01'SS$ 94'66ZS 9'LSt ;66t 6£'90$ 6z't8zs £YZS$ 4L'ZLZ$ SUSS$ zz•45Z$ 09'089 68'££Zs 16'995 OE'SQZS Z£'ILS 96'68TS SZ'69s *-661$' ZO'LL$ 9 ous 161LS oZ'£51S 84'68$ v4'9£1S MM 66'££TS 1AO�Tt1� VOASOOS 1,.-1 I.IHP. I : P T "c Z, T. •q? •LIP f SO'891't s IIT" R%11t snuo' iecA umn sad m sysb j 1a1da� gad 'AS topbS'q+i� »,& aiWwsetr 8'£6L Otm VISE 600E ;'69t Boot 7'$;t LOOZ E'L7Z 900z 6M ;Oot 6'9ZZ 4002 f'Ltz E00 z'so� zooz b'66i t00z O'16t 000z £'£8t 666I 1'9L t 8661 S'691 L66I I'E9t 966T 9'LSt ;66t VZST 1,661 Vot £661 o'Z4t Z66t 6'L£T 1661 FEET 0661 b'9Z1 6861 SOLI 886T t•'Sti L86t 9'ItI 9861 1,'801 ;861 o'bol 4861 ,Ida AA OWS Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program for Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -02 Subseauent EIR 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. Monitoring Program The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the 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 project proponent is required to complete during and after implementation of the proposed project. 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. Monitoring Program Procedures The City, of Gilroy shall use the attached monitoring checklist for the proposed project. The monitoring program should be implemented as foll ows: The Gilroy Community Development Department should be responsible for coordination of the monitoring program, including the monitoring checklist. The Community Development Department should be responsible for completing the monitoring checklist and distributing the checklist to the responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 1 2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring checklist to the Community Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring checklist should not be returned to the Community Development Department. 3. The Gilroy Community Development Department will review the checklist to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with at the appropriate time, e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is required for project approvals. 4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non - compliance has occurred, a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy to the Community Development Department, describing the non - compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If a non - compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the City of Gilroy. Responsible Parties and Timing of Implementation and Monitoring The following table lists the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measures at each stage of the proposed project. The party(ies) responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure is (are) indicated by italics. The party(ies) responsible for monitoring the mitigation measure is (are) indicated by bold text. A key to abbreviations is located following the table. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 2 Principal Responsible Parties: A: Applicant or designee; ATT: Gilroy City Attorney; BLD: Gilroy Building Division; CD: Gilroy Community Development Department; CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game; COR: Santa Clara County Coroner, ENG: Gilroy Engineering Division; NAHC: Native American Heritage Commission; PLN: Gilroy Planning Division; RWQCB: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; SCVWD: Santa Clara Valley Water District. Other Responsible Parties and Specialized Consultants: 1: Biologist; 2: Archeologist; 3: Hydrologist. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent E/R Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 Implementation Timeframe Mitigation Project Plans Prior /Dining Prior /During Prior to Post Measure Final Map Permits Grading Construction Occupancy Development Number I A A A PLN PLN PLN 2 A A A,BLD,PLN A,BLD,PLN 3 A A A PLN PLN PLN 4 A 1; PLN 6 A 1, PLN, CDFG 6 A A 1, PLN 1, PLN 7 A A PLN PLN S A A ENG ENG 9 A A PLN PLN 10 A A 2, PLN 2, PLN II A A 2, PLN 2, PLN 12 A A COR,NAHC COR,NAHC 13 A,3 - ENG, SCVWD 14 A A A RWQCB, ENG A, ENG A, ENG IS A A A SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD 16 A A A A A ENG ENG ENG ENG ENG 17 A A CD CD IS A A BLD BLD 19 A A A ENG A,ENG,BLD A, ENG, BLD 20 A, ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 21 A, ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 22 A, ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 23 A ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 24 A, ATT A, ATT ENG ENG Principal Responsible Parties: A: Applicant or designee; ATT: Gilroy City Attorney; BLD: Gilroy Building Division; CD: Gilroy Community Development Department; CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game; COR: Santa Clara County Coroner, ENG: Gilroy Engineering Division; NAHC: Native American Heritage Commission; PLN: Gilroy Planning Division; RWQCB: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; SCVWD: Santa Clara Valley Water District. Other Responsible Parties and Specialized Consultants: 1: Biologist; 2: Archeologist; 3: Hydrologist. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent E/R Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 The text of the mitigation measures and the role of each responsible party is listed in the following table. Mitigation Measure Text of Mitigation Measure Number Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, prior to approval of a tentative subdivision map, the applicant for residential development on the parcels north of the sports park shall provide a landscape plan that is consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy, and includes a double row of trees along the sports park boundary, utilizing tree species that will attain a crown between 30 and 50 feet above street level. One row of trees may be planted on the sports park side of the shared property boundary. The plantings shall be a minimum size of 24 -inch boxed specimens and shall be planted prior to occupancy of the houses located within 100 feet of the sports park. The following dust control measures shall be incorporated into all permits for any phase of proposed construction on the project site. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access mads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following additional measures shall be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area: • 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 as quickly as possible. Subject to determination by the Gilroy Planning Division the following measures shall be implemented at construction sites that are very large or are located near sensitive receptors: • Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the ores or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Install wind breaks, or plant trees /vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour, Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. Implementing Party Monitoring Party Applicant shall prepare plan, install plantings prior to occupancy, and replace any plants that fail to grow adequately for the first five years following initial occupancy Applicant shall implement dust control measures as necessary to control the migration of visible dust off site. Gilroy Planning Division shall ensure that the landscape plans meet requirements, and shall conduct annual monitoring for five years following initial occupancy to ensure trees are growing adequately. Gilroy Planning Division shall ensure that all permits issued include dust control requirements. The construction manager shall note implementation of dust control measures in the construction log and provide a copy of the log to the City at the end of each week. Gilroy Planning Division shall review construction logs weekly for the initial four weeks and monthly thereafter. Gilroy Building Division shall investigate reported violations. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 4 A landscape plan consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy Applicant shall Gilroy Planning shall be prepared for common and street side planting areas abutting the prepare plan and Division shall review Uvas Creek habitat corridor, subject to the review and approval of the City install plantings, the plans and inspect of Gilroy Planning Division. The landscape plan shall include appropriate and replace any the plantings native plant species and shall not include plantings of non - native, invasive plants that fail to following installation, plant species. Native grasses or other native species shall be preferred in the grow adequately and shall ensure that areas adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee to provide additional native habitat during the first year. the landscape plans in association with the Uvas Creek habitat corridor. meet requirements, and shall conduct monitoring following planting and one year later to ensure plants are growing adequately. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no earlier than Applicant shall Qualified biologist 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to commencement of clearing, arrange for the shall conduct surveys, grading or construction in or adjacent to any riparian habitat, a field survey surveys, and shall and report results to shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active raptor nests abide by the the applicant and the are present in the construction zone or within 250 feet of the construction determinations of Gilroy Planning zone. These surveys shall be required only if any construction would occur the biologist. Division. during the nesting and /or breeding season of raptors potentially nesting in Gilroy Planning the areas proposed for development (generally March 1 through August 1). Division shall If active nests are found within the survey area, at the discretion of the approve the selection biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or of the biologist and halted until the nests are vacated andjuvenfles have fledged and there is no review the biologist's evidence of a second attempt at nesting. reports. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no earlier than Applicant shall Qualified biologist 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to commencement of grading or arrange for the shall conduct surveys, construction on or adjacent to the slope of the levee, field surveys shall be surveys, and shall and report results to conducted at least four consecutive evenings by a qualified biologist to abide by the the California determine if burrowing owls are present in the construction zone or within determinations of Department of Fish 250 feet of the construction zone. These surveys shall be required only if the biologist, and and Game, the any construction would occur during the nesting and /or breeding season of the provisions of the applicant, and the burrowing owls potentially nesting in the area (February I through August mitigation program. Gilroy Planning 31) and /or during the winter residency period (December 1 and January Division. 31). Preconmuction survey results shall be submitted to the California Gilroy Planning Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. If active nests are Division shall found within the survey area, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall _ approve the selection be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game focreview and of the biologist t and gistogi approval. The burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall contain review the mitigation measures contained in the California Department of Fish and reports. Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Compliance with this mitigation measure may California include, but not be limited to, the following: Department of Fish • Avoidance of occupied burrows during the nesting season and Game shall (February 1 through August 31); review the reports • Acquisition, protection and funding for long -term management and the mitigation and monitoring of foraging habitat adjacent to occupied habitat; plan, and shall • Enhancement of"isting burrows and /or creation of new monitor compliance burrows; with the mitigation • Passive relocation of burrowing owls. plan. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall Applicant shall Gilroy Planning arrange for a qualified biologist to inform workers of the potential presence arrange for a Division shall of the all special- status species, their protected status, work boundaries, and qualified biologist to approve the selection measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during educate workers. of the biologist. construction activities. Biologist shall inform the Gilroy Planning Division of completed educational sessions. All food - related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and Applicant shall Gilroy regularly removed from the project area to deter attraction of potential place trash Community predators of the California red - legged frog, foothill yellow- legged frog, containers at Development western spadefoot toad, California tiger salamander, and western pond approved locations. Department shall turtle. Pets shall not be allowed on the construction site. The proper review proposed location of the trash containers shall be subject to the review and approval of placement of trash the City of Gilroy Community Development Department. containers. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, luminaires in the proposed residential area shall be limited in height to 20 feet and shall be of a full cutoff design to reduce light spillage to adjacent areas. Luminaires located along a street adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee shall be located to the east side of the street. Prior to removal of any of the potentially historic houses on the project site an historical evaluation shall be completed. The historic evaluation shall include an architectural description of the structure, an historic background for the property and the completion of an appropriate State Department of Parks and Recreation form with photographic documentation. 10 The developers for any portion of the project site shall contract with a qualified archaeologist to arrange a schedule for monitoring during grading and excavation activities due to the project site's creek -side location and proximity to recorded historic and prehistoric sites. 11 12 Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be found during construction the following language shall be included any permits issued for the project site, including, but not limited to building permits for future development, subject to the review and approval of the Gilroy Planning Division: If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted at a minimum of 200 feet from the find and the area shall be staked off. The project developer shall notify a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that this language is included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e): If human remains are found during 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 from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.95. 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 most likely descendent or the most likely descendent 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. Applicant shall indicate the height and placement of luminaires on Final Maps and project plans.. Applicant shall have an historical evaluation performed and follow the recommendations of the report. Applicant shall arrange for the archeological monitoring at least once per day during grading and excavation. Applicant shall halt work if archaeological resources or human remains are discovered on the project site, and notify a qualified archeologist. Applicant shall halt work if human remains we discovered on the project site, and notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. Gilroy Engineering Division shall review Final Map and project plans. Gilroy Planning Division shall review the historic report and determine the appropriate measures. Archeologist shall provide weekly reports of site monitoring to the Gilroy Planning Division, and halt work if significant resources are discovered. Archeologist shall investigate finds, and report immediately to the Gilroy Planning Division if significant resources are discovered. Gilroy Planning Division shall consult with the archeologist to develop appropriate measures. Coroner shall investigate finds, and report to the Native American Heritage. Commission within 24 hours if the remains are determined to be of Native Americans. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify likely descendants. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 6 13 Any applicant for development within FEMA - delineated 100 -year flood Applicant shall have Gilroy Engineering zones on the project site shall have a hydrology report prepared for that a hydrological ' Division shall development by a qualified hydrologist or engineer, to specify hydrology- report prepared, and approve the related design requirements for the site and buildings, subject to the review incorporate the hydrologist, review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and SCVWD prior recommendations the hydrology report, to issuance of a building permit. The hydrology report shall address the into project plans. and review project following requirements: plans to ensure that • Site plans and building designs shall comply with the City of the recommendations Gilroy Flood Plain Control Ordinance. of the report are • Development on the project site shall not impede the flow of adequately addressed floodwaters. in the project plans. • Procedures shall be developed and site plans designed that will SCVWD shall review assure that any materials, supplies or goods used, stored or hold project plans to for sale at the proposed use that may present health hazards or ensure that the risks of water contamination during flood conditions are securely recommendations of kept at least one foot above the 100 -year flood level. the report are • Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in adequately addressed floodwater levels off the project site. in the project plans. Calculations for both the 25 -year and 100 -year flood events shall be submitted in support of these requirements. AB grading, design or other recommendations of the hydrology report shall be incorporated into project Plans. 14 The project applicant for any proposed development, shall, for each phase of Applicant shall Central Coast the development, submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and detailed engineering submit NOI, RWQCB shall designs to the Central Coast RWQCB. This permit shall require proposed SWPPP, review and approve a development and implementation of a SWPPP that uses storm water "Best and engineering SWPPP for the Management Practices" to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from designs to the proposed project. the site. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices that address Central Coast Gilroy Engineering source reduction and, if necessary, shall include practices that require RWQCB. Division shall review treatment. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of Gilroy Engineering project plans to Division for review and approval prior to approval of a building permit for ensure that the each phase of the project. SWPPP is adequately addressed on project Plans. The construction manager shall note implementation of _ SWPPP measures in the construction log and provide a copy of the log to the City at the end of each week. Gilroy Engineering Division shall review construction logs weekly for the initial four weeks, and between November 15 and April 15 and monthly at other times. 15 The project applicant for any proposed development within 50 feet of a Applicant shall SCVWD shall monitor waterway or flood flowage easement shall submit plans for review by, and obtain a permit from the project site for obtain an approved permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District the SCVWD. compliance with its (SCVWD) prior to approval of a building permit for each phase of the permit. project. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 7 16 Project plans for any development proposed for the project site, subject to Applicant shall the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division shall include on the Final include a sedimentation basin adequate for filtering out heavy storm water Map and construct contaminants such as silt, and grease traps suitable for filtering out other the required urban pollutants to the extent feasible. Additional measures as presented in features. "Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Applicant shall Protection," prepared by the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies prepare any required Association and "Parking Lot Best Management Practices Manual," management plan. prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Run -off Pollution Prevention of notification by Program may be required for specific projects. Any physical water quality the City of Gilroy safeguards shall be installed prior to occupancy of the proposed Engineering development, and any best management practices plan must be Division. implemented upon occupancy. Gilroy City 17 Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Community Applicant shall Development Department, the applicant for any residential development on include noise the project site along West Luchessa Avenue shall construct a sound attenuation barriers attenuation barrier eight feet in height when measured from the near curb of on Final Maps and West Luchessa Avenue. The barrier shall be completed prior to occupancy construct prior to of any homes on lots adjacent to West Luchessa Avenue. occupancy. 18 Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Building Division, Applicant shall have the applicant for any residential development on the project site shall an acoustical study conduct an acoustical study and establish engineering requirements to be prepared and included in construction plans to maintain interior noise levels at no greater incorporate than 45 dBAom,. engineering and Interior noise attenuation techniques may include forced air ventilation or design requirements air conditioning for all habitable rooms with a window facing noise sources, in project Plans- triple-paned windows, sound insulation or other appropriate means that will reduce interior noise levels to no greater than 45 dBAoNL- 19 The following language shall be included on any permits issued at the Applicant shall project site, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy limit noise- Engineering Division. "All noise generating construction activities shall be generating limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and to Saturdays and conswction to the City holidays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction is allowed hours listed. on Sundays. In addition, temporary berms or noise attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary." 20 The following street improvements shall be made to the intersection of West Applicant for Luchessa Avenue and Church Street:. applicable project • installation of a traffic signal with two -phase operation; shall include the • re- configuration of the northbound and southbound approaches as listed improverdents necessary to provide one approach lane for all movements; in project plans, and • provision of one left -tutu lane and one shared through and right- shall implement the turn lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. - improvements The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined within nine months by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project - specific traffic of notification by analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations the City of Gilroy below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required Engineering as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be Division. subject to a reimbursement agreement. Gilroy City Attorney shall prepare a reimbursement agreement applicable to all projects in the amendment area. Gilroy Engineering Division shall review plans to ensure that the required features are included on the Final Map, and have been constructed prior to occupancy. Gilroy Engineering Division shall monitor the management plan annually for the first five years to ensure the plan is adequate to safeguard water quality. Gilroy Community Development Department shall review Final Maps and ensure that the required walls are constructed. Gilroy Building Division shall review project plans to ensure that the recommendations of the acoustical study are adequately addressed. The construction manager shall note hours of noise - generating construction activities in the construction log and provide a copy of the log to the City at the end of each week Gilroy Engineering Division shall review construction logs. Gilroy Building Division shall investigate reported violations. Gilroy Engineering Division shall determine the timing for the listed improvements as part of its traffic monitoring program, and provide notice to the applicant for the appropriate project upon determining that the improvements are required. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 8 21 The following street improvements shall be made to the intersection of Applicant for Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue: applicable project Gilroy Engineering • constmcdon of a second northbound left -rum lane and an shall include the Division shall exclusive eastbound right -turn lane; listed improvements determine the timing • addition of a right -tum arrow for the eastbound right -turn in project plans, and for the listed movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the shag implement the improvements as part northbound left -tum movement has a green arrow). improvements of its traffic monitoring The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined within nine months program, and provide by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project - specific traffic of notification by notice to the applicant analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations the City of Gilroy for the appropriate below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required Engineering project upon as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be Division. determining that the subject to a reimbursement agreement. Gilroy City improvements are Attorney shall required. prepare a reimbursement agreement applicable to all projects in the amendment area. 22 Following or in conjunction with the signalization of the intersection of Applicant for Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road, the following street applicable project Gilroy Engineering improvements shall be made: shall include the Division shag • re- configuration of the southbound approach as nezes-sa"ry to listed improvements determine the timing provide one left -turn lane, two through lanes, two right -rum lanes; in project plans, and for the listed • re- configuration of the westbound approach as necessary to shall implement the improvements as part provide one shared lane for all movements; improvements of its traffic fic monitoring • reconfiguration of the northbound approach as necessary to two within nine months program, and provide left -tum lanes, one through lane, one shared through /right- turn of notification by notice to the applicant lane; the City of Gilroy for the appropriate • re- configuration of the eastbound approach as necessary to Engineering project upon provide one exclusive left -turn lane, one shared through and left- Division. determining that the turn lane, and one right -turn lane. • right -rum arrows shall be provided for the eastbound and Gilroy City improvements are southbound right -rum movements to provide LOS C intersection Attorney shall required. operations during all three study periods. This lane configuration prepare a reimbursement will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound agreement approaches. applicable to all The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined projects in the by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project - specific traffic amendment area. analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. 23 A right -of -way sufficient for a six -lane arterial shall be dedicated to the City Applicant for any Gilroy Engineering of Gilroy along the West Luchessa Avenue frontage of the project site. project in the Division shall review The dedication shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City amendment area Final Map and /or of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project - specific traffic analysis. along West project plans to ensure The dedication shag be implemented at such a time as to allow construction Luchessa Avenue inclusion of the right - necessary to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable shag include a of -way dedication. levels. dedication on the Final Map and /or in project plans Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 9 24 West Luchessa Avenue shall be widened to four lanes between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City of Gilroy traffic - monitoring program or a project - specific traffic analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. Applicant for applicable project shall include the listed improvements in project plans, and shall implement the improvements within nine months of notification by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. Gilroy City Attorney shall prepare a reimbursement agreement applicable to all projects in the amendment area. Gilroy Engineering Division shall determine the timing for the listed improvements as part of its traffic monitoring program, and provide notice to the applicant for the appropriate project upon determining that the improvements are required. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 10 o-T i r r 1' F� .. GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 98 -03 SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DRAFT PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Planning Division April 2000 t Y"selEii'�Xl °K�1T4flGZa.Ni.2ir�Y i..,' 1' GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 98 -03 SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DRAFT PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 (408) 846 -0440 Contact: Bryan Stice PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 ' Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 emcgroup @emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.com April 2000 Table of Contents Summary................................................................. ............................... S -1 1.0 Introduction ...................................................... ............................1 -1 1.' 1.1 Authorization and Purpose .................................................. ............................1 -1 1.2 Project Background and History ......................................... ............................1 -4 1.3 Project Location and Existing Conditions ........... :............. 1 -5 ....... ..................... 1.4 Project Description ..........................................:....................... -26 ...........................1 1.5 Project Objectives .................................................................... -31 ...........................1 1.6 Consistency with Applicable Local and Regional Plans . ...........................1 -34 1.7 EIR Uses .................................................................................... ...........................1 -56 ' "' 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........... 2-1 2.1 Aesthetics ............... .............................................................................................. 2 -2 2.2 Agricultural Resources ........................................................... ...........................2 -12 2.3 Air Quality ................................................................................ ...........................2 -19 2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................... ...........................2 -27 2.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................. ...........................2 -40 2.6 Geology ................................................................................. ............................... 2-44 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding .................................................... ............................... 2.47 2.8 Noise .......................................................................................... ...........................2 -60 2.9 Fire Protection Services .......................................................... ...........................2 -69 2.10 Police Protection Services ...................................................... ...........................2 -70 2.11 Schools ....................................................................................... ...........................2 -72 2.12 Water Supply ............................................................................ ...........................2 -73 2.13 Wastewater ................................................................................ ...........................2 -78 2.14 Transportation / Circulation ................................................ ............................... 2 -80 2.15 Issues Determined to Have Less Than Significant Impacts ...................... 2 -119 3.0 Related Environmental Issues ........................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts .:.....................3 -1 3.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... ............................3 -2 3.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ......... ............................... 3 -8 3.4 Growth - Inducing Impacts .................................................... ............................3 -8 3.5 Alternatives ..................................................................:........... ............................3 -9 4.0 Persons Contacted, Literature Cited, Report Preparers ..................4 -1 4.1 Persons Contacted ................................................. .:........................................... 4 -1 4.2 Literature Cited ....................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.3 Report Preparers ..................................................................... ............................4 -3 Appendix Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Responses to Notice of Preparation Appendix B Urbemis 7G Printouts List of Figures i. Figure1 Regional Location ........................................................... ............................1 -5 Figure2 Project Vicinity ............................................................... ............................1 -7 Figure3 Existing Land Uses ........ ........................................... ............................1-9 Figure 4 Aerial View of Project Site and Vicinity ................... ...........................1 -11 ` Figure 5 Current General Plan Land Use Designations ............................. :..... 1 -13' Figure 6 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ...... ...........................1 -15 r� Figure 7 Existing Urban Service Area ....................................... ...........................1 -17 z Figure8 Site Photos ...................................................................... ...........................1 -21 Figure9 Sports Park Master Plan ............................................... ...........................1 -23 Figure 10 Urban Service Area Amendment Request. .......................................... 1-27 Figure 11 Conceptual Residential Plan ......................................... . ........................ 1 -31 Figure 12 Project Site Visual Character ........................................ ............................2 -3 Figure 13 ' Location of Field Lighting Relative to Residential .. ............................2 -7 Figure 14 Field Lighting Visibility from Residences ................ ............................2 -9 Figure 15 Farmland Designations ................. ............................... ...........................2 -13 Figure16 Habitat Types ....... ...................................................................................... 2 -29 Figure 17 FEMA Flood Zone Designations ................................ ...........................2 -51 Figure 1S Sports Park Hydrological Model Map ...................... ...........................2 -53 Figure 19 Noise Exposure Study Locations ................................ ...........................2 -63 Figure 20 Roadway Network and Study Intersections ............ ...........................2 -83 Figure 21 Trip Generation ............................................................. ...........................2 -91 Figure 22 Trip Distribution Pattern ............................................. ...........................2 -95 Figure 23 Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment ( Project Buildout) ..................2 -97 Figure 24 Project Trip Assignment at Site Driveways and Nearby Intersections................................................................... ...........................2 -99 Figure 25 Background Plus Project Buildout Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes..2 -101 Figure 26a Background Plus Project Signalized Intersections LOS .................2 -103 Figure 26b Background Plus Project Signalized Intersections LOS .................2 -105 Figure 27a Background Plus Project Unsignalized Intersections LOS ............ 2 -107 Figure 27b Background Plus Project Unsignalized Intersections LOS ............ 2-109 Figure 28 Background Plus Project Roadway Segments LOS .........................2 -113 L 1.. List of Tables SummaryTable ....................................................................................... ............................S -6 Table 1 Probable Build -out Scenario ....................................... ...............:...........1 -25 Table 2 r' Assessor's Parcels in USA Amendment Request .... ...........................1 -26 Table 3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards.* .......................... 2-20 Table 4 Projected Project Air Quality Impacts ....................... ...........................2 -24 Table 5 Potential Special- Status Species ........................ : ................................... 2 -31 Table 6 Athletic Event Noise Exposure ................................... -61 ...........................2 Table 7 Projected Noise Exposure from Athletic Events ...... ...........................2 -62 Table 8 Estimated Current Project Site Water Use ................ ...........................2 -74 Table 9 Projected Water Demand of Proposed Project ......... ...........................2 -75 Table 10 Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site ......................3 -3 *Table it Alternative Site Parcels ................................................ ...........................3 -16 Table 12 Agricultural Land Designations and Uses ............... ...........................3 -21 Table 13 Summary of Environmental Effects of Proposed.Project and Alternatives................................................................. ............................... 3 -27 Table 14 Comparison of Environmental Effects of Alternatives to ProposedProject ............................................................ ...........................3 -28 �t I . Summary Project Background and History To address a lack of sports facilities for City residents, the City of Gilroy proposed the construction of a sports park on land immediately south of the City. The proposed project included the construction of the sports park and related off -site improvements and a USA amendment request for the 78.36 -acre sports park site and 61.85 acres of surrounding land. Because only a 100 -foot wide driveway connected the sports park site to the existing USA, the surrounding land was included in the USA amendment to make the amendment area more contiguous to the existing USA. The City of Gilroy certified the EIR for the sports park and USA amendment and approved the sports park master plan on June 7,1999. A USA amendment request was submitted to the Santa Clara County LAFCo on June 23,1999. Santa Clara County LAFCo requested additional environmental review of the USA amendment request based on proposed new land use designations in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The parcels that were a part of the USA amendment request but not proposed for sports park development were analyzed in the certified EIR based on the existing Gilroy General Plan designation of OPEN SPACE. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan designates 27.72 acres of this area as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and the remaining 27.13 acres of this area as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. This SEIR addresses the anticipated change in general plan designation for these parcels. Proposed Project The proposed project includes a USA amendment for the entire 140.21 -acre project site, which includes the approved Gilroy Sports park and habitat buffer on 78.36 acres, an approved trail extension and habitat buffer on 7.00 acres, proposed residential development on 27.72 acres and proposed commercial land uses on 27.13 acres. The entire 140.21 -acre project site is proposed for inclusion into the City's USA, and annexation to the city. The proposed project includes 27.13 acres designated in-the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. Commercial development would take place on two portions of the project site along Monterey Frontage Road, straddling the sports park entry road. Two parcels totaling 12.12 acres are located north of the sports park entry road and four parcels totaling 15.01 acres are located south of the sports park entry road. The proposed project includes 27.72 acres designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan as EMC Planning Group Inc. S -1 Summary Gilroy LISA Amendment 98-03 SEIR RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The residential area would be O immediately north of the approved Gilroy Sports Park and the area proposed for COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES designation along Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15063 an initial study was prepared to determine the potentially significant effects of the proposed project. The initial study determined that certain issues would have a potentially significant impact on the environment. These issues concerned agricultural considerations, geology, hydrology, public services and service systems, biological resources, transportation/ circulation, air quality, noise, archaeological resources, and aesthetics. Those issues determined to have a potentially significant environmental impact were studied in greater depth in an EIR. The City of Gilroy certified that EIR on June 7,1999. Based on proposed new land use designations in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan, this SEIR was prepared for the annexation of the entire project site and for commercial and residential development on land previously studied as open space. Environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed project are presented in Table S-1. Summary of Other CEQA Considerations Unavoidable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that a lead agency make findings of overriding considerations for unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts before approving a proposed project. The loss of prime farmland is considered a significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impact. The proposed project would result in the loss of the 54.8 acres of prime farmland (though some of this land is used for commercial and rural residential uses). In conjunction with the approved Gilroy Sports Park, which is within the project site, the loss of prime farmland would be 133.21 acres. The implementation of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area by both the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara serves as a partial mitigation for losses of prime farmland in southern Santa Clara County. However, it does not reduce the loss of prime farmland to a less than significant level and the proposed project would still be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on prime farmland. S -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 SEIR Summary Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those environmental impacts resulting from the cumulative effects of approved but not yet built projects and probable projects in the area of the proposed project. Cumulative impacts were based on projects in the southern part of Gilroy. Investigation indicated that the proposed project might make significant contributions to cumulative impacts in the areas of agricultural resources, air quality hydrology, and transportation /circulation. Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to transportation were found to be mitigated to a less than ' significant level by ' project level mitigation measures. No cumulative impacts were found in the areas of air quality and hydrology. Agricultural Considerations The proposed project would add 133.2 acres of prime farmland to the City of Gilroy Urban Service Area. Land within the Urban Service Area is generally expected to be developed within an approximate five -year timeframe. Prime farmland is a non- replaceable resource. Each cumulative project that involves the conversion of prime farmland to non - agricultural uses contributes to the depletion of this resource. Transportation/Circulation A traffic impact assessment prepared for the proposed project determined that the increase in traffic associated with the proposed project and other proposed or existing development would result in traffic congestion at three intersections and along one roadway segment. Mitigation measures in Section 2.14 Transportation/ Circulation would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of prime agricultural land. While this loss is mitigated in part by the establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area, the prime agricultural land lost to the proposed project is not replaceable. The loss of prime agricultural land would be a significant irreversible change. Growth Inducing Impacts The proposed project itself is an extension of urban services into a previously un- served area. Although all urban service infrastructure is currently available near the project site, the approval of the USA amendment would make that infrastructure available to the project site itself and would result in future growth and development in that area. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -3 Summary Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 SEIR The project site is currently within the City of Gilroy 20 -year development area. The proposed project would transfer the project site into the City of Gilroy USA. Provision of urban services and development within a USA is generally expected to occur within an approximate five -year timeframe. The Gilroy Sports Park has previously been approved for a portion of the project site, and a residential development is undergoing the RDO process for the northern portion of the project site. Approval of the USA amendment request would encourage and facilitate development within the project site. Extension of services to the southern parcels on the project site and development of these parcels could result in development pressure on the land south of the project site. Although this area is designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan as OPEN SPACE, the landowners may request a USA amendment and a change in general plan designation to open their land to development. Similar pressures may be felt to the west of Uvas Creek where a finger of land less than one -half mile wide would remain outside the Gilroy USA.. These areas were included in the Water Master Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. Summary of Alternatives Analysis The following alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed to determine if they would achieve project objectives while minimizing environmental impacts. The following project alternatives were analyzed: • Alternative #1 'No Project' alternative; The USA request is not approved by Santa Clara County LAFCo and no development takes place on the portion of the project site outside the sports park. The approved sports park is developed outside the urban service area at its approved location. Alternative #2 Reduced Project Size alternative; The USA request is reduced by 15.01 acres by eliminating the four parcels located south of the sports park access road. The resulting project site has a total of 125.20 acres, with 27.72 acres of proposed residential area and 12.12 acres of proposed commercial area. The sports park is added to the USA as part of this alternative. Alternative #3 Alternative Site alternative; An addition to the Gilroy USA is made on the west side of Monterey Street at Day Road in northern Gilroy. The project has approximately 25 acres of proposed residential area and 25 acres of proposed commercial area. The approved sports park is developed outside the USA at its already approved location. The 'No Project " alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, because it eliminates the unavoidable significant impact of loss of prime farmland and it results in reduced environmental impacts. Although there are no environmental impacts for the 'No Project" alternative, it does result in the highest water use S -4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 SEIR Summa because it retains the project site in water - intensive agricultural use. For this reason it is considered worse than the proposed "project and other alternatives in terms of impacts to the water supply. The Reduced Project Size alternative is the next best alternative. It reduces the magnitude of the unavoidable significant impact to agricultural resources, and also reduces impacts on air quality, hydrology and transportation. The Reduced Project Size alternative would not significantly reduce the potential noise impacts at the residential development along Monterey Road and West Luchessa Avenue. If mitigation fails to fully mitigate noise in those areas, the noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Alternative Site alternative reduces conversion of agricultural land, and especially conversion of Prime Farmland. More of the'Alternative Site is already developed than the project site. The Alternative Site alternative may have slightly reduced impacts on biological resources, and would eliminate the possibility of a significant unavoidable impact from noise. The Alternative Site alternative also reduces the hydrological impacts of the proposed project. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -5 TABLE S -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures E of Concern Impact Level of Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Tlmpact Residual Aesthetics —significance Change in Rural Character Less Than N/A None Less Than Development of the project site Significant Required Significant would permanently alter the existing rural character of the area. The view from U.S. Highway 101 would become more urban than it is currently. However, surrounding parcels to the north and east are already developed and the approved sports park will provide an area of transition between the built and rural environments. Aesthetics Nighttime Lighting The proposed Potentially 1 Residential development on the parcels Less Than project would place residences Significant north of the sports park shall provide a Significant near the planned athletic field landscape plan that includes a double row lights of the approved Gilroy of trees along the sports park boundary, Sports Park. Several of the utilizing tree species that will attain a planned lights are within 400 to crown between 30 and 50 feet above street 500 feet of, and aimed towards level prior to occupancy of the houses the nearest homes. These field located within 100 feet of the sports park. lights would be directly visible from these houses' windows. tmu i tanntng vroup Inc. S -6 Area of Concern Impact Level of Si nificance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Im act Agricultural Loss of Prime Farmland Unavoidable N/A The establishment of the Gilroy Unavoidable Resources Approval of the Urban Service Significant Agricultural Lands Area by both the City Significant Area amendment and of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara development of parcels adjacent serves as a regional mitigation for losses to the sports park site, would of prime farmland in southern Santa result in the loss of 54.85 acres of Clara County outside of the agricultural designated prime farmland. lands area. Although this regional Approximately 49.85 acres of this mitigation has been implemented, it does farmland would be converted from not reduce the loss of prime farmland to a agricultural production. less than significant level and the proposed project would still be considered Cumulative Project Loss of Prime to have a significant and unavoidable Farmland. impact on prime farmland. Approval of the Urban Service Area amendment and development of parcels adjacent to the sports park site, in conjunction with development of the approved sports park, would result in the loss of 133.21 acres of designated prime farmland. Approximately 128.21 acres of this farmland would be converted from agricultural production. EMC Planning Group Inc. g_7 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Im act Agricultural Conflict With Williamson Act No N/A None No Resources Contract. Six of the parcels on Impact Required Impact the project site were previously under Williamson Act contract. None of these contracts is currently in effect. The parcels most recently in Williamson Act contract were non - renewed effective in January 1999. Agricultural Effect on Adjacent Agricultural Potentially N/A The establishment of the Gilroy Potentially Resources Uses. Implementation of the Unavoidable Agricultural Lands Area by both the City Unavoidable proposed project could induce the Significant of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara Significant adjacent farmland to the south of serves as a regional mitigation for losses the project site and nearby of prime farmland in southern Santa farmland to the west of the Clara County outside of the agricultural project site to be converted to non- lands area. Although this regional agricultural uses. These parcels mitigation has been implemented, it does adjacent to the project site are not reduce the loss of prime farmland to a within the proposed City of less than significant level and the Gilroy 20 -year planning area but proposed project would still be considered are proposed to be designated for to have a significant and unavoidable open space uses. Development impact on prime farmland. pressures could result in a change of general plan designation and subsequent development. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -g Area of Concern Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Significance Number Im act Air Quality Proposed Project Operations Less Than N/A None Less Than BAAQMD determines the Significant Required Significant thresholds of significance for general plans, master plans annexations and similar projects based on the project's consistency with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan, which is in turn consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Air Quality Project Construction Potentially 2 Dust control measures shall be Less Than Significant incorporated into all permits for any Significant phase of proposed construction on the project site. Biological Loss of Habitat. Due to continuous No N/A None No Resources human interaction, agricultural Impact Required Impact fields typically provide little habitat for wildlife and do not represent a significant biological resource. Biological Invasive Plant Species. The Significant' 3 Project plans shall include a habitat Less Than Resources riparian habitat along Uvas buffer designed to include appropriate Significant Creek could be affected by the native plant species and shall not include presence of non - native, invasive plantings of non - native, invasive plant plant species. species. Wherever possible, the east side of the trail shall be planted with native grasses or other native species to provide additional native habitat. Lim- manning croup inc. S -9 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact - Biological Raptors. Construction activities Potentially 4 A field survey shall be conducted by a Less Than Resources in or near the riparian woodland Significant qualified biologist to determine if active Significant habitat found along Uvas Creek raptor nests are present in the construction could result in the direct loss of zone or within 250 feet of the construction white - tailed kite, northern zone if any construction would occur during harrier, Cooper's hawk, and- the nesting and /or breeding season of short -eared owl nests, including raptors potentially nesting in the areas eggs and young, or the proposed for development (generally abandonment of an active nest by March 1 through August 1). If active nests the adults. are found, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until the nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Biological Burrowing Owls. Construction Potentially 5 Field surveys shall be conducted to Less Than Resources activity along the slope of the Significant determine if burrowing owls are present in Significant levee in the northwest comer of the construction zone or within 250 feet of the project site, could result in the the construction zone if an construction direct loss of burrowing owl nests, g g would occur during the nesting and /or including eggs and young, or the breeding season of burrowing owls abandonment of an active nest by potentially nesting in the area (February the adults. 1 through August 31) and /or during the winter residency period (December 1 and January 31). If active nests are found, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall be prepared. EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 -10 Area of Concern Impact Izificance vel of Mitigation I Mitigation Measure Residual Number Impact Biological Riparian Special- Status Species Potentially 6 A qualified biologist shall inform Less Than Resources Several special- status species Significant workers of the potential presence of the Significant may potentially occur in Uvas all special- status species, their protected Creek and in the riparian habitat status,, work boundaries, and measures to adjacent to Uvas Creek. Any be implemented to avoid loss of these adverse effects on these special- species during construction activities. status species, if present, resulting from construction activities All food - related trash items shall be associated with the residential 7 enclosed in sealed containers and area adjacent to the riparian regularly removed from the project area to habitat habitat would be a significant deter attraction of potential predators P P impact. Biological Effects of Nighttime Lighting on Potentially g Luminaires in the proposed residential Less Than Resources Wildlife Lighting of roads in the Significant area shall be limited in height to 20 feet Significant proposed residential area could and shall be of a full cutoff design to spill over into the riparian reduce light spillage to adjacent areas. habitat and disturb wildlife, Luminaires located along a street adjacent restrict the movement activity to the Uvas Creek levee be located of wildlife, or facilitatte o to the east side of the street. increased predation of wildlife species. Cultural Historic Houses The project site Potentially 9 Prior to removal of any of the potentially Less Than Resources contains four potentially historic P Significant g historic houses on the project site an Significant houses. These houses are likely to r historical evaluation shall be completed. be removed to accommodate future The historic evaluation shall include an development on the project site. architectural description of the structure, The houses may also have an historic background for the property significant buried historic and the completion of an appropriate resources associated with them. State Department of Parks and Recreation form with photographic documentation EMC Planning Group Inc. S -11 Area of Concern Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Si nificance Number Impact Cultural Currently unidentified buried Potentially 10 The city shall contract with a qualified Less Than Resources cultural resources may be found Significant archaeologist to arrange a schedule for Significant during construction on the project monitoring the project site during grading site. and excavation activities. 11 If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted and the' area shall be staked off. The project developer shall notify a qualified professional archaeologist. 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 12 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. Geology Seismic Hazards. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than project exposes people or structures Significant Required Significant to a small risk of potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic hazards. Hydrology Flood Flows in Uvas Creek. Storm Less Than N/A None Less Than water run -off from impervious Significant Required Significant surfaces could increase the rate of storm water discharge into Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River drainage. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -12 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure rRespiduaI act Hydrology On -Site Flooding. The proposed Potentially 13 A hydrology report shall be prepared to Less Than commercial area and portions of Significant address the following requirements: Significant the proposed residential area are • Site plans and building designs within 100 -year flood zones as shall comply with the City of or identified on the FEMA maps. Gilroy Flood Plain Control The Gilroy Floodplain Control Ordinance. Unavoidable Ordinance allows development a Development on the project site Significant within 100 -year floodplains shall not impede the flow of provided certain measures are floodwaters. taken to prevent potential a Procedures shall be developed and damage from flooding. Portions of site plans designed that will the commercial area are within a assure that any materials, 25 -year flood zone based on a supplies or goods used, stored or hydrology study conducted for the hold for sale at the proposed use sports park. Development within that may present health hazards these areas prone to flooding - or risks of water contamination presents potential risks to health during flood conditions are and safety of people and damage securely kept at least one foot to buildings and property. above the 100 -year flood level. • Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in floodwater levels off the project site. Hydrology Secondary Impact— Off -Site Potentially 13 See Above. Less Than Flooding. Mitigation required for Significant Significant construction within the floodplain could potentially result in diversion of floodwaters and increases in flood levels off the project site. EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 -13 Area of Concern Impact Level of Si ificance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Hydrology Flood Flowage Easement. Potentially 13 See Above. Less Than SCVWD holds a flood flowage Significant Significant easement that restricts land use and development on a large portion of the project site. Inappropriate development within this easement could put structures at risk of damage and people at risk of injury or death from storm - related flooding. Hydrology Surface Water Quality During Significant 14 The City shall submit a Notice of Intent Less than Construction. Grading will expose and detailed engineering designs to the Significant sediments to rain or wind erosion Central Coast Regional Water Quality and subsequent transportation of Control Board, and implement a Storm sediments to Uvas Creek. Water Pollution Prevention Plan that uses Materials used and wastes storm water "Best Management Practices" generated during construction to control runoff, erosion and would degrade water quality sedimentation from the site. also. Non -point source pollutants from urban activity at the project 15 The City shall submit plans for review site would be released by, and obtain an approved permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -14 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure I Residual I Impact Hydrology Surface Water Quality During 16 A sedimentation basin shall be included Less Than Operation. Contaminants common m plans. Additional "best practices" Significant to urban area storm water and operational measures may be required for irrigation run -off could specific projects. potentially result in the pollution of Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River. These contaminants could be transported to the drainage system, polluting downstream waters stems. Noise Long -Term and Short -term Noise Unavoidable N/A To reduce the long -term noise to a less Unavoidable from Sports Park Activities, Significant than significant level, a six-foot tall Significant Athletic events and traffic acoustically effective barrier would be entering and exiting the project required along the northern boundary of site would generate long -term the sports park site. The location of the noise at the proposed residential barrier is partly within the SCVWD area north of the sports park. flood flowage easement. Placement of the Spectator shouting and public barrier would potentially impede the address system announcements, flow of floodwaters and could result m' would generate short -term, increased flooding impacts in other areas. annoyance noise at the residential area. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -15 Area of Concern Impact Level of Mitigation I Mitigation Measure Residual S Number h • Impact Noise Exterior Traffic Noise at Unavoidable N/A This portion of the project site is located Unavoidable Residential Areas along Monterey Significant within a flood zone, and a sound Significant Street. At General Plan build -out, attenuation barrier would not be feasible noise levels from traffic on if the barrier were to interfere with flood Monterey Street would exceed flows or affect off -site flood levels. City standards at adjacent Additionally, a noise barrier would place proposed residential areas. a visually obtrusive element along southern Monterey Street, a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan: This would result in a secondary visual impact. Noise Exterior Traffic Noise at Unavoidable 17 A sound attenuation barrier eight feet in Unavoidable Residential Areas along West Significant height shall be constructed along West Significant Luchessa Avenue. At General Luchessa Avenue. Plan build -out, noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street. Noise Interior Noise Levels at Potentially 18 An acoustical study shall establish Less Than Residential Areas. Traffic and Significant engineering requirements to be included in Significant sports park noise at the proposed construction plans to maintain interior residential area would exceed 45 noise levels at no greater than 45 dBADNL• dBA. Noise Short-term Construction Noise. Significant 19 Construction activities shall be limited to Construction activities at the specified hours. JLe project site could result in high levels of noise. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -16 Area of Concem Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Im act Fire Protection Fire Services The proposed project No Impact N/A None No Impact Services does not result in the need for Required additional facilities for the provision of fire protective services, and would not decrease the level of these services provided to any part of the community. Police Police Services. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than Protection project does not result in the need Significant Required Significant Services for additional facilities for the provision of police services, and would not decrease the level of these services provided to any art of the community. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -17 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Schools Student Enrollment Exceeding Less Than N/A None Less Than Capacity The proposed project Significant Required Significant would add approximately 120 students to the GUSD. Enrollment ° is currently over capacity at the District's elementary schools and high school. However, since some students drop out each year, actual attendance is close to capacity. The District is constructing a new elementary school and has plans to construct a new middle school. In addition, grade level re- distribution among schools will bring kindergarten through 8th grade enrollment close to capacity for each of those rade levels. Water Supply Construction of Potable Water and Less Than N/A None Less Than Recycled Water Infrastructure.' Significant Required Significant The proposed project does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing potable or recycled water supply infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of -ways would serve the proposed project. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -18 Area of Concern Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Significance Number Impact Water Supply City Water Supply. The Less Than N/A None Less Than proposed project would result in an Significant Required Significant incremental increase in demand for potable water that is within the City of Gilroy's ability to provide. Water Supply Groundwater Supply. The Beneficial N/A None Beneficial proposed project would result in an Required overall decrease in water use. Less groundwater would be required from the Llagas Groundwater Sub Basin to supply the project site. Waste water Construction of Wastewater Less Than N/A None Less Than Infrastructure. The proposed Significant Required Significant project does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing wastewater infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of -ways would serve the proposed projdct. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -19 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Transportation West Luchessa Less Than N/A None Less Than Circulation Avenue /Princevalle Street. Significant Required Significant Traffic impacts at this intersection would improve to acceptable levels with signalization that is already included in the City's Capital Improvement Budget, and is programmed for implementation in 2001 or 2002. Transportation West Luchessa Avenue/Church Significant 20 The following street improvements shall Less Than Circulation Street. The addition of project be made to the intersection of West Significant traffic to the West Luchessa Luchessa Avenue and Church Street: Avenue /Church Street • installation of a traffic signal with intersection would cause both' two -phase operation; overall intersection operations • re- configuration of the northbound and and the worst approach to southbound approaches as necessary to deteriorate from acceptable provide one approach lane for all operating levels to LOS F during movements; both the PM and Saturday peak • provision of one left -turn lane and one hours. shared through and right -turn lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 -20 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual I Impact Transportation Monterey Street/Luchessa Significant 21 The following street improvements shall Less Than Circulation Avenue. The intersection of be made to the intersection of Monterey Significant Monterey Street and Luchessa Street and Luchessa Avenue: Avenue is projected to degrade • construction of a second northbound from LOS C to LOS F during the left -turn lane and an exclusive PM peak hour with the addition eastbound right -turn lane; of project - generated traffic. • addition of a right -turn arrow for the eastbound right -turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left -turn movement has a green arrow). EMC Planning Group Inc. S -21 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Following or in conjunction with the Transportation Monterey Street/Monterey Significant 22 signalization of the intersection of Less Than Circulation Frontage Road. The operation of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Significant the Monterey Street /Monterey Road, the following street improvements Frontage Road intersection is shall be made: projected to deteriorate from 0 re- configuration of the southbound acceptable level under approach as necessary to provide Background Conditions to LOS F one left -turn lane, two through during the PM and Saturday peak lanes, two right -.turn lanes; hours with the addition of project 0 reconfiguration of the westbound traffic and construction of the approach as necessary to provide proposed traffic signal. one shared lane for all movements; • reconfiguration of the northbound approach as necessary to two left - turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through /right - turn lane; • re- configuration of the eastbound approach as necessary to provide one exclusive left -turn lane, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -turn lane. • right -turn arrows shall be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three study periods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound approaches. EMC Planning Group Inc. S -22 Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Im act Transportation West Luchessa Avenue Roadway Significant 23 A right -of -way sufficient for a six -lane Less Than Circulation Segment. With the addition of arterial shall be dedicated to the City of Significant project- generated traffic, this key Gilroy along the West Luchessa Avenue roadway segments is projected to frontage of the project site. deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service. West Luchessa Avenue shall be widened 24 to four lanes between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. Transportation U.S. Highway 101. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than Circulation project is estimated to add traffic Significant Required Significant that will exceed one percent of the capacity to all four of the nearby freeway segments. All of the segments are projected to operate at LOS B or C during the PM peak hour, acceptable levels of service. Note: Impacts and Mitigation Measures are summarized in this table. Refer to the text of the Environmental Impact Report for the complete text of the impacts and mitigation measures associated with each area of concern. Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 -23' 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Authorization and Purpose The City of Gilroy certified the Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1998102079) on June 7,1999. That environmental impact report (EIR) evaluated the addition of 140.21 acres of land south of Gilroy into the City's Urban Service Area (USA), construction of a sports park on a 78.36 - acre portion of the USA amendment area and construction of off -site improvements related to the sports park. Based on that EIR the Gilroy Sports Park Master Plan was approved by the City of Gilroy on June 7,1999. The Gilroy City Council approved the USA amendment request on June 7,1999 and staff was directed to submit the application to Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. The certified EIR is available for review by contacting Bryan Stice at the City of Gilroy Planning Division, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020 or (408) 846 -0440. The certified EIR was prepared using the existing general plan land use designations for the project site. The project site included some areas not proposed for development at the time the certified EIR was prepared. The City of Gilroy is in the process of adopting an updated general plan. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan includes changes in the land use designation for some of the parcels included in the USA amendment request. These parcels were evaluated in the certified EIR with an OPEN SPACE designation but are designated RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The City of Gilroy applied to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for the addition of the project site to the City's USA. Because of the probable upcoming changes to the general plan land use designations for the project site, LAFCo required further environmental analysis based on the expected new designations. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requires that a subsequent EIR (SEIR) be prepared when an EIR has been certified, if " substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." This SEIR has been prepared because the expected changes in the general plan land use designations constitute.a significant change in the project description and may result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts that were not identified in the certified EIR. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -1 Introduction Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This SEIR has been prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. (hereinafter "consultant ") under contract to the City of Gilroy as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing guidelines. This SEIR has been prepared using available information from private and public sources noted herein, as well as information generated by the consultant through field investigation. This SEIR will be used to inform public decision - makers and their constituents of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA guidelines, this report describes both beneficial and adverse impacts generated by the proposed project and suggests measures for mitigating significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Based upon the decision to prepare a SEIR, the City prepared and distributed a notice of preparation (NOP), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082. CEQA Guidelines section 15375 defines an NOP as "...a brief notice sent by the lead agency to notify the responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and involved federal agencies that the lead agency plans to prepare an EIR for the project. The purpose of the notice is to solicit guidance from those agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR." The NOP and responses to the NOP are contained in Appendix A. This SEIR describes and evaluates the existing environmental setting of the project site and surrounding areas, discusses the characteristics of the proposed project, identifies environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and provides feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce or avoid identified adverse environmental impacts. This SEIR also evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Where an EIR identifies a significant adverse impact, the lead agency may not approve the project unless it finds that changes to the project or mitigation measures have been required of the project to reduce the impact's significance or that changes are.infeasible for specified social, economic, and /or other reasons (Public Resources Code section 21081). When a mitigation measure is associated with a project impact that is identified as significant in the EIR, the lead agency may not exclude the mitigation measure from the project conditions without making specific findings regarding the omission. This SEIR is a factual, objective public disclosure document that takes no position on the merits of the proposed project. Thus, the findings of this SEIR do not advocate a position "for" or "against" the proposed project. Instead, this SEIR provides information on which decisions about the proposed project can be based. 1 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction This SEIR has been prepared according to the prof6ssional standards and practices of the EIR participants' individual disciplines and in conformance with the legal requirements and informational expectations of CEQA and its implementing guidelines. 1.2 Project Background and History To address a lack of sports facilities for City residents, the City of Gilroy proposed the construction of a sports park on land immediately south of the City. The proposed project included the construction of the sports park and related off -site improvements and a USA amendment request for the 78.36 -acre sports park site and 61.85 acres of surrounding land. The surrounding land was included in the USA amendment to make the amendment area more contiguous to the existing USA. The sports park site alone was connected to the existing USA by a 100 -foot wide driveway. The City of Gilroy certified the EIR for the sports park and USA amendment and approved the sports park master plan on June 7,1999. A USA amendment request was submitted to the Santa Clara County LAFCo on June 23, 1999. Santa Clara County LAFCo requested additional environmental review of the USA amendment request based on proposed new land use designations in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The parcels that were a part of the USA amendment request but not proposed for sports park development were analyzed in the certified EIR based on the existing Gilroy General Plan designation of OPEN SPACE. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan designates 27.72 acres of this area as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and the remaining 27.13 acres of this area as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. This SEIR addresses the anticipated change in general plan designation for these parcels. As of the release of this Draft SEIR for public review, the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan has yet to be adopted. The City of Gilroy owns the sports park site and approved the master plan for the sports park's development. Although the sports park site is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, outside the City's corporate limits and USA, the City of Gilroy may proceed with development of the sports park without the approval of the County of Santa Clara or Santa Clara County LAFCo. As a city, Gilroy is exempt from the permit authority of other agencies on land that the City owns (40 Ops:Cal.Atty.Gen243 (1962) and Government Code sections 53090 and 53091). Development of the sports park is an approved project and therefore is not part of the proposed project for this SEIR. The environmental impacts of the sports park were adequately addressed in the certified EIR and no new analysis is required. The sports park site's inclusion in the USA is. a part of the proposed project. This SEIR focuses on the USA amendment request, including the sports park site, under the EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -3 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR proposed Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan land use designations, and the subsequent build -out of the residential and commercial parcels. This SEIR considers impacts of the approved sports park as a part of cumulative impacts. 1.3 Project Location and Existing Conditions Project Location and Vicinity The project site is located immediately south of the City of Gilroy in unincorporated Santa Clara County, approximately 35 miles south of San Jose, 10 miles south of Morgan Hill, and 30 miles northeast of Salinas. Figure 1 illustrates the regional location. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Monterey Street and West Luchessa Avenue. It is bordered by West Luchessa Avenue to the north, Uvas Creek and Farman Lane to the south, Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road to the east, and Uvas Creek to the west. Surrounding land uses are residential (single - family), commercial (hotels, mini- storage, automobile sales, restaurants), and agricultural (row crops, greenhouses). U.S. Highway 101 is located to the east of the project site, approximately 300 feet from the south end of the project site and approximately 1,100 feet from the north end of the project site. Figure 2 illustrates the project vicinity. Figure 3 illustrates existing land uses.in the project site and vicinity. An aerial view of the project site and vicinity is presented in Figure 4. Planning Designations The project site currently under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County General Plan land use designation for the project site is OPEN SPACE RESERVE. This designation is used for land that is adjacent to an existing USA but for which no long -term use has been determined. The project site is within the City of Gilroy 20 -year planning area. The project site has been in the 20 -year planning area since the current general plan was adopted in 1979. The current Gilroy General Plan land uses for the project site are OPEN SPACE and PARK /PUBLIC FACILITY. Current general plan land use designations are illustrated in Figure 5. Gilroy's general plan is in the process of being updated. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan land use designations for the project site are RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES and PARK /RECREATION FACILITY. Proposed general plan land use designations are illustrated in Figure 6. The existing Gilroy USA is illustrated in Figure 7. 1 -4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: California State Automobile Association and EMC Planning Group Inc. Not to Scale Q Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Plannin g Regional Location 1 and Design Firm Introduction Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1-6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: California Automobile Association and EMC Planning Group Inc. Scale: 1" = 2,200' Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Project Vicinity and Design Fu•m Figure 2 •aui dno1g Suluuvld Z)IVg 8-I xuvlq gal fillvuol;ualul apts sitLL ala Juan asgns £o- g6 7uautpuatuV VS11. 0111 uo} ;mpo.yul S�Iee Ce�tt\ P- e o, G A C-) Nr Various 6^ Commercial 01 G mP i Industrial Yard Gilroy Density Low Density O, ffice General oy Residential Low Densi High School � Residential Industrial Residential UvRS a 0 0 91 E r Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Source: California Automobile Association and EMC Planning Group Inc. nue Auto Dealership Mini - storage I Gilroy USA 98 -03 Amendment Subsequent EIR A Land Use Plmming Existing Land Uses and Design Firm General Services Commercial Scale: 1" = 1,000' Figure 3 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1 -10 EMC Planning Group Inc. �� F _$ �� „�.. x a• v '� ij �" a .' ""nS' � s �.z 'v%' . � �� jY i`.irik'Y � .R. TI h 1'. � r 4n� •tyi4�s } 4. a i�T W�, y � v v �( s„ 1- 4'F f,4 � ``Y a b! � i s.� � X,ta .. �: %::r�r, .' � `�.xaa- a�• ; z �; Ma r�aoninp Cnnq�lne. Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1 -12 EMC Planning Group Inc. �w FY P /PF r i�;,. STS ^. � k„Y.• LEGEND 0000 00 000 00o0 .� ". 0000000 0000 0 _ 0 000 DO c 16A 4 100000 01 p o "fig • f :d:— o k. 1. .a C COMMERCIAL - 'GENERAL SERVICES VS COMMERCIAL - VISITOR SERVING L RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY M RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY I INDUSTRIAL - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL OS OPEN SPACE P /PF PARK /PUBLIC FACILrr'Y Source: City of Gilroy 1 � r M 111 Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Current General Plan 5, and Design Firm Land Use Designations Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1 -14 EMC Planning Group Inc. L C VS L M N I E P OS COMMERCIAL GENERAL SERVICES COMMERCIAL VISITOR SERVING RESIDENTIAL -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT GENERAL INDUSTRIAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITY PARK /RECREATION FACILITY OPEN SPACE Source: City of Gilroy Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Proposed General Plan and Design Firm sand Use Designations w VA h"N 4rdi Scale: 1" = 1,000' Figure 6 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1 -16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: city of Gilroy A Laud Use Planning and Design Firm Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Existing Urban Service Area w Scale: 1" = 4;200' Figure 7 1 y _ I ar .1 �r -�a� pr • y .«� ;rt�r �lT .m I Source: city of Gilroy A Laud Use Planning and Design Firm Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Existing Urban Service Area w Scale: 1" = 4;200' Figure 7 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1 -18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction Existing Project Site Conditions The project site is currently in agricultural row -crop production. Four rural residential complexes, with houses and various outbuildings are located along the site's eastern boundary on Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. A propane gas facility is located at the corner of Monterey Street and West Luchessa Avenue. With build -out of the proposed project the residences, outbuildings and propane gas facility would be removed. Uvas Creek forms the western boundary and a portion of the southern boundary of the project site. An earthen flood - control levee was constructed on a portion of the site. It extends from a point approximately 1,100 feet (on -site) south of West Luchessa Avenue to 4,500 feet upstream (and off - site) to Miller Avenue. Approximately 1,800 feet of the levee is on the project site. The levee is set back from the top of the natural creek bank by approximately 50 feet. Photographs of existing conditions at the project site are presented in Figure 8. Approved Project Site Improvements The City of Gilroy has approved a master plan for the development of a 78.36 -acre sports park for the southwest portion of the project site. The development of the Gilroy Sports Park and construction of off -site improvements were approved by the City of Gilroy when they approved the Gilroy Sports Complex Final Master Plan. The sports park site is currently in agricultural production and contains no structures. The sports park and related improvements will be constructed over an approximate 20 -year time frame. The final sports park site plan is shown in Figure 9. The Gilroy Sports Complex Final Master Plan, prepared by The Beals Group, Inc. in April 1999, is available for public review at the City of Gilroy Community Services Department. Sports park components will include the following: recreational play fields (eight softball diamonds and four soccer fields and concession /restrooms); premier play fields (one 90 -foot baseball diamond, two little leagues diamonds and one soccer field and concession / restrooms); competition play fields (one softball /baseball diamond and one soccer field and concession /restrooms); 8.8 acres of park preserve with volleyball, family picnic, concessions / restrooms, bocci ball courts, and play area; commercial recreation (indoor soccer, roller hockey, community building, storage); corporation yard; parking (1,043 spaces); and a night watch park ranger station. Soccer fields overlay baseball /softball fields. Football may also be played on the soccer fields. The master plan also includes the following: a minimum 50 -foot habitat buffer zone, measured from 50 feet from top of bank, along Uvas Creek to be enhanced with native plantings; a six-foot perimeter fence; walking /bicycle paths throughout the site including a portion of the extension of the Uvas Creek Trail; entry gates and an entry building at the Monterey Frontage entrance. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -19 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The sports park will be developed in approximately nine phases over an approximate 20 -year time frame. Construction will begin near the entrance and continue to the west end of the site for Phases One through Seven. Phases Eight through Nine can be developed at any time independently of the other phases. The sports park was part of the proposed project studied in the certified EIR. No changes are proposed for the development of the approved sports park. Sports park - specific environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the certified EIR and no new analysis of the sports park is presented. The sports park is analyzed in this SEIR only as it contributes to cumulative impacts. Approved Off -Site Improvements Off -site improvements included in the approved Gilroy Sports Complex Final Master Plan include the extension of the Uvas Creek Trail north to West Luchessa Avenue, and south to Gavilan College; extension of the city's recycled water distribution line to the sports park; and roadway improvements. The off -site improvements included in the approved Gilroy Sports Complex Final Master Plan were part of the proposed project studied in the certified EIR. No changes are proposed for the development of these approved off -site improvements. The environmental impacts of these approved improvements were adequately addressed in the certified EIR and no new analysis is presented. These approved off -site improvements are analyzed in this SEIR only as they contribute to overall project impacts and cumulative impacts. Uvas Creek Trail Extension The project's trail system will connect to the existing Uvas levee trail, which ends just past West Luchessa Avenue, and to a southward extension to the Gavilan College area.- A bridge crossing is planned at the central, southern portion of the project site. The trail then continues south to Mesa Road and east into the Gavilan College campus. The trail connection to the north of the sports park site is located on a 7.00 -acre parcel that is included in the USA amendment request. Recycled Water Distribution Line The city will extend a recycled water distribution line to serve the landscape and field irrigation needs of the sports park. Roadway Improvements The intersection of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road will be signalized and a crosswalk installed. A six -foot wide sidewalk will be constructed southward from the West Luchessa Avenue /Monterey Street intersection to the Monterey Frontage Road with sports park signs. The sidewalk will continue down Monterey Frontage Road and into the sports park, with a parkway strip consisting of shade trees and accent planting. 1 -20 EMC Planning Group Inc. ,. .. �_ >- , y. �`' � � � ..iM w, yw.y� � �n- ..i�:w c YiIDVn .r �., � y `�5�p; '� � 4 �y � ' t,�I�'`i� ;fir ^.�'x , ,+,+��' 0.i�® ,( t... �r � - ..g; . ����: Cnngi �_a� • `9 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank I � (, 1 1-22 EMC Planning Group Inc. 'i Q LllClaC. 4 — JVV NW L�V I Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land dDesi Planning Sports Park Master Plan. 9 end Design Firm Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1 -24 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction 1.4 Project Description The proposed project includes a USA amendment for the entire 140.21 -acre project site, which includes the approved Gilroy Sports park and habitat buffer on 78.36 acres, an approved trail extension and habitat buffer on 7.00 acres, proposed residential development on 27.72 acres and proposed commercial land uses on 27.13 acres. Table 1 summarizes the probable build -out of the project site. TABLE 1 Probable Build -out Scenario Approved Park and Recreation Gross Acres Building Coverage Height Requirements Dwelling Units Sports Park 78.36 n/a n/a n/a Trail 7.00 n/a n/a n/a Total Approved Uses 85.36 Proposed Residential Land Use' Gross Acres SFR /Duplex 20.72 n/a n/a 90 MDR 7.00 n/a n/a 57 Total Residential 27.72 n/a n/a 147 Proposed Commercial Land Use' Gross Acres Square Footage General Services 27.13 25% of Gross 2 stories average 590,238 Total Commercial 27.13 n/a n/a 590,238 Project Total 140.21 1 Based on a conceptual map for residential development currently in the RDO process. 2 Based on a telephone conversation with Bryan Stice. 25% of gross building coverage was used in Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan EIR. Source: City of Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Request The entire 140.21 -acre project site is proposed for inclusion into the City's USA, and annexation to the city. The USA amendment request includes the 78.36 -acre sports EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -15 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR park site, 54.85 acres of adjacent land on the east and north and a 7.00 -acre parcel containing the flood control levee. The approved sports park site is contiguous with the existing USA for approximately 100 feet where the sports park access road will meet Monterey Frontage Road. A residential development is being planned for the northern portion of the project site. The adjacent parcels to the north and east of the sports park site are included in the USA amendment request because the addition of the sports park parcels alone to the USA would result in an area of the USA connected by only the narrow access road. A map of the USA amendment request and its relationship to the existing USA is included as Figure 10. Assessor's parcels included in the USA amendment request are listed in Table 2. TABLE 2 Assessor's Parcels in USA Amendment Request Project Component Draft Gilroy 1999 General Plan Land Use - Designation APN Acres Approved Sports Park PARK /RECREATION FACILITY 808 -21 -026 20.56 PARK /RECREATION FACILITY 808 -21 -028 31.53 PARK /RECREATION FACILITY 808 -21 -030 26.27 Approved Trail Extension PARK /RECREATION FACILITY 808 -21 -021 7.00 Proposed Residential Area RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT 808 -21 -008 0.10 RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT 808 -21 -009 0.70 RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT 808 -21 -016 26.05 RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT 808-21 -018 0.87 Proposed Commercial Area COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES 808 -21 -013 4.51. COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES 808 -21 -014 1.35 COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES 808 -21 -015 2.95 COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES 808 -21 -027 6.20 COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES 808 -21 -029 4.70 COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES 808-21 -031 7.42 Total 140.21 Source: City of Gilroy The City of Gilroy General Plan and Santa Clara County General Plan both require that the parcels be annexed to the city prior to any residential or commercial development. The City of Gilroy considers annexation requests when annexation applications are received. Most city annexations qualify for a "city conducted" annexation pursuant to Government Code section 57000 et seq. 1 -26 EMC Planning Group - � - . •_ - ' • , - - ' - , • - ' • ' - - - '�tes�dential tpwQengity,•'_- - _ '� : F ST LU9flE�S°SA4VEIfD I T LR�_F IN Fee il,�e,ac N� -� ! ( Residential Nelghborh i Dlstnct IW ' ,- - -51 - -- 08 r1C I i I l i 'E! z.osac. � ET laziAC. ` - N -- , AWL- = Residential Neighborhood D4trict �' 4 ,•-------- o- . -ss.- T' — ' s - 1 " ' � �,s�- _Park/Reateatton- Faeili 20.87AC. �IET /...6; SPFSRT@ PARK °CFTC -- — LEGEND -- - - -(�� 1` �r. t: i.... - _..._... ` Existing USA , _.._- r USA Amendment Request ,p_........._t� (Project Site) .---.... ...._..— _._.__..- .._....- - - --Pro d Park /Recreation ..... _ : - Faeili -- ... -..._, .- Proposed Residential ® Proposed Commercial Land use designations from 34plesidentlal Draft 1999 Gilroy General Plan Neighborho NCH. LOT II O Source: Santa Clara County Office of the Assessor and EMC Planning Group Inc. Open Space Gilroy USA Amendment 98 =03 Subsequent EIR edmrtlr�nSeJvices' - ` AST LI�CHESS/K /f1�F,�UE / N6(omme7 i2a N 1 I,Vlsg9r,$Gn/iiigl' f� I Ze Pi 1. 7 d 31 ^ 'lq p% E � ' Gen 71ces VOW, A Land Use Planning I Urban Service Area Amendment Request and Design Firm Scale: 1" = 500' Figure 10 Introduction Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank 1 -28 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction Residential Development The proposed project includes 27.72 acres designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan as RESIDENTIAL— NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The residential area would be immediately north of the approved Gilroy Sports Park and the area proposed for COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES designation along Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. A conceptual plan for development of this area has been submitted to the City of Gilroy and is now in the City's Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) allocation process. A tentative map application can be submitted following approval in the RDO process and annexation of the site to the City. The conceptual site plan is included as Figure'll. The SEER analyzes the conceptual residential plan as representative of residential development that may occur on the part of the project site proposed for residential use. For the purposes of this SEIR, this conceptual residential development is referred to as the "proposed residential" development. The conceptual residential site plan shows 147 units of housing on a 26.75 -acre site. The proposed residential development would consist of 43 standard -lot (6,000 square feet or greater) single family dwellings, 47 small -lot (less than 6,000 square feet) single family dwellings and 57 units in triplexes on a common lot. The highest density housing is proposed for the eastern end of the residential area and the lowest density housing is proposed for the west end of the residential area nearest Uvas Creek. Lots at the north edge of the proposed residential development would back up to West Luchessa Avenue and front on an internal street. No lots back up to the sports park. Access to the proposed residential development would be provided off West Luchessa Avenue, with proposed intersections at Church Street and Hyde Park Drive. A connection to Monterey Street shown on the conceptual plan would be restricted to right turns only. A loop street and cul -du -sacs would provide circulation within the proposed residential development. Streets within the proposed residential development would be public. A neighborhood park area of approximately one and one -half acres would be included for use of project residents, accessible from the,loop road and the ends of cul -du -sacs. A connection to the approved Uvas Creek Trail extension would be located at the northwest corner of the proposed residential development. Access to the triplex units would be from the loop road with an emergency access onto Monterey Street. According to the City of Gilroy Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 1999 -2020, the California Department of Finance estimates the current average household size in Gilroy is 3.43 persons. The proposed residential development would therefore have a population of approximately 504 people. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -29 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Commercial Development The proposed project includes 27.13 acres designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. Commercial development would take place on two portions of the project site along Monterey Frontage Road, straddling the sports park entry road. Two parcels totaling 12.12 acres are located north of the sports park entry road and four parcels totaling 15.01 acres are located south of the sports park entry road. No development is currently proposed in the commercial areas. The proposed general plan designation of COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES allows buildings up to 55 feet in height, or typically, four stories. The types of commercial uses in this designation tend to have larger market areas and a high volume of customers. Typical examples listed in the general plan update are furniture stores, department stores and supermarkets. The general plan designation also allows commercial industrial uses; which includes glass shops, welding shops and plumbing shops. Automobile sales and service establishments are also allowed, including automobile sales lots, boat or recreational vehicle dealers and body shops. For purposes of this SEIR, the uses at the commercial parcels are anticipated to be retail in nature. This SEIR evaluates environmental effects of the development of these areas based on a probable maximum build -out scenario. A development scenario for inclusion in this SEIR assumes that the commercial area buildings would have 25 percent lot coverage and average two stories in height. This scenario is consistent with analysis in the EIR for the new general plan and would result in a total of 590,238 square feet of commercial development on the project site. Future specific development proposals for the area may require additional environmental review. 1.5 Project Objectives The City of Gilroy has approved the Gilroy Sports Park for a site located south of its current city limits and USA. The City desires to include the sports park within its city limits and USA. The project site is included in the 20 =year planning area of the current Gilroy General Plan. The City of Gilroy is updating the general plan and expects to designate the project site for residential and commercial development in addition to existing open space and park facility designations. In conjunction with these land use changes, the City would like to bring the project site into the USA. A residential development is in the early planning stages for a portion of the USA amendment request area. The City of Gilroy wants to avoid a awkwardly- shaped USA that includes a long connecting strip to an isolated USA pocket, or an island of land not in the USA that is surrounded by land that is within the USA. The City has included additional parcels to avoid these potential situations. 1 -30 EMC Planning Group Inc. Planning Gmap Inc. •iul dnot f) Su}uuvld 3NJ Z£ -I XunIR gal fillmopuapq apts sly aid 4uan asgnS £0- 863ua+upua+uV VSn Zing uopmpo4ul Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction 1.6 Consistency with Regional flans Applicable Local and In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d), this section of the EIR evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with applicable local and regional plans. These plans include the current City of Gilroy General Plan, the proposed Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, the Santa Clara County General Plan, applicable LAFCo policies, the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan. Current Gilroy General Plan The City of Gilroy General Plan was first adopted by the Gilroy city council on November 5, 1979. The latest revisions were adopted by the Gilroy city council on June 3,1996. An update to the General Plan is currently under consideration by City decision - makers. This section analyzes those policies of the current City of Gilroy General Plan that are relevant to the proposed project. Policies of the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan are analyzed in the following section. If the City.of Gilroy adopts the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan, its policies will replace those of the current Gilroy General Plan. Urban Growth and Community Design Policy 2a: Hazardous areas, such as flood -prone areas and earthquake fault zones, are not suitable for intensive urban development. Consistency: Portions of the project site are within flood zones. Hydrological issues are discussed in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding. A comer of the area proposed for residential development is located within a 100 -year flood zone. Site grading could eliminate potential problems in this area. Most of the area proposed for commercial development is located within a 25 -year flood zone, and all of the commercial area is within a 100 -year flood zone. Portions of the proposed commercial area are subject to inundation by as much as three and one -half feet of water during 100 -year floods. Depending on the hydraulics of the project site, the floor area ratio (FAR) for the commercial development will generally be limited to 25 percent. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area would address the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. The commercial development on these parcels would not be categorized as "intensive" urban. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -33 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Urban Growth and Community Design Policy 2c: Extensive areas of Class I and H, agricultural land should be retained for agricultural production until the absence of alternative sites requires the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. Consistency: The City of Gilroy USA is expected to accommodate growth for an approximate five -year period. As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain an approximate five - year inventory of developable land. Most of the land surrounding the City of Gilroy has development constraints, such as the presence of valuable wildlife habitat, scenic resources or prime farmland. Much of the land on which the existing City is built had similar characteristics. As the City grows, a certain amount of these valuable resources are often converted into urban land. The intent of this policy is to preserve the most valuable of the agricultural lands surrounding the City, and focus growth into areas that have relatively less agricultural value, or that are especially appropriate for urban expansion because of their relation to existing uses. The proposed project would result in the conversion of 54.85 acres of Class I (Prime) agricultural land to residential and commercial uses. The farmland is located in between the approved sports park and existing residential and commercial development to the north and east. Residential land uses are proposed on 27.72 acres and commercial land uses on 27.13 acres. The approved sports park and the proposed residential and commercial development would be developed in phases over an approximate 20 -year time span,, during which undeveloped portions of the site could remain in agricultural use. A smaller size project alternative was developed for this SEIR that would reduce agricultural land conversion by approximately 15 acres. A suitable alternative location was' identified in northern Gilroy. That site would involve the conversion of 38.1 acres of Prime or Unique Farmland. No alternative project was identified that would not result in the loss of agricultural land. Agricultural issues are discussed in Section 2.2 Agricultural Resources. Urban Growth and Community Design Policy 3: Urban development will only occur within the incorporated portion of the Planning Area. Land will therefore be annexed to the City before final development approval is given. Consistency: The project site is outside the city limits of the City of Gilroy, but lies within its Planning Area. The purpose of the proposed project is to bring the project site into the City of Gilroy USA and then annex the land to the City of Gilroy, as appropriate development is proposed and approved. Development of the proposed residential and commercial areas would not proceed until this occurs. The sports park is a City sponsored project on City owned land within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The City has autonomous approval power for projects on its own 1-34 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction land, so development may be permitted without the approval of Santa Clara County and without annexation of the sports park site into the City of Gilroy. Furthermore, the sports park use is not urban in nature and is a compatible use in an open space and agricultural area. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Urban Growth and Community Design Policy 4: The City will phase development in an orderly, contiguous manner in order to maintain a compact development pattern to avoid premature investment for the extension of public facilities and services. New urban development will occur in areas where municipal services are available and capacity exists prior to the approval of development in areas which would require major new facility expansion. Consistency: The project site is contiguous to developed areas of the city located north and east of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Urban Growth and Community Design Policy 5: The City will establish a phasing plan for guiding future growth in the Planning Area. As of the date of this document, [June 3, 1996] urban development for the next five years will occur within the Urban Service Area. Urban development in the 6 -20 year period will occur within the "20 -year area." Urban zoning, development approvals and building permits will only be granted to property within the Urban Service Area. The City will not accept development proposals on land outside the Urban Service Area. Land located outside the Urban Service Area will be considered an "Urban Reserve." Agriculture will be encouraged as an interim use within the Urban Reserve. Consistency: The project site is outside the current USA and within the current 20 -year planning area, as shown on the Gilroy General Plan land use map. The project site was expected to be developed within 6 to 20 years at the time the policy was written in 1996. The project site has been within the 20 -year planning area since 1979 when the current general plan was originally adopted. The City of Gilroy has determined that the project site should now be planned for development within the next five years. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Urban Growth and Community Design. Policy 9: New development will pay for all of the incremental public service costs which it generates. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -35 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Consistency: The city would be reimbursed through development impact fees for the costs associated with providing the necessary services to the proposed project. Public utility services are discussed in Section 2.12 Water Supply and Section 2.13 Wastewater. The City has sufficient capacity in its existing and planned water, sewer and storm drainage systems to accommodate the proposed project. Project developers will be required to extend adjacent existing infrastructure into the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Natural Environment Policy 1: Land will be used for.the purpose for which it is most suited by virtue of its inherent natural characteristics, as modified by its locational relationships, whether that use be urban development or natural resource preservation. Consistency: Most of the land surrounding the City of Gilroy has development constraints, such as the presence of valuable wildlife habitat, scenic resources or prime farmland. Much of the land on which the existing City is built had similar characteristics. As the City grows, a certain amount of these valuable resources are often converted into urban land. This policy directs a comparison of the merits of conservation of the natural attributes of the land, and the land's value for development, especially considering its location relative to other land uses and features. The intent of this policy is direct growth into areas that are most appropriate for urban expansion because of their relation to existing uses. The project site is appropriate for development both because of the types of existing uses that are near it and its relative separation from valuable resources. The project site is located adjacent to existing residential and commercial development on two sides. The project site is on a major City thoroughfare, close to a major U.S. Highway 101 interchange and easily accessible to the rest of the City. Although a small area of agricultural land borders the project site to the south, Uvas Creek provides a natural barrier that separates the project site from most other agricultural areas in southern Gilroy. The sports park, which is already approved for the project site, separates the proposed residential and commercial uses within the project site from the sensitive riparian habitat of Uvas Creek. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Natural Environment Policy 11: The potential seismic, geologic, and flooding hazards to life and property will be reduced to an acceptable level of risk [reference to City of Gilroy General Plan Appendix Cj. Consistency: Portions of the project site are within flood zones. Hydrological issues are discussed in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding. A small corner of the area proposed for residential development is located within a 100 -year flood zone. Site grading could eliminate potential problems in this area. Most of the area proposed for commercial development is located within a 25 -year flood zone, and all of the 1 -36 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction commercial area is within a 100 -year flood zone. Portions of the proposed commercial area are subject to inundation by as much as three and one -half feet of water during 100 -year floods. Inundation to this degree could pose risks to life or property: A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area, would address the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. Therefore the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Natural Environment Policy 23: In preference to the construction of expensive flood prevention facilities, floodways will be left open for agricultural and recreational use in areas of particular risk and where protection is minimal. Consistency: The proposed USA amendment includes an approved sports park in an area subject to significant flooding, a use that is consistent with this policy. The project also proposes the designation of commercial uses in a 25 -year flood zone with the potential of three and one -half foot deep inundation during 100 -year floods. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area would address the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Natural Environment Policy 41: Areas subject to natural hazards such as major flooding or soils with a high water table will be encouraged to remain in long -term agricultural production where such use exists. Consistency: The intent of this policy is to protect people and structures from potential injury or damage as the result of flooding. Portions of the project site are within flood zones. A small corner of the area proposed for residential development is located within a 100 -year flood zone. Site grading could eliminate potential problems in this area. Most of the area proposed for commercial development is located within a 25 -year flood zone, and all of the commercial area is within a 100 - year flood zone. Portions of the proposed commercial area are. subject to inundation by as much as three and one -half feet of water during 100 -year floods. Inundation to this degree could pose risks to life or property. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area would address the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. Therefore the proposed project is partially inconsistent with this policy. Proposed Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan was completed in June 1999. The draft general plan, along with a draft EIR was circulated in August and September 1999 EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -37 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR. and a Final EIR prepared on October 21, 1999. As of the release of this Draft SEIR for public review, the City of Gilroy had not yet adopted the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. In the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan the sports park area and levee are designated PARK /RECREATION FACILITY, the parcels to the north of the sports park are designated RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and the parcels east of the sports park are designated COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES. Community Design Policy 1.01 Pattern of Development. Ensure an orderly, contiguous pattern of development that prioritizes infill development, phases new development, encourages compactness and efficiency, preserves surrounding open space and agricultural resources and avoids land use incompatibilities. Consistency: The project site has been in the City of Gilroy 20 -year planning area since 1979. The project site is adjacent to existing commercial and residential development on its north and east sides, is located close to a major freeway interchange and is situated along the principal north -south arterial in the City. The project site is appropriate for inclusion in the USA both because of the types of existing uses that are near it and its relative separation from valuable resources. Although a small area of agricultural land borders the project site to the south, Uvas Creek provides a natural barrier that separates the project site from most other agricultural areas in southern Gilroy. The sports park, which is already approved for the project site, separates the proposed residential and commercial uses within the project site from the sensitive riparian habitat of Uvas Creek. The project site is also appropriate for inclusion in the USA because of its proximity to major transportation facilities, and because services are already available adjacent to the project site to serve existing urban uses. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth Management Policy 2.01 Location of Growth. Maximize existing infrastructure and service investments - and avoid premature investment for facility and service extensions - by directing new growth to vacant and under- utilized land within the Urban Service Area. As a second -tier priority, direct new development to areas that border on existing urban development or are immediately adjacent to the Urban Service Area, prohibiting costly "leap- frog" development and ensuring a compact development pattern. Consistency: The project site is located immediately adjacent to commercial and residential development within the existing USA on its north and east sides. Existing infrastructure is located adjacent to the project site. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. 1 -38 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction Growth Management Policy 2:02 , Rate and Timing of Growth. Ensure that the rate of growth is controlled such'that resource and system capacity constraints are not exceeded (e.g., water supply and sewage treatment) and necessary urban services (such as sewer, water supply, police and schools) are funded, implemented and completed prior to occupation of new buildings. Consistency: The City of Gilroy will be able to provide services and public utilities to the project site. These services are discussed in Section 2.9 Fire Protection Services, Section 2.10 Police Protection Services, Section 2.11 Schools, Section 2.12 Water Supply and Section 2.13 Wastewater. The City of Gilroy Draft EIR for the 1999- 2000 General Plan determined that the City of Gilroy would have sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate the proposed land use changes at the project site. Policies in place ensure that water supply infrastructure will also be available for future growth as it occurs. The City has a development impact fee structure that ensures that funding for all services (fire, police, schools). and public utility infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, storm drain) are Paid for by the new developments that make them necessary. Development will be required to pay school impact fees as required by State law. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth Management Policy 2.07 Urban Service Area. Establish and maintain an Urban Service Area that indicates the area of land that could potentially be developed, in the next five years and to which the City is committed to providing basic infrastructure and services. Urban zoning, development approvals, and building permits will only be granted to properties within the Urban Service Area. The City will not accept development proposals on land outside the Urban Service Area, and will coordinate with the County to discourage premature subdivision of such land. Application for inclusion in the Urban Service Area will be accepted annually and evaluated in light of General Plan policies promoting infill development and efficiency in the provision of services. Consistency: The last USA amendment request by the City of Gilroy was made in October 1997. The project site is located adjacent to existing developed areas on two sides and close to existing infrastructure and services. The project site can be served with short extensions of existing infrastructure. The City of Gilroy has determined that the project site is the next area within its 20 -year planning area that should be added to its USA. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth Management Policy 2.08 20 -Year Boundary. ...Lands within the 20 -Year Boundary are those to which the City expects to provide services in the next 20 years. Applications for Urban Service Area expansions will only be accepted for lands within the 20 -Year Boundary. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -39 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Consistency: The project site has been in the City of Gilroy 20 -year area since the current general plan was originally adopted in 1979. The City has now determined that this land should be added to the USA, to receive urban services and be available for development within a five -year timeframe. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. L Agriculture Policy 4.03 Urban Containment. Contain urbanization within an area large enough to meet foreseeable need but which will not intrude unnecessarily on, cause premature conversion of, or impair the productivity of agricultural lands. Consistency: The City of Gilroy USA is expected to accommodate growth for an approximate five -year period. As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain an approximate five - year inventory of developable land: The last USA amendment request by the City of Gilroy was made in October 1997. The project site has been in the City of Gilroy 20- year area since the current general plan was originally adopted in 1979. The City has now determined that this land should be added to the USA, io receive urban services and be available for development within a five -year timeframe. Most of the land surrounding the City of Gilroy is prime farmland. As the City grows, a certain amount of prime farmland must often be converted into urban land. The Study of the South County Agricultural Preserve was ,a joint effort of Santa Clara County, the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County LAFCo. The study established the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area, an area of approximately 15,800 acres of agricultural land to the east and-south of Gilroy that will not be developed in the near future. The intent the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area is to preserve the most valuable of the agricultural lands surrounding the City, and focus growth into areas that have relatively less agricultural value, or that are especially appropriate for urban expansion because of their relation to existing uses. The proposed project is located outside of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area on land that is within the City of Gilroy's 20 -year area. The 20 -year planning area is that area that is expected to be, developed over a 20 -years timeframe. The project site is an area that has been planned for future urban development. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Educational Facilities Policy 17.02 New Residential Development. Control the timing and location of new residential development in a way that allows the Gilroy Unified School District to plan and finance facilities in an orderly fashion. Consistency: Residential development in Gilroy is controlled by the Residential Development Ordinance (RDO). The RDO limits the number of dwelling units that can be approved by the City each year. This limits the rate of growth and allows for 1-40 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction development of new school facilities to accommodate growth. Additionally, the Gilroy Unified School District is allowed to collect school impact fees as allowed by State law. Schools are discussed in Section 2.11. The proposed project is subject to both the RDO process and school fees. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Public Safety Policy 18.01 Standards of Service (Police and Fire). Continue to provide and maintain police and fire services that are adequate in manpower, equipment and resources to respond to localized emergencies and calls for service within the City. The departments' current levels of service should be maintained or improved as the City continues to grow, with average emergency response times for police services of approximately 4.5 minutes and average emergency response times for fire services of less than 5.0 minutes. Consistency: The proposed project will not result in a decrease in service for the City of Gilroy Police or Fire Departments. The nearest fire station is located one and one -half miles form the project site. Fire department response times should be well within acceptable standards. Most police responses are from officers in the field, not at the police station. The project site is adjacent to areas already within the service area of the Gilroy Police Department and response times would be within the acceptable standards. Proposed development within the project site will be required to pay public safety impact fees. Police and Fire services are discussed in Section 2.9 Fire Protection Services and Section 2.10 Police Protective Services. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Infrastructure Policy 19.02 Location of Development (Water Supply). Locate new development in the areas that are most easily supplied by Gilroy's current water system. Consistency: The project site is located adjacent to existing water supply lines beneath Monterey Street and planned water supply lines in Monterey Frontage Road that will provide water to the approved sports park on the project site. A recycled water line is planned to serve the sports park irrigation needs. The project site can be easily supplied with water from existing and approved water supply infrastructure. The project site is located in the City's Pressure Zone 1, which is the City's low- elevation land. No pumping is required to serve this area. Water Supply is discussed in Section 2.12 Water Supply. Because the project site is located near existing pipes and does not require pumping, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-41 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Infrastructure Policy 19.04 Timing and Location of Development (Sewer). Manage the timing and location of new development according to the ability of the sewer system and treatment plant to accommodate the effluent generated by the proposed development. Ensure that adequate sewer and treatment capacity is funded and in place prior to occupation of new buildings. Consistency: The City of Gilroy operates a joint sewage treatment plant with the City of Morgan Hill. According to the City of Gilroy Draft EIR for the 1999 -2000 General Plan, the sewage treatment plant would have sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate the proposed land use changes at the project site. A sewer trunk line is located beneath Monterey Street, and an extension will be constructed to the project site to serve the approved sports park. The project site would be easily served by the existing and approved sewer infrastructure. Sewer service is discussed in Section 2.13 Wastewater. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Gilroy Zoning Ordinance The Gilroy City Council adopted the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance on August 15,1983. The Gilroy City Council adopted the most recent amendments on February 17,1998. The proposed project would consist of a residential area and commercial area. The proposed RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT general plan land use designation is compatible with several zoning districts, including any residential district, PO - Professional Office and C1- Neighborhood Commercial. The non - residential uses should be carefully sited based on guidelines in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The proposed COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES general plan land use designation is compatible with C3 Shopping Center Commercial, HC Highway Commercial and CM Commercial Industrial zoning. It is potentially compatible with PO Professional Office and C -1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The approved sports park is compatible with PF Public Facility zoning. If the City of Gilroy adopts the new general plan with its new land use'designations, and if LAFCo approves the City's USA amendment request, the City would assign zoning districts that are compatible with the general plan land use designations. Santa Clara County General Plan The project site is currently under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted the Santa Clara County General Plan on December 20, 1994. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Open Space Reserve (OSR). The following Santa Clara County General Plan policies are relevant to the proposed project. 1-42 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction Land Use Policy R -LU 45: Open Space Reserve (OSR) lands. include rural unincorporated areas contiguous to a city Urban Service Area (USA) for which no permanent land use designation was applied pending future joint studies by affected jurisdictions of desired long -term land use patterns. Consistency: This policy defines the county's current land use designation for the project site. The county has not determined long -term land use for the project site. The project site has been in the City of Gilroy 20 -year Planning Area since the current general plan was adopted in 1979. The project site is designated as OPEN SPACE and PARK /PUBLIC FACILITY in the current Gilroy General Plan. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan designates portions of the project site for residential, commercial and open space uses. The City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County LAFCo conducted a joint study of agricultural lands near Gilroy. The project site was not considered for inclusion in the agriculture study area. The study resulted in the designation of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area to protect the economic viability of agriculture and to direct urban growth in a sustainable pattern elsewhere in the vicinity of Gilroy. The project site has a non - committed land use designation in the Santa Clara County General Plan. The City of Gilroy has a current general land use designation of OPEN SPACE and PARK /PUBLIC FACILTY and proposed general land use designations of RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, COMMERCIAL GENERAL SERVICES and PARK /PUBLIC FACILITY. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Land Use Policy R -LU 49: For lands within the vicinity of the City of Gilroy designated OSR, joint studies should be conducted to resolve and define: a. areas to be reserved for future urban growth; b. areas to be reserved for long -term agricultural use; and c. other planning objectives identified within the South County Joint Area Plan deemed appropriate to the OSR areas. Consistency: The Study of the South County Agricultural Preserve was a joint effort of Santa Clara County, the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County LAFCo. The study established the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area, an area of approximately 15,800 acres of agricultural land to the east and south of Gilroy that will not be developed in the near future. The proposed project is located outside of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area on land that is within the City of Gilroy's 20 -year area. The 20 -year planning area is that area that is expected to be developed over the next 20 years. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -43 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subse uent EIR The following policies from the Santa Clara County General Plan concern urban growth and expansion of Urban Service Areas. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 1: Most of the future urban growth of Santa Clara County should be accommodated within the existing urban areas, through infill development, rather than expansion of the urbanized area into hillsides and resource areas. Consistency: The proposed project would expand growth into an area that contains prime farmland, a valuable resource. However, the land is contiguous with developed portions of the City of Gilroy to the north and east and additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project site. The project site is a pocket of agricultural land that is largely surrounded by urban development. A review of the approved but not yet developed or completed. projects in the City of Gilroy indicates that growth does take place within, or adjacent to, urban areas. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 2: Urban development shall occur only within cities' urban service areas (USAs) and under city jurisdiction. The County shall not allow urban development on unincorporated lands outside cities' urban service areas. Consistency: The proposed project includes the addition of the project site to the City of Gilroy USA, which is a preliminary step to annexation. No residential or commercial development will be allowed on the project site until the project site is added to the USA and annexed. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth and Development Policy'C -GD 3: Urban service areas should generally include only those areas suited for urban development. Development of such areas should be: a. reasonably serviceable with public facilities and services; b. relatively free from risks associated with natural hazards; c. without substantial adverse environmental impact; d. not likely to create severe off -site impacts on surrounding areas; and e. without cumulative adverse impacts on the county's water supply watersheds or any other natural resources. Consistency: Each of these factors is considered below: a. The proposed project is located close to existing public services and would be easily served by the City of Gilroy. 1 -44 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction b. The project site is located within a flood zone. Most of the area within the flood zone will be used for the approved sports park, which is an acceptable use of a flood zone. A portion of the flood zone is proposed for commercial uses. This is a potentially significant impact. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area would address the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. c. The proposed-project would convert prime farmland to non - agricultural rj uses. This is a significant unavoidable impact. A•reduced size alternative ■ project was developed and an alternative site was found for analysis in this SEIR. Both of these alternatives involved some level of environmental impacts. Except for the loss of Prime Farmland, which is an impact of all of the alternative projects other than the "No Project" alternative, the environmental impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. d. The proposed project would not create severe off -site impacts on surrounding areas. Because the project site is close to major transportation corridors traffic to and from the proposed project will not have a significant impact on local streets, nor will it have a significant impact on traffic on U.S. Highway 101. It is possible that grading to prevent potential flooding could result in increased off -site flooding. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area would address the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. Mitigation measures presented in the EIR would mitigate other potential off -site impacts to a less than significant level. e. The proposed project would not result in cumulative adverse impacts on the county's water supply watersheds or other natural resources. The proposed project is inconsistent with this item b and item c of this policy. The proposed project may have significant impacts from flooding and would have unavoidable significant impacts in regard to the loss of prime agricultural land. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 5: Lands generally unsuitable for urban development may be allowed to annex to cities or be included in urban service areas only if the land is preserved as a non -urban open space use. Consistency: A large portion of the project site is located in a flood zone. Most of the project site that is susceptible to severe flooding is proposed for use as athletic fields and parkland. This is an acceptable use of a flood area and consistent with this policy. A portion of the flood zone is proposed for commercial uses. This is a potentially significant impact. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-45 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area would addresss the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 6: Hazard and resource areas with the following characteristics shall be considered unsuited for urban development: a. flood potential, including areas designated as floodways, tidal zones, . coastal high hazard areas and federal flood insurance rate zones by the National Flood Insurance Program. Consistency: A large portion of the project site is located in a flood zone. Most of the project site that is susceptible to severe flooding is proposed for use as athletic fields and parkland. This is an acceptable use of a flood area and consistent with this policy. A portion of the flood zone is proposed for commercial uses. This is a potentially sig- Tificant impact. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding that would require a hydrological study prior to development proposals in this area would address the flooding issue and mitigate off -site impacts. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 6: Hazard and resource areas with the following characteristics shall be considered unsuited for urban development: e. prime agricultural soils. Consistency: The proposed project would convert prime farmland to non- agricultural uses. This is a significant unavoidable impact. A reduced size alternative project was developed and an alternative site was found for analysis in this SEIR. Both of these alternatives involved some level of environmental impacts. Except for the loss of Prime Farmland, which is an impact of all of the alternative projects other than the "No Project" alternative, the environmental impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed project is inconsistent with this policy. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 7: Urban expansion should be planned on a staged, orderly basis, consistent with applicable plans (e.g. city, County, countywide plans) and the availability of needed urban services and facilities. The discouragement of expansion of cities' Urban Service Areas should be recommended to the LAFCO. Consistency: The project site has been in the City of Gilroy planning area since 1979 when the current general plan was adopted. The 20 -year planning area is expected to accommodate approximately 20 years of urban growth. The City of 1-46 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction Gilroy USA is expected to accommodate growth for an approximate five -year period. As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain an approximate five -year inventory of e developable land. The City has determined that the project site should now be added to the USA. The project site is contiguous with developed portions of the City of Gilroy to the north and east and additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project site. The project site is a pocket of agricultural land that is largely surrounded by urban development. Development of the project site would result in orderly expansion of the City. Urban services are available close to the project site and will be extended into the project site to serve the approved sports park. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 8: Proposals to annex land or expand a city's urban service area boundaries shall be approved only if: a. the city, special districts and affected school districts have the ability to provide all needed public services and facilities to the area within five years and without lessening existing levels of service; b. the existing supply of land within the city's USA accommodates no more than five years of planned growth; c. the area proposed for urban development is contiguous to existing urban areas. Consistency: Each of these factors is considered below: a. The City of Gilroy has approved the Gilroy Sports Park for a portion of the project site and will provide potable water, recycled water and sewer service to the project site for that project. The city has adequate potable water and recycled wastewater supplies and sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would be served by the city police and fire departments without the need for new facilities. The Gilroy Unified School District will collect development impact fees from development that occurs on the project site as allowed by State law. b. Land within Gilroy's Urban Service Area is expected to be substantially developed within five years. As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain an approximate five -year inventory of developable land. The City of Gilroy last requested a USA amendment in October 1997. The City has determined that the project site should now be added to the USA. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1_¢7 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR c. The project site is contiguous with urban development on the north and east. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 9: Proposals to annex land or expand the USA of a city for the purpose of adding lands for employment should be approved only if: a. lands planned for employment overall do not exceed the capacity of the city's planned housing supply; or b. the city's housing element of its General Plan can document that the housing needs of all segments of the community population are being met as stipulated by state law. Consistency: Each of these factors is considered below: a. The maximum probable development of the project's commercial parcels does not exceed the capacity of the City of Gilroy's planned housing supply. b. The City of Gilroy has recently updated its Housing Element, although it has yet to be certified by the State. Figure 5 -1 of the housing element contains a summary of quantified objectives, 1988 -2001. The estimates are based on past program performance, construction trends, land availability, and future program funding assumptions. The objectives address below market rate units, rehabilitated or replaced units, very low, low, moderate and above moderate income units. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission Policies The local agency formation commissions were created by the Knox- Nisbet Act passed by the State legislature in 1963 to govern changes in the boundaries and organization of cities and special districts in California. This act was supplemented by the District Reorganization Act of 1965 and the Municipal Organization Act of 1977. These three laws were consolidated under the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Government Code section 56000 et seq.). Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 1: LAFCO will review /amend a city's Urban Service Area once a year, if such review is desired by the city and initiated by city resolution and application. Until a city's application has been heard and acted upon by the Commission, no further Urban Service Area amendments will be accepted for filing from that city. LAFCO may make an exception to the "once a year" 1-48 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction limitation upon Urban Service amendment requests where amendment is needed to carry out some special institutional development or activity that is in the public interest. Such exception shall-not normally be extended in connection with proposed residential, commercial, or industrial development. Consistency: The City of Gilroy originally applied to LAFCo for a USA amendment for the project site in June 1999. LAFCo requested additional environmental review. The additional information and revised request is expected to be presented for LAFCo consideration in May 2000. The most recent previous amendment request was filed in October 1997. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 2: LAFCO will require application of an appropriate General Plan designation to territory proposed for inclusion in an Urban Service Area. Consistency: The parcels comprising the sports park would have a general plan designation of PARK /RECREATION FACILITY. The proposed commercial areas would be designated COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES and the proposed residential areas would be designated RESIDENTIAL— NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. These proposed designations are appropriate for their proposed uses. If the City of Gilroy adopts the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2000 General Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 3: LAFCO encourages contractual agreements and /or plans between the cities and the County which define: a. Growth at the urban fringe; and b. Potential, new growth areas. Consistency: The Study of the South County Agricultural Preserve was a joint effort of Santa Clara County, the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County LAFCO. The study established an area of approximately 15,800 acres to the east and south of Gilroy as the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area. The proposed project is located outside of the agricultural lands area on land that has been in the City of Gilroy 20 -year planning area since 1979. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 4: LAFCO will consider factors such as the following to determine the local and regional impacts of a proposed Urban Service Area amendment: EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-49 Introduction Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR a. The ratio of lands planned for residential use to land planned for employment- producing use; b. The existence of adequate regional and local transportation capabilities to support the planned city growth; c. Ability of the city to provide urban services to the growth areas without detracting from current service levels; d. The ability of school districts to provide school facilities; e. Whether the conversion of agricultural and other open space lands is premature, or if there are other areas into which to channel growth; f. The role of special districts in providing services; . g. Environmental considerations which may apply; h. The impacts of proposed city expansion upon the County as a provider of services; L Fiscal impacts on other agencies. Consistency: Each of these factors is discussed below: a. The proposed project would include approximately equal acreage of residential use and commercial use. The residential uses would generate approximately 500 residents. A fiscal analysis has been prepared that evaluates the number of job opportunities expected to be generated by the proposed commercial development. b. The proposed project is served by U.S. Highway 101, Monterey Street and other local streets, and the extension of the Uvas Creek Trail, which has been approved. Bus service is planned to serve the sports park and the sports park master plan includes a bus turn- around and stop. c. The City of Gilroy will extend domestic and recycled water supply lines and sewer lines to the project site as part of the approved sports park project. The City of Gilroy police and fire departments would provide public safety services to the project site. The City has existing or planned capacity to accommodate the proposed project without any decrease in the level of service available to other areas of the city. The project site was included in the City's Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan. d. The proposed project will add approximately 135 students to Gilroy schools. The Gilroy Unified School District would collect impact fees as allowed by State law. 1 -50 EMC Planning Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction e. The proposed project would result in the conversion of 54.8 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. The project site has been in the City of Gilroy 20 -year planning area since the adoption of the current Gilroy General. Plan in 1979. Most of the land surrounding the City of Gilroy has development constraints, such as the presence of valuable wildlife habitat, flooding risks or prime farmland. Much of the land on, which the existing City is built had similar characteristics. The alternative site that was identified for study in this SEER also contained substantial areas of farmland. As the City to grows, a certain amount of these valuable resources are often converted into urban land. The City is preparing a vacant land analysis to quantify the type and extent of vacant land available within its USA. f. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation at the project site. An additional service may be extend into the project site. The City of Gilroy would provide most direct services. g. The USA amendment is subject to the environmental analysis of this SEER. The proposed project would result in the conversion of prime agricultural land to non - agricultural uses, which is an unavoidable significant impact. Other potential impacts have been identified in this EIR and mitigation measures are presented to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. h. The City of Gilroy would provide police, fire and general government services currently provided by the county if the proposed project is approved. No water or sewer services are currently provided to the project site. The County would continue to provide some community health and social services to residents at the project site. Demand for these would increase with the increase in population. An increase in population within city limits would to some extent also impact County services for law enforcement and parks. A fiscal analysis has been prepared for the proposed project. L The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority may incur increased costs to serve the project site. The proposed project is generally consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 5: When a city with a substantial supply of vacant land within its Urban Service Area applies for an Urban Service Area expansion, LAFCO will require an explanation of why the expansion is necessary, and how an orderly, efficient growth pattern, consistent with LAFCO mandates, will be maintained. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 =51 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Consistency: The City of Gilroy is preparing a vacant land analysis to quantify.the type and extent of vacant land available within its USA. Since no additions have been made to the Gilroy USA in approximately two years, it is expected that land within Gilroy's existing USA will be substantially built within five years. Refer to Figure 7 for the boundaries of the existing USA. The project site has been in the City of Gilroy planning area since the current Gilroy General Plan was adopted in 1979. The project site is contiguous with developed portions of the City of Gilroy to the north and east and additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project site. The project site is a pocket of agricultural land that is largely surrounded by urban development. Development of the project site would result in orderly expansion of the City. Urban services are available close to the project site and will be extended into the project site to serve the approved sports park. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 6: The Commission will discourage Urban Service Area expansions which include agricultural or other open space land unless the city has accomplished one of the following: a. Demonstrated to LAFCO that effective measures have been adopted for protecting the open space status of the land. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, establishment of agricultural preserves pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act; adoption of City/County use agreements or applicable specific plans; implementation of clustering or transfer -of- development- rights policies; evidence of public acquisition; or b. Demonstrated to LAFCO that conversion of such lands to other than open space uses is necessary to promote the planned, orderly, efficient . development of the city. Consistency: About 85 acres of the project site will be used for a sports -park and open space corridor. Additionally the City of Gilroy has established an agricultural preserve to protect a large area of agricultural land near the City. The establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area was a joint effort of Santa Clara County, the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County LAFCo that sets aside an area of approximately 15,800 acres to the east and south of Gilroy as an agricultural preserve.. The proposed project is located outside of the agricultural preserve on land that has been in the City of Gilroy's 20 -year growth area since the current Gilroy General Plan was adopted in 1979. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 7: The Commission will consider whether an Urban Service Area amendment, leading to the conversion of agricultural or other open space land, will adversely affect the open space resources of the County. Factors to be studied include, but are not limited to: 1 -52 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction a. The agricultural significance of the amendment area relative to other agricultural lands in the region (soil, climate, water - related problems, parcel size, current land use, crop value, Williamson Act contracts, etc.); b. The economic viability of use of the land for agriculture; c. Whether public facilities, such as roads, would be extended through or adjacent to other agricultural lands in order to provide services to anticipated development in the amendment area; d. Whether the amendment area is adjacent to or surrounded by existing urban or residential development. Consistency: The proposed project's consistency with this policy is analyzed separately for each factor: a. The project site is adjacent to the urbanized area of Gilroy and included within the city's 20 -year planning area. The Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area has been established on 15,800 acres east and south of the city to maintain the agricultural viability of that area. The project site has been planned for development and is not within the agricultural preserve. Four of the parcels on the project site were previously under Williamson Act contracts, but those have expired. The project site is classified as Prime Farmland. The project site was most recently planted in corn. Based on the 1997 Santa Clara County crops report, agricultural production on the 54.85 acres that will be taken out of production by the proposed project is estimated to have been worth $136,028. Approximately 1,130 acres of Santa Clara County's farmland were planted to corn in 1977. The project site represents a relatively small part of the County's agriculture, and is not contiguous with the larger areas of agricultural land in the Santa Clara Valley. b. The project site is surrounded by urban development on the north and east sides. Land which is largely surrounded by urban land is generally less viable economically for agricultural use compared to. lands which are in wholly agricultural areas (Crawford, Multari and Starr 1995). C. No new roads or other infrastructure would be built through other agricultural lands to serve the proposed project. Access to the project site would be from Monterey Street, the principal north-south arterial in Gilroy, and West Luchessa Avenue, an east -west arterial. d. The project site is adjacent to developed areas on its north and east sides. Additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project site. EMC Planning Group Inc. I -53 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The project site is adjacent to urbanized land on two sides and is within the city's 20 —year urban growth boundary. Although the proposed project would convert prime farmland to other uses, because of the project site's proximity to urban development, its relatively small contribution to agricultural production and its large proportion of open space uses, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the County's open space resources. The proposed project is generally consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 7: Where appropriate, LAFCO will consider adopted policies advocating maintenance of greenbelts or other open space around cities in reviewing Urban Service Area amendments. Consistency: The Study of the South County Agricultural Preserve was a joint effort of Santa Clara County, the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County LAFCO. The study established an area of approximately 15,800 acres to the east and south of Gilroy as an agricultural preserve. The proposed project is located outside of the agricultural preserve on land that is within the City of Gilroy's 20 -year growth area. Through its General Plan policies the City of Gilroy has established Uvas Creek as an open space and habitat preservation corridor. The approved sports park*site expands the existing buffer along this riparian area. The project site will include portions of Uvas Creek and protect them as open space. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the County of Santa Clara. California's Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation requires that all CMAs develop a uniform program for evaluating the transportation impacts of land -use decisions on the designated CMP System. The CMP instructs member agencies to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for proposed projects that are expected to result in 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips. Consistency Analysis. The proposed project was prepared according to the VTA Guidelines. This TIA is summarized in the Transportation section of this SEIR. The complete TIA included in the technical composite, which is available for review at the City of Gilroy Planning Division, 5351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy California. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Bay Area Air Quality Management District 1997 Clean Air Plan The 1997 Clean Air Plan was adopted by the BAAQMD on December 17,1997. The plan is an update to the 1991 and 1994 Clean Air Plans, enacted pursuant to the California Clean Air Act of 1988, as amended. The Clean Air Act requires air districts that exceed State ozone standards to reduce pollutant emissions by five percent per year, or take all feasible measures to achieve emissions reductions. 1 -54 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Introduction The principal strategies for ozone reduction that are relevant to the proposed project are the reduction of automobile trips and traffic congestion, the provision of transit and encouragement of bicycle and pedestrian travel. Consistency: The proposed project would be accessibie by automobile from U.S. Highway 101 and major local streets, by public bus service planned to serve the entry gate area of the approved sports park on the project site, and by non- motorized means through the Uvas Creek Trail and on -street bicycle lanes, and pedestrian pathways and sidewalks. URBEMIS7 modeling was performed in January 2000 in conjunction with preparation of this SEIR. Project- associated automobile emissions were projected to exceed thresholds established by the BAAQMD for the combined project, although individual components of the proposed project were within the thresholds. The proposed project includes land use and transportation designs to encourage alternative transportation use. General plans, master plans, annexations and similar projects are judged for consistency with the Clean Air Plan based on use of consistent population projections. According to the Draft EIR for the City of Gilroy 1999 -2000 General Plan the proposed general plan population projections are consistent with the Association of Bay Area Government 1996 forecast, which was used in developing the 1997 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed general plan is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the proposed general plan, therefore the proposed project is consistent with this plan. 1.7 EIR Uses As mandated by CEQA Guidelines section 15124(d), this section contains a list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision - making, and a list of the approvals for which the EIR will be used. These lists include information that is known to the lead agency. Agencies Expected to Use the EIR for Approvals Lead Agency City of Gilroy • Urban Service Area Amendment Request (approved on June 7,1999 based on certified EIR) • Annexation • Zoning • Tentative Subdivision Map • Architectural and Site Review EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -55 Introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Regional Agencies Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission • Urban Service Area Amendment Santa Clara Valley Water District • Development Permit for construction within 50 feet of a waterway. State Agencies California State Department of Water Resources • General Development Storm Water Discharge Permit 1 -56 EMC Planning Group Inc. 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures The proposed project is the addition of 140.21 acres to the City of Gilroy USA. This SEIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of the USA amendment request under the proposed Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan land use designations, including the subsequent build -out of the proposed residential and commercial areas. This SEER will consider impacts of the approved sports park to be developed on the project site as a part of cumulative impacts. Environmental impacts are categorized into five levels of impacts: beneficial; no impact; less than significant; significant (or potentially significant) and significant and unavoidable. 2.1 Aesthetics Environmental Setting Viewing Points The project site is located adjacent to West Luchessa Avenue, Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road and 300 to 1,100 feet west of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is visible from these roads and adjacent property. The level ground and lack of distinctive features within the project site makes it difficult to discern where one parcel on the project site ends and another begins. Easily discernable features such as the roads and Uvas Creek mark the edges of the project site. U.S. Highway 101 affords a better overview of the project site than other roadways because of the slight elevation of the highway. U.S. Highway 101 is designated in the Gilroy General Plan as a scenic corridor, although the California Department of Transportation does not categorize U.S. Highway 101 as either an Officially Designated or Eligible Scenic Highway. Visual Character of the Project Site The project site has a pastoral rural ambiance, with clusters of farm buildings and cultivated farm fields set to a backdrop of riparian vegetation lining the banks of Uvas Creek. The land is primarily undeveloped farmland with several houses and their associated farm buildings located apart from one another along the eastern side EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -1 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR of the project site. Figure 12 shows the existing character of the project site. A propane gas facility. is located at the corner of Monterey Street and West Luchessa Avenue. This comer is out of character with the remainder of the project site, but in character with other land uses north and east of the project site along Monterey Street. The approved sports park will occupy approximately half of the project site and will largely remain as open space, although the core area of the sports park will include parking for approximately 1,050 vehicles. Median strip plantings, other landscaped areas and the green of the irrigated athletic fields would soften the paved areas visual effects. The approved sports park will be constructed on the portions of the project site farthest from the key viewpoints of U.S. Highway 101 and West Luchessa Avenue. Visual Character of the Surrounding Area Adjacent land uses to the north and east of the project site present an abrupt edge to the predominately rural feeling of the project site. There are two hotels on the eastern side of Monterey Street, between U.S. Highway 101 and the project site. Existing houses fronted by a six-foot tall concrete wall are visible immediately north of West Luchessa Avenue. Additional urban development is located to the east of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is on the southern edge of the Gilroy urbanized area. Sports Park Nighttime Lighting Each field at the sports park will be equipped with field lights for illumination of nighttime games. Athletic field lighting is generally quite intense and may be visible for a mile or more away. Recent technical advances.have resulted in lighting that is more directed and has less "spillage" into surrounding areas. This type of lighting technology will be used at the Gilroy Sports Park. Each softball /baseball field will have six light poles. The two poles located nearest home plate will be approximately 50 feet tall and contain three to four lights each. Two poles located near first and third base will be approximately 50 feet tall and contain six to nine lights each. Two 60- to 70 -foot poles will be located in the outfield and contain teh'to fifteen lights each. In most instances one soccer field will be overlaid on two softball /baseball fields. Therefore, soccer fields will be lit by up to 12 light sets. Field lights would be turned on only for fields on which there were games scheduled on a particular night. They would be used most often for league play as opposed to tournament play (Derek McKee, personal communication, November 13,1998). Figure 13 illustrates the location of lighting stanchions in relation to the proposed residential area. 2 -2 EMC Planning Group Rural character of the project site. This view is west across the project site from Monterey Frontage Road. AG Urban character of surrounding areas. This photo shows an existing motel east of the project site with a second under construction. A residential area is located to the north of the project site. Source: EMC Planning Group Inc �.�►�j [� Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning .Project Site Visual Character 12 and De lgn Firm Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. c....... ln . Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Project Analysis Changes to the Visual Character of t'iie Area Development of the project site would permanently alter the existing rural character of the area. Residential development would take place on the northern edge of the project site, along West Luchessa Avenue. The residential development would be similar in character to the existing residential development to the north of West Luchessa Avenue. The RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT designation of the project site would allow development that is denser than the existing residential development. The residential development would be compatible in visual character with the existing residential land uses in the vicinity. Views into the project site from West Luchessa Avenue would be mostly blocked by residential development. On the conceptual residential plan, the back fences of the proposed residential area would front on West Luchessa Avenue. Commercial development is expected to average two-stories in height. Individual buildings could be as high as four stories under the provisions the proposed general plan designation. Approximately 2S percent of the parcels would be covered by buildings. Views into the sports park area would be partially obscured by the commercial buildings. The extent to which the view is obscured would depend on the exact site design of the commercial area. The commercial buildings would be a substantial increase in urbanization in the viewshed, but would be similar in nature to existing hotels and commercial uses nearby along Monterey Street. Sports Park Nighttime Lighting Three of the athletic fields at the Gilroy Sports Park will be located along the northern edge of the sports park, adjoining the southern edge of the proposed residential area. One of these fields is planned for the second phase of sports park construction (the first phase of athletic field construction) and two of the fields are planned for the fourth phase of sports park construction (the third phase of athletic field construction). The first field could be expected to be built within one or two years and the second and third fields in the three to five year timeframe. The infield areas are located nearest to the houses. Based on the conceptual plan for the proposed residential area, approximately 15 houses would be in located in the tier of homes nearest the sports fields. These houses would be located approximately 100 feet from the nearest athletic field lights. While these lights would be aimed away from or at right angles to the row of houses and no light from these nearest field lights would shine towards the houses, athletic field lights located 400 to 500 feet from these houses would be directed in the general direction of the houses. These field lights would be directly visible from these houses' windows. Figure 14 includes a cross - section illustrating the light stanchions and proposed residential development and a row of trees (at maturity) proposed as a mitigation measure. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -7 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings; • substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than Significant Impact —Change in Rural Character. Development of the project site would permanently alter the existing rural character of the area. The view from U.S. Highway 101 would become more urban than it is currently. However, surrounding parcels to the north and east are already developed and the approved sports park will provide an area of transition between the built and rural environments. The change in character brought on by development of the proposed project would be a less than significant impact. No mitigation measure is necessary, Potentially Significant Impact — Nighttime Lighting. The proposed project would place residences near the planned athletic field lights of the approved Gilroy Sports Park. Several of the planned lights are within 400 to 500 feet of, and aimed towards the nearest homes. These field lights would be directly visible from these houses' windows. This would be a significant adverse impact resulting from light or glare that could effect residents in these homes. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 1. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, prior to approval of a tentative subdivision map, the applicant for residential development on the parcels north of the sports park shall provide a landscape plan that is consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy, and includes a double row of trees along the sports park boundary, utilizing tree species that will attain a crown between 30 and 50 feet above street level. One row of trees may be planted on the sports park side of the shared property boundary. The plantings shall be a minimum size of 24 -inch boxed specimens and shall be planted prior to occupancy of the houses located within 100 feet of the sports park. 2 -8 EMC Planning Group Inc. nV(First Base nn 1.1gnt Home ante Sports Park Boundary Residence Without Mitigation numu rnua r1a1e Llgnt nameplate Sports Park Boundary Residence (FlrstBaseSlde) With Proposed Mitigation Note: The Illustrated cross - section Is shown In plan view on Figure 13. Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. Scale: 1" = 50' Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure and Design Firm A Land Use Planning Field Lighting Visibility from Residences 14 a Setting, Impacts &Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures .2.2 Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting Existing Uses The project site comprises 14 parcels with a total land area of 140.21 acres. A total of 128.20 acres is currently farmed with row crops. The flood control levee occupies 7.00 acres, commercial and utility uses occupy 0.8 acres and rural residential, agricultural structures and yards occupy approximately 4.2 acres. The project site also encompasses small undeveloped areas of riparian vegetation along Uvas Creek, on the western periphery. The approved sports park will convert three parcels comprising 78.36 acres of the project site from agricultural land to athletic fields, parking and access areas and ancillary uses. Surrounding Uses Land to the south and west of the project site are currently in agriculture. South of and contiguous with the project site is agricultural land bordered by Uvas Creek on its west and south, and Monterey Frontage Road on its east. Greenhouses occupy some of this agricultural land and the remainder is farmed with row crops. West of the project site, across Uvas Creek, is additional agricultural land. Land to the north and east of the project site is developed with urban uses. North of the project site is an established residential neighborhood of single family houses. East of the project site are commercial uses, including hotels, automobile dealership and mini- storage. Park and open space areas are located upstream of the project site along Uvas Creek. A bicycle trail runs along the east bank of Uvas Creek northwest of the project site and will be extended south of the project site as part of the approved sports park project. Plan Designations The project site is outside of the existing USA but contiguous with the existing USA on the north and east. The USA is generally expected to accommodate growth for an approximate five -year period. The project site is within the City of Gilroy 20 -year planning boundary in the current Gilroy General Plan and in the Draft Gilroy 1999- 2020 General Plan. The 20 -year area is an area that is expected to accommodate development within an approximate 20 -year timeframe. The project site is designated for agricultural and open space uses in the current Gilroy General Plan. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan proposes non - agricultural uses on the project site. The project site is outside the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -11 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Soils and Farmland Value The soil on the project site is Yolo loam. Yolo loam is a well- drained soil underlain by alluvium from sedimentary rock. The soil has high fertility and a very deep effective rooting depth. The soil is categorized as Agricultural Class I and is considered to be the most productive soil in the Santa Clara Valley (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1974). Class I soils are those that have few limitations that restrict their use. Approximately 4,140 acres or 0.8 percent of Santa Clara County soils are Yolo loam. In 1974, approximately half of all areas of Yolo loam soil had been used for urban development. The California Department of Conservation maintains the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. This program qualitatively identifies and keeps an inventory of California farmland. Under this program the project site is classified as prime farmland (California Department of Conservation 1996). Figure 15 shows the Farmland Mapping designations in the project vicinity. Prime farmland is defined by the California Department of Conservation as: ...land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods. Prime Farmland must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. Prime Farmland does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. In 1996, Santa Clara County had 33,870 acres of prime farmland. Between 1994 and 1996, 304 acres of prime farmland were converted to other uses in Santa Clara County (California Department of Conservation 1996). Between 1990 and 1994 there were 1,613 acres of prime farmland in Santa Clara County converted to other uses (Santa Clara County 1994). Land taken out of agricultural use for urban . development is permanently lost from agricultural production. Urban development leads to lowered efficiency and decreased production on remaining farmland (Crawford, Multari and Star 1995). Williamson Act Lands The goal of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or Williamson Act, is to retain agricultural land in agricultural use. The act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict land uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. The California Department of Conservation oversees the program. 2 -12 EMC Planning Group Inc. 3nce Source: Department of Conservation and EMC Planning Group Inc. Scale: 1" = 1.6 miles no LIM) Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Farmland Designations 15 and Design Firm Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Williamson Act contracts are for ten -year terms, with automatic renewal each year. A contract may be terminated in several ways. Most commonly, a notice of non - renewal is filed, and the contract ends when the remaining nine years have expired. The tax assessment reductions are gradually phased out over the nine-year period. A contract may be cancelled without the nine -year termination period, but this procedure requires the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and the payment of a cancellation fee equal to 12 percent of the full market value of the property. Six of the parcels on the project site were under Williamson Act Contract in the past. Notices of non - renewal were filed for parcels 808 -21 -028, 808 -21 -029, 808-21 -030 and 808 -21 -031 and the contracts expired effective January 1, 1999. The other two parcels have not been under Williamson Act contract recently (Robert Friedrick, personal communication, February 8, 2000). Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area The Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area was established through an agreement between the City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County, and Santa Clara County LAFCO, based on the outcome of the Study of the South County Agricultural Preserve. The 15,660 -acre area is designated for long -term agricultural use and aims to prevent the encroachment of urban development. The area covers agricultural land east and south of Gilroy, from Buena Vista Road in the north to the Pajaro River and San Benito County line in the south. All but a very small part of the agricultural lands area is located to the east of U.S. Highway 101. The boundaries of the area are shown in Figure 15, presented earlier. The agricultural lands agreement is meant to support long -term agricultural economic viability and to encourage sustainable future urban development (City of Gilroy et a11996). The plan directs future growth to areas within a 20 -year growth boundary that is consistent with County and City General Plans and remains relatively constant over the long term. Prime farmland, is a severely limited and irreplaceable resource. The establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area is a partial mitigation for the loss of prime agricultural land in the vicinity of Gilroy. Project Analysis The proposed project would add 133.21 acres of prime farmland to the USA of the City of Gilroy. The USA consists of land that is expected to be developed for urban uses within a five -year timeframe. The Gilroy Sports Park has been approved for a 78.36 -acre portion of the project site and will be built in phases over an approximate 20 -year timeframe. Approval of the sports park on June 7, 1999 will result in the eventual conversion of the sports park site to non - agricultural uses. Approval of the USA amendment would result in the conversion of the remaining 54.85 acres to non- agricultural uses. Approximately five acres of this Prime Farmland is currently built with commercial and rural residential land uses. The proposed new commercial and residential uses would convert 49.85 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -15 Setting, Impacts £+Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The proposed project is consistent with the policy of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area, which directs new development out of the agricultural lands area and into the 20 -year area. Six of the parcels were under Williamson Act contract, but those contracts are no longer in effect. The proposed project is located on land that is adjacent to developed land on the north and east and easily accessed from U.S. Highway 101 and most of the City of Gilroy. The proposed project uses are compatible with existing surrounding commercial, residential, open space and agricultural uses. Extension of services to the southern parcels on the project site and development of these parcels could result in development pressure on the land south of the project site. Although this area is designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan as OPEN SPACE, the land owners may request a change in general plan designation to open their land to development. Similar pressures may be felt to the west of Uvas Creek where a less than one -half mile wide finger of land would remain outside the Gilroy USA. All of this land is Prime Farmland. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance (as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmlands Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency) to non - agricultural use; conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; or • involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use. Significant and Unavoidable Impact —Loss of Prime Farmland. Approval of the Urban Service Area amendment and development of parcels adjacent to the sports park site, would result in the loss of 54.85 acres of designated prime farmland. Approximately 49.85 acres of this farmland would be converted from agricultural production. This would be a significant unavoidable adverse environmental impact. Significant and Unavoidable Impact — Cumulative Project Loss of Prime Farmland. Approval of the Urban Service Area amendment and development of parcels adjacent to the sports park site, in conjunction with development of the approved sports park, would result in the loss of 133.21 acres of designated prime farmland. Approximately 128.21 acres of this farmland would be converted from agricultural production. This would be a significant unavoidable adverse environmental impact. No Impact— Conflict With Williamson Act Contract. Six of the parcels on the project site were previously under Williamson Act contract. None of these contracts is currently in effect. The parcels most recently in Williamson Act contract were non- 2 -16 EMC Planning Group Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures renewed effective in January 1999. Therefore, because these parcels are no longer in Williamson Act contract, there are no additional impacts beyond those identified in the previous two impact statements. Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact— Effect on Adjacent Agricultural Uses. Implementation of the proposed project could induce the adjacent farmland to the south of the project site and nearby farmland to the west of the project site to be converted to non - agricultural uses. These parcels adjacent to the project site are within the proposed City of Gilroy 20 -year planning area but are proposed to be designated for open space uses. Development pressures could result in a change of general plan designation and subsequent development. Mitigation Measures The loss of prime farmland is generally considered a significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impact. Approval of the USA amendment would result in the probable near -term conversion of prime farmland to non - agricultural uses. The City /County adoption of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area serves as regional mitigation for the loss of prime farmland in southern Santa Clara County. Although this regional mitigation has been implemented by both the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara, the conversion of 49.85 acres (128.21 acres cumulative project) of prime farmland in agricultural production could still be considered significant and unavoidable, unable to be mitigated to a less than significant level. Other measures are potentially available to further mitigate this loss of farmland. Such measures include the establishment of agricultural land conservation easements on currently un- protected farmland that is vulnerable to urban development. Agricultural land may be protected through Williamson. Act Contracts and Farm Security Zone Contracts. The addition of an equal area of unprotected farmland to the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area could be considered as a potential mitigation for the loss of agricultural land. CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a) requires the decision- making agency (City of Gilroy, as well as the Santa Clara County LAFCo) to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable'. Section 15093(b) states that when the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. EMC. Planning Group Inc. 2 -17 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR 2.3 Air Quality Environmental Setting The City of Gilroy is located within the boundaries of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which encompasses several climatological subregions. The City of Gilroy is located within the subregion known as the Santa Clara Valley. Climate The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the north and by mountains to the east, south and west. Temperatures are warm on summer days and cool on summer nights, and winter temperatures are fairly mild. At the northern end of the valley, mean maximum temperatures are in the low -80's during the summer and the high -50's during the winter. The mean minimum temperatures range from the high -50's in the summer to the low -40's in the winter. Further inland, where the moderating effect of the bay is not as strong, temperature extremes are greater. For example, in San Martin, located approximately two and one -half miles north of Gilroy, temperatures can be more than ten degrees warmer on summer afternoons and more than ten degrees cooler on winter nights. Winds in the valley are greatly influenced by the terrain, resulting in a prevailing flow that roughly parallels the valley's northwest - southeast axis. A north- northwesterly sea breeze flows through the valley during the afternoon and early evening, and a light south- southeasterly drainage flow occurs during the late evening and early morning. In'the summer, the southern end of the valley (including Gilroy) sometimes becomes a "convergence zone," when air flowing from the-Monterey Bay gets channeled northward into the southern end of the valley and meets with the prevailing north - northwesterly winds. Wind speeds are greatest in the spring and summer and weakest in the fall and winter. Nighttime and early morning hours frequently have calm winds in all seasons, while summer afternoons and evenings are quite breezy. Strong winds are rare, associated mostly with the occasional winter storm. The air pollution potential of the Santa Clara Valley is high. High summer temperatures, stable air and mountains surrounding the valley combine to promote ozone formation. In addition to the many local sources of pollution, ozone precursors from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda Counties are carried by prevailing winds to the Santa Clara Valley. The valley tends to channel pollutants to the southeast. In addition, on summer days with low level inversions, ozone can be re- circulated by southerly drainage flows in the late evening and early morning and by the prevailing northwesterly winds in the afternoon. A similar re- circulation pattern occurs in the winter, affecting levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. This movement of the air up and down the valley increases the impact of the pollutants significantly. 2 -18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Pollution sources are plentiful and complex in this subregion (Santa Clara Valley). It has a high concentration of industry at the northern end in the "Silicon Valley" area. Some of these industries are sources of air toxics as well as criteria pollutants. In addition, Santa Clara Valley's large population and many work -site destinations generate the highest mobile source emissions of any subregion in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 1996). Regulatory Framework Historically, air quality laws and regulations have divided air pollutants into two broad categories of airborne pollutants: "toxic air contaminants" and "criteria pollutants." In general, criteria pollutants are pervasive constituents, such as those emitted in vast quantities by society's use of fossil fuels. Toxic air contaminants are a category of air pollutants, which are highly toxic in small doses. Toxic air contaminants are only briefly discussed herein because they are generally associated with commercial, industrial and agricultural sources and have been regulated separately from "criteria" pollutants for more than two decades. Criteria Pollutants. Both the State of California and the federal governments have developed ambient air quality standards for the criteria pollutants, which include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2, sulfur dioxide (S02), and suspended particulate matter 10 microns and less (PM1o)• Table 3 indicates both federal and state ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants. The state standards are relevant for this proposed project and are more stringent than the federal standards. The state standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. When standards are exceeded an "attainment plan" must be prepared which outlines how an air quality district will comply. Generally, these plans must provide for district -wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three -year periods. California also grants air districts explicit statutory authority to adopt indirect source regulations and transportation control measures, including measures to encourage or require the use of ridesharing, flexible work hours, or other measures that reduce the number or length of vehicle trips. Attainment Status of Air Basin. The BAAQMD lost its designation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as an attainment area for the national ozone standard on July 10, 1998. The U.S. EPA changed the Bay Area's classification for national 1 -hour ozone standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified nonattainment" area. The re- designation action is US EPA's formal recognition that the region has recent violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The notice requires Bay Area co-lead agencies to prepare a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region complies with the Federal Clean Air requirements. In response, the 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted by the EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -19 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR BAAQMD in June 1999. The plan presents a strategy for re- establishing an ozone attainment record in the future. The plan contains three elements: • 1995 Emission Inventory for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX); . Assessment of the Emission Reductions Needed to Attain the National Ozone Standard by 2000 (the "Attainment Assessment"); • Control Strategy. TABLE 3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal Standard California Standard Time Ozone 8 hour 0.08 ppm 0.09 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 35.00 ppm 20.00 ppm 8 hour 9.00 ppm 9.00 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour — 0.25 ppm Annual 0.053 ppm — Sulfur 1 hour — 0.25 ppm Dioxide 24 hours 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm . Annual 0.03 ppm — Particulates* 24 hours 150.0 99/m3 50.0 gg /m3 (PMio) Annual 50.0 gg /m3 30.0 gg /m3 Particulates 24 hours 50.0 99/m3 — (PM2.5) Annual 15.0 gg /m3 — ppm = parts per million; mg /m3 = microns per cubic meter PM10 = Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. PM25 = Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Promulgated in 4g /m3 only. Source: California Air Resources Board The BAAQMD estimate of 1995 emissions of VOCs is 562 tons per day (tpd), and for NOX, 626 tpd. A 128 tpd reduction in VOCs combined with a 92 tpd reduction in NOX, between 1995 and 2000, would result in an attainment inventory. The Bay Area is expected to achieve the majority of required ozone reductions through 2000 as the result of already enacted regulations. These already adopted regulations 2-20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures should reduce VOCs by 117 tpd and NOx by 92 tpd by 2000. This leaves a shortfall for VOCs of 11 tpd, and no shortfall for NOx. Additional strategies included in the 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan include control of both stationary and mobile pollutant sources. Stationary sources are typically industrial and commercial uses such as refineries, semiconductor manufacturers and printers. Most mobile source controls involve improved technologies to reduce vehicular emissions. Transportation control measures play an additional minor role in achieving attainment status. The Bay Area continues to violate the State Ozone Standard. The State one -hour ozone standard, nine parts per hundred million (nine pphtn), is considerably more stringent than the national standard of 12 pphm. The BAAQMD experienced 29 days over the State Ozone Standard and eight days over the Federal Ozone Standard. Out of the past four years, 1998 is the third year of poor air quality recorded in the Bay Area air basin. The BAAQMD maintains an air quality monitoring station in San Martin, north of the proposed project. The San Martin station monitors ozone and carbon monoxide. At this monitoring station, the number of days with maximum one -hour concentration exceeding nine pphm for this year include 15 days when the state threshold was exceeded and three days when the Federal threshold was exceeded. In 1998, the San Martin monitoring station had the most excesses in the Santa Clara Valley region. In 1997, the San Martin monitoring station exceeded the state limit for ozone for 11 days. Toxic Air Pollutants. Toxic air contaminants are highly toxic in small doses. Examples include certain chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals and asbestos. Adverse health effects of toxic air contaminants may be carcinogenic (cancer - causing), short -term (acute) non - carcinogenic, and long-term. (chronic) non - carcinogenic. Several hundred such pollutants are currently regulated by .various federal, state and local programs. Toxic air contaminants are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles, aircraft, and railroads; natural sources, such as wind blown dust and wildfires; and area sources, such as farms, construction sites, or residential areas. The regulatory structure that deals with toxic air contaminants includes the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), Assembly Bill 1807 (a.k.a., the Tanner Bill) and Assembly Bill 2588 (a.k.a., the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987). Health Effects of Pollutants The primary air quality problems in the air basin are ozone and PM10. The following is a discussion of the health effects of ozone and PM10 pollutants. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -21 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subseauent EIR Ozone. Ozone is produced by chemical reactions, involving NOX and reactive organic gases (ROG), that are triggered by sunlight. Nitrogen oxides are created during combustion of fuels, while reactive organic gases are emitted during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Since ozone is not directly emitted to the atmosphere, but is formed as a result of photochemical reactions, it is considered a secondary pollutant. Ozone is a seasonal problem, occurring roughly from April through October. Ozone is a strong irritant that attacks the respiratory system, leading to the damage of lung tissue. Asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments, as well as cardio -' vascular diseases are aggravated by exposure to ozone. A healthy person exposed to. high concentrations may become nauseated or dizzy, may develop a headache or cugh, or may experience a burning sensation in the chest. Research has shown that exposure to ozone damages the alveoli (the individual air sacs in the lung where the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between the air and blood takes place). Research has shown that ozone also damages vegetation. PMIO. PMIO is suspended particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter, that can enter the lungs. The major components of PMIO are dust particles, nitrates, and sulfates. PM10 is directly emitted to the atmosphere as a byproduct of fuel combustion, wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and from fireplaces. Small particles are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. PM1b emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction- related emissions can cause substantial increases in localized concentrations of PM10. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects as well as nuisance concerns such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces (BAAQMD 1996). Accurate estimates of the PM10 concentrations that would occur on or a project site are difficult to obtain because such concentrations are very sensitive to local meteorology, local topography, level of equipment use, and variations in soil and moisture content. However, the U.S. EPA does provide a rough indication of the maximum rate of particulate emissions. Measurements indicate that up to 1.2 tons of dust are emitted per acre per month of construction activity. About 45 percent of this dust is comprised of large particles that settle out rapidly on nearby horizontal surfaces; the remaining 65 percent would be composed of PM10. Particles greater than 10 microns in diameter can cause irritation in the nose, throat, and bronchial tubes, but do not have long -term heath implications because natural mechanisms in the body remove most of these particles. Particles less than 10 microns in diameter are able to pass through the body's natural defenses and the mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract and enter into the lungs. The particles can damage the alveoli, tiny air sacs responsible for gas exchange in the lungs. The particles may also carry carcinogens and other toxic compounds, which adhere to the particle surfaces and can enter the lungs. PMIO can cause significant health impacts if dust - suppression measures are not implemented. 2 -22 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR ' Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Project Analysis Emissions may be the result of construction activities or the result of the operation of the development. For the proposed project the operations emissions are primarily from the operation of motor vehicles going to and from the project site. Construction Emissions Construction - related emissions are generally short -term in duration, but may still cause adverse air quality impacts. PMlo is the pollutant of greatest concern with respect to construction activities. It is likely that grading and other construction activities associated with construction of the proposed project would result in the emission of PM10 in excess of BAAQMD standards. Operational Emissions Plan Consistency. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, general plans, master plans, annexations and similar projects are considered to have a less than significant air quality impact if they are consistent with the Clean Air Plan. They are judged for consistency with the Clean Air Plan based on use of consistent population projections. According to the Draft EIR for the City of Gilroy 1999 -2000 General Plan the proposed general plan population projections are consistent with the Association of Bay Area Government 1996 forecast, which was used in developing the 1997 Clean Air Plan. Therefore the proposed general plan is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the proposed general plan, therefore the proposed project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan and no cumulative impact results. The approved sports park is also included in the Draft Gilroy 199 -2020 General Plan, so the build -out of the sports park in conjunction with the proposed project is also consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Air Quality Modeling. For informational purposes the URBEMIS7 air quality modeling program was used to estimate emissions based on vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. URBEMIS7 was developed by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) to determine pollutant emission levels based on traffic generation. The model runs demonstrate the probable emissions that will result from each component of the proposed project. Although the emissions for the commercial component of the proposed project exceed BAAQMD thresholds, the proposed project is not considered to have a significant air quality impact because at the plan level, the proposed USA amendment is consistent with the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2000 General Plan which in turn is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The URBEMIS7 air quality modeling program incorporates various assumptions for trip data in the area of the project site, as well as for the proposed project itself. These assumptions include trip generation rates; vehicle fleet mix; trips lengths; average miles per hour; climate; etc. Default values were used in the URBEMIS7 model runs for the proposed project. Separate modeling was conducted for the proposed residential and commercial components of the proposed project. A combined model was run as well. The full results are included in Appendix B. EMC Planning Group Ina 2 -23 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Residential Operations Emissions. The URBEMIS7 model was run for build -out of the residential area in 2005, based on the conceptual residential plan of 90 single - family homes and 57 triplexes (classified as low -rise condominium units for URBEMIS7 analysis). URBEMIS7 alternative travel mitigations employed in the model run included street lighting, sidewalks, pedestrian connections and bike path access, all.of which are expected to be present in the proposed residential development. Commercial Operations Emissions. The URBEMIS7 model was run for commercial build -out in 2010. The URBEMIS7 street lighting mitigation was employed. Total Proposed Project Operations Emissions. The :URBEMIS7•model was run for proposed project build -out in 2010. The same respective URBEMIS7 mitigations were assumed in the model run for each proposed land use. The results of the air quality modeling are summarized in Table 4. Emissions exceed BAAQMD project -level standards for the commercial component and for the proposed project as a whole. As stated above, annexations and similar projects are considered to have a less than significant air quality impact if they are consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. „ TABLE 4 Projected Project Air Quality Impacts — URBEMIS7 Modeling Results (Pounds Per Day) Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. and BAAQMD Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • cause a violation of any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; 2 -24 EMC Planning Group Inc. ROG NOx CO BAAQMD Thresholds 80.00 80.00 550.00 Proposed Residential 2002 (Winter) 24.28 31.45 219.48 Proposed Residential 2002 (Summer) 16.88 27.78 38.22 Proposed Commercial 2010 (Winter) 140.91 206.14 1,304.52 Proposed Commercial 2010 (Summer) 96.98 180.49 789.78 Project Build -out 2010 (Winter) Project Build -out 2010 (Summer) 157.33 109.40 233.08 204.67 • • 1,462.90 894.08 Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. and BAAQMD Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • cause a violation of any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; 2 -24 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures • result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); or • expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less than Significant Impact— Proposed Project Operations. BAAQMD determines the thresholds of significance for general plans, master plans annexations and similar projects based on the project's consistency with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan, which is in turn consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Therefore the proposed project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan and would have a less than significant impact on air quality. Potentially Significant Impact — Project Construction. The BAAQMD's approach to CEQA analysis of construction - related air quality impacts is to emphasize the implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. The BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible control measures for construction emissions of PM10. These control measures are applicable to construction sites that are large in area, and located near sensitive receptors, i.e., residential neighborhoods. The proposed project is located close to residential areas. Lack of feasible construction dust control measures could result in a significant adverse air quality impact due to construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 2. The following dust control measures shall be incorporated into all permits for any phase of proposed construction on the project site. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -25 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following additional measures shall be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area: • 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 as quickly as possible. Subject to determination by the Gilroy Planning Division the following measures shall be implemented at construction sites that are very large or are located near sensitive receptors: • Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Install wind breaks, or plant trees /vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour; • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. 2.4 Biological Resources Environmental Setting A reconnaissance -level biological survey was conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. in January 1993 to identify biological resources occurring or potentially occurring on the project site, including vegetation types, significant wildlife habitat features, and the potential for the presence of special - status plant and animal species. The project site was resurveyed by a biologist from EMC Planning Group Inc. in November 1998 to field -check and update the 1993 biological survey. The following discussion includes information contained in the 1993 biological survey and updated information provided by the 1998 survey. 2-26 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Habitats observed in the project site include agricultural land, Uvas Creek and associated riparian woodland habitat, and landscape plants associated with existing and former residences. Figure 16 illustrates the habitat types observed on the project site. The following discussion describes those plant and animal species that were observed during the 1993 and /or 1998 survey, or that would be expected to commonly occur in habitats present on the project site. Agricultural. The majority of the project site is in agricultural row crop production and does not contain naturally - occurring plant species. Due to continuous human interaction, agricultural fields typically provide litt le habitat for wildlife. No bird species were observed foraging in the agricultural land; however, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and gulls (Lanus spp.) were observed flying over the field. Crows and songbirds may-forage in the cultivated fields and small mammals (e.g. pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and black - tailed hares) may also forage and burrow in the fields assuming they are not actively controlled in the area. Larger mammals such as coyotes and foxes may also utilize cultivated fields for hunting and foraging but are not likely to inhabit these areas. Uvas Creek. Uvas Creek, and the associated riparian woodland habitat (described below), is the most significant biological resource on the project site. Willows (Salix spp.) and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) are the most common shrubs along the border of the creek channel. Annual grasses and forbs grow in the creek channel in the dry season. Vegetation in the channel is subject to removal by increased flow during the rainy season. There are no wetlands or waters of the United States on the project site other than Uvas Creek and associated temporary pools in the creek channel. Adult steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), a federally threatened species (discussed further below), is known to migrate upstream in Uvas Creek to spawn in winter and early spring. They rest in pools and spawn in shallow riffles. Other native and introduced fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs have been reported from the Uvas Creek Preserve upstream of the project site. Riparian Woodland. A narrow riparian corridor with an average width estimated to be approximately 25 feet from the centerline of Uvas Creek to the edge of canopy borders each side of the creek, although riparian vegetation is absent in some areas along the creek. A dirt road used for the adjacent agricultural operations is located along the entire edge of the riparian corridor. The riparian corridor supports a diversity of vegetation and provides valuable wildlife habitat. The dominant plant species in this corridor include mature western sycamore trees (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus lobata), Fremont's cottonwood (Populus fremontii ), willow thickets, and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), black walnut Quglans hindsii) and English walnut (Juglans regia) are occasional components of the riparian vegetation on the project site. Riparian woodland habitat is protected by the California Department of Fish and Game (discussed further below). EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -27 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subseauent EIR Open areas in the riparian woodland habitat, the edge between riparian woodland habitat and the agricultural field, and the levee in the northwest portion of the project site are dominated by non - native annual grasses and forbs. Common species include oat (Avena spp.), ripgutbrome (Bromusdiandrus), thistles (Centaurea solstitialis, Cirsium vulgare, Silybum marianum), mallow (Malva spp.), and mustards (Brassica spp.). The large oak and sycamore trees provide excellent roost and nesting sites for raptors and other bird species, and the continuous tree canopy contributes to its value as a corridor for wildlife. White- crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), yellow - rumped warblers (Dendroica corohata), bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus), scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and northern flickers (Colaptes auratus) were observed in the riparian vegetation between the agricultural fields and Uvas Creek. Holes drilled by red - breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) were observed in the trunks of riparian trees. A red - shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) was observed in the riparian woodland south of Farman Lane south of the project site, and red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp - shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) were seen in the riparian woodland on the project site. Grasses and forbs in the riparian understory harbor insects and provide seed and nesting material for sparrows, finches, and small mammals. Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were observed in loose soil among non -native grasses bordering the levee. Landscape Trees. In the northwest comer of the project site, mature landscape plantings of trees and shrubs persist around a former home site. Tree species in this area consist of incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), eucalyptus, pepper tree (Schinus molle), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera). Along the eastern project site boundary of Monterey Frontage Road, houses, outbuildings, and associated landscape plantings alternate with cultivated fields. The mature landscape trees in the north comer of the project site provide a food source for birds, squirrels, and other small mammals. The large trees provide perching and nesting sites close to Uvas Creek and a source of food for resident and migratory birds. Special- Status Species Data from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS), as well as local knowledge and the 1993 biological survey report, were reviewed to determine the potential for any special - status species to occur in any areas associated with the proposed project. Special - status species include species listed or proposed for listing by the USFWS, NMFS, CDFG, and /or CNPS as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern." 2-28 EMC Planning Group Inc. Le. F-reud 8 Proposed Boundary of A Agriculture USA Amendment L Landscape Trees Request RA Residence and Riparian Vegetarian Agriculture © Levee Road Source: iSA Associates and EMC Planning Group Inc I Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Habitat Types and Design Firm Scale: I" = 250' Figure 16 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -30 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Special - status species that have the potential to be found on the project site are listed in Table 5, along with their legal status and habitat requirements. This list was determined by evaluating the geographic ranges and habitat requirements of each species and habitat conditions at the project site. TABLE 5 Potential Special - Status Species Species Status Habitat (Federal/State /CNPS) Plaiitss' x a^ None — — ,Wildlfe California tiger salamander Candidate /CSC Grassland with seasonal Ambystoma californiense water source Western spadefoot toad FSC /CSC Upland areas with seasonal Scaphiopus hammondii water source Foothill yellow - legged frog FSC /CSC Upland areas associated with Rana boylii rock- bottomed creeks California red - legged frog FT(USFWS) /CSC Lowlands /foothills near Rana aurora draytonii permanent deep water sources Western pond turtle FSC /CSC Aquatic habitat Clemmys marmorata Steelhead FT(NMFS) /— Aquatic habitat Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Burrowing owl FSC /CSC Nests and winters in small Athene cunicularia mammal burrows in grasslands Nesting raptors /active raptor — /CSC Tall trees in woodland areas nests FT(USFWS): Listed as "Threatened" by the USFWS. FT(NMFS):Listed as "Threatened" by the NMFS. Candidate: A candidate for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. FSC: USFWS "Special Concern". Prior to February 1996, the USFWS identified these species as "Category 2" candidates for listing (taxa for which information in the possession of the USFWS indicated that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threat were not currently available to support proposed rules). The designation of Category 2 species as candidates resulted in confusion about the conservation status of these taxa. To reduce that confusion, and to clarify that the USFWS does not regard these species as candidates for listing, the USFWS has discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as candidates. The USFWS remains concerned about these species, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -31 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR CSC: CDFG "Species of Special Concern ". The CDFG "Species of Special Concern" does not afford these species any federal or state protection. These species should be taken into special consideration when decisions are made concerning the future of any land parcel. A species is included as a "Species of Special Concern" when their breeding populations in California are declining. Species are also included that are not declining worldwide, but in California the population is so low that it is potentially vulnerable to extirpation. Source: USFWS and CDFG Plants. The CDFG Natural Diversity Database (Chittenden and Gilroy quadrangles) reports three special - status native plant species occurring within the vicinity of the project site, including Metcalf canyon jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus), most beautiful jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), and Santa Clara Valley dudleya ( Dudleya setchellii). These plant species are restricted to serpentine soils. Since serpentine soils are not present on the project site, and since natural conditions on the project site have been disturbed by long -term agricultural use, it would be extremely unlikely that any of these species would occur on the site. Wildlife. The CDFG Natural Diversity Database (Chittenden and Gilroy quadrangles) reports several special - status animal species occurring within the vicinity of the project site, including California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In addition, steelhead are known to migrate in Uvas Creek, and raptor nests could potentially be present in the riparian woodland trees on the project'site. Other species not listed on the Natural Diversity Database that have the potential to occur on the project site include western spadefoot toad(Scaphiopus hammondii) and foothill yellow - legged frog (Rana boylii). Of those species listed on the Natural Diversity Database reports, bank swallow and tricolored blackbird most likely do not occur on the.project site. Bank swallows require vertical banks or cliffs with fine- textured sandy soils to dig a nesting hole. The portion of Uvas Creek that occurs on the project site does not contain appropriate habitat for nesting bank swallows. Likewise, tricolored blackbirds typically nest in colonies in marshes or other open water areas, and no appropriate habitat for tricolored blackbirds occurs on the project site. Also, while not listed on the Natural Diversity Database reports, the project site was evaluated for potential use by other special - status species, including San Joaquin whipsnake (Masticophus flagellum ruddocki), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend's western big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii). These species most likely do not occur on the project site. San Joaquin whipsnakes are found in grassland habitats, and pallid and Townsend's western big -eared bats are found in deserts, pine forests and canyons with roost sites (caves, cliff overhangs and buildings). No appropriate habitat for these species occurs on the project site. 2-32 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures The potential occurrence of the other species listed on the Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) reports is discussed below. California tiger salamander. The California tiger salamander is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS, and is designated as a "Species of Special Concern" by the CDFG. Tiger salamanders primarily occur in valley floor and foothill grasslands. Adults utilize rodent burrows for refuge during the non - breeding season and, during the rainy season, they migrate to aquatic breeding sites, such as seasonal ponds, reservoirs, lakes, and occasionally stream pools. No California tiger salamanders were observed on the project site during the 1993 and 1998 field surveys. The NDDB lists known occurrences of California tiger salamanders near Tick Creek (four miles south of Gilroy), near the intersections of Castro Valley Road and Old Monterey Street with U.S. Highway 101 (three and four miles south of Gilroy, respectively), and in Farman Canyon pond and Reservoir Canyon Pond on the O'Connell Ranch in Gilroy (approximately 2.5 miles south. of the project site). Breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander is potentially present in pools adjacent to the Uvas Creek bed. However, it would be highly-unlikely that they would occur on the majority of the project site due to the long history of agricultural disturbance. • Western spadefoot toad. The western spadefoot toad is designated as a "Species of Special Concern" by the USFWS and CDFG. Western spadefoot toads primarily occur in upland areas near aquatic breeding sites, such as seasonal ponds, reservoirs, lakes, and stream pools. No western spadefoot toads were observed on the project site during the 1993 and 1998 field surveys, and the NDDB does not contain any listings of occurrences of western spadefoot in the project vicinity. However, western spadefoot habitat is potentially present in pools adjacent to the Uvas Creek bed. However, it would be highly unlikely that they would occur on the majority of the project site due to the long history of agricultural disturbance. • Foothill yellow - legged frog. The foothill yellow - legged frog is designated as a "Species of Special Concern" by the USFWS and CDFG. Foothill yellow - legged frogs primarily occur in upland areas near rock- bottomed creek breeding sites. No foothill yellow - legged frogs were observed on the project site during the 1993 and 1998 field surveys, and the NDDB does not contain any listings of occurrences of foothill yellow - legged frogs in the project vicinity. However, foothill yellow- legged frog habitat is potentially present in Uvas Creek. However, it would be highly unlikely that they would occur on the majority of the project site due to the long history of agricultural disturbance. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -33 Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR California red - legged frog. The California red - legged frog is listed as threatened by the USFWS, and is designated as a "Species of Special Concern" by the CDFG. California red - legged frogs occur in different habitats depending on their life stage and the season. All life history stages are most likely to be encountered in and around breeding sites, which include many aquatic habitats, such as ponded and backwater portions of streams. Creeks and ponds where California red - legged frogs are found often have dense growths of woody riparian vegetation, especially willows. The presence of this kind of vegetation is an important indicator that the site may provide foraging or breeding habitat for California red - legged frogs. No California red - legged frogs were observed on the project site during the 1993 and 1998 field surveys. The NDDB lists known occurrences of red - legged frogs along Tick Creek (three to four miles south of Gilroy), near the intersection of Old Monterey Street with U.S. Highway 101 (four miles south of Gilroy), and along the Pajaro River near the U.S. Highway 101 /25 interchange (four miles southeast of Gilroy). California red - legged frogs may potentially occur and breed in seasonal pools in the Uvas Creek channel, and may potentially disperse to the adjacent riparian woodland after the end of the rainy season. However, it would be highly unlikely that they would occur on the majority of the project site due to the long history of agricultural disturbance. Western pond turtle. The western pond turtle is designated as a "Species of Special Concern" by the USFWS and CDFG. Western pond turtles are aquatic turtles that live in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. They need basking sites and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg - laying. No western pond turtles were observed on the project site during the 1993 and 1998 field surveys, and the NDDB does not contain any listings of occurrences of western pond turtles in the project vicinity. Western pond turtles are potentially present in Uvas Creek Preserve north of the project site. Western pond turtle habitat is potentially present in pools adjacent to the Uvas Creek bed. However, it would be highly unlikely that they would occur on the majority of the project site due to the long history of agricultural disturbance. Steelhead. Steelhead is listed as threatened by the NMFS but is given no special status by the CDFG. Steelhead spend the first few years of their lives in fresh water before migrating to the ocean. They return to their spawning grounds as adults to breed. Steelhead are known to migrate and spawn in gravel areas in Uvas Creek. 2 -34 EMC Planning Group Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR I Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures • Burrowing owl. The burrowing owl is designated as a "Species of Special Concern" by the USFWS and CDFG. Burrowing owls nest and winter in burrows in the ground, especially in abandoned ground squirrel burrows. Optimal habitat conditions include large, open grasslands or prairies. No burrowing owls were observed on the project site during the 1993 and 1998 field surveys, and no California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) or their burrows were observed during the field surveys. The NDDB lists known occurrences of burrowing owls along the Pajaro River near the U.S. Highway 101 /State Highway 25 interchange (four miles southeast of Gilroy). Potential owl habitat exists along the slope of the levee in the northwest comer of the site. Raptor nests. Nesting raptors and active raptor nests (i.e., nests in which raptors are breeding or raising young) are protected by the CDFG. Raptors, including white - tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, and short -eared owl, could potentially maintain active raptor nests in the riparian woodland habitat on the project site during the breeding season. Project Analysis Development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of active agricultural fields into urban uses such as housing and shopping centers. The existing agricultural fields do not represent a significant biological resource since the fields do not provide habitat for naturally occurring plants and provide only marginal habitat for wildlife. Residential construction would occur near the levee and Uvas Creek. Besides its proximity to sensitive riparian habitat this area has been identified as potential burrowing owl habitat. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -35 Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR • conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (i.e., the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy); and /or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. No Impact —Loss of Habitat. The proposed project would not result in the loss of valuable wildlife habitat. Due to continuous human interaction, active agricultural fields typically provide little habitat for wildlife and do not represent a significant biological resource. No mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Impact— Invasive Plant Species. The existing riparian habitat along Uvas Creek and the planned habitat buffer are sensitive areas that could be affected by the presence of non - native, invasive plant species. Any deterioration of habitat quality caused by the introduction of non - native, invasive plant species into the riparian habitat and /or buffer would be a potentially significant impact. Landscaped streetscape areas shown in the conceptual residential plan would adjoin the Uvas Creek riparian corridor and could result in the introduction of non - native, invasive plant species. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3. A landscape plan consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy shall be prepared for common and street side planting areas areas abutting the Uvas Creek habitat corridor, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The landscape plan shall include appropriate native plant species and shall not include plantings of non- native, invasive plant species. Native grasses or other native species shall be preferred in the areas adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee to provide additional native habitat in association with the Uvas Creek habitat corridor. Potentially Significant Impact — Raptors. The riparian woodland habitat found along Uvas Creek contains potential nesting habitat for raptors, including white - tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, and short -eared owl, which are protected by the CDFG. Should active raptor nests occur in the area proposed for development (i.e., trail and bridge construction through the riparian corridor), any construction and site preparation activities within or immediately adjacent to nest habitat, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. Depending on the number and extent of raptor nests on the site that may be disturbed or removed, the loss of active raptor nests would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the mitigation measure presented above 2 -36 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures requiring a qualified biologist to inform construction workers of the potential presence of special- status species, and the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no earlier than 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to commencement of clearing, grading or construction in or adjacent to any riparian habitat, a field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active raptor nests are present in the construction zone or within 250 feet of the construction zone. These surveys shall be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting and /or breeding season of raptors potentially nesting in the areas proposed for development (generally March 1 through August 1). If active nests are found within the survey area, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until the nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Potentially Significant Impact — Burrowing Owls. Potential burrowing owl habitat exists along the slope of the levee in the northwest corner of the project site. Residential development, trail connections and landscaping would occur on and near the levee. Should active burrowing owl nests occur along the slope of the levee, any construction and site preparation activities within or immediately adjacent to . nest habitat, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. Depending on the number and extent of burrowing owl nests on the site that may be disturbed or removed, the loss of active burrowing owl nests would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 5. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no earlier than 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to commencement of grading or construction on or adjacent to the slope of the levee, field surveys shall be conducted at least four consecutive evenings by a qualified biologist to determine if burrowing owls are present in the construction zone or within 250 feet of the construction zone. These surveys shall be required only if any construction would occur. during the nesting and /or breeding season of burrowing owls potentially nesting in the area (February 1 through August 31) and /or during the winter residency period (December 1 and January 31). Pre - construction survey results shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. If active nests are found within the survey area, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -37 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR approval. The burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall contain mitigation measures contained in the California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Compliance with this mitigation measure may include, but not be limited to, the following: • Avoidance of occupied burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31); • Acquisition, protection and funding for long -term management and monitoring of foraging habitat adjacent to occupied habitat; • Enhancement of existing burrows and /or creation of new burrows; • Passive relocation of burrowing owls. Potentially Significant Impact— Riparian Special - Status Species. Several special - status species may potentially occur in Uvas Creek and in the riparian habitat adjacent to Uvas Creek. Any adverse effects on these special - status species, if present, resulting from construction activities associated with the residential area adjacent to the riparian habitat would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 6. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the city shall arrange for a qualified biologist to inform workers of the potential presence of the all special- status species, their protected status, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during construction activities. All food - related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the project area to deter attraction of potential predators of the California red - legged frog, foothill yellow - legged frog, western spadefoot toad, California tiger salamander, and western pond turtle. Pets shall not be allowed on the construction site. The proper location of the trash containers shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Community Development Department. Potentially Significant Impact— Effects of Nighttime Lighting on Wildlife. Nighttime lighting of roads adjacent to Uvas Creek in the proposed residential area could spill over into the riparian woodland habitat and could potentially disturb wildlife species occurring in the riparian habitat, restrict the movement or activity of wildlife species in the riparian habitat, or facilitate increased predation of wildlife species, which could potentially include special - status species. Restricted movement of wildlife species and increased predation of special - status species occurring as a. 2 -38 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures result of increased levels of nighttime light would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 8. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, luminaires in the proposed residential area shall be limited in height to 20 feet and shall be of a full cutoff design to reduce light spillage to adjacent areas. Luminaires located along a street adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee shall be, located to the east side of the street. 2.5 Cultural Resources A cultural resources evaluation of the sports park site and levee was conducted by Archaeological Resource Management in October 1998. A cultural resources evaluation of the remaining 54.85 acres of the project site was conducted by Archaeological Resource Management in December 1999. At the request of the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, the reports are not available for public review. California Government Code Section 6254.10 exempts archaeological site information from the California Public Records Act, which requires that public records be open to public inspection. The following discussion is based on the cultural resources evaluations. Environmental Setting Methodology A preliminary archaeological investigation was conducted consisting of an archival search and surface reconnaissance. The archival search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center of the Archaeological Site Inventory. This task is completed to discover any archaeological sites or surveys that have been recorded within a half -mile radius of the subject area. Each archival search within the State is given a file number for verification. The surface reconnaissance of the project site was conducted by a field archaeologist to determine if traces of historic or prehistoric materials exist within the study area. The archaeologist looks for early ceramics, Native American cooking debris, and artifacts of stone, bone and shell. For historic cultural resources, the field evaluation also considers older structures, distinctive architecture, and subsurface historic trash deposits of potentially significant antiquity. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -39 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Regional Setting and Historic Resources The project site is located along the banks of Uvas Creek, in an alluvial area of the Santa Clara Valley. These alluvial areas are known to contain many buried prehistoric resources. Archival research located several historic and prehistoric sites located in the vicinity of the project site. A circa 1952 bungalow was reported by Caltrans in 1992. Archival records indicate that the house is located partially on the project site, but field investigation showed the house to be immediately south of the project site. Two additional reported historic sites and two prehistoric sites were found to be located within one half mile of the project site. Historic Resources on the Project Site The archival search found one recorded historic site located on the project site. Field reconnaissance revealed four additional potentially historic buildings on the project site. No structures remain at the recorded site located in the northwest corner of the project site in an area with a proposed RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT general plan designation. A small wooden cabin that was built in the 1850's once occupied the site and was still occupied as late as 1974 when it was recorded in a report to the California Archaeological Site Inventory. The December 1999 field investigation found four houses on the project site to be potentially historic for the California Register of Historic Places. These homes are all located along the eastern border of the project site. Several other houses and commercial buildings on the project site were not considered to be potentially historic. The potentially historic houses are listed below. 6235 Monterey Street. A small simple Queen Anne Victorian house with a water tower is located at his address. The estimated date of construction is between 1880 and 1910. The house has a bay window with gable, featuring some ornamental detailing. The roof is pyramidal- hipped with a lower cross gable over the bay window. There is an early addition to the back of the house. 6065 Monterey Frontage Road. A small simple Queen Anne Victorian house with a water tower and garage is located at this address. It is estimated to date from between 1880 and 1910. The house has a bay window with some ornamental detailing and twin side - gabled windows. The house has a hipped roof. The original wood siding has been replaced with stucco. The garage appears to have been built later. 2-40 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures 5985 Monterey Frontage Road. A Craftsmen house with a garage and other out buildings is located at this address. The house is estimated to have been built between 1905 and 1930. The house has a side - gabled roof and stucco exterior walls. The porch features stucco pillars and a decorative geometric railing. 5885 Monterey Frontage Road. Several structures are located at this address. A Craftsmen house with a hipped roof is estimated to date from 1905 to 1930. The house has shiplap siding and a partially enclosed porch. Another house and out buildings at this address did not appear to have potential historic significance. Prehistoric Resources The surface reconnaissance was conducted by a field archaeologist. No prehistoric cultural resources were observed. While no reported or recorded prehistoric archaeological sites were found on the project site, two such sites were found to be located within one half mile of the project site. These consist of shells, mortars and other related artifacts, and are currently buried. Project Analysis Construction of the proposed residential and commercial development would involve the use of heavy equipment for grading, trenching and construction activities. It is possible that buried prehistoric or historic cultural resources would be discovered during these activities. It is probable that future development plans would include the removal of the potentially historic houses located along the eastern edge of the project site. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: •. cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5; • cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5; • directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; and /or • disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-41 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98-o3 Subsequent EIR Potentially Significant Impact— Historic Houses. Background research and a field reconnaissance conducted by Archaeological Resource Management in December 1999 indicates that the project site contains four potentially historic houses. These houses are likely to be removed to accommodate future development on the project site. The houses may also have significant buried historic resources associated with them. Loss or disturbance of these houses and any associated historic resources is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 9. Prior to removal of any of the potentially historic houses on the project site an historical evaluation shall be completed. The historic evaluation shall include an architectural description of the structure, an historic background for the property and the completion of an appropriate State Department of Parks and Recreation form with photographic documentation. Potentially Significant Impact — Buried Cultural Resources Background research and a field reconnaissance conducted by Archaeological Resource Management indicates that the project area may contain buried and unknown significant cultural resources. The Santa Clara Valley is known to be rich in buried prehistoric resources, especially the alluvial soils found near waterways. Therefore, due to the proposed project's location in a creek -side environment and the presence of a recorded historic resource directly adjacent to the trail extension, there is an elevated chance that currently unidentified buried cultural resources may be found during construction on the project site. Disturbance of prehistoric or historic cultural resources would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 10. The developers for any portion of the project site shall contract with a qualified archaeologist to arrange a schedule for monitoring during grading and excavation activities due to the project site's creek -side location and proximity to recorded historic and prehistoric sites. 11. Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be found during construction the following language shall be included any permits issued for the project site, including, but not limited to building permits for future development, subject to the review and approval of the Gilroy Planning Division: If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted at a minimum of 200 feet from the find and the area shall be staked off. The project developer shall notify a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. 2-42 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR' Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures 12. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that this language is included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e): If human remains are found during 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 from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent 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. 2.6 Geology Environmental Setting Regional Seismicity The project site is located within the seismically- active Santa Clara Valley. The project site is located approximately four miles southwest of the Calaveras fault, three miles northeast of the Sargent fault, and seven miles northeast of the San Andreas fault. These three faults are active and considered capable of producing severe ground shaking events. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -43 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Maximum earthquakes capable of occurring under existing known geologic conditions are 8.5 on the Richter scale for the San Andreas fault, 7.5 for the Calaveras fault, and 7.0 for the Sargent fault. It is estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 8.5 on the San Andreas fault has a recurrence interval of 100 to 1,000 years, although it is unknown when the last magnitude 8.5 earthquake occurred on the San Andreas fault. Similarly, a lesser recurrence interval would exist for an earthquake of smaller magnitude. The Loma Prieta earthquake, which occurred on October 17,1989, measured 7.1 on the Richter scale and was centered approximately 18 miles northwest Gilroy. The earthquake caused moderate to severe damage to structures in the City of Gilroy. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) the project site would experience "moderately high" shaking amplification in the event of a major earthquake (ABAG 1995). Soils Characteristics The project site is composed primarily of Yolo loam and Yolo silty clay loam. A small portion of the project site (within the Uvas Creek channel) is Riverwash. The majority of the project site is Yolo loam, extending from Uvas Creek to near the eastern edge of the project site at the north and all the way to Monterey Frontage Road at the south. This soil is found on alluvial plains and fans. The capability rating of the soil is I -1, indicating that it has very few limitations that restrict its use. The soil has a moderate shrink -swell potential and low corrosivity to un- coated steel. The Santa Clara County Relative Seismic Stability Map designates this portion of the project site E -1, meaning that it has a moderate potential for liquefaction. The eastern edge of the project site is Yofo silty clay loam, encompassing a narrow area of the proposed residential area and most of the proposed commercial area north of the park access road. This soil is found on alluvial plains and fans. The capability rating of the soil is I -1, indicating that it has very few limitations that restrict its use. The soil has a moderate shrink -swell potential and low corrosivity to un- coated steel. The Santa Clara County Relative Seismic Stability Map designates this portion of the project site F -1, meaning that it has a low potential for liquefaction. Project Analysis Based on historic records and on the known seismicity of the area, it is likely that the project site will experience an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or greater within the next 50 years, as well as numerous smaller earthquakes, all generated within 20 miles of the project site. In the event of a strong earthquake centered along any of the nearby faults, ground shaking at the site will likely be moderate to high. Residential and commercial buildings would be constructed on the project site. As a condition of the building permit all buildings would be required to be built to the 2-44 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures standards of the most currentedition of the Uniform Building Code. Buildings built in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and current engineering standards should substantially resist damage from most earthquakes and minimize death or injury to occupants. The project site is level and the soils on the project site do not limit its potential for the construction of buildings. The project site has moderate shrink -swell potential and low to moderate liquefaction potential. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 0 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; 0 strong seismic ground shaking; 0 seismic - related ground failure including liquefaction; or 0 landslides; • result in a substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; • be located on an expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Less Than Significant Impact — Seismic Hazards. The proposed project presents a small risk of exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic hazards. This risk is associated with all potential structures on the project site. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan Policy 25 -03 requires appropriate studies for all developments to assess potential hazards and assure that they are adequately mitigated. Additionally all structures would be built to the standards of the latest version of the Uniform Building Code, and to current engineering standards. Therefore the proposed project would have a less'than significant impact in terms of geologic hazards, and no mitigation measures are necessary. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -45 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding Environmental Setting A hydrology and drainage report was conducted for substantially the same project site in January 1993 by Cregan and D'angelo. Background information on the Uvas Creek watershed is contained in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers feasibility study of the Uvas Creek levee (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981). A hydrology study was conducted for the approved sports park by Schaaf and Wheeler in May 1999. This section is based on information contained in those reports. These three documents are available for review at the City of Gilroy Planning Division office. Water supply and demand are discussed in Section 2.12 Water Supply. Regional Setting Uvas Creek is part of the Uvas - Camadero Creek drainage basin, which includes the major tributaries of Little Uvas Creek, Little Arthur Creek and Bodfish Creek: The drainage encompasses approximately 90 square miles. Uvas Dam, constructed in 1958, is approximately 11 miles upstream of the project site. Little Uvas Creek feeds the Uvas Reservoir, which is impounded behind the dam. A levee on the north and east of Uvas Creek was built in 1991, and extends approximately 5,600 feet, including approximately 1,800 feet on the project site. Downstream of U.S. Highway 101 (and approximately three- quarters of a mile south of the project site) Uvas Creek becomes known as Camadero Creek, until it flows into the Pajaro River. The Pajaro River flows into Monterey Bay near Watsonville. The width of the Uvas Creek channel varies widely, from four feet wide to over 600 feet wide. In the vicinity of the project site the channel is approximately 100 -to 150 feet across bank top to bank top, and very deep. Major streams subject to flooding in southern Santa Clara County are the Pajaro River, Llagas Creek, Uvas Creek and their tributaries. A one - percent flood in southern Santa Clara County would inundate approximately 14,800 acres (County of Santa Clara 1986). The greatest recorded flood on Uvas Creek occurred in 1986. The estimated peak flow rate for that event was 14,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), even with the attenuating effects of Uvas Dam. Storm Water Run -off and Flooding In undeveloped areas, a large proportion of rainfall is absorbed into the soil before storm water begins to run off into streams. The percentage of storm water that percolates into the soil depends on a number of factors including slope, soil cover (e.g., vegetation) soil type, existing level of saturation and intensity of rainfall. Developed areas contain many surfaces, such as streets and buildings that are impervious to water. When rainfall lands on these surfaces, it drains on the surface and eventually into a drainage pipe or watercourse. Essentially none of the storm water that hits impervious surfaces is absorbed into the surfaces on which it falls. 2-46 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures The difference in run -off between pervious and impervious surfaces varies depending on conditions. Those factors noted above that influence percolation into pervious surfaces affect the relative run -off rates between pervious and impervious surfaces. Under low rainfall conditions, or if the soil is not saturated, a very high proportion of rainfall infiltrates a pervious surface and there is very little surface run -off. As the soil becomes saturated or the rainfall intensifies, a higher proportion of the water runs off from pervious surfaces and the difference between run -off from pervious and impervious surfaces can become quite small. Water flows are not constant along the length of a stream. Following major rainfall, the water level will peak at some point along the stream and the peak flow will move downstream. Flooding occurs when the flow rate exceeds the capacity of the watercourse. The timing of storm water run -off is critical to the effect it will have on flood levels. Storm water that runs off into a watercourse while flood level flows are passing will contribute to flooding. Water that flows into a watercourse outside of flood stage flows, either before or after flood flows pass, will generally not contribute to the flooding. Project Site Setting The project site is currently undeveloped farmland with a general slope away from Uvas Creek towards Monterey Street. The project site is situated on an alluvial fan or cone. Uvas Creek has cut a "perched" channel through the alluvial cone. The remaining parts of the alluvial fan have retained their natural slope, resulting in the situation on the project site of land sloping away from rather than towards the creek. Storm water flows across the surface of the project site. Run -off that drains off the project site flows to Monterey Street and via a storm drain into Uvas Creek near U.S. Highway 101. With implementation of the sports park project, approximately half of the project site will be drained by a system of storm drains. Most of the sports park drainage will flow into a new outfall to Uvas Creek at the southeast comer of the project site. The sports park access road drainage will flow out to Monterey Street. The sports park drainage system is designed to drain ten -year storm waters from the site. The sports park has been designed to accommodate flooding from greater than ten -year storms. The parking areas at the sports park will generally be lower than the existing grade to act as ponding areas during floods. Ponding in the paved parking areas will allow for silt that settles out of the floodwaters to be easily removed after the water has drained away. The parking areas are designed to retain floodwater in ten -year or larger storm events. After grading for the sports park is completed, 100 -year flood levels at surrounding parcels will be equal to or lower than current levels. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood - control levee adjacent to a portion of the project site in 1990. The levee runs along the eastern side of Uvas Creek south from West Luchessa Avenue for approximately 1,800 feet. This levee protects the northern portion of the project site, as well as residential areas to the north of the project site from flooding during 100 -year floods. The Santa Clara EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-47 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subseauent EIR Vall ey Water District ( SCVWD) has jurisdiction over Uvas Creek and owns the levee on the east of Uvas Creek. SCVWD holds a flood flowage easement that restricts land use and development on a large portion of the sports park site and a small portion of the areas proposed for RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES general plan designations. The flood flowage easement encompasses land that was calculated to suffer induced flooding due to the construction of the Uvas Creek levee, that is, flooding to a greater extent than would have been expected prior to the construction of the levee. Approximately 49 acres of the project site are within the flowage easement. Most of this area is within the sports park site. Approximately one -half acre each'of the residential and commercial areas are within the flood flowage easement. Uses within the flowage easement are restricted to open space uses that will not inhibit the flow of floodwaters across the land. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimated 100 -year flow rate for Uvas Creek is 14,000 cfs upstream of West Luchessa Avenue, and 8,300 cfs at U.S. Highway 101. Downstream of the levee, approximately 1,740 cfs would overflow Uvas Creek in a southeasterly direction into the project site during a 100 - year flood flow. Near the southeast corner of the sports park site, 2,900 cfs would overflow in a northeasterly direction onto the project site during a 100 -year flood flow (Schaaf and Wheeler 1999). Most of the project site is within a FEMA- designated flood zone (FEMA 1998). Only the southern -most portions of the sports park are located outside of a FEMA- designated flood zone, and classified as Zone C by FEMA. Approximately 18 acres of land in the northern portion of the project site is classified by FEMA as Zone X. Areas that are subject to flooding less than one foot in depth by 100 -year floods, or are protected by a levee from 100 -year floods, or are subject to flooding by a 500 -year flood are classified by FEMA as Zone X. A 500 -year flood is defined as a flood that has a two-tenths of a percent chance of occurring in a given year or once on average in 500 years. Zone X areas can be developed with permanent structures subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy. The Zone X flood area on the project site includes most of the area designated RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The remainder of the project site is classified by FEMA as Zone A. Areas subject to 100 -year flooding are classified by FEMA as Zone A. 100 -year floods or "one- percent floods" are defined as floods that have a one percent chance of occurring in a given year, or once on average in 100 years. Areas outside the flowage easement but within the 100 -year flood zone are subject to restrictions as outlined in the City of Gilroy Floodplain Ordinance. Permanent structures in these areas must have their lowest floor elevation at least one foot above the 100 -year flood elevation as indicated on the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps. In addition to most of the sports park, the Zone A areas encompass the areas designated COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES and the eastern -most portion of the area designated RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. FEMA flood zone designations on the project site are illustrated in Figure 17. 2-48 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures The sports park hydrology study prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler in May 1999 encompassed all but the northern -most portions of the project site. It used more detailed topography than the studies used in preparation of the FEMA maps and because of this shows levels of flooding different from those of the FEMA maps. Most of the proposed residential area is located outside the 100 -year flood zone. The southeastern corner of the proposed residential area is within the 100 -year flood zone. Most of the proposed commercial area is within a 25 -year flood zone, with 25- year flood levels estimated to be below one foot. 50 -year flood levels may exceed one foot in places and 100 -year flood levels could be as high as three and one -half feet. The Gilroy Sports Park Hydrology Study final sports park hydrology model flood levels are illustrated in Figure 18. Storm Water Quality A variety of contaminants are common to urban area storm water and irrigation run -off. These contaminants include coliform bacteria, sediment, organic chemicals, nutrients and pesticides from landscaping and athletic fields, and fuel constituents, heavy metals, oil and grease from automobiles,'roads and parking areas. Water quality degradation is regulated by the Federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Program, which was established by the Clean Water Act. The NPDES controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and non -point discharges. In California, the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards ( RWQCB) administer the NPDES Program. The Central Coast RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits for discharges to water bodies in the portion of Santa Clara County that drains to the Monterey Bay. Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a notice of intent to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activities. The applicant must propose control measures that are consistent with the State NPDES General Construction Permit and consistent with recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. The State NPDES General Construction Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that uses storm water 'Best Management Practices" to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from the site both during and after construction. The SWPPP has two major objectives: (1) to help identify the sources of sediments and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges; and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of practices to reduce sediment and other pollutants in storm water discharges. The SCVWD also requires a project review and permit for any construction that takes place within 50 feet of any watercourse within its boundaries. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -49 Setting, Impacts £r Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The SCVWD encourages projects that may potentially effect water quality to conform with the principles and practices outlined in a pair of water quality manuals: "Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection, prepared by the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association and 'Parking Lot Best Management Practices Manual," prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Run -off Pollution Prevention Program. These manuals address post - construction water quality protection through the incorporation of appropriate project design and best management practices. Project Analysis Storm Water Run -off The proposed project would include landscaped areas, access roads, parking lots, pathways and structures. Storm water run -off from these impervious surfaces may increase the rate of storm water discharge to Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River watershed from the project site. The increase in storm water run -off is generally greatest for small rainfall events. During small rainfall events the rainfall has the greatest potential for surface storage and infiltration into the soil. With pervious surfaces this potential is high, while with impervious surfaces this potential is low. For individual sites, the peak run -off may also be increased by the construction of a storm drain system, which reduces the time for flow to discharge to the creek or stream. For large flood events, the potential increase in run -off due to impervious surface area is generally much smaller. The surface storage and soil infiltration capacity are filled early in large storms and the soil is generally saturated at the time of the peak rainfall. Therefore run -off is relatively equal during most of a large storm event regardless of the permeability of the surface. For large watersheds such as Uvas Creek, the peak flood flow generally occurs hours after the peak rainfall. For Uvas Creek, the downstream channel generally has capacity for low flows up to approximately the 10 -year flood event. Therefore, increased flooding from small storm events would not occur. For larger flood events, greater than the 10 -year flood, the potential change in project site run -off would be relatively small and would not have a significant effect on the peak flood flow rates and flooding from Uvas Creek. On -site Flood Water Flowage The SCVWD flood flowage easement imposes use restrictions on most of the sports park site and a portion of two other parcels on the project site. The flood flowage easement restricts usage of the sports park site during winter months, particularly during potential flood conditions. The sports park was designed to accommodate flood flows. 2 -50 EMC Planning Group Inc. pi BIUIDf; LAS ANIMAS RANCHO PARTITION is c Kf r`o`':i � 11.66 AC. NET w \y ikl. S T, to d, •f \, A a j 11 20XTA C. )lET/ 0, N ZONE >X •LAL ....uwn ROAD O Y) ta.xc A< 0'uN.) -0� PTN. 6 i�1 7.42 AC V\ p 0 l "i �.1 E6VT 4.TO a NET I .. •' .._...........tea. D•__.. _ Jt!/ FLOOD FLOWAGE EASEMENT 1/ (CITY OF GILR.A -v% ' 4 ZONE A Off zz Sk NET 13 ?. ZONE C P \' ,�,r:. `'.3? • pY / � :.:, -..� fir• -.c:M .:�ais'' .pa`;�ws":4$r'�� x95 �� �� Ih *1 fpRNpN -vim1A vi•v?': 'ry 3421 AC. TOTAL •.}�•�j) \ ' _ 22 PiM. 11CM, MT 11 � Source: FEMA 1996 Flood Rate Insurance Map and 2vlC Planning Group Inc Scale: 111 = 400' WARM Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning FEMA Flood Zone Designations 17 and Design Firm Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -o3 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2-52 EMC Planning Group Inc. =r •3ui dnos f) 8uluuvid Z) M3 PS -Z '4uvlq gal fiIlmollualus apls slia ?II3luan asgnS £0 -86 tuasupuauiV dSn fiotpq sainsvaN not ;v t;}N f3 spv utl' u:}laS Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts £a Mitigation Measures Small portions of the proposed residential area, and proposed commercial area fall within the flood flowage easement. The area of proposed residential development that is within the flood flowage easement is located in FEMA Zone X, in which a building is normally permitted with minimal fiood precautions. The proposed commercial development that is within the flood flowage easement is located in FEMA Zone A, in which the lowest floor is normally required to be one foot above the 100 -year flood elevation as indicated on the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps. No structures or other features that would block or alter the flood flow would be allowed in this flood flowage easement area. The conceptual residential plan indicates a park and private front yards within the easement. The southeastern most corner of the proposed residential area is within the 100 -year flood zone. Depths of flooding in this area are less than one foot and site grading or filling would be necessary in this area. Most of the proposed commercial area is within a 25 -year flood zone, and is subject to flooding of between one and three and one -half feet during 100 -year floods. Portions of the proposed commercial area could be built up to elevations higher than the 100 -year flood level, however, it is not feasible to raise a substantial portion of the proposed commercial area due to the need to retain potential floodwaters on -site. A detailed hydrological study would be required to determine that no induced off -site flooding would occur due to grading or construction on the proposed commercial area. Storm Water Quality Urban contaminants from the proposed project could be transported to the drainage system, polluting downstream water systems. The potential for contamination exists during both the construction and operation of the proposed project. Siltation ponds and contaminant filters may be required to prevent urban pollutants from reaching Uvas Creek. Portions of the proposed project would involve grading and paving within the flood flowage easement or within 50 feet of the Uvas Creek levee. SCVWD will review construction plans for any proposed development within the flood flowage easement to assure that proposed development will not have any detrimental effects on watercourses, habitat or animals. A SCVWD permit may be required for some of the construction work at the project site. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river; EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -55 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilro USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR • substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -site or off -site; • create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or • place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Less Than Significant Impact — Increased Flood Flows in Uvas Creek. The proposed project would include the construction of access roads, parking lots, pathways and structures, which add new impervious materials to the project site. Stone water run -off from these impervious surfaces could increase the rate of storm water discharge into Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River drainage. However, during flood conditions it is likely that the increase in run -off due the new impervious surfaces at the project site would be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact —On -Site Flooding. The proposed commercial area and portions of the proposed residential area are within 100 -year flood zones as identified on the FEMA maps. The Gilroy Floodplain Control Ordinance allows development within 100 -year floodplains provided certain measures are taken to prevent potential damage from flooding: Portions of the commercial area are within a 25 -year flood zone based on a hydrology study conducted for the sports park. Development within these areas prone to flooding presents potential risks to health and safety of people and damage to buildings and property. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 13. Any applicant for development within FEMA - delineated 100 -year flood zones on the project site shall have a hydrology report prepared for that development by a qualified hydrologist or engineer, to specify hydrology- related design requirements for the site and buildings, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and SCVWD prior to issuance of a building permit. The hydrology report shall address the following requirements: Site plans and building designs shall comply with the City of Gilroy Flood Plain Control Ordinance. Development on the project site shall not impede the flow of floodwaters. 2 -56 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Procedures shall be developed and site plans designed that will assure that any materials, supplies or goods used, stored or hold for sale at the proposed use that may present health hazards or risks of water contamination during flood conditions are securely kept at least one foot above the 100 -year flood level. Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in floodwater levels off the project site. Calculations for both the 25 -year and 100 -year flood events shall be submitted in support of these requirements. All grading, design or other recommendations of the hydrology report shall be incorporated into project plans. Potentially Significant Secondary. Impact- Off -Site Flooding. The proposed commercial area and portions of the proposed residential area are within 100 -year flood zones as identified on the FEMA maps. The Gilroy Floodplain Ordinance allows development within 100 -year floodplains provided certain conditions are met, including elevating the first floor elevations to at least one foot above the 100 - year flood elevation. Construction within the floodplain could potentially result in diversion of floodwaters and increases in flood levels off the project site. This would be a significant environmental impact. Implementation of a mitigation measure presented earlier that would require project- specific hydrology studies when specific development proposals are submitted would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impact -Flood Flowage Easement. SCVWD holds a flood flowage easement that restricts land use and development on a large portion of the project site.' Inappropriate development within this easement could put structures at risk of damage and people at risk of injury or death from storm- related flooding. Structures within the flood flowage easement could impede the flow of floodwaters and result in additional flooding in adjacent areas. The flood flowage easement is contained almost entirely within the sports park site. Drainage plans and site design for the approved sports park have accounted for flood flows within this easement. Portions of the proposed residential and commercial areas are within the flood flowage easement. Construction in this area may have impacts on the flow of floodwaters that could potentially have impacts both on- and off -site. Implementation of a mitigation measure presented earlier that would require project - specific hydrology studies when specific development proposals are submitted would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Significant Impact- Surface Water Quality During Construction. During construction, grading would expose sediments to rain or wind erosion and subsequent transportation of sediments to the Uvas Creek, Pajaro River and Monterey Bay. The silt load that could be generated could degrade the quality of EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -57 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subseauent EIR water in the Uvas Creek, Pajaro River and Monterey Bay by transporting other pollutants adhered to sediments, obstructing natural flow patterns at the points of sediment deposition, or adversely affecting biological resources. Materials used and wastes generated during construction would degrade wafer quality also. Wastes generated commonly include wash water from concrete mixers, paints and painting equipment cleaning activities, oil, grease and fuel constituents from vehicle use, storage and maintenance, solid wastes from tree and shrub removal during land clearing, and wood and paper materials from packaging of building products. Development of the project site would increase the amount of runoff from the site under some weather conditions by adding new impervious surfaces and would generate non -point source pollutants from newly established urban activity at the project site. The runoff would contain pollutants typical of urban activity, such as oil and grease, fuel constituents, heavy metals, organic chemicals, bacteria, and sediments. These pollutants would degrade the quality of the surface waters in Uvas Creek, Pajaro River and Monterey Bay. Introduction of pollutants into a watercourse is a significant environmental impact. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, water quality degradation would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 14. The project applicant for any proposed development, shall, for each phase of the development, submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and detailed engineering designs to the Central Coast RWQCB. This, permit shall require development and implementation of a SWPPP that uses storm water "Best Management Practices" to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from the site. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices that address source reduction and, if necessary, shall include practices that require treatment. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of Gilroy Engineering Division for review and approval prior to approval of a building permit for each phase of the project. 15. The project applicant for any proposed development within 50 feet of a waterway or flood flowage easement shall submit plans for review by, and obtain an approved permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) prior to approval of a building permit for each phase of the project. Potentially Significant Impact— Surface Water Quality During Operation. A variety of contaminants are common to urban area storm water and irrigation run- off. These contaminants include colifonn bacteria, sediment, organic chemicals, nutrients and pesticides from landscaping and athletic fields, and fuel constituents, heavy metals, oil and grease from automobiles, roads and parking areas. The proposed project will introduce new urban pollutants to the project site and this 2 -58 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures could potentially result in the pollution of Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River. These contaminants could be transported to the drainage system, polluting downstream water systems. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. 16. Project plans for any development proposed for the project site, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division shall include a sedimentation basin adequate for filtering out heavy storm water contaminants such as silt, and grease traps suitable for filtering out other urban pollutants to the extent feasible. Additional measures as presented in "Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection," prepared by the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association and 'Parking Lot Best Management Practices Manual," prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Run -off Pollution Prevention Program may be required for specific projects. Any physical water quality safeguards shall be installed prior to occupancy of the proposed development, and any best management practices plan must be implemented upon occupancy. 2.8 Noise Environmental Setting A noise study was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. in November 1998. Additional analysis addressing the proposed residential and commercial areas was prepared in December 1999. Both reports are available for review at the City of Gilroy Community Development Department. The reports address noise impacts on the project site from surrounding sources and potential noise impacts on surrounding areas from activities at the proposed sports park. The following discussion is based on the reports. Noise Measurement and Standards The noise study measured noise levels in dBDNL, a measurement method that accounts for increased sensitivity to sound at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) by adding a ten - decibel penalty to nighttime noise levels. Noise standards presented in the City of Gilroy General Plan are expressed in LDN, which is equivalent to dBDNL' Outdoor noise standards for the City of Gilroy are included in the City of Gilroy General PIan noise element. According to these standards, outdoor noise levels should not exceed 60 dBDNL for residential uses, 65dBDNL for commercial uses and 76 dBDNL for industrial uses. The. noise level at residences should not exceed 60 dBDNL, as measured 15 feet outside the rear -most household wall, 20 feet outside the front -most household wall, six feet outside the side -most household wall and ten feet outside the side -most household wall facing a street. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets a maximum interior noise level of 45 dB. Typical residential construction reduces interior noise levels to approximately 15 decibels less than outdoor levels. EMC Planning Group Inc. Setting, lmpacts &Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 9803 Subsequent EIR Existing Noise Levels Existing noise levels at the project site are primarily from traffic on adjacent roads. Principal noise sources identified in the noise study were U.S. Highway 101, Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. Additional noise sources include semi - trucks, barking dogs and general household activity from farm residences along Monterey Frontage Road and Farman Lane. New noise sources will come into existence with the development of the sports park. Existing noise levels were measured at two locations, using continuous recordings over two separate 24 -hour periods from October 29 to October 31, 1998. The noise study found an existing noise level 63 dBDNL at the intersection of Monterey Frontage Road and the sports park access road. Noise levels along the remainder of Monterey Frontage Road can be assumed to be similar. At the sports park site boundary with the proposed commercial area (420 feet east of the centerline) the existing noise level is 52 dBD„L. Noise levels are of course higher near the noise source and lower farther from the noise source. Project Analysis Ambient Noise Effects on Residential and Commercial Uses The noise study bases its project impacts analysis on projected noise levels at project build -out in 2020. Project traffic study projections for 2020 were used to estimate future noise levels from traffic on Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. The noise study concludes that noise increases on these streets will be approximately 0.4 dB and 0.2 dB respectively. Future noise levels from traffic on U.S. Highway 101 were based on estimates made for the update of the Santa Clara County General Plan in 1994. Noise generated by traffic on U.S. Highway 101 was estimated to increase by approximately 3 dB by 2020. The ambient noise level in 2020 is projected to be approximately 56 dBADNL at the sports park site boundary with the proposed commercial area (420 feet east of the centerline). This level is well within the standards of the City of Gilroy General Plan for all land uses. The ambient noise level in 2020 at the entry point to the sports park access road is projected to be approximately 67 dBADNL. It can be assumed that the noise level would be similar along all of Monterey Frontage Road and Monterey Road. With build -out of the general plan, West Luchessa Avenue would be a six- lane arterial adjacent to the project site. Noise levels along this portion of West Luchessa Avenue could be expected to be similar to those projected for the Monterey Road and Monterey Frontage Road areas of the project site. These noise levels exceed the city standards for both residential and commercial uses, though at locations somewhat farther from the roads, the noise levels may be within the standards for commercial uses. 2 -60 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures ' Long -term Sports Park Noise Effects on Residential and Commercial Uses Access Road Noise. The sports park site is accessed from Monterey Frontage Road ' by a 600 foot long access road, designed to carry two lanes of traffic into and one lane of traffic out of the sports park. The average weekend traffic along the access road at sports park build -out is projected to be 5,700 trips. Assuming an average ' speed of 25 miles per hour, the 60 dBAD x contour would be approximately 40 feet from the access road centerline. Noise levels would be within the City standard of 65 dBADNL for commercial areas. No residential development would be located near the access road. Therefore there would be no significant noise impacts from access ' road traffic. Athletic Events Noise. Since the sports park is not yet built, noise levels from athletic events is based on previous acoustical studies of athletic event sound levels. These sound levels include noise from athletic activity, crowds and public address systems. Table 6 lists typical noise levels from the types of athletic events expected to be held at the proposed sports park. r� TABLE 6 Athletic Event Noise Exposure Event Type dBADNL Distance from Source Youth Soccer 51 260 feet Youth Baseball 51 260 feet Adult Softball 50 260 feet Roller Skating 55 60 feet Note: Source locations are at the center of the soccer field and roller skating area, and home plate on the baseball and softball fields. Source: Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. For purposes of projecting maximum future noise exposure from the proposed sports park, the noise study analyzed four different athletic event scenarios. The worst case scenario involved all 13 baseball fields running competitions simultaneously from 9:00 AM until 10:00 PM. Games were analyzed as lasting last one hour each with a 15- minute break between games. Both skating areas were assumed to be in continuous use from 10:00 AM until 6:00 PM under this scenario. Other sports park uses are of low intensity and would not contribute significantly to the overall noise levels at the proposed sports park. These activities, which include bocci ball, volleyball, horseshoes and a playground, were omitted from the noise study scenarios. EMC Planning Group Iuc• 2 -61 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Projected noise exposure levels were calculated for four different locations (three commercial and one residential). These locations are illustrated in Figure 19. The noise exposure at each of these locations under each scenario is summarized in Table 7. As presented in the Table, the sports park generated noise exposure will comply with City standards at the proposed commercial uses. The sports park - generated noise will exceed City standards at the proposed residential area north of the sports park under the scenarios involving constant baseball and softball playing. TABLE 7 Projected Noise Exposure from Athletic Events, (dBApNd Scenario Commercial A Commercial B Commercial C Residential 1. Soccer 53 53 52 60 2. Soccer and Skating 54 54 53 60 3. Baseball 56 56 55 63 14. Baseball and Skating 57 56 1 55 1 63 Source: Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Short -term Sports Park Noise Effects on Residential and Commercial Uses In addition to the noise exposure evaluations against the standards of the City of Gilroy Noise Element, a review of potential short -term noise impacts was evaluated. Experience with sports parks and baseball fields has revealed that residents may be easily annoyed by spectator shouting and public address system announcements, regardless of the total averaged noise exposure that is generated. Should the sports park be constructed after the homes are built and occupied, the potential for . annoyance is increased, as the residents become accustomed to the existing undeveloped environment. Short -term noise is defined as the noise levels that occur over a period of approximately one hour or less. The noise level perceived over a one hour period can be averaged, which is defined by the continuous equivalent - energy level of Leg. The maximum sound level over any given period of time is defined by the L. descriptor, which is a one second rms value of the peak noise level, and is the highest level one would perceive at any given time. During a typical sports event, the L. level will be approximately 22 dB higher than the hourly Lq. 2 -62 EMC Planning Group Inc. I, 1 Y p•I OI COYY CLLI/ _ w � aa.wJ 6 ,_ LYCHE65P 1 THOMAS < I ROAD , < 4°- c P •C�S� .3 Q if f L 1, 11 66 AC NET __ _ __-` °f— ^n6 r1 - _— _— ______ i. 4 Is 05 C. 119T ip' 'I !' O PIN, 6 < a In f < � O 10 . -11 14 21A q1;b d! +. ,i 1 r.<x w< A A 1 A = � 1T N "PIN. t L.... 5..� _� /�/�' \'��'! kk �, • �{ _ _ a�YNw xO Or AC. �ET .�. /.i�N -.,.. � E ivMiMNow�I; 7 R 1 = 6.20 AC NEI PM T% Po I �� -0� •Y_� �._TJ - .....- �..,..l \t. O}1 PL HET!!J C q,E 15 ' _ I '! •-ems .�.A • 1..... VpPMP O10 xl Pf, f(ITAI l �\ Locations for which noise exposure calculations were made are labeled A, B, C and D. 24 -hour existing noise recordings were made at locations labeled 1 and 2. 3 LU W 851 W e \1 z, 0 to p' U1 101 i 1 1` �I Source: Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Scale: 111 = 400/ Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Noise Exposure Study Figure A Land Use Planning " and Design Firm Locations 19 •aul dno.i f) Suluuvld :)Ng 'xuvlq Ifal fiIlvuotlualul apls SYLL 69-Z H1214uan asgnS £0-86 3uampuauiV VSIl ho.111D satnsvapv uo = ;n tjjN g s4ov rui ' usl4aS Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures The City of Gilroy has no standards for the limitation of short -term noise impacts, thus, the evaluations made in this study were derived from studies of typical. residential areas adjacent to similar type parks and ball fields in the South Bay Area. Baseball games are expected to generate hourly average noise levels of 68 dBA Leq, with maximum noise levels up to 80 dBA at the most impacted locations. Typical suburban residential areas have background noise levels of 50 -55 dBA during the daytime. Thus, a project - generated noise level of 55 dBA Leq would be the optimum feasible and a level of 60 dBA L1q would be barely allowable within standards. Reducing maximum noise levels to below 70 dBA would also be optimal while maximum noise levels below 75 dBA would be considered acceptable. Construction Noise Impacts Short -term noise could occur from construction of the uses proposed or approved for the project site. Construction equipment typically generates noise levels in the range of 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Existing residences to the north of West Luchessa Avenue, the four existing residences on the project site (which would be removed for commercial development at some point), and not - yet -built project site development could all experience construction noise effects as different portions of the project site are constructed. Residences near roads adjacent to the project site could be subjected to excessive noise from trucks hauling materials and equipment to the project site. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G states that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels; or • result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; Unavoidable Significant Impact— Long -Term and Short -term Noise from Sports Park Activities. Activities at the approved, but not yet constructed sports park, including athletic events and traffic entering and exiting the project site would generate long -term noise. The noise generated by these activities would be up to 63 dBADNL, thereby exceeding acceptable City standards (60 dBADNL) at the proposed residential area north of the sports park. These noise levels would be within City standards (65 dBADNL) for the commercial areas. In addition, activities at the EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -65 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR approved, but not yet constructed sports park, including spectator shouting and public address system announcements, would generate short -term, annoyance noise at the residential area. The short -term noise generated by these activities would be up to 80 dBA. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce both long -term and short -term operational noise impacts to a less than significant level. To reduce the long -term noise to a less than significant level, a six-foot tall acoustically effective barrier would be required along the northern boundary of the sports park site. To reduce flanking noise, the barrier would continue along the east boundary of the residential area for a distance of 100 feet. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest ball field elevation at the foot of the bleachers. This barrier would reduce the noise level to 60 dBApNL at the nearest residences. To reduce short -term noise impacts to a less than significant level an 11 -foot tall acoustically effective barrier would be required along the northern boundary of the sports park site. To reduce flanking noise, the barrier would continue along the east property line of the residential project for a distance of 100 feet, diminishing in height to six feet at its terminus. This barrier would reduce noise levels at the nearest residences to 55 dBADNL• To achieve an acoustically- effective barrier, the barrier would need to be made air- tight, i.e. without cracks, gaps, or other openings and would need to provide for long -term durability. The barriers could be constructed of wood, concrete, stucco, masonry, earth berm or a combination thereof. All joints, including connections with posts or pilasters would need to be sealed air -tight and no openings would be permitted between the upper barrier components and the ground. Implementation of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level would not be feasible. The location of the barrier is partly within the SCVWD flood flowage easement. Placement of the barrier would potentially impede the flow of floodwaters and could result in increased flooding impacts in other areas. This would be a significant adverse secondary environmental impact. Therefore, sports park noise impacts on the proposed residential area would be an unavoidable significant impact. Unavoidable Significant Impact— Exterior Traffic Noise at Residential Areas along Monterey Street. At General Plan build -out, noise levels from traffic on Monterey Street would exceed City standards at adjacent proposed residential areas. Noise exceeding City noise standards would be a significant adverse environmental impact. However, this portion of the project site is located within a flood zone, and a sound attenuation barrier would not be feasible if the barrier were to interfere with flood flows or affect off -site flood levels. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.7 Hydrology requires a hydrology study to determine requirements for development of the portion of the proposed residential area that is within the 100 - year flood zone, which includes the area nearest to Monterey Road. The hydrology study may indicate that a sound attenuation barrier in this location would result in flood impacts. This would make a sound attenuation barrier infeasible in this location. Additionally, a noise barrier would place a visually obtrusive element 2 -66 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts £r Mitigation Measures along southern Monterey Street, a principal gateway designated 'in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. This would result in a secondary visual impact. Because of the potential for secondary impact to hydrology and aesthetics, exterior noise levels in excess of City standards in this location would be an unavoidable significant impact. Unavoidable Significant Impact— Exterior Traffic Noise at Residential Areas along West Luchessa Avenue. At General Plan build -out, noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street. The actual noise levels experienced at the residential area would depend on actual future traffic volumes and the lot configuration of the residential area. Noise exceeding City noise standards would be a significant adverse environmental impact. A sound attenuation barrier would be required to reduce the level of noise to within City standards. Because of unknown variables, the exact requirements for mitigation of the noise impact cannot be determined at this time. It is probable that reducing noise to an acceptable level would require a sound attenuation barrier that is taller than would be considered aesthetically acceptable by the City. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact, but because the height of the attenuation barrier would be limited, the impact would probably not be reduced to a less than significant level. The impact would be an unavoidable significant impact. 17. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Community Development Department, the applicant for any residential development on the project site along West Luchessa Avenue shall construct a sound attenuation barrier eight feet in height when measured from the near curb of West Luchessa Avenue. The barrier shall be completed prior to occupancy of any homes on lots adjacent to West Luchessa Avenue. Potentially Significant Impact— Interior Noise Levels at Residential Areas. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA. Traffic and sports park noise at the proposed residential area would exceed the City standard of 60dBADNI for exterior areas. Typical residential construction provides approximately 15 dB of noise reduction, so interior noise levels would be expected to exceed 45 dBA. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 18. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Building Division, the applicant for any residential development on the project site shall conduct an acoustical study and establish engineering requirements to be included in construction plans to maintain interior noise levels at no greater than 45 dBApr,,c. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -67 Setting, Impacts 6 Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Interior noise attenuation techniques may include forced air ventilation or air conditioning for all habitable rooms with a window facing noise sources, triple -paned windows, sound insulation or other appropriate means that will reduce interior noise levels to no greater than 45 dBAONL. Significant Impact— Short -Term Construction Noise. Construction activities at the project site would result in noise levels that exceed the standards specified in the City of Gilroy General Plan. This would be a significant environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 19. The following language shall be included on any permits issued at the project site, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. "All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and to Saturdays and City holidays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction is allowed on Sundays. In addition, temporary berms or noise attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary." 2.9 Fire Protection Services Environmental Setting The project site is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Fireprotective and emergency medical response services are currently provided by the South Santa Clara County Fire Department ( SSCCFD). SSCCFD stations are located at U.S. Highway 101• and Masten Road, and at State Highway 152 and Burchell Road. The City of Gilroy has an automatic aid agreement with SSCCFD. Under this agreement, the first engine company that is able to reach an emergency responds automatically, and an agency is reimbursed for services provided within another jurisdiction. The City of Gilroy Fire Department is located 1.5 miles from the project site and would currently be the first fire company to respond to the project site. Under existing jurisdictional boundaries, the SSCCFD will continue to serve the Gilroy Sports Park when it is built. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan proposes to maintain or improve the current fire department average response time of five minutes. The City of Gilroy charges a public safety impact fee for new construction. This fee covers the incremental increases in service required for new development. The City of Gilroy is preparing a Fire Services Master Plan that will identify future fire department needs and potential new fire station locations. A new station is expected to be built on Santa Teresa Boulevard south of State Highway 152 (Rodger Maggio, personal communication, January 10, 2000). 2-68 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts &Mitigation Measures Project Analysis If the USA amendment request is approved, the City of Gilroy will assume responsibility for the provision of fire protective services at the approved sports park, as well as for the proposed residential and commercial areas, upon annexation. The City of Gilroy Fire Department would provide fire protective and emergency medical response services to the proposed project. The nearest fire station is located at Chestnut Street and Ninth Street, approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The proposed project would enlarge the geographic range of coverage for the fire department but would not require the addition or enlargement of facilities or the addition of equipment or personnel. The expanded coverage area is adjacent to existing service areas and could be reached from the fire station well within the fire department's emergency response time standard (Rodger Maggio, personal communication, January 10, 2000). Public safety impact fees are expected to cover incremental increases in demand on fire services. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire services. No Impact —Fire Services. The proposed project does not result in the need for additional facilities for the provision of fire protective services, and would not decrease the level of these services provided to any part of the community. The project site could be served within City response time standards without the need for additional facilities. Public safety impact fees paid by developments within the project area are expected to cover incremental increases in demand on fire services. The proposed project would have no physical impact to the environment associated with the provision of fire protective services.. Mitigation measures are not necessary. 2.10 Police Protection Services Environmental Setting The project site is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Police protective services at the project site are currently provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department. Under existing jurisdictional boundaries, the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department would continue to serve the Gilroy Sports Park, when it is built (Captain Lanny Brown, personal communication, January 11, 2000). EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -69 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilro USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The Draft Gilroy 1999 4020 General Plan directs the Police Department to maintain or improve the existing average response time of four and oite -half minutes. The City of Gilroy charges a public safety impact fee for new construction. This fee covers the incremental increases in service required for new development. Project Analysis If the USA amendment request is approved, the City of Gilroy will assume responsibility for the provision of police services at the approved sports park, as well as at the proposed residential and commercial areas, upon annexation. The Gilroy Police Department has a staff of 92 people. Of these, 57 are sworn officers and 35 are non -sworn personnel (Kathy Sakahara, personal communication, December 3, 1998). The police station is located near the corner of Sixth Street and Rossanna Street, approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The City of Gilroy Police Department is staffed on a per capita basis, with a preferred ratio of 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 population (Captain Lanny Brown, personal communication, January 11, 2000). The proposed project will add approximately 500 residents and therefore the required increase in personnel would be of the equivalent of three - quarters of an officer. Existing police facilities would accommodate the required increase in personnel. The proposed project would enlarge the geographic range of coverage for the police department but would not require the addition or enlargement of facilities or the addition of equipment or personnel. The expanded coverage area is adjacent to existing service areas and police would be able to respond within an acceptable period of time. Public safety impact fees are expected to cover incremental increases in demand on police services. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police services. Less Than Significant Impact— Police Services. The proposed project does not . result in the need for additional facilities for the provision of police services, and would not decrease the level of these services provided to any part of the community. The project site could be served by the City of Gilroy Police Department within established response times without the need for additional facilities. The equivalent of three- quarters of an officer would be required for the 2 -70 EMC Planning Group Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures department to maintain established per capita staffing ratios. Public safety impact fees paid by the project are expected to cover incremental increases in demand on police services. The proposed project would have no physical impact to the environment associated with the provision of police protection services. Mitigation measures are not necessary. 2.11 Schools Environmental Setting The project site is within the boundaries of the Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD). The GUSD has a current total enrollment of approximately 9,200 students. Enrollment has increased approximately 33 percent since 1980 and by approximately eight percent since 1990. The GUSD operates nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, one high school and one special -needs high school. The nearest elementary school to the project site is Glen View, located on West Eighth Street near Princevalle Street, approximately four tenths of a mile from the project site. Brownell and South Valley Junior High Schools are both located near Sixth Street, approximately three quarters of a mile from the project site. Gilroy High School is located at the intersection of Princevalle Street and Tenth Street, approximately two tenths of a mile from the project site. The GUSD has an open enrollment system that allows students to attend the school of their choice within the district. The GUSD has a total enrollment for the 1999 -2000 school year of 9,193 students, with 5,376 in kindergarten through 6th grade, 1,335 in 7th and 8th grade, and 2,482 in high school. The district's schools have capacity for 4,950 kindergarten through 6th grade students, 1,998 7th and 8th grade students and 2,349 high school students. A new elementary school is under construction. The GUSD plans to construct a new middle school soon. The district also plans to reconfigure the elementary schools to accommodate kindergarten through 5th grade and the middle schools to accommodate 6th through 8th grade. This is intended to bring enrollment in line with capacity for kindergarten though 8th grade. Actual attendance at schools is less than the enrollment figures due to students who drop out during the school year. Since some students drop out each year, actual attendance is close to capacity. (Charlie van Meder, personal communication, February 10, 2000). Senate Bill 50, adopted by the state legislature in 1998 established limitations in the Government Code on mitigation measures that may be imposed by a city, county, school district or other local agency in approving a development that may affect schools. Government Code section 65996(b) prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any legislative or judicial act involving the planning, use or development of real property. Government Code section 65995(a) sets a limit on school impact fees that EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -71 Setting; Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR may be assessed. The limit established (in 1998) is $1.93 per square foot for residential and $31 per square foot for commercial construction. These rates are adjusted for inflation in January of even - numbered years. Project Analysis The proposed project would result in approximately 500 new residents, based on California Department of Finance statistics for average household size in Gilroy. According to the Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan, approximately one third of all residents were under 18 years of age at the 1990 census. Therefore approximately 166 children under age 18 could be expected to live at the proposed project, of which approximately 120 would be school aged. If evenly distributed, there would be approximately nine students per grade level at the proposed project. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. Less than Significant Impact: Student Enrollment Exceeding Capacity The proposed project would add approximately 120 students to the GUSD. Enrollment is currently over capacity at the District's elementary schools and high school. However, since some students drop out each year, actual attendance is close to capacity. The District is constructing a new elementary school and has plans to construct a new middle school. In addition, grade level re- distribution among schools will bring kindergarten through 8th grade enrollment close to capacity for each of those grade levels. Government Code section 65995(a) sets a limit on school impact fees that may be assessed by a school district. These development fees are considered adequate to mitigate school impacts. Therefore, no other mitigation is necessary. 2.12 Water Supply Environmental Setting The project site is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Potable water on the project site is currently provided by private on -site wells. The sports park will have both potable and recycled water supplied by the City of Gilroy. 2 -72 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts £r Mitigation Measures City of Gilroy Water Supply System The City of Gilroy Water Master Plan was prepared in May 1993. That plan provides background on the existing City of Gilroy water supply system and a program for future deveiopment. The City of Gilroy obtains all of its water froxn groundwater from the Llagas sub basin of the Santa Clara Valley. The City currently operates eight wells. The present maximum pumping capacity is 14.3 mgd, or approximately 16,000 acre -feet per year. Two new wells expected to be in service by 2001 will add to this capacity. According to the City of Gilroy Draft General Plan EIR the current citywide maximum water demand is approximately 12.5 million gallons per day (mgd). This equals approximately 14,000 acre -feet of water annually. The City of Gilroy is divided into three water distribution pressure zones. The project site is located in Pressure Zone 1, which is the low -lying area of the City. No pumping is required to supply water to Zone 1. Water is stored in several steel reservoirs with a total capacity of 6.4 million gallons. Two reservoirs serve Zone 1, with a total capacity of 5 million gallons. The City operates its wills to meet system demands based on reservoir levels. The wells are also used to meet peak demands and fire flows. In winter the reservoirs are drawn to half -full before filling from wells, with higher set points in the summer. The wells pump directly into the distribution system with any excess water pumped going to replenish the reservoirs. Water is lightly chlorinated at the well sites. All well sites are located in Zone 1. Existing and Planned Potable Water Infrastructure A City of Gilroy municipal water supply line is located beneath Monterey Street, just east of the project site. Although the project site is outside the existing City of Gilroy USA, the approved, City-owned sports park will receive potable water from the City of Gilroy. The sports park is contiguous with the Gilroy USA at the point where the sports park access road meets Monterey Frontage Road, and services will be supplied at this point, then distributed within the sports park. The sports park will require 26 acre -feet of potable water annually. A water supply line will be built under Monterey Frontage Road as part of the sports park project. Current Use Rates The City of Gilroy Water Master Plan found existing low- density residential (4 units per acre) water use to be approximately 1,800 gallons per day per acre (gpd /ac.), with a range from 1,450 to 2,100 gpd /ac. Medium density residential (12 units per acre) water use was approximately 2,850 gpd /ac., with a range of 2,550 to 3,200 gpd /ac. Commercial usage was approximately 1,000 gpd /ac., with a range from 800 to 1,200 gpd /ac. The usage varied with changes in the weather and usage habits during times of drought. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -73 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA'Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Current and Approved Project Site Demand The existing potable water supply on the project site is from private on -site wells. Current water use on the project site is estimated to be approximately 135.9, excluding the sports park site. Water use was determined using City of Gilroy Water Master Plan usage rates for rural residential and commercial uses. Agricultural use was estimated based on water use for lettuce, which was the crop on the project site in the summer of 1998. The project site's agricultural water use assumes two lettuce crops per year and a typical water use rate of 1.5 acre -feet per crop per acre of lettuce. Estimated current water use is presented in Table 8. TABLE 8 Estimated Current Project Site Water Use' Use Approximate Acres Use Rate gpapd Gallons Per Day Acre -feet Per Year Rural Residential 4.2 2,300 9,660 10.8 Commercial 0.8 1,000 800 0.9 Agriculture 1 49.8 - - 149.4. Total 1 54.8 - - 161.1 1. For a clearer comparison the sports park has been omitted from this table. The sports park will use approximately 26 acre feet of potable water and 155 acre -feet of recycled water per year. Agricultural uses on the sports park site use an estimated 235 acre -feet per year.- Source: City of Gilroy Water Master Plan and Department of Water Resources Recycled Water There is currently no recycled water supply available on the project site. A City of Gilroy recycled water supply line originates at the wastewater treatment plant southeast of Gilroy, runs northwesterly until it meets the Princevalle drainage channel, then follows the channel westward through Christmas Hill Park to Santa Teresa Boulevard. The City of Gilroy will extend a recycled water line to the project site to supply the approved sports park. The sports park will require approximately 155 acre -feet of irrigation water annually at build -out. The Eagle Ridge residential and golf course project in western Gilroy will be using approximately 1,120 acre -feet of recycled water per year when completed. According to the City of Gilroy Draft General Plan EIR the City of Gilroy will have a recycled water delivery capacity of 6,900 acre -feet per year. 2-74 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Project Analysis If the USA amendment is approved, the City of Gilroy will assume responsibility for the provision of water to the proposed commercial and residential areas of the project site upon annexation, in addition to the future water service already committed to the approved sports park. Table 9 summarizes projected water supply demands of the project site. TABLE 9 Projected Water Demand of Proposed Projectr Component Approximate Use Rate Gallons per Acre- feet/year' Acres (gpdpa) day Residential 26.2 2,000' 52,400 58.7 Neighborhood 1.5 1,000 1,500 1.7 Park Commercial 27.1 1,000 27,100 30.4 Project Total 54.8 - 81,000 90.8 Existing City - - 12,500,000 14,000 Demand Current City - - 14,300,000 16,000 Capacity 1. For a clearer comparison the sports park has been omitted from this table. The sports park will use approximately 26 -acre feet of potable water and 155 acre -feet of recycled water per year. 2. Use rates are from the City of Gilroy's Water Master Plan. 3. Acre feet per year = gallons per day x 365 days / 325,829 gallons per acre foot. 4. The City of Gilroy's Water Master Plan lists average use rates for low density residential (4 units per acre) and medium density (12 units per acre). The density of the proposed residential development is 5.6 units per acre; therefore an interpolated use rate has been used. Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. The project site is within the boundaries studied and planned for in the 1993 Water Master Plan (refer to figure 1 -1 in the Water Master Plan). According to Don Nunes, City of Gilroy Senior Civil Engineer (January 13, 2000 telephone conversation with consultant), although the project site had a general plan land use designation of OPEN SPACE a higher use rate was applied to the site to assist in planning for water. Therefore, development of the project site was accounted for in preparation and implementation of the Water Master Plan. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -75 Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Potable Water The City of Gilroy would provide potable water to the residential and gommercial areas of the proposed project from the main located beneath Monterey Street or Monterey Frontage Road, adjacent to the project site. Based on the conceptual residential plan, the proposed residential development would have an average density of 5.6 homes per acre, or slightly more dense than the low- density residential use category in the Water Master Plan. At an interpolated approximate use rate of 2,000 gpd /ac. the proposed residential development would require approximately 52,400 gallons per day. This is equal to approximately 58.7 acre -feet of water annually. The 1.5 -acre neighborhood park would use approximately 1,500 gallons per day or approximately 1.7 acre -feet per year. No potable water would be required for neighborhood park irrigation if recycled water were used instead. The proposed commercial development would use approximately 27,100 gallons per day, or approximately 30.4 acre -feet annually. This amount could be reduced if recycled water were used for irrigation needs. The total proposed project would require approximately 81,000 gallons of water per day or 90.8 acre -feet of water annually. The City of Gilroy has an adequate supply of potable water available to meet the total potable water demand of the proposed project. Recycled Water Specific water delivery plans for the proposed residential and commercial uses have not been developed. It is possible that landscaped areas in the proposed commercial development, neighborhood park and street right -of -ways could be irrigated with recycled water. The park area would require approximately 1.7 acre -feet of water per year. The commercial areas, based on an assumed 20 percent landscaped area, would require approximately 5.6 acre -feet of water. The City of Gilroy will have a demand of less than 1,500 acre -feet per year of recycled water when the Eagle Ridge project is completed, and a supply capacity of 9,600 acre -feet of recycled water. The City of Gilroy has an adequate supply of recycled water available to meet the potential demand of the proposed project. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or result in a substantial depletion of water supply or solid waste disposal capacity. 2 -76 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR I I Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Less Than Significant Impact— Construction of Potable Water and Recycled Water Infrastructure. The proposed project does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing potable or recycled water supply infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of -ways would serve the proposed project. The project site was included in the 1993 Water Master Plan under a more intensive land use than the OPEN SPACE designation in the Gilroy General Plan. Development of the project site was accounted for in the Water Master Plan. Construction of infrastructure for the proposed project would have a less than significant environmental impact. Mitigation measures are not necessary. Less Than Significant Impact —City Water Supply. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand for potable water that is within the City of Gilroy's ability to provide. The City of Gilroy has adequate water supplies to meet the projected demand for potable water. The proposed project may increase demand for recycled water slightly if used for irrigation of the 1.5 -acre neighborhood park or street, common or commercial area landscaping. The City of Gilroy has an adequate supply of recycled water to meet the projected demands. Mitigation measures are not necessary. Beneficial Impact— Groundwater Supply. The proposed project would result in an overall decrease in water use. Less groundwater would be required from the Llagas Groundwater Sub Basin to supply the project site. Existing commercial, rural residential and agricultural uses on the 54.8 acres proposed for residential and commercial uses currently use an estimated 161.1 acre -feet of water per year. With the proposed commercial and residential uses, this portion of the project site is expected to use approximately 90.8 acre -feet of water per year. This would be a beneficial environmental impact. 2.13 Wastewater Environmental Setting The project site is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Wastewater is currently treated on -site in private septic systems. The City of Gilroy sanitary sewer system includes a network of trunk sewers (greater than or equal to ten inches in diameter) that generally flow from west to east and discharge into an interceptor sewer on the west side of Highway 101. The interceptor line carries flow south to the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) Wastewater Treatment Plant (Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1993). Wastewater trunk lines are located beneath Monterey Street, just east of the project site and beneath West Luchessa Avenue, just north of the project site. As part of the approved sports park project the City of Gilroy will extend a wastewater line to the project site. The approved sports park is projected to generate approximately 19,640 gpd of wastewater at project build -out. EMC PIanning Group Inc. 2 -77 Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The City of Gilroy Sewer Master Plan was prepared in May 1993. Median wastewater production was 980 gpd /ac. for low- density residential users, 2,100 gpd /ac. for medium density residential users and 300 gpd /ac. for commercial users. Wastewater generation varied with changes in water usage habits during times of drought. According to the City of Gilroy Draft General Plan EIR the SCRWA treatment plant is permitted for an average dry weather flow of 7.5 mgd. The future build -out capacity of the plant is approximately 15 mgd. The City of Gilroy owns 58.1 percent of the plant's capacity, or 4.4 mgd of the current capacity. The current wastewater flow from the City of Gilroy is 3.1 mgd. Project Analysis With the addition of the project site to the USA, the City of Gilroy will assume' responsibility for the provision sewer services to the proposed commercial and residential areas of the project site in addition to the future wastewater service already committed to the approved sports park. The project site is within the boundaries studied and planned for in the 1993 Sewer Master Plan (refer to figure 1 -1 in the Sewer Master Plan). According to Don Nunes, City of Gilroy Senior Civil Engineer (January 13, 2000 telephone conversation with consultant), although the project site had a general plan land use designation of OPEN SPACE, a higher use rate was applied to the site to assist in planning for sewer. Therefore, development of the project site was accounted for in preparation and implementation of the Sewer Master Plan. The City of Gilroy would provide sanitary sewer services to the project site from existing lines or planned lines beneath West Luchessa Avenue, Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. Based on an interpolated generation rate of 1,080 gpd the proposed residential development would generate approximately 28,296 gpd of wastewater and the proposed commercial development approximately 8,130 gpd. Total wastewater generation would be 36,426 gpd. The City of Gilroy wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • fail to meet wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Water Quality Control Board; • require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or 2 -78 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Less Than Significant Impact — Construction of Wastewater Infrastructure. The proposed project does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing wastewater infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of- ways would serve the proposed project. The project site was included in the 1993 Sewer Master Plan under a more intensive land use than the OPEN SPACE designation in the Gilroy General Plan. Development of the project site was accounted for in the Sewer Master Plan. Construction of infrastructure for the proposed project would have a less than significant environmental impact. Mitigation measures are not necessary. 2.14 Transportation/Circulation Transportation Impact Analysis A Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. for the sports park project in January 1999. A second Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. in January 2000 to address build -out of the USA amendment request, cumulatively with development of the approved sports park. This section summarizes the analysis and conclusions in that report. Both reports, in their entirety, are available -for public review at the City of Gilroy Planning Division, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed development on the transportation system in the vicinity of the project site. The impacts of the proposed project were estimated following the guidelines set forth by the City of Gilroy and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The following six key intersections, four roadway segments, and three highway segments were evaluated. Intersections 1. West Luchessa Avenue at Princevalle Street* 2. West Luchessa Avenue at Church Street* 3. Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue 4. Monterey Street at Monterey Frontage Road* 5. Monterey Street and Southbound U.S. Highway 101 Ramps 6. Monterey Street and Northbound U.S. Highway 101 Ramps *Intersections also analyzed during the Saturday peak hour. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -79 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Roadway Segments I. West Luchessa Avenue, between Thomas Road and Princevalle Street 2. West Luchessa Avenue, between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street 3. Monterey Street, between Tenth Street and Luchessa Avenue 4. Monterey Street, between Luchessa Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 Highway Segments 1. U.S. Highway 101, between Leavesley Road and Monterey Street 2. U.S. Highway 101, between Monterey Street and State Highway 25 3. State Highway 152, between U.S. Highway 101 and Frazier Lake Road The operations of the key intersections, roadway segments, and highway segments were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours (the time periods when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways are highest). A subset of intersections, denoted with an asterisk on the above list, was also evaluated during the Saturday peak hour, when traffic generated by the sports park will be highest. Intersection and roadway segment evaluations were made for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one -hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods and on a Saturday afternoon. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak -hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the area. Scenario 3a -g: Project Conditions. Background peak -hour volumes plus project - generated traffic estimated for the proposed development. The project was evaluated for six levels of sports park development and build - out of the project (including development on the residential and commercial parcels). Scenario 4: Cumulative Conditions. Traffic volumes estimated for conditions with build -out of the project (Scenario 3g) plus traffic associated with other pending (proposed but not approved) developments. 2 -80 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Scenario 5: General Plan Build -out Conditions. Traffic volumes forecast for the build -out of the General Plan. Potential project impacts on the adjacent highway segments were evaluated following Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines. Site access and on- site circulation were reviewed for the residential component of the proposed project. Environmental Setting Funding Mechanisms All developers within the City of Gilroy are required to pay traffic impact fees in accordance with the traffic fee ordinance adopted by the City of Gilroy. Additionally, developers may be required to make improvements to mitigate traffic impacts that result directly from their projects. Developers are given credit for those improvements that are considered to be permanent. Future developers that benefit from the improvements make reimbursements to the developer who installed the permanent improvements. Existing Conditions Roadway Network. Regional access to the project site.is provided by U.S. Highway 101 and State Route 152 while local access is provided by Monterey Street, Monterey Frontage Road, West Luchessa Avenue, Thomas Road, Princevalle Street, and Church Street. The roadway network and study intersections are presented in Figure 20. U.S. Highway 101 provides access to the project site via an interchange at Monterey . Street. North of its interchange with Monterey Street, U.S. Highway 101 is a six-lane freeway, narrowing to four lanes north of Cochrane Road. South of Monterey Street, U.S. Highway 101 becomes a four -lane conventional highway. U.S. Highway 101 extends northward through San Jose and San Francisco and southward through the Southern California. State Route 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway) connects U.S. Highway 101 to Interstate 5 and State Highway 99 in the California Central Valley and State Highway 1 in Watsonville. State Route 152 is two to four lanes wide. State Route 152 follows portions of U.S. Highway 101, Leavesley Road, and Monterey Street and First Street in and near Gilroy. Monterey Street is a generally four -lane arterial through the City of Gilroy. Through downtown Gilroy (between Third and Seventh Streets), Monterey Street narrows to two travel lanes, with angled parking on the east site of the street separated from northbound through traffic by a raised median. North of the city limits, Monterey Street becomes Monterey Road, a rural highway with four travel lanes and a center EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -81 Setting, Impacts £r Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR turn lane. Monterey Road continues northward into San Jose. South of its interchange with U.S. Highway 101, Monterey Street becomes Bolsa Road. Near the project site, the speed limit on Monterey Street is 50 miles per hour (mph). Monterey Frontage Road is a two -lane road that extends southward from Monterey Street, near the Monterey Street /U.S. Highway 101 interchange, ending in a cul -de- sac south of the project site. Monterey Frontage Road is a frontage road located along the west side of Monterey Street and U.S. Highway 101 that provides direct access to the project site (and other properties). Luchessa Avenue is a two- to four -lane roadway extending eastward from its terminus east of U.S. Highway 101 near Rossi Lane to west of Thomas Road. The segment of Luchessa Avenue between Thomas Road and Monterey Street was recently renamed from Thomas Road to West Luchessa Avenue. Near the project site, West Luchessa Avenue is two lanes wide, and the speed limit is 40 mph. Thomas Road is a two -lane roadway that extends northward from Santa Teresa Boulevard to its all-way stop controlled intersection with West Luchessa Avenue. Princevalle Street is a two -lane residential collector street that extends southward from First Street to Luchessa Avenue. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Church Street is a two -lane street extending northward from West Luchessa Avenue through downtown Gilroy to north of Farrell Avenue. Church Street is designated an arterial in the current General Plan between Luchessa Avenue and Farrell Avenue, and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Transit Service. Bus service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Currently, there are two bus routes operating within one -half mile of the project site, Route 68 and Route 17A. Route 17A provides commute service between the intersections of Sixth and Hanna Streets and Southside Drive and Rossi Lane. Two northbound buses are provided during the morning commute period and two southbound buses during the evening commute period. Route 17A operates along Monterey Street, north of Luchessa Avenue, and Luchessa Avenue, east of Monterey Street. Route 68 operates along Princevalle Street, north of West Luchessa Avenue and along West Luchessa Avenue and Thomas Road, west of Princevalle Street. Route 68 provides service between San Jose Diridon CalTrain Station and Gavilan College in Gilroy. Hours of operation are 4:30 AM to 1:00 AM on weekdays and 6:00 AM to 12:30 AM on weekends. Route 68 operates on a 15- minute headway during the commute hours and a 30- to 60- minute headway during other hours. The Joint Powers Board provides commuter rail service (CalTrain) from Gilroy to San Francisco. CalTrain provides frequent train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. Extended service is provided to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during the commute hours only. The Gilroy CalTrain station is located east of Monterey Street between Seventh and Ninth Streets. 2 -82 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Not to Scale Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Road Network and 20 and Design Firm Study Intersections Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -84 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Near the site, there are very limited pedestrian facilities. A sidewalk is provided along the north side of West Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. Sidewalks are not provided along Monterey Frontage Road or Monterey Street. Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use with signs only. Currently, there is a bike path along the eastern side of Uvas Creek between West Luchessa Avenue and Westwood Avenue, north of the project site. Bike lanes are designated on Princevalle Street between West Luchessa Avenue and Sixth Street." The approved sports park project will extend the Uvas Creek Trail from West Luchessa Avenue, through the sports park and southward to Gavilan College. Intersection Traffic Volumes. The operations of the key intersections were evaluated for morning (AM) and'evening (PM) peak -hour traffic conditions. In addition, three of the key intersections were evaluated for Saturday peak -hour conditions. Peak conditions generally occur during the morning and evening commute periods on weekdays between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The Saturday peak conditions generally occur between noon and 2:00 PM based on City- conducted machine counts conducted on West Luchessa Avenue in October 1998. Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one- hour volume counted during each of these periods. Peak -hour traffic volumes were obtained from the January 1999 transportation impact analysis (TIA) prepared for the sports park, and supplemented with data from the City of Gilroy 1999 Traffic Monitoring Program and new turning movement counts. The traffic volumes included in the January 1999 TIA were conducted in October and December 1998. For locations with older counts, growth factors were developed based on a comparison of traffic volumes at locations where both 1998 and 1999 data were available. Growth factors of 15 to 35 percent were applied to through traffic on West Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Street to reflect estimated growth between 1998 and current conditions. Intersection Levels of Service. Current operations of the key intersections were evaluated with the existing volumes, existing lane configurations, traffic control devices, and signal phasings /timings used as inputs to the TRAFFIX level of service calculation program. Level of service calculations indicate that all of the key intersections are operating at acceptable levels under Existing Conditions. The three signalized intersections (Monterey Street / Luchessa Avenue; and the Southbound and Northbound U.S. Highway 101 Ramps /Monterey Street) are operating at LOS B or C during both the AM and PM peak hours. Overall intersection operations at the key unsignalized intersections are at LOS A during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -85 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The minor street approaches have no separate turn lanes at the unsignalized intersections. The worst case movement /lane groups at the intersections of West Luchessa Avenue / Princevalle Street and West Luchessa Avenue / Church Street are the southbound approaches (Princevalle and Church Streets). The Princevalle Street southbound approach is operating at LOS A during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The southbound Church Street approach is operating at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours and LOS A during the Saturday peak hour. At the Monterey Street /Monterey Frontage Road intersection, the worst case approach is the eastbound (Monterey Frontage Road) approach, which is currently operating at LOS B during the AM and Saturday peak hours and LOS C during the PM peak hour. Roadway Segments Levels of Service. Existing daily traffic volumes on West Luchessa Avenue were obtained from machine counts conducted in May 1999. Monterey Street daily volumes were estimated using turning movement counts conducted at the Monterey Street / Luchessa Avenue intersection and assuming PM peak -hour volumes are equivalent to nine percent of daily volumes (based on a comparison of the peak -hour intersection counts to the roadway segment counts on Luchessa Avenue). All four segments are currently operating at LOS A." Highway Segments Level of Service. Existing SR 152 is a rural highway on the CMP roadway network and was therefore evaluated using the methodology presented in Chapter 8 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, as required by the CMP. The level of service was determined by comparing actual measured flow rates against calculated threshold maximum flow rates for LOS A through LOS E. These service flow rates were calculated by adjusting the ideal capacity for a two - lane rural highway segment (2,800 vehicles per hour) to account for directional distribution of traffic, percentage of heavy vehicles, lane widths, shoulder widths, type of terrain, and the maximum volume -to- capacity ratio for the segment based percentage of no passing zones and terrain. Existing traffic volume data and roadway characteristics for the segment of State Highway 152 between US 101 and Frazier Lake Road were obtained from the Wellington Business Park Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 18, 1999). Traffic counts were conducted on State Highway 152, east of Silacci Way, in August 1999. Level of service calculations were conducted using the Wellington TIA data. This segment of SR 152 is currently operating at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour, unacceptable operating levels based on the City of Gilroy standard of LOS C. The existing levels of service on U.S. Highway 101 are based on the segment densities reported in the CMP's 1998 Monitoring and Conformance Report. The 1998 monitoring report did not include freeway segments south of Morgan Hill during the AM peak hour. Therefore, only PM peak hour information is available. The segments of U.S. Highway 101 reported were chosen to be consistent with the segments in the VTA's monitoring report. Based on the monitored freeway segment densities, all of the segments are operating at LOS B during the PM peak hour under Existing Conditions. 2 -86 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Background Conditions Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area. Traffic Volume Estimates. The traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding existing volumes and traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects in the vicinity of the site. The list of approved projects was developed with input from City of Gilroy staff. Nine approved developments were identified in the vicinity of the project site. These developments include, among others, Eagle Ridge (550 homes), the Hilton Garden Inn (133 rooms), the Gilroy Cinema (S screens /1,100 seats), and uses at the U.S. Highway 101 /Monterey Street truck stop (including Carl's Jr. and Jeffries restaurants). The traffic associated with these projects was estimated based on trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6' edition). The trips associated with each project were then assigned to the roadway network based on the trip distribution patterns contained in the City of Gilroy 1999 Traffic Monitoring Program TRAFFIX model, relative locations of complementary land uses, and existing travel patterns. The traffic associated with the approved developments was added to the existing volumes at the key intersections and roadway segments to estimate traffic volumes for Background Conditions. Saturday peak -hour traffic estimates assume that all the uses included in the approved developments peak at the same time, producing a conservatively high estimate of Saturday peak -hour volumes. Furthermore, the method used to estimate traffic volumes added by the approved developments dur'" -all study periods is conservative. The approved developments include both residential and commercial /industrial developments. Some of the trips originating in the residential developments will be destined for the industrial /commercial uses. No reduction was applied to take into account this internalization between approved developments within Gilroy, resulting in some "double counting." Intersections Levels of Service. The key intersections studied would continue to operate at acceptable levels with traffic added by approved development projects. All of the key signalized intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or C during all peak hours. The overall operating levels at the three unsignalized intersections are projected to be LOS A. The worst approach at the West Luchessa Avenue /Princevalle Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. The worst approach at the intersection of West Luchessa Avenue and Church Street is projected to operate at LOS B during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and LOS A during the Saturday peak hour. At the intersection of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road, the operation of the worst approach (eastbound Monterey Frontage Road) is projected to be LOS B during the AM and Saturday peak hours and LOS C during the PM peak hour. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -87 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Roadway Segments Levels of Service. The key roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels with the addition of traffic associated with approved developments. Highway Segment Level of Service. With the addition of traffic associated with already approved developments, the segment of State Highway 152 between U.S. Highway 101 and Frazier Lake Road is projected to degrade from LOS D to LOSE during the AM peak hour and continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. These operating levels are unacceptable based on the City's standard. Project Analysis Project Conditions Project Site Build -out Assumptions. Project Conditions are defined as Background Conditions plus traffic generated by the proposed project. Project Conditions were evaluated in seven phases. The approved sports park is included in the discussion of project impacts to present a project site - cumulative impact analysis. The proposed residential and commercial developments are described below. The conceptual residential development includes 90 single family detached units and 57 triplex units. Direct access to the residential development would be provided by new public streets that will intersect with West Luchessa Avenue at two locations and with Monterey Street at one location. The Monterey Street intersection would be restricted to right -turns only (due to the existing raised median on Monterey Street). There is no specific development proposed for the commercial parcels. Upon adoption of the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan, the parcels will be designated COMMERCIAL GENERAL SERVICES. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed, at the direction of City staff, that approximately 590,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space would be developed. The commercial parcels would front on Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. The northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) were assumed to be accessed via one right -turn driveway on Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Monterey Frontage Road and the southern commercial parcels by at least one full access driveway on Monterey Frontage Road. Traffic Estimation Method. The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amounts of traffic entering and exiting the site were estimated for the study periods. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site were estimated. The trips were assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. 2-88 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Trip Generation. Project trip generation was estimated for the individual project components and then summed to estimate the total number of trips generated by the project. Figure 21 presents a summary of the trip generation estimated for the project. The methodologies used to estimate the trip generation for each component are described in the following sections. Sports Park. Peak -hour trip generation for the approved sports park component of the project was estimated based on the number and types of playing fields and other uses, as well as input from the project architect on the expected operation of the sports park. The trip generation estimates assumed the use of all softball /baseball fields at one time. These ball fields are overlaid with soccer fields, which would not be in use during softball or baseball games. Basing the trip generation on the use of all softball/baseball fields was more conservative than assuming the use of all soccer fields because softball/baseball teams are likely to have slightly moreplayers than soccer teams (15 to 18 per team versus 12 per team) and there are more proposed softball and baseball fields than soccer fields (13 fields versus seven fields) Trip generation estimates were first developed for the worst case condition, the Saturday peak hour. The following additional assumptions were made: (1) 30 players per field for softball and Little League and 36 players per field for Colt baseball; (2) One spectator per player for softball and Colt baseball and 35 spectators per Little League game (to reflect more parents watching their children); (3) An auto occupancy of 2.0 persons per vehicle for softball and colt baseball and 2.1 persons per vehicle for Little League (the higher occupancy for Little League was assumed due to more parents arriving with children). (4) Seventy-five percent of the games were assumed to begin or end during the peak hour. It was further assumed that the players and spectators associated with these games would arrive or leave during that hour. (5) Commercial recreation, general park use, and special events were estimated to add 200 trips (50 percent inbound and 50 percent outbound) during the Saturday peak hour. (6) PM peak -hour trip generation was assumed to be 75 percent of the Saturday peak -hour trip generation for softball and baseball games and 50 percent of Saturday peak -hour trip generation for general park use, commercial recreation and special events. (7) AM peak -hour trip generation was assumed to be primarily associated with drop -in use of the park and no organized events are expected during the morning commute hours. City staff estimated that a maximum of 50 people EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -89 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR would be likely to use the park during this time period (Bill Headley, personal communication, December 14,1999). It was assumed that 80 percent of park users during the morning peak hour would travel by car and would enter and exit the site during the AM peak hour. The AM peak -hour trip generation for the sports park was therefore estimated to be 80 trips (40 inbound and 40 outbound). This trip generation estimate is believed to be conservative. The AM peak -hour trip generation for a 78 -acre park based on ITE AM peak -hour generation rates for a "County Park" land use is one trip. (8) In order to estimate weekday daily trip generation for the sports park, a peak - hour factor was developed based on the relationships of daily to PM peak - hour trip rates for similar uses contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). It is estimated that 12 percent of the daily sports park trips will enter and exit the site during the PM peak hour. This factor was used to expand PM peak -hour trip generation to estimate weekday daily sports park trip generation. The sports park is estimated to generate a total of 4,600 weekday daily trips, 80 AM peak -hour tips (40 inbound and 40 outbound), 550 PM peak -hour trips (275 inbound and 275 outbound), and 800 Saturday peak -hour trips (400 inbound and 400 outbound). Residential Development The amount of traffic generated by the proposed residential development was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates to the development size. The ITE trip generation rates for "Single - Family Detached Residential" and "Condominium /Townhouse" land uses were multiplied by the number of units. The proposed residential development is estimated to generate a total of 1,195 weekday daily trips, 93 AM peak -hour tips (21 inbound and 71 outbound), 122 PM peak -hour trips (75 inbound and 47 outbound), and 111 Saturday peak -hour trips (60 inbound and 51outbound). Commercial Parcels. There is no specific development proposal for the commercial parcels. The parcels will be designated COMMERCIAL GENERAL SERVICES. At the direction of City staff, it was assumed that approximately 590,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space would be developed. This development size was estimated based on a 25 percent floor - area -ratio (FAR) and an average building height of two stories on approximately 27 acres. This FAR is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. The commercial parcels are located within a floodway, and therefore, development of the commercial parcels is likely to be limited to a FAR of 25 percent or less. The ITE trip generation regression equations for shopping centers were used to estimate the project trip generation. The build -out size of 590,000 s.f. was input to these equations to estimate daily and AM, PM, and Saturday peak -hour trip generation. It was assumed that half of the trips would be generated by the northern parcels and half would be generated by the southern parcels. 2-90 EMC Planning Group Inc. Use PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Weekday Daily AM AM Peak Hour Trips PM Trips Sat. Trips Trip Trip Trip Rate Trips Rate' In Out Total Rate' In Out Total Rate' In Out Total Sports Park Entry Road Phase t& 11 s _ it Baseball (1) Little League (2) n/a 940 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 56 56 112 n/a 74 74 148 Phase 111 Softball (1) Comm. Rec. n/a 570 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 34 34 68 n/a 58 58 116 Phase IV Softball (4) n/a 1,300 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 78 78 156 n/a 110 110 220 Phase V Softball(4) n/a 1,300 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 78 78 156 n/a 110 110 220 VI & VII _ Softball (1) General Park n/a 490 n/a . 20 20 40 n/a 29 29 58 n/a 48 48 96 Other Roadway Phases VIII &IX Improvements & n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 Uvas Creek Trail south — — — n/a — 0 — 0 — n/a — 0 — 0 0 Subtotal 4,600 40 40 1 80 1 175 1 175 550 400 400 800 Residential Single- Family 9.57 861. 0.75 17 51 68 1.01 58 33 91 0.94 46 39 85 Triplex 5.86 334 0.44 4 21 25 0.54 17 14 31 0.47 14 12 27 Subtotal 1,195 21 71 93 75 47 111 1 60 51 111 Commercial Shopping Center 36.17 21,347 0.78 281 180 460 3.43 973 1,054 2,027 4.69 1,441 1,330 2,770 Pass -by Reduction 30% M404 30% u (69) 138 30% 304 304 608 30 %a Ll Li faL11 Subtotal 14,943 112 111 321 669 750 1,419 1,025 ' 915 1,939 Total – is estimated bated on expected 202738 usage the Daily 273 222 495 1,019 1,072 2,090 1,072 1,366 2,851 Notes: ' Sports park trip generation hip generation rates me from ITt Trip Generation (6th ed.) of park sports park hips were estimated assuming 12 ant of daily for single- family detached and townhouse/condominium land occur during the peak hoot Residential equations for shopping uses. Commercial band Sion center hi generation. The resented rates arc calculated h dividing the estimate number of trips 6 the size of the commercial in tho�dsaoof fe Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. lop Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning and Design Firm Trip Generation 21 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2-92 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR SettinRlmpacts&MitigationMeasures A 30 percent reduction factor was applied to the shopping center trip generation estimates to account for pass -by trips. Pass -by trips are trips generated by a proposed project that are attracted from the traffic already passing the project site on an adjacent street. A 30 percent reduction is the maximum allowed under VTA guidelines. With the application of the pass -by reduction, the commercial parcels are estimated to add 14,943 new daily trips, 322 AM peak -hour trips (212 inbound and 111 outbound), 1,419 PM peak -hour trips (669 inbound and 750 outbound), and 1,939 Saturday peak -hour trips (1,025 inbound and 915 outbound). Trip Distribution. The trip distribution pattern for the proposed project was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. Separate distribution patterns were developed for each project component. The major directions for project - generated traffic to approach and depart the project site are estimated to be: Roadway /Direction Sports Park Residential Luchessa Avenue /Thomas Road West 30% 15% Princevalle Street North 10% Church Street North 15% Monterey Street North US 101 North 10% 20 %0 US 101 South 10% Luchessa Avenue East 0% Princevalle /Church neighborhood 5% 100% The trip distribution pattern is illustrated in Figure 22. 3% 5% 20% 40% 15% 2% 0% 100% Commercial 30% 5% 8% 17% 20% 15% 0% 5% 100% Trip Assignment The trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. The pass -by trips associated with the commercial development were assigned based on the existing distribution of traffic (northbound versus southbound) on Monterey Street at the site driveways. Figure 23 presents the peak -hour project trip assignments by turning movement at the study intersections and on nearby roadway segments for build -out conditions. Figure 24 shows project trips at the site driveways and the intersection of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -93 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subseauent EIR The project trips for each analysis phase were added to the traffic volumes for Background Conditions to achieve turning- movement volumes at the key intersections for each analysis phase. The total traffic volumes at each of the key intersections under project build -out conditions are shown in Figure 25. Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating conditions of the key intersections with project traffic and the potential impacts of the proposed project on the local roadway system. Intersection operations were evaluated for seven levels of development of the project. Signalized intersection level of service is summarized for all conditions in Figure 26. Unsignalized intersection level of service is summarized in Figure 27. _Monterey Street /U.S. Highway 101 The signalized intersections of Monterey Street with the US Highway 101 southbound ramps and with the US Highway 101 northbound ramps are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through build -out of the proposed project. Monterey Street / Luchessa Avenue The signalized intersection of Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue is projected to continue to operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours through the completion of the sports park component of the project. With the additional traffic associated with the commercial and residential components of the project, this intersection is projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM peak hour (from LOS C under Background Conditions). The conceptual residential site plan indicates an ultimate width of 116 to 120 feet for the Luchessa Avenue right -of -way. A separate eastbound right -turn lane at the Monterey Street /Luchessa Avenue intersection could be accommodated within this width. The City's General Plan includes the addition of a separate eastbound right - turn lane at this intersection. The General Plan includes widening Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Street (between Luchessa Avenue and U.S. Highway 101) to six lanes and providing a second northbound left -turn lane at the Monterey Street /Luchessa Avenue intersection. The third northbound through lane on Monterey Street will need to end at the intersection of Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue as a "trap" right - turn or left -turn lane, with only two through lanes continuing on Monterey Street north of Luchessa Avenue. West Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street. The overall operations of the unsignalized intersection of West Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street are projected to be acceptable (LOS C.or better) during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours through project build -out. The worst approach is projected to operate at an acceptable level through the final phase of the sports park. With build -out of the commercial parcels and the residential development, the worst approach is projected to deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour and LOS F during the Saturday peak hour. Operations during the AM peak hour are projected to continue to be LOS B, an acceptable level. 2-94 EMC Planning Group Inc. OStudy Intersection XX/XX/XX = Sports Park/ Residential/ Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Trip Distribution Pattern and Design Firm Not to Scale Figure 22 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -96 EMC Planning Group Inc. Key: © Study Intersection XX (XX)[XX] = AM(PM)[Saturday] Source: Fehr and Peen Associates Inc. Not to Scale Cd 13 Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment 23 and Design Firm (Project Buildout) •oul dnol.D Su:uuyld DNJ 86-Z 'Xub19 Wal hllnuollualul apzs sla)Z Hia Juan asgnS £0- g6 ;uautpuarud VSll o,,llf) sainsyaN uozly . !N,3 slog utl' u:l4aS Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Not to Scale Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Project Trip Assignment at Site 24 and Design Firm Driveways and Nearby Intersections Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -100 EMC Planning Group Inc. y Sq s..100 3701 s� J Key: O= Study Intersection 00(00)(00) = AM(PM)(Satuiday) Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. R�L Z 61 � 40(123) I R 7 1�1 f � i 30 (00) j- 69(156) 1I 9rA� ! Z / 72 {140) 96 (66) �► 1 1 309 (593) gCgS V— 16(11pl 4-6(0)101 r 0(2)[31 P .^ \ iD9 (10s) t 70 (99) r 4 (2) 474 (495) 1 89 (59) —► 42 (J2) v m �m Not to Scale Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Background Plus Project Buildout 25 and Design Firm Peak -hour Traffic Volumes Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -102 EMC Planning Group Inc. Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Dela ' LOS' Monterey Street and Luchessit Avenue ' Background Conditions AM 20.2 C (Existing Conditions +Approved Projects) PM 21.7 C Sports Park Phases I&II Conditions AM 20.3 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic PM 22.0 C Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 20.3 C (Phase H Conditioas + Park Phase III Traffic PM 22,1 C Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 203 C (Phase M Conditions + Park phase N Traffic PM 22.5 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 20.4 C (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic PM 22,8 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 20.5' C Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic PM 23.0 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 20:5 C (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic PM 23.0 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 22.5 - C Sorts Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic PM 67.4 F Monterey Street and US 101 Southbound Romps Background Conditions AM 12.7 H (Existing Conditions +Approved Projects PM 13.9 B- Sport Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 12,8 B Back round Conditions+ Park Phases I &II Traffic PM 14.1 B- Sport Park Phase III Conditions AM 12,8 B (Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic PM 14.2 .B_ Sport Park Phase IV Conditions AM 12;8 B horse III Conditions+ Park Phase IV Traffic PM 14.4 B- Sports Park Phase V Conditions I AM 12,8 B Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic PM 14.6 13- Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 12,9 B Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic PM 14.7 B- Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 12.9 B Phase Vl& VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic PM 14.7 B_ Project.Buildout Conditions AM 13.9 B. (Sports Park. Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 16.1 C+ Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figur ur e A Land Use Planning Background Plus Project 2 and Design Firm Signalized Intersections LOS Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -104 EMC Planning Group Inc. Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Dela '— LOS' Monterey Street and US 101 NB Ramps Background Conditions AM 20.2 C xistin Conditions +A roved Projects PM 20,8 C Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 20,2 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &Ii Traffic PM 20.8 C Sports Park Phase III Conditions A AM 202 . C Phase B Conditions+ park phase III Traffic) 20,7 C Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 20.2 C (Phase III Conditions+ Park Phase IV Traffic PM 20.7 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 20,2 C Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic PM 20.6 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 20.2 C (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic PM 20.6 C Sports Park Phase VIII&IX Conditions' AM 20.2 C base VI &VII Conditions+ Park Phases VIII&IX Traffic PM 20.6 C Project Buildout Conditions AM. 19.g C S arts Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic PM 19.8 C Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road' Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 11.8 B (Phase III Conditions+ Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 16.0 C+ Sat. 18.1 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions ?M 11.9 B ( Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) ' PM 18,3 C :Sat 20.5 C' Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM g g B (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) = PM 19.1 C Sat 21.6 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions3 AM 9.9 B Traffic) (Phase Vl &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX PM I9.1 C Sat 21.6 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 23.5 C_ (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 703.5 F Sat 2493.0 F Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 3 LOS calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program. TRAFFIX, which is based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manuel delay methodology for signalized intersections. These phases of the sports park include roadway and Uvas Creek Trail improvements. The park is not estimated to generate any additional tra0ic over Phase VI &VII conditions. ' This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs. The approved sports park project was conditioned to signalized this intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park See Table I Ob for LOS results for phases of the project prio to signalization. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Background Plus Project 26b and Design Firm Signalized Intersections LOS Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -106 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Background Plus Proj ect rf r7a and Design Firm Unsignalized Intersections LOS L Worst Case • Intersection Movement Average Average Peak •Total Total Scenario Hour Dele I LOS= Dela L Luchessa Avenue and.Princevalle Street Background Conditions AM 1.8 A 5.9 B (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.2 A 6.4 B Sat 0.9 A 5.4 B Sports Park Phases I &!I Conditions AM 1.8 A 5.9 B (Background Conditions+ Park Phases I &R Traffic) PM 1.3 A 6.9 B Sat 1.0 A 6.0 B Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 1.8 A 6.0 B (Phase II Conditions+ Park Phase III Traffic) PM 1.4 A 7:3 B Sat 1.0 A 6.5 B Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 1.9 A - 6.0 B (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 1.5 A 8.1 B Set 1.2 A 7.5 B Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.0 B (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic)' PM 1.6 A 9.2 B Sat 1.4 A 8.8 B Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.2 B (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM I.7 A 9.7 B Sat 1.5 A 9.4 B Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 1.9 A 6.2 B (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 1.7 . A 9.7 B Sat 1.5 A 9.4 B Project Buildout Conditions AM 2.1 A 7.7 B (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 4.7 A 35.5 E Sat 8.6 B 71.9 F Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Background Conditions AM 1.0 A 6:2 B (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.0 A 5.7 B Sat ' 0.9 I A 4.2 i' A Spans Park Phases I &[I Conditions AM 1.0 A ! 6.3 B (Background Conditions+ Park Phases I &II Traffic) I PM 1.1 A 6.5 B Sat 1.0.. A 5.0 B Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 1.0 A 6.4 B (Phase Il Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 1.1 A 7.1 B Rif 1 1 4 a7 Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Background Plus Proj ect rf r7a and Design Firm Unsignalized Intersections LOS L -our dnoaq Suzuuuid 3M '4un19 4fal fiIlbuo:$ualul apls snLL u la juan asgnS £o-86 7uauupuawVVSn ojlrg sasnsvaN uoljn ljjN yq sjon tal l u.tMaS Worst Coe Intersection Movement Average Average Peak Total Total . Scenario Hour Dela , LOS r Del Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 1.0 A 6.4 B (Phase III Conditions +Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 1.3 A 8,5 B Sat 1.3 A 7.3 B Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 1.0 A 6.5 B (Phase IV Conditions+ Park Phase V Traffic) PM 1.6 A 10.4 C Sat 1.6 A 9.4 B Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 1.1 A 6.8 B (Phase V Conditions+ Park Phases VI &VUTmf ic) PM 1.7 A 11.3 C Sat 1.8 A 10.6 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM Ll 'A 6.8 B (Phase VI &VII Conditions+ Park Phases VIII&IX Traffic) PM 1.7 A 11.3 C Sat 1.8 A 10.6 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 1.8 A 10.1 C (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 73.3 F >120 F Sat 2616 F >120 F Montere Street and Ferman Fronta a Road Background Conditions AM 0.5 A 9.3 B (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 0.7 A 16.4 C Sat 0.2 A 9.0 B Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 0.5 10.8 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 2.0 A 23.6 D Sat 13 p 13.8 C Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 0.6 A 11.8 C (Phase 11 Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 3.4 I A 32.3 E Sat 2.7 A 19.1 C Notes: r Average total intersection delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' ' LOS calculations performed using the CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Mamial methodology for two -way stop - controlled intersections. ' These phases of the sports park include roadway and Uvas Creek Trail improvements. The park is not estimated to generate any additional traffic over Phase VI &VII conditions. -- ' This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs. The project proposes for this intersection to continue to be stop sign controlled until Phase Vlll of the project when a signal will be consmicted. See Table laa for LOS results for sports park phases VII& IX and buildout of the project when the signal will be in place. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Figure A Land Use Planning Background Plus Project rl r71� L 7 V and Design Firm Unsigrialized Intersections LOS •iul dnoif) Suluunld JM OIL -Z •xuvlq 4fal fillmollua }u: apls sAL ulg;uan asgnS £0'S6 3uautpuauld 5'Sn fto.1119 sasnsnaN uoun t1gy g spv u—,- k as Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures West Luchessa Avenue /Church Street The overall operations of the West Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection are projected to be acceptable through the final phase of the sports park. With the build -out of the project, overall intersection operations are projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. Operations during the AM peak hour are projected to continue to be LOS A. The worst approach.is also projected to operate at acceptable levels through the final phase of the sports park (LOS B and C) and deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours with build -out of the residential and commercial parcels. Monterey Street /Monterey Frontage Road The approved sports park is required to install a traffic signal at the Monterey Street /Monterey Frontage Road intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the sports park. Overall intersection operations at the intersection prior to signalization are projected to be acceptable through completion of Phase III of the sports park during AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The operations of the worst approach, eastbound Monterey Frontage Road, are projected to remain at acceptable levels during all three peak hours through the completion of Phase II of the sports park. With the completion of Phase III, this approach is projected to deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour. With signalization, the intersection of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road is projected to operate at acceptable levels during the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours (with no lane additions) from Phase IV through the final phase of the sports park. With build -out of the commercial and residential parcels, the operations of this intersection are projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. Operations during the AM peak hour are projected to be LOS C, an acceptable operating level. Roadway Segments Levels of Service. With the addition of project- generated traffic one of the four key segments, is projected to operate at an unacceptable level: West Luchessa Avenue between Princevalle and Monterey Streets is projected to operate at LOS E With the addition of project build -out traffic. The remaining segments are projected to continue to operate at LOS C or better, acceptable levels based on the City of Gilroy standard. Roadway segment level of service is summarized in Figure 28. Highway Segments Level of Service. , . According to CMP guidelines, freeway segments to which a proposed development is projected to add trips equal to or greater than one percent of the freeway segment's capacity must be evaluated. Nearby segments of U.S. Highway 101 were reviewed to determine if a significant amount of project traffic would be added to these freeway segment during the PM peak hour. (The segment of U.S. Highway 101 south of Monterey Street is a conventional highway [not freeway]. The CMP TIA guidelines do not specify a methodology for the analysis of multi -lane highway segments. Therefore, the freeway segment methodology was used to approximate the operating conditions on this segment.) Capacities of 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for four -lane segments and 2,300 vphpl for freeway EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -111 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 03 Subsequent EIR segments with six or more lanes were used in the analysis. The project is estimated to add traffic that will exceed one percent of the capacity to all four of the nearby freeway segments. All of the segments are projected to operate at LOS B or C during the PM peak hour, which are acceptable levels of service. Level of service calculations were conducted for the segment of State Highway 352 between U.S. Highway 101 and Frazier Lake Road using traffic volumes estimated for Project Conditions. Under Project Conditions, this segment is projected to operate at LOS E during-both peak hours. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will: cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. This threshold is further defined as follows: 0 At signalized intersections, a significant impact would occur when the addition of project traffic causes: a. Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D; E, or F); or b. Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS D, E, or F) by increasing the critical movement delay by four or more seconds and increasing the volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio by 0.01 or more. This definition is based on the VTA's definition of significant impact with definition of acceptable operating level set at LOS C (rather than the CMP LOS E standard). 0 At unsignalized intersections, a significant impact would occur when the addition of project traffic causes: a. Overall intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E, or F); or b. Worst case approach operations to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. • substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; • result in inadequate emergency access; and /or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. 2-112 EMC Planning Group Inc. Background Project LOS C Volume Weekday Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Daily Segment Type' (vpd') Volume LOS Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane 14,500 5,060 A 11,100 B Thomas Road to Princevalle St. Arterial Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane 14,500 6,880 A 17,540 E Princevalle St. to Monterey St. Arterial Monterey Street, I Tenth St. to Luchessa Ave. 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 9,800 A 13,060 A Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane 29,000 13,300 A 26,940 C Luchessa Ave to US 101 Divided Arterial Note: ' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 1998 and 1999 City of Gilroy Traffic Monitoring rcports. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. Program ' Vehicles per day. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Source: Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. A Land Use Planning Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Background Plus Project Figure 28 and Design Firm Roadway Segments LOS Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2 -114 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting Impacts £a Mitigation Measures Project Traffic Impacts The proposed project will have a significant adverse impact on four of the six key intersections studied in the TIA: • West Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street; • West Luchessa Avenue and Church Street; • Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue; and • Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. The proposed project will also have a significant adverse impact on one of the four roadway segments studied in the TIA: • Luchessa Avenue between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street. Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing The approved sports park is not expected to build out for approximately 20 years and there are no proposals for development of the commercial parcels at this time. A residential development is in the RDO process and it is possible that the residential portion of the project site could be developed within the next several years. The proposed residential portion of the project would generate significantly less traffic than the commercial portion of the project and the sports park. Because the timing for actual development of the project site is not known, and the build -out of the proposed project is likely to involve several separate developments, implementation of the mitigation measures would be dependant upon conditions at the approval of the individual projects. Project - specific environmental review and traffic analysis would be required to determine when each of the identified mitigation measures would be required to be implemented and who the responsible party for implementation would be. Less Than Significant Impact —West Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street. The addition of project traffic to the West Luchessa Avenue / Princevalle Street intersection causes the worst approach to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS E during the PM peak hour and from LOS B to LOS F during the Saturday peak hour. The estimated PM and Saturday peak -hour traffic volumes at the West Luchessa Avenue / Princevalle Street intersection satisfy the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant for traffic signal installation under Project Build -out Conditions. The operation of this intersection would improve to LOS B during AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours with the installation of a traffic signal with two -phase operation and the existing lane configuration. This signalization is already included in the City's Capital Improvement Budget, and is programmed for implementation in 2001 or 2002. Because planned improvements would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level, no mitigation measure is required. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -115 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Significant Impact —West Luchessa Avenue /Church Street. The addition of project traffic to the West Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection would cause both overall intersection operations and the worst approach to deteriorate from acceptable operating levels to LOS F during both the PM and Saturday peak hours. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements are also satisfied for the intersection of West Luchessa Avenue and Church Street during the PM and Saturday peak hours under Project Build -out Conditions. The proposed project's impact at this intersection would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the following mitigation measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure the intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours under Project Build -out Conditions. Mitigation Measure 20. The following street improvements shall be made to the intersection of West Luchessa Avenue and Church Street: installation of a traffic signal with two -phase operation; re- configuration of the northbound and southbound approaches as necessary to provide one approach lane for all movements; provision of one left -turn lane and one shared through and right-turn lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City of Gilroy traffic - monitoring program or a project - specific traffic analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. Significant Impact— Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue. The intersection of Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue is projected to degrade from LOS C to LOS F during the PM peak hour with the addition of project - generated traffic. Implementation of the following would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 21. The following street improvements shall be made to the intersection of Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue: construction of a second northbound left -turn lane and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane; 2 -I16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures • addition of a right -turn arrow for the eastbound right -turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left- turn movement has a green arrow). The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City of Gilroy traffic - monitoring program or a project - specific traffic analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. Significant Impact— Monterey Street/Monterey Frontage Road. The operation of the Monterey Street /Monterey Frontage Road intersection is projected to deteriorate from acceptable level under Background Conditions to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours with the addition of project traffic and construction of the proposed traffic signal. The approved sports park project is required to install a traffic signal at the Monterey Street /Monterey Frontage Road intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the sports park. Depending on the timing of the construction of the commercial components of the proposed project, installation of this traffic signal may be required prior to completion of Phase III of the sports park and additional improvements to this intersection be may be necessary. With the development of the commercial parcels, additional turn lanes would be needed to serve traffic entering and exiting the shopping center. Two exclusive southbound right -turn lanes, two northbound left -turn lanes and widening of the eastbound approach would be needed to serve the projected volumes. Street improvements would need to be coordinated with future plans to widen Monterey Street to six lanes. The recommended lane configurations may require widening on the west side (beyond that planned by the City) to provide one or both southbound right -turn lanes and possibly the second northbound left-turn lane. The northbound left -turn lane may be able to be added with median modifications alone. The improvements to the Monterey Frontage Road leg of the intersection would require substantial widening on Monterey Frontage Road, which is currently 50 feet wide at the intersection and narrows to 30 feet approximately 100 feet west of Monterey Street. The TRAFFIX design queues estimated for the Monterey Frontage Road approach to its intersection with Monterey Street indicate that a 250 -foot right - turn pocket and two 475 -foot left-turn pockets will be needed to accommodate the projected queues. It is also recommended that the second westbound lane on Monterey Frontage Road (to accommodate the second northbound left-turn lane from Monterey Street) be continued to the sports park entrance road, approximately 600 feet from the intersection. Monterey Frontage Road currently curves to the south just west of its intersection with Monterey Street. Some realignment of the roadway may be necessary (Monterey Frontage Road may need to be extended EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -117 Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR farther to the west before it curves to the south) to provide adequate turning radii at its intersection with Monterey Street. Feasibility of the improvements to Monterey Frontage Road and its intersection with Monterey Street is subject to more detailed engineering studies. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 22. Following or in conjunction with the signalization of the intersection of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road, the following street improvements shall be made: - • re- configuration of the southbound approach as necessary to provide one left -turn lane, two through lanes, two right -turn lanes; • re configuration of the westbound approach as necessary to provide one shared lane for all movements; • re- configuration of the northbound approach as necessary to two left- turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through /right - turn lane; • re- configuration of the eastbound approach as necessary to provide one exclusive left -turn lane, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -turn lane. • right -tum arrows shall be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three study periods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound approaches. The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City of Gilroy traffic - monitoring program or a project - specific traffic analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. Significant Impact — Luchessa Avenue Roadway Segment. With the addition of project - generated traffic, one of the key roadway segments is projected to deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service. The segment of West Luchessa Avenue between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street is projected to degrade from LOS A to LOS E, an unacceptable level based on the City of Gilroy standard. This is considered a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 2 -118 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures 23. A right -of -way sufficient for a six -lane arterial shall be dedicated to the City of Gilroy along the West Luchessa Avenue frontage of the project site. The dedication shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project - specific traffic analysis. The dedication shall be implemented at such a time as to allow construction necessary to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. 24. West Luchessa Avenue shall be widened to four lanes between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a, project - specific traffic analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. Less Than Significant Impact —U.S. Highway 101. The proposed project is estimated to add traffic that will exceed one percent of the capacity to all four of the nearby freeway segments. All of the segments are projected to operate at LOS B or C during the PM peak hour, acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the project impact on these segments is less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. 2.15 Issues Determined to Have Less Than Significant Impacts Mineral Resources The project site is not a known location of valuable mineral resources. The proposed project would have no impacts on mineral resources. Population and Housing The proposed project would result in approximately 150 new housing units within the City of Gilroy and would add approximately 500 people to the population. The proposed commercial area would provide additional jobs. The proposed project would have no significant adverse effects on population or housing. The City of Gilroy is preparing a fiscal impact analysis for the proposed project. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -119 Setting Impacts & Mitigation Measures Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR Recreation The approved but not yet built Gilroy Sports Park is located on the project site and the Uvas Creek Trail extends east from the project site. A neighborhood park is part of the project description. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on existing recreational facilities and would not require the construction of any new facilities off the project site that might result in environmental impacts. 2 -120 EMC Planning Group Inc. 3.0 Related Environmental Issues 3.1 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that a lead agency make findings of overriding considerations for unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts before approving a proposed project. The loss of prime farmland is generally considered a significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impact. The proposed project would result in the loss of the 54.85 acres of prime farmland (though some of this land is used for commercial and residential farm - related uses). The USA amendment request also includes the . approved Gilroy Sports Park. The sports park was approved by the City of Gilroy on June 7,1999. Development of the sports park will result in a loss of 78.36 acres of prime farmland. In all, the USA amendment area, including the proposed project and the previously approved project, encompasses 133.21 acres of prime farmland. The loss of prime farmland is discussed in Section 2.2 Agricultural Resources. The establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area by both the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara serves as a regional mitigation for losses of prime farmland outside of the agricultural lands area in southern Santa Clara County. Although- this regional mitigation has been implemented, it does not serve to reduce the loss of prime farmland to a less than significant level and the proposed project would still be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on prime farmland. CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a) requires the decision- making agency (the City of Gilroy, as well as the Santa Clara County LAFCo) to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." CEQA Guidelines section 15093(b) states that when the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -1 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR 3.2 Cumulative Impacts CEQA Requirements CEQA Guidelines section 15130 requires a discussion of the significant cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b) requires the following: The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact... CEQA requires a cumulative development scenario to consist of either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary; those projects outside the control of the agency, or, a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. When based on a list of past, present, and probable future projects, factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type. "Probable future projects" may be limited to those requiring an agency approval for an application which has been received at the time the notice of preparation is released, unless abandoned by the applicant; projects included in an adopted capital improvements program, general plan, regional transportation plan or other similar plan; projects included in the summary of projections of projects (or development areas designated) in a general plan or a similar plan; projects anticipated as later phases of a previously approved project; or those public agency projects for which money has been budgeted. The geographic area affected by the identified cumulative impacts, and an explanation of the basis of the geographic scope used in analyzing cumulative impacts, must be presented. Cumulative Conditions Basis Cumulative conditions used for the proposed project include existing development, approved but not yet built projects, and probable projects in the southern part of 3 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues Gilroy. Traffic from the proposed project was anticipated to have a potentially significant impact on the local area, and to be likely to contribute with other projects towards significant cumulative impacts. Southern Gilroy was selected as the area of study for cumulative impacts because traffic from the proposed project would most affect southern Gilroy. Approved, but not yet constructed, projects are included in the cumulative. analysis summarized in Table 10. TABLE 10 Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site Projects Use and Size Thomas Rd Prop 75 single - family homes Architectural Facades Manufacturing 4.47 acres industrial Carls Junior 3,700 square -foot restaurant Fibertech 68 employees (industrial) Jeffries Restaurant 5,500 square foot restaurant Presbyterian Church 8 single- family residential units Fortino 28 single - family residential units Kmart Building Re -Use 100,000 square -foot retail store Obata Industrial Park 10 acres of industrial remain to be developed Pacific Coast Recycling 2.8 acres industrial Eagle Ridge 550 single- family and townhouse units, 18-hole golf - course Rocha Industrial Building 25,665 Square -foot industrial The Uplands 58 single- family residential units Ramada Hotel Hilton Garden Inn 113 rooms Gilroy Cinemas 8 screen 1,100 seat theater Source: Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. and City of Gilroy Investigation indicates that the proposed project would or may make significant contributions to cumulative impacts in the areas of agricultural resources, air quality hydrology, and transportation/ circulation. The project is unlikely to have potentially significant cumulative impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, noise or public services. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -3 Related Issues Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Agricultural Resources Land that is within the USA is either currently provided with urban services such as water and sewer, or is planned to have such services within an approximate five - year timeframe. Inclusion of Prime Farmland within an USA invariably means that the farmland will be lost to agricultural use within a matter of years. Prime farmland is a non - replaceable resource. Each project that involves the conversion of prime farmland to non - agricultural uses contributes to the depletion of this resource. Approval of the USA amendment and development of parcels adjacent to the sports park site would result in the loss of 54.85 acres of designated prime farmland. Approximately 49.85 acres of this farmland would be converted from agricultural production. Commercial and utility uses occupy 0.8 acres and rural residential, agricultural structures and yards occupy approximately 4.2 acres of the project site's Prime Farmland. The USA amendment request also includes the approved Gilroy Sports Park. The sports park was approved by the City of Gilroy on June 7,1999 resulting in a loss of 78.36 acres of prime farmland. In all, the USA amendment area, including the proposed project and the previously approved project, encompasses 133.21 acres of prime farmland. Approximately 128.21 acres of this farmland would be converted from agricultural production. The proposed project, sports park and cumulative projects together would convert over 550 acres of prime farmland to non - agricultural uses. The conversion of prime farmland would be a significant cumulative environmental impact. Approximately 1,900 acres of prime farmland were converted to non - agricultural uses in Santa Clara County from 1990 to 1995 (California Department of Conservation 1996 and Santa Clara County 1994). This represents a loss of approximately 5.4 percent of the total prime farmland that existed in Santa Clara County in 1990. The proposed project would transfer approximately 0.4 percent of the remaining prime farmland in the county into the City of Gilroy USA. The establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area serves as partial mitigation for development elsewhere on the region's prime farmlands, however, this mitigation does not replace the converted prime farmland. This conversion of valuable agricultural land to non - agricultural uses is a significant environmental impact. Air Quality The BAAQMD does not set a specific threshold for cumulative mobile- source emission increases in local jurisdictions. It is assumed that the cumulative projects will exceed BAAQMD project- specific thresholds for at least one pollutant. The individual projects when analyzed together. are anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact on air quality. On July 10, 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency changed the San Francisco Bay Area's classification for national 1 -hour ozone standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified nonattainment" area. The re- designation 3-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues action is EPA's formal recognition that the region has had recent violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The notice required San Francisco Bay Area co -lead agencies to prepare a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region complies with the Federal Clean Air requirements. In response, the 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted by the BAAQMD in June 1999. The plan presents a strategy for re- establishing an ozone attainment record in the future. This plan is discussed in Section 2.3 Air Quality. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, general plans, master plans, annexations and similar projects, such as the proposed project, are considered to have a less than significant cumulative air quality impact if they are consistent with the Clean Air Plan. They are judged for consistency with the Clean Air Plan based on use of consistent population projections. According to the Draft EIR for the City of Gilroy 1999 -2000 General Plan the proposed general plan population projections are consistent with the Association of Bay Area Government 1996 forecast, which was used in developing the 1997 Clean Air Plan. Therefore the proposed general plan is consistent.with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the proposed general plan, therefore the proposed project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan and no significant cumulative impact results. Hydrology Urban development in the Pajaro River watershed has resulted in the covering of many acres of permeable land with impermeable surfaces such as pavement and structures. Essentially none of the rainfall that hits impervious surfaces is absorbed into the surfaces on which it-falls. When rainfall lands on these impermeable surfaces, it drains on the surface and eventually into a drainage pipe or watercourses. Storm water in the Pajaro River watershed that is not absorbed into the soil or retained in reservoirs eventually makes its way into the Pajaro River. Storm water drainage is discussed in Section 2.7 Hydrology and Flooding. Under certain storm conditions increases in the amount of area covered in impervious materials results in increased rates of run -off into streams. The increased rate of storm water run -off can result in higher flows in streams and in a more rapid rise in streams' water levels. Increased flows in streams often result in local or widespread flooding in areas adjacent to the stream. Two major floods have occurred in the lower reaches of the Pajaro River in the past several years, resulting in extensive property damage and displacement of residents. However, according to Schaaf and Wheeler, (personal communication April 12,1999), due to the location of the project site within the Uvas Creek watershed, the peak flow in Uvas Creek at the project site occurs hours after the peak rainfall. Therefore, the site soils would be saturated and the surface storage would be filled by prior rainfall at the time of the peak flows in Uvas Creek. Run -off rates on impervious surfaces are not significantly different than from saturated pervious surfaces. The minimum infiltration capacity for typical soils in the Gilroy area range from 0.05 inches per hour for heavy clays to 0.20 cubic inches per hour for loam soils. For the proposed project, this represents EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-5 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subseauent EIR approximately a 7.6 cubic feet per second difference in runoff, assuming 37.7 acres of impervious area (27.7 acres of residential, less 1.5 acres of park times 60 percent coverage, plus, 27.1 acres of commercial times 80 percent coverage) and an infiltration rate of 0.20 inches per hour. On a cumulative basis, the proposed and approved projects include sites in hillside areas with shallow clay soils that would have even lower minimum infiltration capacities than the project.site. The potential cumulative impact would be less than 0.3 percent increase in the 10 -year flood flow of 5,500 cubic feet per second, which does not overflow the channel, and, an increase of 0.1 percent in the 100 -year flow of 14,000 cubic feet per second. This would not be a significant increase in the flood flows or result in a significant increase in flood elevations for Uvas Creek. For downstream areas, including Pajaro River, the potential increases would be even smaller due to the larger existing flows and the extensive flood plain storage in the Soap Lake area downstream of Monterey Street near the Llagas Creek confluence. Transportation /Circulation This section presents the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative Conditions in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project. Cumulative Conditions are defined as existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by the proposed project, plus traffic associated with other proposed but not approved developments in the study area. Table 10, presented earlier, lists proposed but not approved projects included iri the Cumulative Conditions. Project level transportation issues are discussed in Section 2.14, Transportation/ Circulation. Cumulative Traffic Estimates Traffic volumes for Cumulative Conditions were estimated by adding traffic associated with pending developments to traffic volumes estimated for Project Conditions. Pending developments in the study area include the re-use of the Kmart building (100,000 square feet of retail space) and additional development in the Obata Industrial Park. Traffic volumes for these developments were estimated in a manner similar to the traffic projections for approved developments. Trip generation rates were estimated from TTE Trip Generation and assigned to the roadway network based on existing travel patterns, relative locations of complementary land uses, and trip distribution patterns contained in the Gilroy traffic monitoring program TRAFFIX model. 3 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service The operations of the key intersections were evaluated with level of service calculations. The intersection of Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road, at which a traffic signal is proposed as part of the Gilroy Sports Park, was assumed to be signalized under Cumulative Conditions. Under Cumulative Conditions, the intersection of Monterey Street and West Luchessa Avenue is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and the intersection of Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. These intersections are projected to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour. The remaining signalized intersections, Monterey Street at U. S. Highway 101 southbound ramps and U. S. Highway 101 northbound ramps, are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or C during both the AM and PM peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of West Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street is projected to continue have overall acceptable intersections operations during AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours, while the worst case approach is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours, similar to Project Conditions. Overall intersection operations at the West Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection are projected to be LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The worst case approach is projected to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. Under Cumulative Conditions several intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service. However, mitigation measures identified for the Project Conditions would also mitigate cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. 'Intersection operations would be improved to LOS C with implementation of the previously identified mitigation measures. Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service Three of the four key roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels. However, the segment of West Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street is projected to deteriorate to LOS F with the addition of traffic associated with pending developments. This compares to LOS A under Existing and Background Conditions and LOS E under Project Conditions. Mitigation measures identified for the project conditions would also mitigate cumulative impacts on this roadway segment. Widening West Luchessa Avenue to four lanes would provide adequate capacity to serve cumulative volumes as well as project volumes. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3_7 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR 3.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of prime agricultural land. While this loss is mitigated in part by the establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area, the prime agricultural land lost to the proposed project is not replaceable. The loss of prime agricultural land would be a significant irreversible change. 3.4 Growth Inducing Impacts Growth inducement refers to the likelihood that a proposed project will foster growth in the surrounding area, either directly or indirectly. The most common factor in fostering growth is the removal of obstacles to population or economic growth. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2 requires a discussion of the growth- inducing impacts of a proposed project. Potential growth- inducing impacts must be discussed in relation to both the potential impacts on existing community service facilities and the way a project may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment. The proposed project itself is an extension of urban services into a previously un- served area. Although all urban service infrastructure is currently available near the project site, the approval of the USA amendment would make that infrastructure available to the project site itself and would result in future growth and development in that area. The project site is currently within the City of Gilroy 20 -year development area. The proposed project would transfer the project site into the City of Gilroy USA. Provision of urban services and development within a USA is generally expected to occur within an approximate five -year timeframe. The Gilroy Sports Park has previously been approved for a portion of the project site, and a residential development is undergoing the RDO process for the northern portion of the.project site. Approval of the USA amendment request would encourage and facilitate development within the project site. Extension of services to the southern parcels on the project site and development of these parcels could result in development pressure on the land south of the project site. Although this area is designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan as OPEN SPACE, the landowners may request a USA amendment and a change in general plan designation to open their land to development. Similar pressures may be felt to the west of Uvas Creek where a finger of land less than one -half mile wide would remain outside the Gilroy USA. These areas were included in the Water Master Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. The proposed project's vicinity and relationship to the existing USA is illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 10, presented in Section 1. 3 -8 EMC Planning Group Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues 3.5 Alternatives CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (a) requires a description of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and an evaluation the comparative merits of the alternatives. An E1R need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, but must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision - making and public participation. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (b) further requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on those alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. The following project alternatives were analyzed: • Alternative #1 "No Project" alternative; The USA request is not approved by Santa Clara County LAFCo and no development takes place on the portion of the project site outside the sports park. The approved sports park is developed outside the urban service area at its approved location. Alternative #2 Reduced Project Size alternative; The USA request is reduced by 15.01 acres by eliminating the four parcels located south of the sports park access road. The resulting project site has a total of 125.20 acres, with 27.72 acres of proposed residential area and 12.12 acres of proposed commercial area. The sports park is added to the USA as part of this alternative. Alternative #3 Alternative Site alternative; A USA amendment is made on the west side of Monterey Street at Day Road in northern Gilroy. The project has approximately 25 acres of proposed residential area and 25 acres of proposed commercial area. The approved sports park is developed outside the USA at its already approved location. Alternative #1 ( "No Project ") CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (e) stipulates that the "No Project' alternative be evaluated along with its impacts. The "No Project' alternative analysis must discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The 'No Project" alternative occurs if Santa Clara County LAFCo denies the City of Gilroy request for a USA amendment for the project site. In this circumstance, no development would take place on the portion of the project site that is outside the sports park. Sports park development would proceed as planned and approved. The approved sports park would be developed outside the USA. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -9 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR The City of Gilroy General Plan and the Santa Clara County General Plan both require that only land within the city limits be developed. Land that is annexed to the city must already be within or concurrently added to the city's USA. The USA is that area which is currently developed or expected to be developed within an approximate five -year time period. The project site is currently within the city's planning area and 20 -year growth boundary, but outside the city limits and USA. Under the "No Project" alternative, the project site would remain in the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County General Plan land use designation is OPEN SPACE RESERVE, which is an interim designation for land for which the ultimate use has not been established. Aesthetics With the "No Project" alternative, the land surrounding the sports park would remain in agricultural fields indefinitely, preserving the rural atmosphere of the project site. The "No Project" alternative would have no impact on aesthetics. The "No Project" alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of aesthetics. Agricultural Resources Under the "No Project" alternative, the portions of the project site outside the sports park site would remain in agricultural production for an indefinite period of time. The 54.5 acres of prime farmland would remain in its current uses. The "No Project" alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of agricultural resources. The approved sports park would still result in the loss of 78.36 acres of prime agricultural land to non - agricultural uses. Air Quality The "No Project" alternative would result no additional emissions from vehicular trips. The "No Project" alternative would not result in emissions in. excess of BAAQCB thresholds. The "No Project" alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of air quality. Biological Resources The "No Project" alternative would have no impact on any sensitive habitat or wildlife. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on special - status species. The "No Project" alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of biological resources. Cultural Resources The 'No Project" alternative would retain the proposed residential and commercial land in agriculture and it is unlikely that any unknown buried cultural resources 3 -10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues would be disturbed. The 'No Project" alternative would have no impact on cultural resources. The "No Project' alternative is superiof to the proposed project in terms of cultural resources. Geology There would no geologic impacts under the "No Project' alternative since no building would take place, other than that already approved at the sports park. The "No Project" alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of geologic , hazards. Hydrology The 'No Project" alternative would not result in any coverage of pervious surfaces and would have no impact on the quantity or quality of storm water run -off or discharge of urban pollutants into surface waters. The "No Project' alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of hydrology. Noise The 'No Project" alternative would not place residences in an area where ambient noise levels exceed City standards for residential land use. There would be no noise impacts from athletic activities at the sports park or from traffic on Monterey Street and West Luchessa Avenue. The "No Project' alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of noise. Fire Protection Services Under the 'No Project" alternative (existing jurisdictional boundaries), the SSCCFD would continue to serve the project site, including the Gilroy Sports Park when it is built. There would be no commercial and residential development on the project site so the level of fire protective services required would be less. The "No Project' alternative is the superior project in terms of fire protective services. Police Protection Services With the "No Project' alternative Santa Clara County would continue to provide police services to the project site including the Gilroy Sports Park, when it is built. There would be no commercial or residential development on the project site so the level of police services required would be less. The "No Project' alternative is the superior project in terms of police protective services. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -11 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Water Supply With the 'No Project" alternative 54.85 acres of the project site would remain in agricultural use. Water use on the 54.85 acres would be an estimated 135.9 acre -feet per year. This is approximately 45.1 acre -feet more water per year than would be used with the proposed project. The 'No Project" alternative uses significantly more water than the proposed project. The "No Project" alternative is inferior to the proposed project. Wastewater The 'No Project" alternative would not generate any wastewater for the wastewater treatment plant. The 'No Project" alternative would have no impact on the wastewater system. The 'No Project" alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of impacts on the wastewater system. Transportation/Circulation The "No Project" alternative would not add any vehicular trips to the roadway network. The "No Project" alternative would have no impact on traffic. The 'No Project' alternative would be superior to the proposed project. Alternative #2 (Reduced Project Size) The Reduced Project Size alternative would remove four parcels from the project site. The four parcels located south of the sports park access road and designated COMMERCIAL- GENERAL SERVICES would be eliminated from the project and remain in their current uses. These parcels are APNs 808-21-027,808-21-013, 808 -21 -014 and 808 -21 -015. The Reduced Project Size alternative would have a total acreage of 126.2 acres. Residential uses would remain on the 27.72 -acre area proposed for RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and there would be 12.12 -acres of commercial uses north of the sports park access road on land designated COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in a reduction in impacts, especially in loss of agricultural land, potential flooding, and traffic complications (particularly at the Farman Frontage /Monterey Street intersection). The parcels removed from the proposed project are not necessary to maintain a contiguous boundary to the USA. Additional parcels to the north of the sports park access road were not eliminated from the project for the Reduced Project Size alternative because this would result in a "hole" in the USA. 3 -12 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues Aesthetics The Reduced Project Size alternative would involve fewer commercial buildings and the character of the project site would change less. However, the impact to the visual character would remain less than significant. The Reduced Project Size alternative would be slightly superior to the proposed project in terms of aesthetics. Agricultural Resources The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in a 15.01 -acre total reduction in conversion of Prime Farmland to non - agricultural uses, although approximately two acres of this difference is already in non - agricultural production. The Reduced Project Size alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of agricultural considerations. The approved sports park would still result in the loss of 78.36 acres of prime agricultural land to non - agricultural uses. Air Quality The Reduced Project Size alternative would be consistent with the Draft Gilroy 1999- 2000 General Plan and therefore consistent with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. The Reduced Project Size alternative would therefore have a less than significant impact on air quality. The Reduced Project Size alternative would also result in fewer vehicular trips and reduced emissions. The Reduced Project Size alternative would be superior to the proposed project in terms of air quality. Biological Resources The Reduced Project Size alternative would remove 15.01 acres of agricultural land with no biological resource value from the project site. Potential biological impacts would remain on the remainder of the project site. Biological resource issues with the Reduced Project Size alternative would be similar to those at the project site. The Reduced Project Size alternative and the proposed project are approximately equal in terms of biological resources. Cultural Resources The Reduced Project Size alternative has the same archaeological issues as the proposed project. However, the Reduced Project Size alternative would result in the elimination of only two of the four potentially historic structures on the proposed project site. The Reduced Project Size alternative is slightly superior to the proposed project. Geology There would be no unusual geologic impacts associated with either the Reduced Project Size alternative or the proposed project. The Reduced Project Size alternative and the proposed project are approximately equal in terms of geologic hazards. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -13 Related Issues Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Hydrology The Reduced Project Size alternative removes 15.01 acres of land that is proposed for development within a 25 -year flood zone from the project site. Approximately 4.5 acres of the remaining 12.12 -acre commercial area would be within a 25 -year flood zone in the Reduced Project Size alternative. All 12.12 acres of the proposed commercial area would be within a 100 -year flood zone. The Reduced Project Size alternative would reduce potential flooding impacts compared with the proposed project. The Reduced Project Size alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of hydrological impacts. Noise No noise impacts were associated with the 15.01 acres removed from the project site with the Reduced Project Size alternative. The Reduced Project Size alternative and the proposed project would be equal in terms of noise impacts. Fire Protection Services The Reduced Project Size alternative would add a smaller area to the service area of the Gilroy Fire Department. The difference in impacts would be minor and neither the Reduced Project Size alternative or the proposed project would have significant impacts. The Reduced Project Size alternative would be slightly superior to the proposed project in terms of impacts on fire protection services. Police Protection Services The Reduced Project Size alternative would add a smaller area to the service area of the Gilroy Police Department. Police staffing is based on residential population and there would be no difference in impacts between the Reduced Project Size alternative and the proposed project. The Reduced Project Size alternative would be similar to the proposed project in terms of impacts on police services. Water Supply The Reduced Project Size alternative would retain 15.01 acres of proposed commercial land in agricultural use. With the Reduced Project Size alternative water use on the 15.01 acres would be an estimated 42 acre -feet per year. This is approximately 41.5 acre -feet per year more water than would be used with the proposed project. The Reduced Project Size alternative uses significantly more water than the proposed project. The Reduced Project Size alternative is inferior to the proposed project in terms of impacts to water supply- 3-14 EMC Planning Group Gilroy USA Amendment 9s -o3 Subsequent EIR Related Issues Wastewater The Reduced Project Size alternative would reduce wastewater generation by approximately 4,500 gpd compared to the proposed project. This represents an approximate 12 percent reduction in project wastewater generation. Neither project would result in a significant impact on wastewater services. The Reduced Project Size alternative would be slightly superior to the proposed project in terms of impacts on the wastewater system. Transportation/Circulation The Reduced Project Size alternative would reduce the number of vehicular trips for the commercial land uses by 55 percent or by 8,265 daily trips, reducing the impact on the affected street network. In addition, the elimination of the commercial parcels south of the sports park entrance would eliminate the significant impact to the Farman Frontage Road /Monterey Street intersection. The Reduced Project Size alternative would be superior to the proposed project in terms of traffic impacts. Alternative #3 (Alternative Site) The alternative project site is located along the western side of Monterey Road to the north and south of Day Road in northern-most Gilroy. The location of the Alternative Site is illustrated in Figure 29. About half of the Alternative Site is within the existing Gilroy city limits. The Alternative Site is contiguous with the northern boundary of the existing Gilroy USA for approximately 1,100 feet. The alternative project site and surrounding area are currently used for a variety of rural and commercial uses. The West Branch of Llagas Creek runs in a drainage channel along part of the western boundary of the Alternative Site. Table 11 lists parcels included within the Alternative Site, their current uses and their acreage. Alternative Site and vicinity land uses are shown in Figure 30. The Alternative Site is designated COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES and RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The General Plan shows land use in a conceptual manner in the Alternative Site area, so a breakdown of land use acreage on the Alternative Site, based on the General Plan land use map is not meaningful. For this analysis, it is assumed that Alternative Site land use would be divided evenly between commercial and residential uses, closely matching the proposed project land uses. The approved sports park would be developed outside the USA at its already approved location. Aesthetics The Alternative Site alternative would involve commercial and residential development similar to the proposed project. The Alternative Site is partly developed with a mix of commercial and rural residential uses. There are no large open agricultural areas at the Alternative Site, and there is no wooded backdrop as at the project site. In addition, the Alternative Site is not in a location that is as EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -I5 Related Issues Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR visually prominent as the project site, which is located at a major entry point to the City from U.S. Highway 101. The Alternative Site alternative would have a less than significant impact to visual character, and slightly less visual impact than the proposed project. The Alternative Site alternative would be slightly superior to the proposed project in terms of aesthetics. TABLE 11 Alternative Site Parcels APN Existing Use(s) Current Acres Jurisdiction 783-19 -010 Agricultural fields; Residence and Gilroy 24.21 agricultural buildings in southeast corner; Drainage channel along south boundary. 790 - 06-008 Rural residence Santa Clara County .87 790 -06 -010 Storage yard Santa Clara County .50 790 -06 -011 Vacant land Santa Clara County 1.00 790 - 06-024 Residence and outbuildings; Used Santa Clara County 14.32 merchandise sales; Agricultural buildings; Vacant land 790 - 06-036 Agricultural field /vacant land Santa Clara County 1.44 790 - 06-037 Veterinary hospital Santa Clara County 1.35 790 - 06-041 Recreational vehicle service and Santa Clara County 7.00 storage; Agricultural fields /vacant land Total 50.69 Alternative Site Source: Santa Clara Valley Assessor's Office and EMC Planning Group Inc. Agricultural Resources The Alternative Site contains a mixture of designations on the Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map. Most of the area north of Day Road is designated Unique Farmland, and a small portion is designated Prime Farmland. The area immediately south of Day Road is designated Other Land, including the recreational vehicle facility, a rural residence and vacant land. Most of the remaining land is designated Prime Farmland, with a small area of Unique Farmland. Some of the designated Unique and Prime Farmland on the Alternative Site is developed with urban uses and some of the Other Land is undeveloped. Table 12 presents a summary of approximate areas of designated farmland and actual land use on the Alternate Site. 3 -16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: California Automobile Association and EMC Planning Group Inc. Scale: Y = 2,200' Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Alternative Site Location and Design Firm Figure 29 Related Issues Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. 3 -18 EMC Planning Group I Agricultural Rural Residence Fields Pet Supply AIterniative Site , 1 T Agricultural Fields Agricultural ` pay Road Fields Orchard Agricultural Vacant Fields ►►► Agricultural Fields Avenue Agcicirl'tural= ` Fields i, :w -" RV Rural_ Service Residence Storage Vacant Agricultural - Fields, , q Rural Res;pc Used Good Veter: Agricultural Fields Agricultural Fields Source: City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc Family Residences Scale: 1" = 500' I Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Alternative Site and Vicinity and Design Firm Figure 30 Agricultural ';• Grain Fields ';,Elevators Agricultu ;al Vacant Fields \ ti ` Rural _ EX 1ST 1 NNG Residence U S A Transient lz Apartments Antonio \ Pizza t y del Buono Grocery School a 0 �G(Under Construction) (0 \` <e�� p,, ,Ie�U Fac Source: City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc Family Residences Scale: 1" = 500' I Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Alternative Site and Vicinity and Design Firm Figure 30 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR This side intentionally left blank. I 3 -18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98- 03.Subsequent EIR Related Issues TABLE 12 Agricultural Land Designations and Uses APN Farmland Designation Actual Uses Approx. Acres 783 -19 -010 Unique Farmland Agricultural fields 14.7 Unique Farmland Residence and agricultural 'buildings; Drainage channel 1.5 Prime Farmland Agricultural fields 7.5 Prime Farmland Drainage channel .5 790 - 06-008 Other Land Rural residence .9 790 - 06-010 Other Land Storage yard .5 790 - 06-011 Prime Farmland Vacant land .2 Unique Farmland Vacant land .8 790 - 06-024 Other Land Vacant land 3.6 Prime Farmland Agricultural fields/ vacant land 7.9 Unique Farmland Agricultural buildings Residence and outbuildings; Used merchandise sales 2.8 790 - 06-036 Prime Farmland Agricultural field /vacant land .9 Unique Farmland Agricultural field /vacant land .5 790 - 06-037 Prime Farmland Veterinary hospital 1.1 Unique Farmland Veterinary hospital .3 790 - 06-041 Other Land Recreational vehicle service and storage; 4.0 Other Land Agricultural fields /vacant land 3.0 Total 50.7 Other Land 12.0 Prime Farmland 18.1 Unique Farmland 20.6 Built 11.6 Vacant/ Agricultural 39.1 Source: California Department of Conservation and EMC Planning Group Inc. The Alternative Site alternative would result in the conversion of 38.7 acres of designated Unique or Prime Farmland. This is 16.2 acres less designated farmland than would be converted with the proposed project. However, approximately 3.4 of EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -21 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR these designated acres are covered with existing built features. The Alternative Site alternative would also result in the conversion of 6.6 acres of vacant land that is designated as Other Land, but may contain farmland that would qualify as Unique or Prime. Thus, the Alternative Site alternative is likely to convert approximately 41.9 acres of designated or potential qualified Farmland to non - agricultural uses. This would be eight acres less conversion of actual farmland than the proposed project. None of the Alternative Site parcels is under a Williamson Act contract. The Alternative Site alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of agricultural considerations. Air Quality The Alternative Site alternative would be consistent with the Draft Gilroy'1999 -2000 General Plan and therefore consistent with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. The Alternative Site alternative would therefore have a less than significant impact on air quality. The Alternative Site alternative would result in essentially the same number of vehicular trips and similar emissions to the proposed project. The Reduced Project Size alternative would be similar to the proposed project in terms of air quality. Biological Resources The Alternative Site alternative would result in the construction of commercial and residential uses on approximately 50 acres of land currently used principally for agricultural, commercial and residential uses. There are at least 20 mature landscape trees on the Alternative Site, most in association with the rural residences at the northwest comer of Day Road and Monterey Road, and to the south of Day Road. It is possible that some of these trees would be considered "significant" trees as described in the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy. These trees could also provide habitat, food sources or nesting areas for a number of species of animals and birds The Alternative Site borders on the West Branch of Llagas Creek for approximately 1,000 feet, but the creek is in a highly altered artificial channel at this point and there is minimal likelihood that important biological resources are located along this channel. Based on their described preferred habitat, several of the special - status species that could potentially occur on the project site could also occur on the Alternative Site. These potential special - status species include the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii), and Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). No biological resource reconnaissance trips have been made to the Alternative Site, and it is not known if any of these special - status species actually occurs on the site. 3-22 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues Because the Alternative Site does not border a large natural riparian corridor and because much of the Alternative Site is developed, it has less potential as habitat than does the project site. Biological issues at the Alternative Site would be less than those at the project site. The Alternative Site alternative *would be slightly superior in terms of biological resources. Cultural Resources The Alternative Site alternative has similar archaeological issues as the proposed' project. Although the West Branch of Llagas Creek is now channelized, the area is part of an alluvial area known to contain many buried prehistoric resources. The Alternative Site is shown as an archaeologically sensitive area on the City of Gilroy Archaeological Sensitivity Map. No archaeological reconnaissance was conducted for the Alternative Site. According to archaeological reports prepared for the Antonio del Buono Elementary School, located approximately 700 feet south of the Alternative Site, there are several known archaeological sites in the vicinity. No historic structure evaluation was conducted for the Alternative Site. According to the archaeological report prepared for the Antonio del Buono Elementary School there are no registered historic structures in the vicinity. There is at least one structure in good condition on the Alternative Site that appears to have potential for historic merit. The residence at the northwest corner of Monterey Road and Day Road is an older home, in good condition, and with few apparent alterations. There are several residences and barns to the south of Day Road that appear to be in poor condition, but may be sufficiently old to warrant historic investigation. Archaeological issues on the Alternative Site are similar to those on the project site. There appears to be less likelihood that potentially historic structures would be affected by the Alternative Site alternative. In terms of potential impacts on cultural resources the Alternative Site alternative is slightly superior to the proposed project. Geology There would be no unusual geologic impacts associated with either the Alternative Site alternative or the proposed project. The Alternative Site alternative and the proposed project are approximately equal in terms of geologic hazards. Hydrology Flooding characteristics of the Alternative Site changed with the completion of the channelization of the West Branch of Llagas Creek in the vicinity of the Alternative Site in the 1980s. Revised FEMA flood zone maps were issued for the City of Gilroy in 1998. According to these maps, most of the area of the Alternative Site north of Day Road is in flood zone AE, and is subject to one - hundred year floods at a base flood elevation of between 221 and 225 feet above mean sea level. The portion of the EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -Y3 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Alternative Site south of Day Road is not included on the map because it is outside the city limits. Adjacent areas that are included on the map, suggest that portions of this area are within the 100 -year flood zone and that the remainder of the area is in Zone X, an area protected from 100 -year floods because the 100 -year flood flow is contained within the channel. The Alternative Site has less severe flooding than the project site. The Alternative Site alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of hydrology. Noise The Alternative Site is located along a section of Monterey Road that has less traffic than the section of Monterey Road near the project site. Because there is less traffic the ambient noise level would be lower at the Alternative Site than at the project site. The Alternative site will not receive the noise that will be associated with the sports park when it is built. The Alternative Site alternative is superior to the proposed project in terms of noise impacts. Fire Protection Services Approximately half of the Alternative Site is currently within the City of Gilroy and receives fire protective services from the Gilroy Fire Department. With the Alternative Site alternative, the Gilroy Fire Department would gain responsibility for an additional 25 -acre area of residential or commercial development. Furthermore, development of the 25 acres already under their jurisdiction would be intensified. However, under the Alternative Site alternative, the Gilroy Fire Department would not have responsibility for the sports park. Overall fire protective services requirements under the Alternative Site alternative would be the same as with the proposed project, with jurisdictional responsibility split differently under each. The difference in impacts would be minor and neither the Alternative Site alternative or the proposed project would have significant impacts. The Alternative Site alternative would be similar to the-proposed project in terms of impacts on fire protection services. Police Protection Services Approximately half of the Alternative Site is currently within the City of Gilroy and receives police protective services from the Gilroy Police Department. Police staffing is based on residential population. Since the Alternative Site is currently outside the urban services area, even those areas currently within the city limits would not be developed under existing conditions. Therefore, the Alternative Site alternative would add approximately 25 acres of residential development to the City, or about the same amount of additional residential development as the proposed project. However, under the Alternative Site alternative, the Gilroy Police Department would not have responsibility for the sports park. There would be no difference in overall police services demand between the Alternative Site alternative 3-24 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues and the proposed project, but jurisdictional responsibility would be split differently under each. The Alternative Site alternative and the proposed project would be approximately equal in terms of impacts on police services. Water Supply Many of the uses on the Alternative Site (recreational vehicle storage, used merchandise sales, vacant land) use less water than the primarily agricultural uses on the project site. Existing water use on the Alternative Site is less than on the project site. The Alternative Site alternative would have essentially the same uses and would use essentially the same amount of water as the proposed project. The Alternative Site alternative would use similar amounts of water as the proposed project but would result in a smaller reduction in water use than either the proposed project or the 'No Project" alternative. The Alternative Site alternative is inferior to the proposed project. Wastewater The Alternative Site alternative would include essentially the same amount of residential and commercial development as the proposed project, and wastewater generation would be similar. Neither the Alternative Site alternative or the proposed project would result in a significant impact on wastewater services. The Alternative Site alternative would be similar to the proposed project in terms of impacts on the wastewater system. Transportation/Circulation. The Alternative Site alternative would generate the same number of daily and peak hour trips as the proposed project. The section of Monterey Road in the vicinity of the Alternative Site has less traffic than the section of Monterey Street near the project site. Access to U.S. Highway 101 from the Alternative Site is south on Monterey Road to Leavesley Road or north on Monterey Road to Masten Road. The Alternative Site is approximately midway between Leavesley Road and Masten Road. The majority of commute traffic in the U.S. Highway 101 corridor near Gilroy is headed to and from the major employment centers of the Silicon Valley. Most commute traffic from the residential areas of the Alternative Site alternative would be traveling to and from San Jose and would use the lightly traveled Masten Road to reach U.S. Highway 101. Traffic generated by the Alternative Site alternative along Monterey Road between the Alternative Site and downtown Gilroy would be mostly for shopping trips and would be take place for the most part outside peak hours. A traffic impact analysis has not been prepared for the Alternative Site alternative. Although traffic generation would be the same, the Alternative Site alternative is likely to have less impact on traffic levels of service than the proposed project because of its position relative to heavily traveled and congested roads. The Alternative Site alternative is slightly superior to the proposed project from a traffic impact standpoint. EMC Planning Group Inc. 37 Related Issues Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Evaluation of Alternatives CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (d) requires the EIR to present enough information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant. effects of the project as proposed. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e) requires the selection of an environmentally superior alternative. If the "No Project " alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the environmentally superior alternatives amongst the remaining alternatives must be identified. The alternatives are summarized and compared in a matrix format in Table 13 and Table 14. The "No Project " alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, because it eliminates the unavoidable significant impact of loss of prime farmland and it results in reduced environmental impacts. Although there are no environmental impacts for the "No Project" alternative, it does result in the highest water use because it retains the project site in water - intensive agricultural use. For this reason it is considered worse than the proposed project and other alternatives in terms of impacts to the water supply. The Reduced Project Size alternative is the next best alternative. It reduces the magnitude of the unavoidable significant impact to agricultural resources, and also reduces impacts on air quality, hydrology and transportation. The Reduced Project Size alternative would not significantly reduce the potential noise impacts at the residential development along Monterey Road and West Luchessa Avenue. If mitigation fails to fully mitigate noise in those areas, the noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Alternative Site alternative reduces conversion of agricultural land, and especially conversion of Prime Farmland. More of the Alternative Site is already developed than the project site. The Alternative Site alternative may have slightly reduced impacts on biological resources, and would eliminate the possibility of a significant unavoidable impact from noise. The Alternative Site alternative also reduces the hydrological impacts of the proposed project. It should be noted however, that although the Alternative Site alternative could eliminate a potentially significant impact from noise, that Reduced Project Size alternative is a better overall alternative environmentally and also a superior alternative from a land use planning standpoint because of its greater contiguity to the established urban area. Noise impacts at the project (and Reduced Project Size) site are greater because of the project site's location adjacent to developed portions of the City where higher traffic volumes and noise levels are to be expected as a matter of course. Although the Alternative Site alternative eliminates the noise 3 -26 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Related Issues impacts that may be unavoidable and significant in the proposed project and the Reduced Size alternative, this is a direct result of the Alternative Site being located more distant from the more densely developed portions of the City. The Alternative Site alternative, though connected to Gilroy by planning boundaries, is more physically separated from the urbanized areas than the Reduced Project Site alternative, and thus a less desirable choice from a land planting perspective. TABLE 13 Summary of Environmental Effects of Proposed Project and Alternatives Environmental Proposed Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Issue "No Project" "Reduced Project "Alternative Site" Size" Aesthetics Less Than No Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Agricultural Significant No Impact Significant Significant Resources Unavoidable Unavoidable Unavoidable Air Quality Mitigated to Less No Impact Mitigatable to Less I Mitigatable to Less Than Significant Than Significant Than Significant Biological Mitigated to Less No Impact Mitigatable to Less I Mitigatable to Less Resources Than Significant Than Significant Than Significant Cultural Mitigated to Less No Impact Mitigatable to Less Mitigatable to Less Resources Than Significant Than Significant Than Significant Geology Less Than No Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Hydrology Potentially No Impact Mitigatable to Less Mitigatable to Less Significant Than Significant Than Significant Unavoidable Noise Potentially No Impact Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Unavoidable Unavoidable Fire Protection Less Than No Impact Less Than Less Than Services Significant Significant Significant Police Protection Less Than No Impact Less Than Less Than Services Significant Significant Significant Water Supply Less Than No Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Wastewater Less Than No Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Transportation/ Mitigated to Less No Impact Mitigatable to Less Potentially Circulation Than Significant Than Significant Significant Mitigatable to Less Than Significant Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -27 Related Issues Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR TABLE 14 Comparison of Environmental Effects of Alternatives to Proposed Project Environmental Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Issue "No Project" "Reduced Project "Alternative Site" Size" Aesthetics Better Slightly Better Slightly Better Agricultural Resources Much Better Better Slightly Better Air Quality Better Better Similar Biological Resources Slightly Better Similar Slightly Better Cultural Resources Better Slightly Better Slightly Better Geology Better Similar Similar Hydrology Better Better Better Noise Better Similar Better Fire Protection Services Better Slightly Better g Y Similar Police Protection Better Slightly Better Similar Services Water Supply Worse Worse Worse Wastewater Better Better Similar Transportation / Circulation Much Better Better Slightly Better 3 -28 EMC Planning Group Inc. 4.0 Persons Contacted, Literature Cited and Report Preparers 4.1 Persons Contacted Captain Lanny Brown, Gilroy Police Department. Ms. Sue DeBorde, Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Mr. William Headley, Jr., Facilities and Parks Development Manager, City of Gilroy. Mr. Roger Maggio, Deputy Fire Marshall, City of Gilroy. Mr. Don Nunez, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Gilroy Engineering Division Ms. Kathy Sakahara, Human Resources Department, City of Gilroy. Mr. Tom Simonson, Planning Coordinator, Greystone Homes Inc. Mr. Bryan Stice, Planner I, City of Gilroy Planning Division. Mr. Kirk Wheeler, P.E. Principal, Schaaf and Wheeler. 4.2 Literature Cited Archaeological Resource Management. Cultural Resource Evaluation of Lands for the Gilroy Sports Complex and Uvas Creek Trial Extension Project in the City of Gilroy, California. October 20, 1998. San Jose, California. Archaeological Resource Management. Cultural Resource Evaluation of 54.8 Acres at the Intersection of West Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Road in the City of Gilroy, California. December 16,1999. San Jose, California. Association of Bay Area Governments. On Shaky Ground. 1995. *Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines. April, 1996. San Francisco, California. *Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan. December 17,1997. San Francisco, California. EMC Planning Group Inc. 4_1 Contacts, References and Preparers Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent EIR Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan. June 1999. San Francisco, California. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map. 1993. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. September 1995. *Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. City of Gilroy Water Master Plan. 1993. *Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. City of Gilroy Wastewater Master Plan. -1993. *City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan. as amended June 3, 1996. Gilroy, California. *City of Gilroy. City of Gilroy General Plan Map. as revised May 14,1997. Gilroy, California. *City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. Strategies to Balance Planned Growth and Agricultural Viability in the Areas South and East of Gilroy. October 1996. City of Gilroy. Draft Gilroy 1999 -2000 General Plan. June 1999. Civil Consultants Group. Evaluation Workbook, High School and Elementary School Sites, Morgan Hill Unified School District. June 1998. *County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County General Plan. December 1994. San Jose, California. County of Santa Clara. Santa Clara County Relative Seismic Stability Map. 1974. *County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission. Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission Policies and Guidelines. February 1997. San Jose, California. *Crawford, Multari and Starr. Study of the South County Agricultural Preserve. February 1995. Creegan and D'angelo. Blocher Property Hydrology and Drainage Report. January 16, 1993. Denise Duffy and Associates. City of Gilroy Draft EIR for the 1999 -2000 General Plan. August 16,1999. Department of Water Resources. Bulletin 160 -93 The California Water Plan Update. October 1994. 4-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. I Gilroy LISA Amendment 98 -03 subsequent EIR Contacts References and Preparers *Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Noise Assessment Study for the Environmental Impact Report, Gilroy Sports Park. November 18,1998. Los Gatos, California. *Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Supplemental Noise Assessment Study for the Environmental Impact Report, Gilroy Sports Park. December 17, 1999. Los Gatos, California. *Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Panel 755). August 17,1998. *Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance'Rate Map (Panel 760). August 17,1998. *Fehr and Peers Associates. Transportation Impact Analysis, Gilroy Sports Park and LISA Amendment Subsequent EIR. January 2000. San Jose, California. *Fehr and Peers Associates. Transportation Impact Analysis, Gilroy Sports Park. December 1998. San Jose, California. *LSA Associates, Inc. Preliminary Assessment of the Biological Resources of the Lands of Blocher- Filice. January 1993. Schaaf and Wheeler. Gilroy Sports Park Hydrology Study. May 1999. *United States Army Corps of Engineers. Pajaro River Basin Uvas- Carnadero Creek, California; General Design memorandum Phase.I Report. July 1981. *United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara Area, California. September 1974. Washington, DC. Documents marked with an asterisk may be viewed at the City of Gilroy Planning Division office at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy CA. All documents are available for review at EMC Planning Group Inc., 99 Pacific Street, Suite 155F, Monterey, CA. by appointment, (831) 649 -1799. 4.3 Report Preparers EMC Planning Group Inc. Teri Wissler, Planning Manager Project Manager Richard James, Associate Planner Report Preparation and Graphics EMC Planning Group Inc. 43 Contacts, References and Preparers Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03. Subsequent EIR Cara Galloway, Senior Planner/Biologist Biological Assessment Valerie Stack, Administrative Assistant Document Production Archaeological Resource Management Dr. Robert Cartier, Principal Investigator Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. I 4-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Appendix A Notice of Preparation and and Responses to Notice of Preparation Gilroy Sports Park and Urban. Service Area Amendment Subsequent EIR Notice of Preparation Notice of Preparation To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies From: City of Gilroy Community Development Department Planning Division Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Request SCH Number 9 8102079 Location: The 133.2 -acre project site is located immediately south of the City of Gilroy in unincorporated Santa Clara County, approximately 35 miles south of San Jose, 10 miles south of Morgan Hill, and 30 miles northeast of Salinas. Figure 1 illustrates the regional location. Figure 2 illustrates the project vicinity. An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed project and certified by the City of Gilroy on June 7, 1999, and the Gilroy Sports Park Master Plan was subsequently approved by the City. The certified EIR was prepared using the existing general plan land use designations. for the project site, which includes some areas not currently proposed for development. The City of Gilroy is in the process of adopting an updated general plan. The draft of the general plan includes changes in the land use designation for some of the parcels included in the proposed .project. These parcels were evaluated in the certified EIR with an OPEN SPACE designation but are designated RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES in the new general plan. The City of Gilroy applied to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for the addition of the project site to the City's Urban Service Area. Because of the probable upcoming changes to the general plan land use designations for the project site, LAFCo required further environmental analysis based on the expected new designations. This subsequent EIR is being prepared because this expected change in the general plan land use designations is a significant change in the project description and may result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts that ), •ere not identified in the certified EIR. The project site is located at the south end of Gilrov at the southwest corner of Monterey Road and West Luchessa Avenue. It is bordered by West Luchessa Avenue to the north, Uvas Creek and Farman Lane to the south, Monterey Road and Monterey Frontage Road to the east, and Uvas Creek to the west. Surrounding land uses are residential (single - family), commercial (hotels), and agricultural (row crops). U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 300 feet from the south end of the site, to approximatelv 1,100.from the north end of the site. The City of Gilroy City of Gilroy Planning Division Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Subsequent EIR Notice of Preparation will be the Lead Agency and will prepare the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the project identified in this notice of preparation. In connection with the proposed project, we need to know the views of your agency as to the-scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency's statutory responsibility. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please respond by January 10, 2000. Please send your response to: Bryan Stice City of Gilroy Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 (408) 846 -0440 In your response please provide the name of a contact person in your agency. Date: Signature: Title: Planner I City of Gilroy Planting Division 2 Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Subsequent EIR Notice of Preparation Project Description Existing Conditions The entire 133.2 -acre project site is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, immediately south of both the city limits of Gilroy and the Urban Service Area limits. The site is currently in agricultural row -crop production. Four rural residences are located along the site's eastern boundary on Monterey Frontage Road. A propane gas sales facility is located at the corner of Monterey Road and West Luchessa Avenue. Uvas Creek is located at the western boundary and a portion of the southern boundary. A flood - control levee was constructed on a portion of the site. The levee extends from ten feet landward of the levee toe, to the bank of the channel. It extends approximately 1,100 feet (on -site) south of West Luchessa Avenue to 4,500 feet upstream (and off -site) to Miller Avenue. The City of Gilroy draft 1999 general plan land use designations for the project site are PARK /RECREATION FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES. Draft 1999 General plan land use designations surrounding the site include RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY (north), RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (west and south), COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES (east and north), COMMERCIAL - VISITOR SERVING (east) and OPEN SPACE (south). Proposed Conditions The proposed project consists of an Urban Service Area Amendment request to Santa Clara Countv LAFCo for land designated for open space, residential and commercial uses. The development of the Gilroy Sports Park and construction of off -site improvements including extension of the Uvas Creek Trail north to West Luchessa Avenue, and south to Gavilan College (including a pedestrian /bicycle bridge), extension of the city's recvcled water distribution line to the sports park, and roadway improvements were approved by the City of Gilroy when they adopted the Gilroy Sports Park Master Plan. The sports park and related improvements ,vill be constructed over an approximate 20 -year time frame. This Subsequent EIR analyzes the entire USA amendment request and potential impacts of the development of the sports park together with the adjacent USA amendment areas. Urban Service Area Amendment Request The entire 133.2 -acre site is proposed for inclusion into the city's Urban Service Area. This would include the 78.4 -acre sports park site, a 7.00 -acre parcel containing 1 flood control levee on which a bicycle trail will be built, 27.72 acres designated in the draft general plan as RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and 27.13 acres City of Gilroy Planning Division Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Subsequent EIR Notice of Preparation designated in the draft general plan as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. The project site adjoins the existing urban service area on the north and east sides and on the northern-most end of the west side. Figure 3 identifies the project site, draft general plan land use designations and the project site's relation to the existing Urban Service Area. Table 1 identifies affected parcels. TABLE 1 Assessor's Parcels in Urban Service Area Amendment Request Draft 1999 General Plan Land Use Designations Assessor's Parcel Number Acres Park/ Public Recreation 808 - 21-030 26.27 Park/ Public Recreation 808 -21 =028 31.53 Park/ Public Recreation 808 -21 -026 20.56 Park/ Public Recreation 808 -21 -021 7.00 Residential — Neighborhood District 808 -21 -018 0.87 Residential - Neighborhood District 808 -21 -016 26.05 Residential — Neighborhood District 808 -21 -008 0.10 Residential —Neighborhood District 808 -21 -009 0.70 Commercial — General Services 808 -21 -031 7.42 Commercial — General Services 808 -21 -029 4.70 Commercial — General Services 808 -21 -027 6.20 Commercial — General Services 808 -21 -013 4.51 Commercial — General Services 808 -21 -014 1.35 Commercial — General Services 808 -21 -015 2.95 Total 133.21 Source: City of Gilroy Gilroy Sports Park The Gilroy Sports Canpler Final Master Plan, prepared by Beals Group, Inc. in March 1999, is available for public review at the City of Gilroy Communitv Services Department. The master plan has been approved by the City. This Subsequent EIR will analvze the approved sports park's contributions to overall project impacts. Sports park components will include the following: recreational play fields (eight softball diamonds and four soccer fields and concession /restrooms) premier play fields (one 90 -foot baseball diamond, two little leagues diamonds and one soccer field and concession /restrooms); competition play fields (one softball /baseball City of Gilroy Planning Division 4 Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Subsequent EIR Notice of Preparation diamond and one soccer field and concession /restrooms); 8.8 acres of park preserve with volleyball, family picnic, concessions /restrooms, bocce ball courts, and play area; commercial recreation (indoor soccer, roller hockey, community building, storage); corporation yard; parking (1,043 spaces); and a night watch park ranger station. Soccer fields overlay baseball /softball fields. Football may also be played on the soccer fields. The master plan also includes the following: a minimum 50 -foot habitat buffer zone, measured from 50 feet from top of bank, along Uvas Creek to be enhanced with native plantings; a six-foot perimeter fence; walking /bicycle paths throughout the site including a portion of the extension of the Uvas Creek Trail; entry gates and an entry building at the Monterey Frontage entrance. Off -Site Improvements Off -site improvements included in• the master plan include the extension of the Uvas Creek Trail north to West Luchessa Avenue, and south to Gavilan College; extension of the city's recycled water distribution line to the sports park; and roadway improvements. Uvas Creek Trail Extension. The project's trail system will connect to the existing Uvas levee trail, which ends just past West Luchessa Avenue, and to a southward extension to the Gavilan College area. A bridge crossing is planned at the central, southern portion of the project site. The trail then continues south to Mesa Road and east into the Gavilan College campus. Recycled Water Distribution Line. The city will extend a recycled water distribution line to serve the landscape needs of the sports park. Roadway Improvements. To enable pedestrian traffic, a six -foot wide sidewalk will be constructed southward from the West Luchessa Avenue / Monterev Road intersection to the Monterey Frontage Road. There will also be a crosswalk at the Monterey Frontage Road, with appropriate project signs and introduction to the sports park. The crosswalk and intersection of Monterey Road and Monterey Frontage Road will be signalized. The sidewalk will continue down the Monterey Frontage Road and into the park itself. The sidewalk will be buffered from the road with a parkway strip consisting of shade trees and accent planting. Phasing The sports park will be developed in approximately nine phases over an approximate 20 -year time frame. Construction will begin near the entrance and continue to the west end of the site for Phases One through Seven. Phases Eight through Nine can occur at ant- time, and have been separated based on that area being able to be constructed independently of the other phases. City of Gilroy Planning Division Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Subsequent EIR Notice of Preparation Residential Development The proposed project includes 27.72 acres designated in the Draft I999 Gilroy General Plan as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. A proposal for subdivision of this area has been submitted to the City of Gilroy and is now in the City's Residential Development Ordinance process. A tentative map application can be submitted following approval in the Residential Development Ordinance process. The proposed subdivision will have 147 units of housing and will encompass the entire 27.72 -acre residential area. The proposed project will consist of 43 standard (6,000 square - foot or greater lot) single family dwellings, 47 small (less than 6,000 square -foot lot) single family dwellings and 57 units in triplexes on a common lot. A private park area of approximately one acre will be included for use of project residents. Access to the proposed project will be provided off West Luchessa Avenue. Streets within the proposed project will be public. Commercial Development The proposed project includes 27.13 acres designated in the Draft 1999 Gilroy General Plan as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. No development is currently proposed in the commercial areas. The EIR will evaluate environmental effects of the development of these areas based on a probable maximum build -out scenario. A development scenario for inclusion in the EIR assumes that the commercial areas will have 25 percent lot coverage and average two stories in height. This scenario is consistent with analysis in the EIR for the new general plan and will result in a total of 590,238 square feet of commercial development on the project site. Scope of the Subsequent EIR The Subsequent EIR will analyze the potentially adverse environmental effects of the proposed subdivision and the maximum probable commercial build -out of the project site as allowed under the proposed general plan. No changes are proposed for the development of the approved sports park or related off -site improvements, and these will be analyzed only as they contribute to overall project impacts and cumulative impacts. Sports park- specific environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the certified EIR and no new analysis will be presented. New analysis in the Subsequent EIR will focus on the maximum probable build -out of the residential and commercial parcels and their cumulative effects with the sports park. The Subsequent EIR will analyze the proposed project's potential adverse environmental effects on hydrology, public services and service systems, transportation /circulation, air qualitv, noise, cultural resources, and aesthetics. Revised cultural resources, noise and traffic studies will be prepared for the proposed project. The revised traffic report will address AM and PM weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic. Additional traffic analysis will be conducted for the following intersections: City of Gilroy Planning Division Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Subsequent EIR Notice of Preparation • West Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street; • West Luchessa Avenue and Church Street; _. • Monterey Road and Monterey Frontage Road; • Monterey Road and Luchessa Avenue; • U.S. 101 and Monterey Road northbound off - ramps; • U.S. 101 and Monterey Road southbound on- ramps. Additional traffic analysis will be conducted for the following road and freeway segments: • Monterey Road, Tenth Street to West Luchessa Avenue; • Monterey Road, West Luchessa Avenue to U.S. 101 southbound on- ramps; • West Luchessa Avenue, Tenth Street to Princevalle Street; • West Luchessa Avenue, Princevalle Street to Santa Teresa Boulevard; • U.S. 101, Tenth Street to Monterey Road; • U.S. 101, Monterey Road to Castro Valley Road. City of'Gilroy Planning Division Source: California State Automobile Association and ESC Planning Group Inc. Not to Scale Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Land Use Planning :\ Planning I Subsequent EIR NOP and Design Firm Regional Location Figure 1 Gilroy Golf Course b mar 0°a GI Gilroy High School Sports Park Site Residential Area Commercial Area Pr9ject Site Gavilan College Source: California Automobile Association and ENIC Planning Group Inc. '2 C, �F Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR NOP A Land Use Planning and Design Firm Project Vicinity Scale: 1" = 2,200' Figure 2 11 Residential LoWDen,§ity_ ' - ' ST �UcHgEt(iJE' 1 '` /` �- , ' '` _- •', uy wLiM)e(I SLL.I II \ I 1• 4 li 1 •5 1 ' ",�Fiesic ,.vanv II,'66. KC_NE'T y__A1 'U.-A a -¶�N- ,I N d f- .2 ObAC .` $ 1021AL I Neighborhood District z t It n' 'L F.`. Residential Neighborhood District PTN. 6 20.00 AC. NE7 20.769 AC. (6Vtl.) ... W. e. ,. 6.... +(� Park/Reereation Facility ' %' - - SPQRTS�ARK SITE r - 1 -_. iwoa .. SL]] A0. NET (FEAR) r •- Al t l;( R ' — •CN. LOi 11. id Source: Santa Clara Counly Office of the Assessor and EMC Planning Group Inc. v i -. ESP;! _ ]0v a N a j;i 2n:n AC FiN. ANe 1_ \►isiiQ�,S�t slog, I , I \ , - -; Lt T I 2 \�i1 -� omril Open Space pE fppM FN Scale: 1" = 500' Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subseqr�uent EIR NOP Figure A Land Use Planning I Z and Design F1rm Urban Service Area Rpaue.rt 20 67A �ET LEGEND f � i Existing USA , , _ _:I r— USA Amendment Request fo ii (Project Site) IF I Proposed Spurts Part: t YIN. 12 q 7 Proposed posed Residential liI I f I Proposed ConTmercial Land use designations from Draft 1999 Gilroy General Plan Neia n' 'L F.`. Residential Neighborhood District PTN. 6 20.00 AC. NE7 20.769 AC. (6Vtl.) ... W. e. ,. 6.... +(� Park/Reereation Facility ' %' - - SPQRTS�ARK SITE r - 1 -_. iwoa .. SL]] A0. NET (FEAR) r •- Al t l;( R ' — •CN. LOi 11. id Source: Santa Clara Counly Office of the Assessor and EMC Planning Group Inc. v i -. ESP;! _ ]0v a N a j;i 2n:n AC FiN. ANe 1_ \►isiiQ�,S�t slog, I , I \ , - -; Lt T I 2 \�i1 -� omril Open Space pE fppM FN Scale: 1" = 500' Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subseqr�uent EIR NOP Figure A Land Use Planning I Z and Design F1rm Urban Service Area Rpaue.rt 01/20/2000 12:24 4088460429 CITY OF GILROY CDDMU vavw000ao 1AAs Ar. rLAA1T11YV n PAGE 02 19001 P o sox Q3= i ATION OAKLAM.0< 9462pM Td (870) 2D6YY Fas (510) 2ao-917 Tp0 (S1G) ]25 4 &U January 19, 2000 SCL -101 -526 98102079 SCL101599 Mr. Bryan Stice City of Gilroy, Planning Division 7351 .Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Mr. Stice: Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Gilroy Sports Park Draft Enviromnentel Impact Report (DEIR); City of Gilroy Thank you � for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltraus) in the environmental review process for the Gilroy Sports Pak project. We have examined the above - referenced document and have the following comments to offer. We, aro concerned about the potential impacts this project would have on State transportation facilities, namely US 101 and State Route 152. So that we may analyze these impacts, please ensure the following information is provided in the DEM: a. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. b. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intctsections. C. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for_ 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, and 3) cumulati ve for the intersections in the project area. d_ Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic- genotating developments, both existing and future; that would affect the facilities being evaluated: C. Mitigation measures that consider highway and non - highway improvements and services_ Special attention should be given to the development of alternative solutions to circulation problems which do not rely on increased highway construction. f. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities , and lead agency monitoring. 01/20/2000_ 12:24 -- 4088460429 CITY OF GILROY CDDMU PAGE 0' ' - Hrymm Sdea, City of Gfty1SCLI01599 Jamary 19.2000 Pare 2 We look forward to reviewing the environmental document for *his project. We do expect to receive a copy i min the State Clearinghouse, but in order to expedite our review, you may send two copies in advance to: Office of Transportation Planning B IGR/CEQA Branch Caltnms, District 4 P_ O_ Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623 -0660 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Haiyan Zhang of my staff at (510) 622 -1641. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director JEAN C. R. FR4NEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: State Clearinghouse 01/20/2000 12:24 4088460429 CITY OF GICROY CDDMU S! H t A C L A n A Valley Transportation Authority RECEIVED January 12, 2000 City of Gilroy Department of Community Development 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 -6141 Attention: Bryan Stice f, ?011r, ?011r, V .::C N 1 1{ , Gilroy Planning Div. Subject: Gilroy Sports Park Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent EIR Dear W. Stice: PAGE 04 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( DSEIR) for the development of the Gilroy Sports Park, a 133.2-acre sports park accommodating a variety of activities, at the southwest comer of Thomas Road and Highway 101. We have the following comments. On November 20, 1998, VTA staff commented on the first NOP for this project. Then on April 2, 1999, we commented on the first Draft EIR for this project. Our November and April comments are still relevant and are restated below with comments from the current review of the new NOP. Existing nsit Service VTA currently maintains a bus stop on Thomas Road to the south and west of Princevalle Road, within walking distance of the proposed project. The stop is served by Line 68 which travels between San Jose Diridon Station and Gavilan College. Pedestrian Access InLLrovements VTA staff recommend that the DSEIR consider the following mitigation measures that encourage pedestrian activity and transit use: • Continuous sidewalks along Thomas Road Direct pedestrian pathways to link the various activity centers with the sidewalk on Thomas Road. These measures will allow patrons of the project to safely and conveniently access existing and future transit services in the area- Local Street Network and Streetscape VTA staff also request that the DSEIR consider the urban design features mentioned below in its analysis of the transportation system. 3331 North Firsf StrdA1 - San Jose, CA 95134.1906 • Adminislrafton 406.321.5555 • Customer Service 409.321.2300 01/20/2000 12:24 4068460429 . CITY OF GILROY CDDMU PAGE 0' City of Gilroy January 12, 2000 Page 2 VTA staff are interested in ensuring that the local street network and streetscape in new neighborhoods facilitate travel by all modes. VTA staff suggest that, when development is proposed, the City ensure that urban design for the projectfeature the following: • Narrow local streets with sidewalks which directly connect the neighborhood, commercial center, and sports park. This allows residents to access the park and commercial areas by car, foot or bike without burdening the regional transportation network. • A local street network that could accommodate efficient delivery of transit service. • Building design in which parking garages and lots are not the prominent feature facing the streets. • A network of walking and biking paths that connect the sports park, the neighborhood, and commercial services. • Buildings that front the streets with small setbacks. This creates a pedestrian - frlendly environment We appreciate the opportunity to review this project and request that future plans and additional information about this project be forwarded to VTA for review and comment. As noted in VTA's November 20, 1998 letter, VTA staff are still considering the possibility of bring bus service to the sports park. VTA staff would like to work with. City and project staffs on this possibility. If you have any questions, please call Lauren Bobadilla of my staff at (408) 321 -6776. Sincerely, Derek A. Kantar Environmental Program Manager DAK:LGB:kh cc: Roy Molseed, VTA Senior Environmental Analyst 31/20/2000 12:24 4088460429 county of Santa Clara Toads and Airports Department _acrd Development Services of Skyport (hive anJoseXaffornia Osaoi= CITY OF GILROY CDDtJ RECE1 \1 9 January. 13, 2000 ,iAK 1 � ZQOQ Mr. Bryan Stice ►►roy Planning Di''. Planning Division City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Subject, Notice of Preparation of a'Draft Environment Impact Report Gilroy Sports Park Dear Mr. Stice, PAGE 06 We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project and have the following comments : The traffic impact report should include Santa Teresa Blvd. and Mesa Rd, among any other County - maintained roads. The report should also address the cumulative traffic impacts resulted from this project combined with other proposed developments in this area and mitigation measures. Thank you-for the opportunity to review and comment on this project If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 573 -2463. Sincerely, Sean Quach Project Engineer Cc: MA/SMS JME DEC AKC RVE Files Gilroy sports park Dard of Supervisars: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado, Pete Mcl-IUEA JaMW T. Beal Jr- 5. Joseph Simitlan nunry Executive Richard Wittenberg , AN W" ononvan d January 11, 2000 Mr. Bryan Stice City of Gilroy Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Mr. Slice: DECEIVED Gilroy Planning Diu. Subject: Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Request The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the subject project, received on December 21, 1999. The DSEIR is being prepared due to the probable upcoming changes in land use designations on the easterly and northerly portions of the site from open space to residential neighborhood district and commercial- general services. The following issues should be addressed and discussed in the DSEIR: Federal Emergency Management Agency maps show that the easterly portion of the proposed residential neighborhood district and the majority of the proposed commercial district is within Zone AH and would be subject to flooding to elevation 192 feet, based on Federal Insurance Administration datum, in the event of a 1 percent flood. To comply with federal flood insurance regulations, the lowest floor and highest adjacent grade of any building must be constructed above the 1 percent water surface elevation. Issues relative to the proposed land use change and resulting increases in runoff and its impacts to the 1 percent flood flow, as well as more frequent flood flows, should be addressed and mitigation measures discussed in the DSEIR. The cumulative effect of increased development and its impact to downstream flooding ofUvas Camadero Creek should also be addressed. A hydrology study should be performed to determine the effects of filling in the floodplain and to identify any impacts to the existing flooding condition in and adjacent to the project area. Mitigation measures should be discussed and provided for in the event that the study finds that the proposed developments will increase flooding on adjacent properties or increase the areas flooded. 2. The design of the site should incorporate postconstruction water quality mitigation measures such as those found in "Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater QualityProtection," prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. This manual can be obtained from the urban runoff coordinator for the City of Gilroy. Additional information may be found in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's "Parking Lot Best Management Practices Manual." 0 recycied 01/20/2000 12:24 4088460429 CITY OF GILROY CDDMU PAGE 08 Mr. Bryan Stice January 11, 2000 3. As construction on the site will include disturbance of more than 5 acres, a Notice of intent must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for storm water discharge. The DSEIR should include a discussion of the requirement and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that must be prepared for the site, along with measures that will be included with the project to reduce the introduction of pollutants into storm water runoff 4. District Ordinance 83 -2, Section 6.1, prohibits the pollution of water supplies of the District To prevent pollutants, including sediments, from reaching that portion ofUvas Camadero Creek, which is within District jurisdiction, follow the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's recommended Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction activities, as contained in 'Blueprint fora Clean Bay" and the "California Storm Water Construction BMP Handbook." This should be addressed in the water quality section of the DSEHL 5. District records show 12 wells on the site. In accordance with District Ordinance 90 -1, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) should be properly registered with the District and either be maintained or abandoned in accordance with the District standards. Property owners or their representative should call Mr. David Zozaya at (408) 265 -2607, extension 2650, for more information regarding well permits and the registration or abandonment of any wells. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and wish to review the DSEIR when it has been prepared. Sincerely, Sue A. Tippets, P.E. Engineering Unit Manager Community Projects Review Unit 01/20/2000 12:24 4088460429 CITY OF GILROY CDDMU PAGE 0! State of Califomia • The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 (707) 944 -5500 January 7, 2000 Mr. Bruce Stice City of Gilroy Community Development Department Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020. Dear Mr. Stice: GRAY DAVIS, Gov. RECEIVED JAN 1 (: 2.000 . Gilroy Planning Div. Gilroy Sports Park Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH Number 98102079 Santa Clara County Department'of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the NOP of a Draft Subsequent EIR for the Gilroy Sports 'Park project. The project would allow construction of.a 78.4-acre sports park, a 7- acre.flood control levee with a bicycle trail', `a 27'.7 -acre residential development;'and a 27.1- aci�e:dommercial development on a 133 -acre site adi_acent to'Uvas Creek.' We believe that the following issues need to be addressed in the Draft EIR. Plant and wildlife species that are present or dependant upon potentially impacted habitats need to be identified in the Draft EIR. Particular attention needs to be paid to State- and Federally - listed and candidate species, and unlisted species whose status is of regional concern. The California Natural Diversity Data Base and..the California Native Plant Society-should be consulted to identify sensitive species that have been documented in the area. Consultation with the data base should not preclude or substitute for qualitative and /or quanti tative field surveys. Sensitive species that are likely to occur in this vicinity include the steeihead (oncorhyncnus mykiss), Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), several diurnal raptors, and several sensitive bat species. Impacts to any rare, threatened, endangered species, or California species of special concern must be addressed and appropriate surveys conducted by a qualified biologist. Details regarding specific survey protocol can be obtained from t"-is Department. Impacts to these species and their Habitats should be avoided. 7moacts whic are unavoidable must be 31/20/2000 12:24 4088460429 CITY OF GILROY CDDMU PAGE 10 Mr. Bruce Stice January 7, 2000 Page Two identified and appropriate mitigation provided. Because several of the sensitive species in the area are Federally listed, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service should also be consulted regarding appropriate survey, avoidance, and mitigation measures. It is the policy of this Department that a project should cause no net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat value. We recommend impacts to creeks be 'avoided where possible. Impacts would include, but are not limited to, road crossings, culverts, channelization and rip rap. If improvements to creeks must be made due to increased run -off and'potential flooding or to catch sediments, retention basins would be preferable to channelization of the entire stream. In areas which must be channelized, we recommend the channel be oversized in order to allow for vegetation along both banks. For impacts to riparian habitat that cannot be avoided, we recommend a minimum mitigation ratio of 3:1, based on creation of in -kind acreage of equal or better habitat value. Replacement of habitat acreage at a lower ratio may be appropriate if the replacement is completed prior to the destruction of the original habitat. Any revegetation plans should use native species, with seeds or cutting.collected on -site. It is indicated in the NOP that the master plan for the sports complex includes a minimum 50 -foot habitat buffer along Uvas Creek. This Department recommends a minimum 100 -foot buffer, measured outward from the top of each creekb'ank, be established to protect the creek and its vegetation, and to provide a travel corridor for wildlife. The 50 -foot buffer that has been proposed is not adequate to protect this sensitive habitat type and the species that depend upon it. No roads, buildings, yards, turf, or paved trails should be permitted within the buffer. Pedestrian trails should be located along the outside edge of the riparian vegetation. The Department has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code sections 16CI -03 in regard to any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or charge the bed, charnel, or bark of"anv stream. We recom�.iend early consultation since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To avoid unnecessary delays, formal nctificat_on under Fish and Game Code sections 1601- 03 should be made after all other permits and certifications have been obtained. work cannot be initiated until a streambed alteration agreement is executed. A recent coo=t order requires the Department, prior to entering into a 1600 agreement, to conduct an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 01/20/2000 12:24 4088460429 CITY OF GILROY CDDMU PAGE 13 Mr. Bruce Stice January 7, 2000 Page Three Therefore, because of the additional process required under CEQA which includes minimum document circulation periods, we are no longer restricted to issuing agreements within 30 days. We will still attempt to issue these as soon as possible but, at this time, we are not certain how long it will take to process applications. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) also has jurisdiction over the discharge of fill to streams and wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.. we recommend that the Corps be contacted to determine if they have jurisdiction and if they r'e'quire "a permit. The Draft EIR should discuss the amounts and effects of urban runoff and how these can be mitigated. A policy should be included to require installation and maintenance of oil /grease separators in storm drains. Annual maintenance of the separators, as well as a sweeping program for parking lots should be required. Impacts to all sensitive species and their habitats should be avoided: Specific measures to adequately mitigate unavoidable impacts, including cumulative ones, need to be incorporated into project design prior to certification of the Draft EIR. A monitoring program, as required by Assembly Bill 3180, must ensure that mitigation measures are effective and must provide for corrective action if they are not effective. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. We request that subsequent documents related to the project be submitted to this Department for our review. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Martha Schauss, Associate Wildlife Biologist, at (831) 623 -4989; or Carl Wilcox, Environmental Program Manager, at (707) 944 -5525. Sincerely, Brian Hunter Regional Manager Central Coast Region cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Office Appendix B Urbemis 7G Printouts Env261rs.out URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 File Name: ENV261r.URB Project Name: Gilroy USA 98 -03 Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area DETAILED REPORT - Summer OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate ips Single family housing 10.40 trips / dwelling unit .00 Condo /townhouse genera 7.10 trips / dwelling unit .70 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst iesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13 0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 3.00 1.44 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 00.00 Urban Buses 2.00 00.00 Size Total Tr 90.00 936 57.00 404 Catalyst D 98.58 99.54 98.56 40.00 40.00 1 1 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00 % all fuels Travel Conditions al Residential Commerci Home- Home- Home- k Customer work Shop Other Commute Non -Wor Page 1 Env261rs.out Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 6.1 11.8 5.0 5.0 .Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 30 30 30 30 30 30 % of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 51.5 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 11.80 19.87 90.54 7.74 Condo /townhouse general 5.43 8.59 39.15 3.35 ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 17.23 28.46 129.69 11.09 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 11.56 19.40 88.39 7.56 Condo /townhouse general 5.33 8.39 38.22 3.27 ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 16.88 27.78 126.61 10.82 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest Page 2 Env261rs.out 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived Saf ety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 3.8 /19 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 < -Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Inte 0 Bike hese Features 0 Safe 0 Safe 0 Uses 0 Bike rconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide t Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes School Routes: No Schools Win Cycling Distance: No Uses Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.0 /20 = 0.20 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 15.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1 Provide Sidewalks and /or Pedestrian Paths 1 Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 4.5 <- Totals Page 3 Env261rs.out Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 2 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 2 Provide Bike Lanes /Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 9 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non - Commute Trips) Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips Pedestrian 0.10 0.40 0.40 Transit 0.54 0.12 0.14 Bicycle 1.80 1.80 1.80 Page 4 Totals Travel Mode Pedestrian Transit Bicycle Other Totals 2.43 Work Trips 0.04 0.54 1.00 0.00 1.58 Env261rs.out 2.31 2.34 Employee Trips Customer 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.94 Changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Trips Env261rw.out URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 File Name: ENV261r.URB Project Name: Gilroy USA 98 -03 Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area DETAILED REPORT - Winter OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10196) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type ips Single family housing .00 Condo /townhouse genera .70 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Trip Rate 10.40 trips / dwelling unit 7.10 trips / dwelling unit Vehicle Type Percent Type iesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 3.00 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 40.44 Med - Heavy Dutv Trucks 1.00 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 00.00 Urban Buses 2.00 00.00 Motorcycles 3.00 Travel Conditions al Home - Work Non - Catalyst 1.16 0.13 1.44 19.56 19.56 Residential Home - Shop Page 1 Size Total Tr 90.00 936 57.00 404 Catalyst 98.58 99.54 98.56 40.00 40.00 100.00 % all fuels 1 1 Commerci Home - Other Commute Non -Wor UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 17.10 22.49 156.96 7.74 Condo /townhouse general 7.71 9.72 67.86 3.35 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 24.81 32.22 224.82 11.09 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 16.73 21.96 153.23 7.56 Condo /townhouse general 7.55 9.49 3.27 M PM10 ROG NOX TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 24.28 31.45 10.82 66.25 CO 219.48 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage Page 2 Env261rw.out k Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 6.1 11.8 5.0 5.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 30 30 30 30 30 % of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 51.5 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 17.10 22.49 156.96 7.74 Condo /townhouse general 7.71 9.72 67.86 3.35 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 24.81 32.22 224.82 11.09 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 16.73 21.96 153.23 7.56 Condo /townhouse general 7.55 9.49 3.27 M PM10 ROG NOX TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 24.28 31.45 10.82 66.25 CO 219.48 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage Page 2 Env261rw.out 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest —. 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived Saf ety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 3.8 119 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 < -Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Inte 0 Bike hese Features 0 Safe 0 Safe 0 Uses 0 Bike rconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide t Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes School Routes: No Schools Win Cycling Distance: No Uses Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.0 /20 = 0.20 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 15.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1 Provide Sidewalks and /or Pedestrian Paths 1 Provide Direct.Pedestrian Connections Page 3 Env261rw.out. 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 4.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 2 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 2 Provide Bike Lanes /Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 9 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non- Commute-Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips Pedestrian 0.10 0.40 0.40 Page 4 Changes Made to the Default Values. Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Trips Env261rw.out Transit 0.54 0.12 0.14 Bicycle 1.80 1.80 1.80 Totals 2.43 2.31 2.34 Travel Mode Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Pedestrian 0.04 0.40 0.40 Transit 0.54 0.01 0.54 Bicycle 1.00 1.00 1.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 1.58 1.41 1.94 Changes Made to the Default Values. Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Trips Env261cw.out URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 File Name: ENV261CM.URB Project Name: Gilroy USA98 -03 Commercial Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area DETAILED REPORT - Winter OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Tr ips Regnl shop. center > 5 36.50 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 590.00 21,535 .00 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst D iesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 98,58 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13 99.54 0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 3.00 1.44 98.56 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 1 00.00 Urban Buses 2.00 1 00.00 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00 % all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Commerci al Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Wor k Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 6.1 11.8 5.0 Page 1 10.0 15_0 10.0 30 30 30 51.5 2.0 1.0 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Regnl shop. center > 5700 144.00 210.93 1334.85 75.23 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 144.00 210.93 1334.85 75.23 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Regnl shop. center > 5700 140.91 206.14 1304.52 73.52 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 140.91 206.14 1304.52 73.52 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Page 2 Env261cw.out 5.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 30 30 30 % of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Regnl shop. center > 570000 sf 97.0 10.0 15_0 10.0 30 30 30 51.5 2.0 1.0 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Regnl shop. center > 5700 144.00 210.93 1334.85 75.23 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 144.00 210.93 1334.85 75.23 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Regnl shop. center > 5700 140.91 206.14 1304.52 73.52 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 140.91 206.14 1304.52 73.52 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Page 2 Env261cw.out Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived -Saf ety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 3.8 /19 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 < -Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Inte 0• Bike hese Features 0 Safe 0 Safe 0 Uses 0 Bike rconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide t Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes School Routes: No Schools Win Cycling Distance :.No Uses Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.0 /20 = 0.20 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 2 Provide Transit Shelters Benches 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 17.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 2 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) Page 3 Env26lcw.out % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1 Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 3.5 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 7 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non- Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non - Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips Pedestrian 0.04 0.18 0.18 Transit 0.60 0.13 0.16 Bicycle 1.40 1.40 1.40 Totals 2.05 1.71 1.74 Travel Mode Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Trips Page 4 changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Env261cw.out Pedestrian 0.08 0.70 0.70 Transit 0.60 0.01 0.60 Bicycle 1.00 1.00 1.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 1.68 1.71 2.30 changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Env261cs.out , URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 File Name: ENV261CM.URB Project Name: Gilroy USA98 -03 Commercial Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area DETAILED REPORT - Summer OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Tr ips Regnl shop. center > 5 36.50 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 590.00 21,535 .00 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst D iesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 98.58 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13 99.54 0.33 Medium Duty-Trucks 3.00 1.44 98.56 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 1 00.00 Urban Buses 2.00 1 00.00 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00 % all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Commerci al Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -Wor k Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 6.1 11.8 5.0 5.0 Page 1 Env261cs.out Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 30 30 30 30 30 30 % of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 51.5 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Regnl shop. center > 570000 sf 2.0 1.0 97.0 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Regnl shop. center > 5700 99.03 184.69 808.14 75.23 ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 99.03 184.69 808.14 75.23 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ' ROG NOx CO PM10 Regnl shop. center > 5700 96.98 180.49 789.78 73.52 ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 96.98 180.49 789.78 73.52 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived Saf Page 2 Env261cs.out ety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 3.8 119 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 < -Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Inte 0 Bike hese Features 0 Safe 0 Safe 0 Uses 0 Bike rconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide t Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes School Routes: No Schools Win Cycling Distance: No Uses Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.0 '/20 = 0.20 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 2 Provide Transit Shelters Benches 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 17.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 2 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment Page 3 Env261cs.out 1 Provide Wide Sidewalks and Onsite Pedestrian Facilities 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 3.5 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 7 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non - Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips Pedestrian 0.04 0.18 0.18 Transit 0.60 0.13 0.16 Bicycle 1.40 1.40 1.40 Totals 2.05 1.71. 1.74 Travel Mode Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Trips Pedestrian 0.08 0.70 0.70 Transit 0.60 0.01 0.60 Page 4 Env261cs.out Bicycle 1.00 1.00 1.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.001_. Totals 1.68 1.71 2.30 Changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Env261ts.out URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 File Name: ENV261T.URB Project Name: Gilroy USA 98 -03 total Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area DETAILED REPORT - Summer OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Tr ips Single family housing 10.40 trips / dwelling unit 90.00 936 .00 Condo /townhouse genera 7.10 trips / dwelling unit 57.00 404 .70 Regnl shop. center > 5 36.50 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 590.00 21,535 .00 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst D iesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 98.58 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13 99.54 '0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 3.00 1.44 98.56 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 1 00.00 Urban Buses 2.00 1 00.00 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00 % all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Commerci al Home- Home- Home - Page 1 Env26lts.out Other Commute Work Shop k Customer 5.0 10.0 15.0 Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 5.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 30 30 30 % of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Regnl shop. center >.570000 sf 97.0 Other Commute Non -Wor 6.1 11.8 5.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 30 30 30 51.5 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS 2.0 1.0 ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 111.42 208.86 912.39 86.18 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 8.32 16.54 71.34 7.50 Condo /townhouse general 3.86 7.15 30.85 3.24 " Regnl shop. center > 5700 97.21 180.97 791.89 73.71 ROG NOx PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 109.40 204.67 84.45 CO Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. Page 2 ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 8.46 16.88 72.78 7.65 Condo /townhouse general 3.93 7.30 31.47 3.31 Regnl shop. center > 5700 99.03 184.69 808.14 75.23 ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 111.42 208.86 912.39 86.18 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 8.32 16.54 71.34 7.50 Condo /townhouse general 3.86 7.15 30.85 3.24 " Regnl shop. center > 5700 97.21 180.97 791.89 73.71 ROG NOx PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 109.40 204.67 84.45 CO Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. Page 2 Env261.ts.out . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived Saf ety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 3.8 119 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 < -Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Interconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage 0 Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide t hese Features 0 Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes 0 Safe School Routes: No Schools 0 Uses Win Cycling Distance: No Uses 0 Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmenta= Credit 4.0 /20 = 0.20 <- 34-ke Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (Ail mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 15.5 <- Totals Page 3 Env261ts.out Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1 Provide Sidewalks and /or Pedestrian Paths I Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 4.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 2.5 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 7 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non - Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) Page 4 Env261ts.out VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals wit h Travel Mode Pedestrian Transit Bicycle Totals Travel Mode Pedestrian Transit Bicycle Other Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips 0.10 0.40 0.54 0.12 1.40 1.40 2.03 1.91 Work Trips Employee Trips 0.05 0.50 0.54 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 1.51 Changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 0.40 0.14 1.40 1.94 Customer Trips 0.50 0.54 1.00 0.00 2.04 Env261tw.out URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 File Name: ENV261T.URB Project Name: Gilroy USA 98 -03 total Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area DETAILED REPORT - Winter OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Tr ips Single family housing 10.40 trips / dwelling unit 90.00 936 .00 Condo /townhouse genera 7.10 trips / dwelling unit 57.00 404 .70 Regnl shop. center > 5 36.50 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 590.00 21,535 .00 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst D iesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 98.58 0.26 Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13 99.54 0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 3.00 1.44 98.56 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 1 00.00 Urban Buses 2.00 1 00.00 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00 % all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Commerci al Page 1 E=261tw. out UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS Home- Home -rome- CO PM10 Work Shop Other Commute Non -Wor k Customer 110.32 7.65 Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 6.1 11.8 5.0 5.0 Regnl shop. center > 5700 Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 30 30 30 30 30 30 % of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 5115 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Regnl shop. center > 570000 sf 2.0 1.0 97.0 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS PM10 ROG NOX CO TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 160.34 237.86 86.18 1492.86 Includes correction for passby' trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS P ?•? 10 ROG NOx CO Single family housing 11.03 10.43 108.14 7.50 Condo /townhouse general 5.03 7.97 46.76 3.24 Regal shop. center > 570C 1=11.27 206.69 1308.00 =.71 -'S 10 ROG NOX CO _ TOT-2L EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 157.33 233.08 1462.90 84.45 Includes correction for passby trips. Page 2 ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 11.23 18.80 110.32 7.65 Condo /townhouse general 5.11 8.13 47.70 3.31 Regnl shop. center > 5700 144.00 210.93 1334.85 75.23 PM10 ROG NOX CO TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 160.34 237.86 86.18 1492.86 Includes correction for passby' trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. MITIGATED EMISSIONS P ?•? 10 ROG NOx CO Single family housing 11.03 10.43 108.14 7.50 Condo /townhouse general 5.03 7.97 46.76 3.24 Regal shop. center > 570C 1=11.27 206.69 1308.00 =.71 -'S 10 ROG NOX CO _ TOT-2L EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 157.33 233.08 1462.90 84.45 Includes correction for passby trips. Page 2 Env261tw.out Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived Saf ety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 3.8 /19 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 <- Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Inte 0 Bike hese Features 0 Safe 0 Safe 0 Uses 0 Bike rconnected'Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide t Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes School Routes: No Schools w./in Cycling Distance: No Uses Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.0 /20 = 0.20 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGA_ION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service Page 3 I Env261tw.out 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 15.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips.Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1 Provide Sidewalks and /or Pedestrian Paths 1 Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 4.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 2.5 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 7 <- Totals . Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 5 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <--Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non - Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Page 4 Env261tw.out Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced 0 wit h Travel Mode Pedestrian Transit Bicycle Totals Travel Mode Pedestrian Transit Bicycle Other Totals Measure <- Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.54 0.12 0.14 1.40 1.40 1.40 2.03 1.91 1.94 Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Trips 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.54 0.01 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 1.51 2.04 Changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Env261rw.out URBEMIS 7G: Version 3.2 File Name: ENV261r.URB Project Name: Gilroy USA 98 -03 Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area DETAILED REPORT - Winter OPERATIONAL.(Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC7G (10/96) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Tr ips Single family housing 10.40 trips / dwelling unit 90.00 936 .00 .Condo /townhouse genera 7.10 trips / dwelling unit 57.00 404 .70 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst D iesel Light Duty Autos 75.00 1.16 98.58 0.26• Light Duty Trucks 10.00 0.13' 99.54 0.33 Medium Duty Trucks 3.00 1.44 98.56 Lite -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Med. -Heavy Duty Trucks 1.00 19.56 40.00 40.44 Heavy -Heavy Trucks 5.00 1 00.00 Urban Buses 2.00 1 00.00 Motorcycles 3.00 100.00 % all fuels Travel Conditions Residential Commerci al :come- Home- Home - :ork Shop Other Commute Non -Wor Page 1 PM10 Single family housing 7.74 Condo /townhouse general 3.35 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx 17.10 22.49 7.71 9.72 5.0 10.0 30 CO 156.96 67.86 ROG NOX Env261rw.out PM10 k Customer TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 24.81 32.22 Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 4.6 6.1 11_8 5.0 Does not include double counting adjustment Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 ROG NOx CO Trip Speeds (mph) 30 30 30 30 30 153.23 7.56 % of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 51.5 PM10 Single family housing 7.74 Condo /townhouse general 3.35 UNMITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx 17.10 22.49 7.71 9.72 5.0 10.0 30 CO 156.96 67.86 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 24.81 32.22 224.82 11.09 Includes correction for passby trips." Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips.. MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single-family housing 16.73 21.96 153.23 7.56 Condo /townhouse general 7.55 9.49 66.25 3.27 ROG NOX CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs /day) 24.28 31.45 219.48 10.82 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ENVIRCNMEN_AL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 0 Side Walks /Paths: No Sidewalks 0 Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage Page 2 Env261rw.out 0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations 0 Visually Interesting Uses: No Interest 0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets Designed this Way 0 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Perceived Saf ety 0 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: No Visual Interest 3.8 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 3.8 /19 = 0.20 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 0 Transit Service: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service 0.0 <- Transit Effectiveness 3.8 <- Pedestrian Factor 3.8 < -Total 3.8 /110 = 0.03 <- Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 0 Inte 0 Bike hese Features 0 Safe 0 Safe 0 Uses 0 Bike rconnected Bikeways: No Bikeway Coverage Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes Provide t Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes School Routes: No Schools Win Cycling Distance: No Uses Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.0 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.0 /20 = 0.20 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed, even if the selected land uses do not.constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 15.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1 Provide Sidewalks and /or Pedestrian Paths 1 Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections Page 3 Env261rw.out 0.5 Provide Street Lighting 4.5 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non - Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure 2 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 2 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) % Trips Reduced Measure. 7 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 2 Provide Bike Lanes /Paths Connecting to Bikeway System 9 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non-Residential). % Trips Reduced Measure 5 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment •5 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Employee Non - Commute Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) % Trips Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non - Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Residential) VMT Reduced Measure 0 <- Totals Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips Pedestrian 0.10 0.40 0.40 Page 4 Changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Trips Env261rw.out Transit 0.54 0.12 0.14 Bicycle 1.80 1.80 1.80 Totals 2.43 2.31 2.34 Travel Mode Work Trips Employee Trips Customer Pedestrian 0.04 0.40 0.40 Transit 0.54 0.01 0.54 Bicycle 1.00 1.00 1.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 1.58 1.41 1.94 Changes Made to the Default Values Operational /Vehicle Related: Page 5 Trips