The URL can be used to link to this page

09/02/2021 Planning Commission Regular Agenda Packet Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda September 2, 2021 6:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Chair: Tom Fischer: tom.fischer@cityofgilroy.org Andrew Ridley: andrew.ridley@cityofgilroy.org Joan Lewis: joan.lewis@cityofgilroy.org Manny Bhandal: manny.bhandal@cityofgilroy.org Vice Chair: John Doyle: john.doyle@cityofgilroy.org Adilene Jezabel Moreno: adilene.moreno@cityofgilroy.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THIS MEETING WILL BE LIMITED. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE BY EMAILING ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS TO CHRISTINA RUIZ AT christina.ruiz@cityofgilroy.org OR BY LEAVING A VOICE MESSAGE COMMENT BY CALLING (408) 846-0269, PRIOR TO 5:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 2, 2021. THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus, the City will be offering telephone and email options for public comments at this meeting. The public is encouraged to participate in this meeting by telephone or email as follows: You are strongly encouraged to watch the meeting live on the City of Gilroy’s website at www.cityofgilroy.org or on Cable Channel 17. To view from the website, select the Council Agendas and Videos button from the home page. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.COMMENTS MAY BE EMAILED TO THE CLERK PRIOR TO OR DURING THE MEETING AT christina.ruiz@cityofgilroy.org AND MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE CHAIR OPENS PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE ITEM. ADDITIONALLY, COMMENTS MAY BE MADE BY LEAVING A VOICE MESSAGE AT (408) 846-0269, PRIOR TO 5:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 2, 2021. IMPORTANT: identify the Agenda Item Number or PUBLIC COMMENT in the subject line of your email. The Clerk will read the first three minutes of each email into the public record. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Go vernors Order N-29-20, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development Department a minimum of 2 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0269. If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL III. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda. The law does not permit the Planning Commission action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Planning Commiss ion action is requested, the Planning Commission may place the matter on a future agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RELATED PROJECT APPLICATIONS WILL BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY AND ACTION WILL BE TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY. COMPANION PROJECTS UNDER NEW BUSINESS WILL BE TAKEN UP FOR ACTION PRIOR TO, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RELATED PUBLIC HEARING. THIS REQUIRES DEVIATION IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AS NOTED WITHIN THE AGENDA. IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. 8-5-21 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 2. 8-19-21 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes V. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Approval of a Planned Unit Development Rezoning, Tentative Map, and Architectural and Site Review for the Tenth and Chestnut Commercial Project (aka, Laurel Square) 1. Staff Report: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner 2. Open Public Hearing 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 5. Possible Action: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission (Roll Call Vote): a) Consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Z 20 -04 Planned Unit Development rezoning; c) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map TM 20-03, subject to certain findings and conditions; and d) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review AS 20-14, subject to certain findings and conditions. B. Objective Design Standards Policy for all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy. 1. Staff Report: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner 2. Open Public Hearing 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 5. Possible Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving objective design standards as a City Policy for all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy. VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Planning Project Log IX. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION X. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Manny Bhandal - South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee Commissioner John Doyle - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Commissioner Joan Lewis - Street Naming Committee Commissioner Adilene Jezabel Moreno - Historic Heritage Committee Commissioner Andrew Ridley - Gilroy Downtown Business Association 1. Committee Assignments XI. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT XII. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT XIII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of September 16, 2021 at 6:30 P.M. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of AUGUST 5, 2021 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Fischer led the pledge of allegiance. II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Manny Bhandal Planning Commissioner Absent John Doyle Planning Commissioner Excused Joan Lewis Planning Commissioner Remote Andrew Ridley Planning Commissioner Remote Tom Fischer Chair Remote Adilene Jezabel Moreno Planning Commissioner Remote III. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comment. IV. CONSENT AGENDA RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno ABSENT: Bhandal EXCUSED: Doyle 1. 6-3-21 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: Review and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development Z 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20-20. 1. Staff Report: Miguel Contreras, Planner I 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 4. Possible Action: Planner I, Miguel Contreras presented the report. Public Hearing was opened. No public comments. 4.1 Packet Pg. 4 Communication: 8-5-21 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) Public Hearing was closed. Chris Zaballos, Director of Entitlements and Kavitha Kumar, Project Manager added to the presentation. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Lewis and Chair Fischer had separate discussions with the applicant. Possible Action: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridley, seconded by Commissioner Lewis to review and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Andrew Ridley, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Joan Lewis, Planning Commissioner AYES: Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno ABSENT: Bhandal EXCUSED: Doyle Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: Review and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development Z 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20-20. 1. Staff Report: Miguel Contreras, Planner I 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 4. Possible Action: Possible Action: Motion was made by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Jezabel Moreno to adopt a resolution recommended that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development Z 20-06 as requested, subject to certain findings. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Joan Lewis, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Adilene Jezabel Moreno, Planning Commissioner AYES: Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno ABSENT: Bhandal EXCUSED: Doyle Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: 4.1 Packet Pg. 5 Communication: 8-5-21 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) Review and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development Z 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20-20. 1. Staff Report: Miguel Contreras, Planner I 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 4. Possible Action: Possible Action: Motion was made by Jezabel Moreno, seconded by Commissioner Ridley to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM 20-06, as requested, subject to certain findings. RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Adilene Jezabel Moreno, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Andrew Ridley, Planning Commissioner AYES: Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno ABSENT: Bhandal EXCUSED: Doyle Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: Review and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development Z 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM 20-06; and Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20-20. 1. Staff Report: Miguel Contreras, Planner I 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 4. Possible Action: Possible Action: Motion was made by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Ridley to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 20-20, subject to certain findings and conditions. Conditions: a) Recommendation was amended to include a new condition #42 as a project amenity; the developer will provide a pre-loaded $100 dollar clipper card to each household, then the HOA will be responsible to pre-load each clipper card after the first year; and 4.1 Packet Pg. 6 Communication: 8-5-21 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) b) To select a different tree other than a green myrtle for a sidewalk tree. RESULT: APPROVE AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Joan Lewis, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Andrew Ridley, Planning Commissioner AYES: Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno ABSENT: Bhandal EXCUSED: Doyle VI. NEW BUSINESS A. 2021 Planning Commission Task Force / Committee Assignments Update 1. Staff Report: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Assignment of a Planning Commissioner to the Historic Heritage Committee. Community Development Director, Karen Garner presented the report. Public comment was opened. No public comment. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Jezabel Moreno was appointed to the Historic Heritage Committee. VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Planning Project Log VIII. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - NONE IX. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Manny Bhandal - South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee; Absent. Commissioner John Doyle - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission; Excused absence. Commissioner Joan Lewis - Street Naming Committee; No meeting, no report. Commissioner Andrew Ridley - Gilroy Downtown Business Association; No meeting, no report. X. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT Community Development Director, Karen Garner informed commissioners that City Council will provide more direction when in-person meetings will resume. Chair Fischer asked if a report could be provided at the next scheduled meeting regarding the Hecker Pass roundabout. 4.1 Packet Pg. 7 Communication: 8-5-21 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) XI. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report. XII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of August 19, 2021 at 6:30 P.M. Chair Fischer adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Christina Ruiz, Management Assistant 4.1 Packet Pg. 8 Communication: 8-5-21 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) Planning Commission Special Meeting of AUGUST 19, 2021 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Fischer led the pledge of allegiance. II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Manny Bhandal Planning Commissioner Remote John Doyle Planning Commissioner Excused Joan Lewis Planning Commissioner Remote Andrew Ridley Planning Commissioner Remote Tom Fischer Chair Remote Adilene Jezabel Moreno Planning Commissioner Remote III. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comment. IV. CONSENT AGENDA - NONE V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Staff recommends continuing TM 20-05 to the September 16, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting. 1. Staff Report: Melissa Durkin, Planner II 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 4. Possible Action: Melissa Durkin, Planner II presented the report. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridley, seconded by Commissioner Lewis to continue TM 20-05 to the September 16, 2021 Special Planning Commission meeting. Motion Passes: 5-0-0-1 RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Andrew Ridley, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Joan Lewis, Planning Commissioner AYES: Bhandal, Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno EXCUSED: Doyle B. Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission (Roll Call Vote): a) Consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Z 20-04 Planned Unit Development rezoning; 4.2 Packet Pg. 9 Communication: 8-19-21 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) c) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map TM 20-03, subject to certain findings and conditions; and d) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review AS 20-14, subject to certain findings and conditions. 1. Staff Report: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 4. Possible Action: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner presented the report. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridley, seconded by Commissioner Lewis to continue Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; approval of a Planned Unit Development Rezoning, Tentative Map, and Architectural and Site Review for the Tenth and Chestnut Commercial Project (aka, Laurel Square) to the September 2, 2021 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion Passes: 5-0-0-1 RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Andrew Ridley, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Joan Lewis, Planning Commissioner AYES: Bhandal, Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno EXCUSED: Doyle C. Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission (Roll Call Vote): Adopt a resolution approving the Architectural and Site Review application AS 21-09, subject to certain findings and conditions. 1. Staff Report: Miguel Contreras, Planner I 2. Public Comment 3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 4. Possible Action: Miguel Contreras, Planner I presented the report. Public Hearing was opened. No public comment. Public Hearing was closed. Disclosure Ex-Parte Communication - None Possible Action: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridley, seconded by Commissioner Bhandal adopt a resolution approving the Architectural and Site Review application AS 21-09, subject to certain findings and conditions. Motion Passes: 5-0-0-1 4.2 Packet Pg. 10 Communication: 8-19-21 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Andrew Ridley, Planning Commissioner SECONDER: Manny Bhandal, Planning Commissioner AYES: Bhandal, Lewis, Ridley, Fischer, Moreno EXCUSED: Doyle VI. NEW BUSINESS - NONE VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - NONE VIII. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - NONE IX. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS - NONE X. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT Karen Garner advised Commissioners Gary Heap City Engineer will provide an update regarding the Hecker Pass roundabout at the next September 2, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. XI. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report. XII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of September 2, 2021 at 6:30 P.M. Chair Fischer adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Christina Ruiz, Management Assistant 4.2 Packet Pg. 11 Communication: 8-19-21 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA) Karen L. Garner DIRECTOR Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429 http://www.cityofgilroy.org DATE: September 2, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Approval of a Planned Unit Development Rezoning, Tentative Map, and Architectural and Site Review for the Tenth and Chestnut Commercial Project (aka, Laurel Square) RECOMMENDATION: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission (Roll Call Vote): a) Consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, based on findin gs required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Z 20 -04 Planned Unit Development rezoning; c) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map TM 20-03, subject to certain findings and conditions; and d) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Architectural and Site Review AS 20-14, subject to certain findings and conditions. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the August 19, 2021 meeting date to allow time for the City’s environmental consultant and staff to review and respond to the late submittal of a detailed comment on the environmental document. This report includes all comments and responses provided to date. Project Description: Evergreen Development Company, LLC submitted zoning applications Z 20-04, AS 20-14 & TM 20-03, for the Chestnut and Tenth Street Commercial Project (aka, Laurel Square), located at 401 and 405 East Tenth Street/401 and 411 Automall Parkway, and 450 E Ninth Street; APN’s: 841 66 010, 011, 014 & 6.A Packet Pg. 12 2 015. Applicant: Alex Gonzalez, Evergreen Development Company, Inc./Owner: Eric J. Triolo. The project proposes the following: 1) demolition of the existing small commercial shopping complex in the C3 zone at the corner of Chestnut and Tenth Streets (Chestnut Square at 401 Automall Parkway) and existing industrial buildings on the adjacent CM zoned portion of the site, 2) rezone the entire project 6.8 acres from the Shopping Center (C3) and Commercial Industrial (CM) Zoning Districts to a Commercial/Planned Development (C3/PUD) District, 3) subdivide the site into six new parcels, and 4) redevelop the entire property with a planned commercial shopping center comprised of six parcels with shared access, parking and landscaping improvements. The request includes adoption of development and sign design standards for the commercial PUD, and construction of a five-story hotel with up to 120 rooms, a service station and convenience store, carwash, and three drive through restaurant uses. The following table summarizes proposed uses, building areas and lot sizes: Parcel Use Area (sf) Lot Size (ac.) A C store / Gas 3,700/6 Pumps 1.04 B Coffee Shop 2,200 0.76 C QSR1 3,500 1.02 D QSR2 (Chick Filet) 5,182 1.27 E Car Wash 3,600 1.02 F Hotel 66,500/120 Keys 1.73 TOTAL 84,682 6.84 acres The PUD proposes deviations from the C3 zoning development standards including setbacks, heights and signage as indicated in project plans, design guidelines and sign program documents (attached). The specific deviation requests are attached to this report and discussed further in the analysis section. PUD amenities are proposed, as required, that include adoption of site design standards intended to provide higher quality architecture and site planning, and incorporation of public art at the primary pedestrian entry into the site. A list of the proposed amenities is attached to this report. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is presently developed with a 10,850 square foot commercial center at the corner of E Tenth Street and Chestnut Street, a 10,200 square foot industrial trucking company building, 1,500 6.A Packet Pg. 13 3 square foot office building and truck yard area. The project site is designate d as General Services Commercial in the General Plan and zoned Shopping Center Commercial (C3) (APNs 841-66-010 and -011) and Commercial Industrial (CM) (APNs 841-66-014 and -015). The general plan, zoning and land uses of the site and adjacent properties are as follows: LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Commercial/Light Industry General Services C3/CM North Industrial General Services CM South Commercial Center General Services C3 East Highway 101 NA NA West Commercial Center/Fire Station P/QP & General Services PF/C3 Environmental Assessment: In accordance with the City of Gilroy procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has completed an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of this study, the City has determined the project will not have a significant effect because of mitigation measures included in the project that have been agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and circulated for a 30 -day public review period in compliance with CEQA. The public review period began on June 25th and ended July 26th. The MND provides standard mitigation for potential Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hazardous Materials impacts. Project specific Mitigation measures were identified for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, discussed in detail in Section 4.8 of the MND, summarized as follows: ➢ Greenhouse gas emissions: The General Plan 2040 EIR included a statement of overriding considerations for GHG emissions, and the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. However, the General Plan requires adoption o f a Climate Action Plan (CAP) as a mitigation of this impact, which would provide a program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions citywide. Until such a plan is adopted, the project must implement all feasible measures to mitigate its project specific impacts. GHG impacts are generated for this project primarily from vehicle emissions. In this case, the project will generate 1,166 metric tons of carbon emissions its first year of operations. Required bicycle, pedestrian, and energy efficient building design improvements would help to mitigate GHG. However, the project will also be required to purchase carbon offset credits each year, for the excess greenhouse gas emissions that remain (at least until the City adopts a CAP). The project did not generate unique traffic related impacts. Level of Service is used to 6.A Packet Pg. 14 4 evaluate traffic impacts in the City General Plan. The project will provide necessary frontage improvements and pay traffic impact fees for off -site improvements required for new development. Vehicle Miles Traveled analysis was prepared pursuant to CEQA, which concluded the project would have a slight reduction on citywide VMT. This is because the new commercial development would reduce the average distance traveled to access services and employment. As a result, impacts are less than significant. Section 4.17 of the MND discussions Transportation impacts in detail. Response to Comments: Comments were received on the environmental document from Caltrans District 4, Valley Water, Patrick Flautt and a late comment from Lozeau Drury. Responses to these comments have been provided, which are attached to this report. In summary, the comments are as follows: • Caltrans identified standard concerns with impacts of development on highway operations and requirements for any work in state right of way. A copy of the response was emailed to the agency on August 19th. • Valley Water requested confirmation that buildings would be compliant with the sites 193-foot flood elevation. The project has been considered and conditioned accordingly to assure compliance with all local and state permitting and site development requirements. A copy of the City’s response was emailed to the agency on August 19th. • Patrick Flautt provides recommendations to support alternative modes of transportation to the site and to further bolster a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. A copy of the City response is provided with the agenda packet distribution. • Lozeau-Drury provides comments on the adequacy of the internal air quality in buildings, biological impacts expressly related to birds and transportation effects of the project. A copy of the City response is provided with the agenda packet distribution. Please refer to the comment letters for fullness of content, and the detailed responses provided by the City. The comments received, including the latest letter received from Lozeau-Drury, have been concluded to comprise typical responses or are minor in nature. As revised, no significant adverse environmental effects are anticipated to result from the proposed development of the site, which is in accordance with the 2040 General Plan land use designation, and the Planning Commission can make the necessary findings to adopt the MND. The responses to the comments are attached to this report for the Planning Commissioners to review and consider in recommending the MND to the City Council. ANALYSIS: General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site for General Services Commercial land use, which is specifically intended for this type of commercial development. This designation allows a floor area ratio of 2.0 for commercial development and 4.0 for hotel development. The project building sizes are significantly below the allowable FAR. An analysis of key goals and policies, which pertain to the proposed zoning entitlements, are attached to this report. Zoning Compliance Discussion (Z 20-04): The project proposes a C3 PUD zone 6.A Packet Pg. 15 5 district pursuant to Zoning Code Chapter 30.26. Rezoning is required to establish one zone district for the property and permit a 5-story hotel. The PUD allows up to 25 percent of land uses to deviate from the base district. In this case, a ll uses proposed on the site are allowed in the base C3 shopping center commercial district per Section 30.19.10(c)(1) Zoning 30.19 COMMERCIAL TABLES (codepublishing.com). Establishment of a PUD pursuant Zoning 30.26 PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT (codepublishing.com) provides the applicant the opportunity to propose unique development standards, subject to approval of a development plan consistent with Section 30.50.50; which is adopted as an Architectural and Site Review Permit approval. The PUD proposes unique design standards and a project specific sign program for the development. To approve a PUD the project must offer amenities. These are discussed in the Architectural and Site Review analysis below. The projects proposed development standards as compared to the C3 base zoning, as follows: Commercial District Requirements Base C3 Standard Proposed C3 PUD Front* 41 50’ (Chestnut) Street Side* 31 17’ (E Tenth St) 8’-10” (E Ninth St) Building Height (Ft) 55 60 (Hotel) Number of Stories 4 5 (Hotel) Off-Street Parking (30.31.25a) 1/250 (Shopping Center) = 83* 1/Vacuum Stall (Carwash) = 14 1/Hotel Room plus 6 stalls = 126 Total: 199 required (*223 if employee parking is included) 266 Stalls - No Deviations Parking Dimensions (30.31.40) 9 x 18 Standard Dimension 25’ Backup Space 9x18 dimension and 25’ + drive aisle/backup – No Deviations Signs (30.37.50) 1.5 sf per building width 40 sf per menu board (80 sf max) 75 ft tall, 330sf Regional sign 14 ft tall, 200 sf Master SC Sign Price ID Monument Sign (2) 1.5 sf per building frontage 40 s per menu board (80 max) 75ft tall, 720 sf Regional Sign 16 ft tall and 7 ft tall Two MSC Signs Price ID combined with MSC*** 6.A Packet Pg. 16 6 Commercial District Requirements Base C3 Standard Proposed C3 PUD Landscaping Min 21 ft from curb Min 8% of Site Trees at 20 ft on center 50sf Island per 12 stalls Min 5 ft wide planter Min 8 ft wide parking lot planter Min 17’ (Tenth St) Exceeds 8% Meets Tree Spacing Meets 50 sf island/12 stalls Meets 5’ Min Min 7’ clear interior landscape Tenth Street Policy Applies (copy attached, and discussed in AS review below) Incorporated into Design Criteria for the Center (attached) – No Deviations * Measured from face of curb for street frontages ** The parking calculation for shopping center provides more flexibility in change in tenants and uses. If parking were calculate for each individual use, a gas station requires 1 space per 400 sf plus 3 for employees and restaurant requires 1 space per 100sf plus employees, which would total 277 spaces (217 spaces plus 6 for hotel) required and shown on Site Plan Sheet A1. *** Deviations from the sign code are shown in the attached Laurel Square exhibit dated March 23, 2021 Staff recommends that the findings to support the C3PUD can be supported, as reflected in the resolution attached to this report and subject to conformance with the project plans and documents attached to this report. Tentative Map Compliance (TM 20-03): Pursuant to City Code Chapter 21 Subdivision and Land Development, the commercial subdivision requires City Council approval subject to review for compliance with zoning and public works standards. This includes review of required off-site improvements, infrastructure capacity, site layout and circulation, access and adequacy of easements. The Planning Commission shall approve a tentative map if it permits development allowed by the City code, and if the lot is not subject to severe hazards, including flooding. Pursuant to Section 21.41(a), the Tentative Map was distributed for consideration by various departments and utility agencies. Standard comments received are incorporated in the recommended conditions of approval. The property is not subject to unusual hazards or flooding. The site requires improvement to raise building pads up to 1.5 feet to meet the base flood elevation. Conditions of approval will require final grading and building plans to be designed to meet this requirement. Further, hydrologic review was completed that confirms the site will meet the standards for design to avoid flooding and provide adequate drainage (see MND Response to Comments). A geotechnical report has been prepared that confirms the suitability of the site for intended subdivision and development (MND appendix D). The lot layout is supported by parking and access easements, and each lot has frontage 6.A Packet Pg. 17 7 and access to utilities. The driveway locations and designs have been reviewed and supported by Engineering, and discussed in the project Traffic Study included with the MND as appendix G. The project will include dedication of an additional 3 feet for right of way along Tenth Street to accommodate future widening. Based on this, staff concludes the findings for approval can be supported as reflected in the attached resolution. Architecture and Site Approval Discussion (A/S 20-14): Project review is required pursuant to Section 30.50.40 and 30.50.50 for commercial planned development. The project complies with the scope of review criteria as follows: a. Traffic Safety and Efficiency – The project has been designed with a common drive aisle through the site with adequately designed driveway approaches on Tenth, Chestnut and Ninth Street. b. Signs – The project includes a detailed sign program that would integrate with the center. The signage is consistent with regional shopping center signage approved within the City as part of similar PUD requests. c. Site Development – The buildings are placed with orientation inward and to the street frontages with outdoor gathering areas and walkways connecting development. A pleasing entry is proposed at the highly visible corner of the site which will include decorative paving, benches, and artwork. Further, utilities will be placed underground to the extent feasible, except for PG&E transformers and water check valves which will be painted and screened with landscaping. d. Landscaping – Street trees will be provided along the street frontages in compliance with the City street planting policy. A common landscaping program is implemented that will be maintained by a common business association. Further, landscaping shall include enhancement of rights of way in front of the project, including enhancement at the US 101 offramp as shone on a revised landscape detail for the area. e. Drainage and Flood Control – The site requires minor grading to meet the flood elevation requirements and all drainage will flow into city systems. On-site detention is incorporated into the landscape design. f. Fire Safety – Buildings will require sprinkler systems and hydrants are to be provided in compliance with City standards. The drive aisles have been designed to provide ladder truck access in compliance with fire code regulations. g. Environmental – A phase I site investigation has been completed and environmental review has concluded the site has no unique environmental constraints. h. Trash Enclosures – Covered trash enclosures are designed to integrate with the commercial architecture and have been reviewed by Recology as adequate. 6.A Packet Pg. 18 8 i. Lighting – Lighting details are provided that include fixtures which will complement the architecture and direct lighting downward to avoid glare. A photometric plan shows low lighting levels of 6 foot-candles and less with no spillover off-site and with sufficient levels to provide for a sense of security and safety on pedestrian walkways and at entrances. j. Mechanical Equipment – Equipment will be screened from view on rooftops or behind decorative walls. k. Outdoor Storage – No outdoor storage is proposed. l. Tenth Street Policy - • Contemporary architecture is proposed with varied building walls and rooflines, as recommended by the policy. The plan would provide unique and varied designs that are pedestrian scaled, with gabled rooflines which are preferred. • Signage will be low profile and designed to complement the architectural style of the center. • The Material and Color palette consists of natural, high quality materials and a subdued and varied color palette. • Landscaping will enhance the project design and provide ample shade trees shown on the landscape plan will be distributed along the project frontage and in the parking lot to soften the site appearance and shade walkways and parking areas. • Building setbacks range from 8 to 50 feet, whereas 30 feet minimum is recommended. The reduced setbacks are considered acceptable and appropriate in this location to accommodate necessary road widening and as well to provide a more urban style of development that is pedestrian oriented. Landscaping along the frontages provides at least 15 feet minimum as required. m. PUD Requirements – In accordance with Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.50(d), nine required findings must all be supported for consideration of a planned unit development request. This includes, a) assuring conformance with the general plan, b) providing a use needed in the community, c) promoting an orderly and efficient development pattern, providing enhanced landscaping and d) providing high quality design. Staff has reviewed and recommends the project satisfies these base criteria for approval. An applicant must offer a higher standard of amenities for a PUD property beyond the normal course of development. Artwork has typically been requested in addition to high quality architectural design and landscaping details. The applicant has proposed following items to satisfy the PUD application: • A corner pedestrian entry feature at Tenth and Chestnut that includes a decorative sidewalk, benches, and trellises, and area for an art sculpture. • Generous and attractive outdoor dining areas. • Network of pedestrian sidewalks connecting all the buildings within the center. 6.A Packet Pg. 19 9 • Convenient bike parking locations throughout the site. The project will also include enhanced paving at driveway entries. Staff has evaluated the PUD criteria and findings and supports project approval with the conditions included in the attached resolution. n. Habitat Permit – Development within the City is required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. This permit allows projects to mitigate for any unique impact on local wildlife and habitat. This site does not have any unique habitat value, but still must obtain a permit. Prior to site development, a habitat permit application will be required. In this case, the project is anticipated to require payment of nitrogen deposition impact fees for the increased trips generated by the development. This fee is used to acquire permanent open space in the County. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project plans were routed to Engineering, Building, Police, and Fire representatives for internal review and comment. Comments and recommendations have been incorporated into the project plans and/or included as recommended conditions in attached resolution(s). Noticing: Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by a Title Company using current ownership data. On August 6th a notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the Gilroy Dispatch, and notices have been mailed to the property owners along within other interested parties. In addition, the property has been posted with on-site signage notifying passers-by of pending development. The Planning Commission public hearing packets are also available through the City's webpage. Appeal Procedure: The Planning Commission's action is not final, but rather a recommendation. As such, the City Council will consider the project at a later date. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Architectural Plans 3. Landscape Plans 4. Revised Landscape Detail 5. Alta Survey 6. Photometric Plan 7. Tentative Map & Civil Plans 8. Starbucks Elevations 9. Chick Filet (QSR2) Elevations 10. Bluewave Carwash Plans 11. Hyatt Hotel Plans 12. Gilroy Center Design Guidelines 13. Gilroy Center Sign Program 14. Gilroy Center Sign Deviations 15. Zoning Deviations 6.A Packet Pg. 20 10 16. Art Sculpture Concept 17. Chestnut and Tenth MND (Links) 18. MND Response to Comments 080621 19. MND Additional Response to Comments 20. Applicant Response to Comments 21. General Plan Compliance Table 22. Reso Z 20-04 23. Z 20-04 Exhibit A 24. Reso AS 20-14 Approval 25. AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval 26. AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program 27. Reso TM 20-03 Approval 6.A Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Vicinity Map (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) SiteE. 10th StreetChestnut Street101 FreewayFAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A0Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroyContentsDirectoryArchitectureA0 Title SheetA1 Site PlanA2 Exterior ElevationsA3 Exterior ElevationsA4 Floor PlansA5 Roof PlansA6 Site PhotosA7 Site Photos Key PlanA8 Project Details, AmenitiesA9 Colors and MaterialsA10 Pedestrian PlazasA11 Site SectionsA12 RenderingsVicinity MapProject SummaryOwnerEvergreen E 10th & Chestnut, LLC2390 East Camelback RoadSuite 410Phoenix, AZ 85019(602) 808-8600Attn: Alex GonzalezArchitectJohnson Lyman Architects, LLP1375 Locust Street, Suite 202Walnut Creek, CA 94596(925) 323-9690Attn: Robert LymanLandscape ArchitectR W Stover & Associates, Inc.1620 North Main StreetSuite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596(925) 933-2583Attn: Rick StoverCivil EngineerMacKay & Somps5142 Franklin Drive, Suite BPleasanton, CA 94588(925) 225-0690Attn: Chris GuentherLighting EngineerBelden Consulting Engineers5860 W. Las Positas Blvd., Suite 15Pleasanton, CA 94588(925) 474-2159Attn: Dennis HaySite Area: 6.83 acres +/-Proposed Building Area 85,250 sf +/-Convenience Store, Fuel Center 4 ,103 sfCoffee Shop 2,365 sfQuick-Serv Restaurant #1 3,500 sfQuick-Serv Restaurant #2 5,182 sfCar Wash 3,600 sfHotel 66,500 sfParking Required 226 stallsParking Provided 265 stallsBike Parking 24 bikesBuilding Setbacks Varies, see Site PlanPlanting Area 69,511 sf +/-Building Footprint Area 32,050 sf +/-Hardscape Area 18,408 SF +/-Paving Area 177,546 SF +/-Title SheetOct 1, 2020Convenience Store -Looking South-East6.A.bPacket Pg. 23Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.bPacket Pg. 24Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Composition Shingle RoofBoard and Batten Siding -CompositeMetal SidingStone VeneerMetal LatticeStone VeneerCement PlasterMetal Bracket+26'Metal CanopyMetal Gutter with Exposed Downspouts+22'+30'Alum. & GlassStorefrontBoard and Batten SidingComposition Shingle RoofCement PlasterStone VeneerBaseStone VeneerBaseMetal TrellisMetal SidingMetal SidingMetal TrellisMetal BracketMetal CanopyPlaster ColumnMetal Gutter with Exposed Downspouts+30'+22'+26' 3"+22'+11' 6"Alum & Glass StorefrontSystem+26' 1"Metal Gates+17' 3"Alum & Glass StorefrontSystemAccent LightingStone VeneerBaseComposition Shingle RoofMetal SidingCement PlasterMetal CanopyAluminum and GlassStorefront SystemMetal TrellisMetal Gutter with ExposedDownspoutsStone Base+30'+26' 3"+17' 3"Plaster ColumnsCement PlasterMetal SidingStone VeneerBaseMetal TrellisStone VeneerBaseBoard and BattenSiding, Trim -CompositeMetal LatticeMetal LatticeStone VeneerMetal Trellis/RoofComposition Shingle RoofPlaster FinishStone Base+26' 0"+22' 6"Metal Gutter with Exposed Downspouts+17' 3"+22'FAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A2Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroySouth ElevationEast ElevationWest ElevationNorth ElevationScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Ext. Elevations C-StoreOct. 1, 20206.A.bPacket Pg. 25Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Cement PlasterMetal TrellisMetal BracketMetalLatticeAluminum &Glass Storefront+24'+29' 8"Sconce Accent LightStone BaseCement PlasterMetal TrellisAluminum & GlassStorefrontStone BaseComposite SidingMetal CanopyMetal BracketStone BaseSconce AccentLight+24'+29' 8"+28' 4"+23'Alum & GlassStorefront System+11'Decorative WindowMetal PanelMetal SidingCement PlasterComposite SidingMetal SidingStone BaseMetal BracketMetal Canopy overDrive-Thru windowMetal LatticeMetalBracketMetal CanopySconce AccentLight+24'+28' 4"+22'Stone BaseComposite SidingStone BaseMetal LatticeAluminum & GlassStorefront SystemMetal BracketMetal Bracket+23'+29' 8"+28' 4"SconceAccent LightMetal TrellisStone BaseMetal CanopyMetal SidingFAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A3Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroySouth ElevationEast ElevationWest ElevationNorth ElevationScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Ext. Elevations QSR-1Oct. 1, 20206.A.bPacket Pg. 26Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Aluminum & Glass StorefrontConvenience StoreColumnColumnConcrete SidewalkConcrete SidewalkAccessible Parking StallMetal LatticeMetal latticeAluminum & Glass Storefront6" Concrete CurbMetal LatticeMetal BracketsDrive-Thru LaneAluminum & Glass StorefrontAccessible Parking Stall6" Concrete CurbCurb RampDrive-Thru WindowConcrete SidewalkMetal LatticeFAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A4Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroyFloor PlanScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Floor PlanScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Convenience StoreQuick-Serve Restaurant #1Floor PlansOct. 1, 20206.A.bPacket Pg. 27Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Composition Shingle RoofMembrane Roofing(Mechanical well)Tile roofRooftop Mechanical UnitsScreened Behind Parapet Wallsand RoofsTrellis BelowSlopeSlopeSlopeSlopeSlopeMembrane Roofing(Flat Roof)Trellis BelowMembrane Roofing(Mechanical well)Rooftop Mechanical UnitsScreened Behind Parapet Wallsand RoofsS lo p e Flat Canopy BelowFlat Canopy BelowSlopeFAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A5Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroyRoof PlanScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Roof PlanScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Convenience StoreQuick-Serve Restaurant #1Roof PlansOct. 1, 20206.A.bPacket Pg. 28Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.bPacket Pg. 29Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.bPacket Pg. 30Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Metal Trellis Roof)Natural Wood over WeldedSteel Gate FrameMasonry Enclosure WallsStone BaseMetal TrellisNatural Wood over WeldedSteel Gate FrameMasonry Enclosure Walls(Beyond)FAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A8Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroyProject Details, AmenitiesTrash EnclosureOct. 1, 20206.A.bPacket Pg. 31Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) FAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A9Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroyColors and MaterialsLandmark Roofing ShinglesCobblestone GrayCertainTeedEldorado StoneVintage RanchFoxwoodMetal PanelBridger SteelShiplapCement Planster orEIFSLapped SidingJames HardieHardieplank LappedSiddingBoard & Batten SidingJames HardieHardiepanelVertical SidingColored ConcretePlain ConcreteDecomposed GraniteBasalitePlank Style Concrete PaversVaried ColorsBlack Painted SteelWood Trim, AccentOlympic Semi-Transparent StainFinish, Sealer -CoffeeDunn EdwardsDE6341 VulcanDunn EdwardsDEW325 Vanilla ShakeDunn EdwardsDET665 Grain MillDunn EdwardsDEC786 Miner's DustDunn EdwardsDE6112 Cedar ChestDunn EdwardsDET621 Palomino PonyWALL MATERIALSROOF MATERIALSPEDESTRIAN AND ACCENT PAVINGTRIM, ACCENT MATERIALSPAINT COLORSOct. 1, 20206.A.bPacket Pg. 32Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Column with TrellsAboveBenchDecorativePavingLandscapingSidewalkColumn with Trellis AboveSpecimen TreeDecorative PavingLandscapingSidewalkFAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A10Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroyPedestrian PlazasOct 1,5 2020Pedestrian Plaza #1(Corner E 10th St and Chestnut St)Pedestrian Plaza #2(E 10th St near offramp)Pedestrian Plaza #2Pedestrian Plaza #1Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"6.A.bPacket Pg. 33Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) PropertyLineFuel PumpCanopyC-StoreCorner EntryFeatureTrashEnclosureTrashEnclosureChestnutStreetCoffeeShopQSR #1TrashEnclosureEntry FeatureE 10th StreetEntryDrivePropertyLineOff RampE 10th Street Over Crossing Beyond5 Story HotelQSR #2 QSR #1E 10th St.E 9th StProperty LineProperty LineTrashenclosure+60' +/-+24' +/-+29' 8"+/-EntryFeatureE 10th StFAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A11Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroySite Section -East WestScale: 1" = 30'Site Section -North SouthScale: 1" = 30'Oct. 1, 20206.A.bPacket Pg. 34Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) FAX: 925.930.9039STAFF@JOHNSONLYMAN.COMPHONE: 925.930.9690EMAIL:WWW.JOHNSONLYMAN.COMWEB PAGE:A12Laurel SquareE 10th Street and Chestnut Street, GilroyPerspective ViewsOct 1,5 2020View from E 10th St -Looking NorthView from 101 Offramp -Looking WestHotelCar WashQSR #2QSR #1C-StoreCoffee ShopQSR #1101 Offramp6.A.bPacket Pg. 35Attachment: Architectural Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 DRIVETHRUPICK-UPEGRESS EGRESSEGRESSMAIN ENTRYSERVICEENTRY5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STO RA G ESLOPESLOPE RE: KI T CHE N FOR SHELVIN G IN THIS AREA 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R1 8 0 ' LOT 2 COFFEE LOT 1 C-STORE LOT 3 QSR1 LOT 4 QSR2 LOT 5 CARWASH LOT 6 HOTEL FUEL PUMPS LOT 4 QSR2 POOL OUTDOOR SEATING MECHANICAL MECHANICAL PARCEL LINES, TYPICALPARCEL L INES , TYP ICAL EAST 10TH STREET EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(STATE HIGHWAY 101)OFF RAMP EAST 9TH STREET EAST 9TH STREET PARCEL LINES, TYPICALNOT A PART LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596HYDROZONEPLANL0 NOTE: REFER TO SHEETS L1.5 AND L1.6 FOR PLAN ENLARGEMENTS WITH MORE GRAPHIC DETAILED PLANTING REPRESENTATION. ENLARGEMENT PLAN SHEET L1.6 ENLARGEMENT PLAN SHEET L1.5 6.A.c Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) MAIN ENTRY 5 8 LOT 4 LOT 6 HOTEL POOL OUTDOOR SEATING MECHANICAL MECHANICAL PARCEL LINES, TYPICALEAST 9TH STREET STREET TREES WITH 4'x6' DECORATIVE TREE GRATES, TYPICAL (CHINESE HACKBERRY) TALL ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (SWEET GUM) PRIMARY BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (TYP.) (CHINESE ELM) PRIMARY DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREE (TYP.) (SCARLET OAK) ACCENT PLANTING AT WALKWAYS (TYP.) STORMWATER BASIN PLANTING (TYP.) ACCENT PLANTING AT PROJECT ENTRY (TYP.) SCREEN PLANTING AND CLIMBING VINES AT TRASH ENCLOSURES (TYP.) PRIMARY ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (CRAPE MYRTLE) HOTEL PLANTING NOTE: GENERAL PLANTING SCHEME AND SPECIES LOCATIONS TO COMPLY WITH HYATT HOTEL DESIGN STANDARD GUIDELINES; SPECIES SELECTIONS TO COMPLIMENT COMMERCIAL CENTER 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180'LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.4MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.3 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.2PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANL1.1SITE MAP THIS SHEET RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST:WUCOLS SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE TREES (ALL TO BE 24" BOX GALLON SIZE): PRIMARY STREET TREE CELTIS SINENSIS CHINESE HACKBERRY L SECONDARY ACCENT TREE * CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (STD.)WESTERN REDBUD L MEDIUM SIZE CANOPY TREE GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS HONEY LOCUST L PRIMARY ACCENT TREE LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 'TUSCARORA' (STD.) CRAPE MYRTLE L PRIMARY SCREENING TREE LAURUS 'SARATOGA'SARATOGA LAUREL L TALL ACCENT TREE LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA SWEETGUM M MEDIUM SIZE CANOPY TREE PISTACIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE L SECONDARY BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK L PRIMARY DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREE QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK M PRIMARY SPECIMEN TREE QUERCUS VIRGINIANA SOUTHERN LIVE OAK M PRIMARY BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE ULMUS PARVIFOLIA CHINESE ELM L MEDIUM HEIGHT SHRUBS (ALL TO BE 5 GALLON SIZE):WATER USE ABELIA SPP.ABELIA M * ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'HOWARD MCMINN' MANZANITA L * HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON L MYRTUS COMMUNIS COMMON MYRTLE L PLUMBAGO AURICULATA CAPE PLUMBAGO M RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'EVE CASE'COFFEEBERRY L RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA INDIAN HAWTHORN L ROSMARINUS 'TUSCAN BLUE'TUSCAN ROSEMARY L SALVIA LEUCANTHA MEXICAN SAGE L TEUCRIUM FRUITICANS GERMANDER L XYLOSMA CONGESTUM SHINY XYLOSMA L ACCENT PERENNIALS/GRASSES (ALL TO BE 1 GALLON SIZE):WATER USE AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS LILY OF THE NILE M * DIETES SPP.FORTNIGHT LILY L * ERIGERON KARVINSKIANNUS SANTA BARBARA DAISY L HEMEROCALLIS SPP.DAYLILY M LAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA ENGLISH LAVENDER L LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'DWARF MAT RUSH L NASELLA SPP.NEEDLE GRASS L PENNISETUM SPP.FOUNTAIN GRASS L PHORMIUM SPP.NEW ZEALAND FLAX L * TULBAGHIA VIOLACEA SOCIETY GARLIC L VINES (ALL TO BE 5 GALLON SIZE):WATER USE PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA BOSTON IVY L GROUNDCOVERS (ALL TO BE 1 GALLON SIZE):SPACING WATER USE * ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'POINT REYES' (MANZANITA) 36" O.C.L BACCHARIS PILULARIS (DWARF COYOTE BRUSH)36" O.C.L COPROSMA x 'KIRKII' (COPROSMA)36" O.C.L ROSMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' (ROSEMARY)36" O.C.L * INDICATES APPROVED USAGE FOR STORMWATER BASINS BY CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST LID RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT STORMWATER PLANTERS, SHALL RECEIVE A 3" MINIMUM DEEP LAYER OF FIR BARK DRESSING. 2. ALL STORMWATER PLANTER BASINS SHALL RECEIVE A 2" LAYER DEEP LAYER OF 3/8" DIAMETER PEBBLES. 3. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER-CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER OPERATION. 4. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO BE PHASED COINCIDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. 5. ALLOW FOR A NON-LANDSCAPED CLEARANCE AREA OF 15 FT. LONG x 7 FT. SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES (TYPICAL). 6.A.c Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) DRIVETHRUPICK-UPEGRESS EGRESSMAIN ENTRY 9 7 2 LOT 5 CARWASH LOT 4 QSR2 EAST 9TH STREET SCREEN PLANTING AND CLIMBING VINES AT TRASH ENCLOSURES (TYP.) STREET TREES (TYP.) (CHINESE HACKBERRY) (E) TREES (E) HEDGE SECONDARY BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (TYP.) (COAST LIVE OAK) MEDIUM SIZED CANOPY TREES (TYP.) (HONEY LOCUST) PRIMARY ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (CRAPE MYRTLE) PRIMARY ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (CRAPE MYRTLE) STORMWATER BASIN PLANTING (TYP.) MEDIUM SIZED CANOPY TREES (TYP.) (CHINESE PISTACHE) STORMWATER BASIN PLANTING (TYP.) ACCENT PLANTING AT PROJECT ENTRY (TYP.) STREET TREES WITH 4'x6' DECORATIVE TREE GRATES, TYPICAL (CHINESE HACKBERRY) 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180'LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.1MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.4 PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANL1.2SITE MAP THIS SHEET REFER TO SHEET L1.1 FOR RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT STORMWATER PLANTERS, SHALL RECEIVE A 3" MINIMUM DEEP LAYER OF FIR BARK DRESSING. 2. ALL STORMWATER PLANTER BASINS SHALL RECEIVE A 2" LAYER DEEP LAYER OF 3/8" DIAMETER PEBBLES. 3. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER-CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER OPERATION. 4. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO BE PHASED COINCIDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. 5. ALLOW FOR A NON-LANDSCAPED CLEARANCE AREA OF 15 FT. LONG x 7 FT. SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES (TYPICAL). 6.A.c Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL20 . 9 ' 18 9 R18 0 ' LOT 2 COFFEE LOT 1 C-STORE FUEL PUMPS EAST 10TH STREETCHESTNUT STREETPARCEL LINES, TYPICALNOT A PART STREET TREES (TYP.) (CHINESE HACKBERRY) ACCENT PLANTING AT CORNER OF PROJECT ENTRY (TYP.) PRIMARY ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (CRAPE MYRTLE) PRIMARY BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (TYP.) (CHINESE ELM) MEDIUM SIZED CANOPY TREES (TYP.) (HONEY LOCUST) PERIMETER SCREENING TREE (TYP.) (SARATOGA LAUREL) PRIMARY DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREE (TYP.) (SCARLET OAK) SECONDARY ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (WESTERN REDBUD) STORMWATER BASIN PLANTING (TYP.)MEDIUM HEIGHT FLAX, SPREADING SHRUBS W/ LOW GRASSES AND GROUND COVER ALONG FRONTAGES NEW 'FUEL CENTER' SIGN LOCATION NEW 'COMMERCIAL CENTER' SIGN LOCATION STREET TREES WITH 4'x6' DECORATIVE TREE GRATES, TYPICAL (CHINESE PISTACHE) INTERIM PLANTING AREA WITH LOW SPREADING GROUND COVER INTERIM PLANTING AREA WITH LOW SPREADING GROUND COVER 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180'LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.4MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.1 PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANL1.3SITE MAP THIS SHEET REFER TO SHEET L1.1 FOR RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT STORMWATER PLANTERS, SHALL RECEIVE A 3" MINIMUM DEEP LAYER OF FIR BARK DRESSING. 2. ALL STORMWATER PLANTER BASINS SHALL RECEIVE A 2" LAYER DEEP LAYER OF 3/8" DIAMETER PEBBLES. 3. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER-CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER OPERATION. 4. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO BE PHASED COINCIDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. 5. ALLOW FOR A NON-LANDSCAPED CLEARANCE AREA OF 15 FT. LONG x 7 FT. SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES (TYPICAL). 6.A.c Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 EGRESS SERVICEENTRYSLOPE SLOPE STORA GESLOPESLOPE RE: KITCHE N FOR SHEL VI N G IN THIS AREA LOT 3 QSR1 LOT 4 QSR2 PARCEL L INES , TYP ICAL EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(STATE HIGHWAY 101)OFF RAMP SCREEN PLANTING AND CLIMBING VINES AT TRASH ENCLOSURES (TYP.) STREET TREES (TYP.) (CHINESE HACKBERRY) SECONDARY ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (WESTERN REDBUD) STORMWATER BASIN PLANTING (TYP.) PRIMARY ACCENT TREE (TYP.) (CRAPE MYRTLE) ACCENT PLANTING AT WALKWAYS (TYP.) PRIMARY DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREE (TYP.) (SCARLET OAK) MEDIUM SIZED CANOPY TREES (TYP.) (CHINESE PISTACHE) PRIMARY BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (TYP.) (CHINESE ELM) STREET TREES WITH 4'x6' DECORATIVE TREE GRATES, TYPICAL (CHINESE PISTACHE)INTERIM PLANTING AREA WITH LOW SPREADING GROUND COVER 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180'LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.3MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L1.2 PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANL1.4SITE MAP THIS SHEET REFER TO SHEET L1.1 FOR RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT STORMWATER PLANTERS, SHALL RECEIVE A 3" MINIMUM DEEP LAYER OF FIR BARK DRESSING. 2. ALL STORMWATER PLANTER BASINS SHALL RECEIVE A 2" LAYER DEEP LAYER OF 3/8" DIAMETER PEBBLES. 3. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER-CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER OPERATION. 4. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO BE PHASED COINCIDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. 5. ALLOW FOR A NON-LANDSCAPED CLEARANCE AREA OF 15 FT. LONG x 7 FT. SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES (TYPICAL). 6.A.c Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180'LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596ENLARGEMENTPLAN AREA 'A'L1.5SITE MAP THIS SHEET PRIMARY DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES AT PARKING LOT ISLANDS (SCARLET OAK) PRIMARY BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREES AT PARKING LOT END PLANTERS (CHINESE ELM) MEDIUM SIZE SCREENING SHRUBS AND LOW SPREADING GROUNDCOVER AT END PLANTERS MEDIUM SIZE HEDGE SCREEN AND GROUNDCOVER AT WIDER END PLANTERS LOW GROUNDCOVER AT SMALL PARKING LOT ISLANDS MEDIUM SIZE SCREENING SHRUBS AND LOW SPREADING GROUNDCOVER AT END PLANTERS LOW ACCENT PLANTING ALONG PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS LOW ACCENT PERENNIALS HIGHLIGHTING WALKWAYS PRIMARY ACCENT TREE (CRAPE MYRTLE STD.) REFER TO SHEET L1.1 FOR RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT STORMWATER PLANTERS, SHALL RECEIVE A 3" MINIMUM DEEP LAYER OF FIR BARK DRESSING. 2. ALL STORMWATER PLANTER BASINS SHALL RECEIVE A 2" LAYER DEEP LAYER OF 3/8" DIAMETER PEBBLES. 3. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER-CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER OPERATION. 4. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO BE PHASED COINCIDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. 5. ALLOW FOR A NON-LANDSCAPED CLEARANCE AREA OF 15 FT. LONG x 7 FT. SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES (TYPICAL). 6.A.c Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 0 . 9 ' 9 R 1 8 0 ' LOT 2 COFFEEPARCEL LINES, TYPICAL1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180' REFER TO SHEET L1.1 FOR RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST.LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596ENLARGEMENTPLAN AREA 'B'L1.6SITE MAP THIS SHEET MASSES OF FLOWERING SHRUBS AT MONUMENT SIGN(S) ORNAMENTAL GRASS PLANTING AT STORM BASINS PRIMARY ACCENT TREES (CRAPE MYRTLE STD.) SECONDARY ACCENT TREES (WESTERN REDBUD STD.) MEDIUM SIZE CANOPY TREES (HONEY LOCUST) LOW ACCENT PERENNIAL MASSES HIGHLIGHTING WALKWAYS MEDIUM HEIGHT FLOWERING SHRUBS AT BUILDING FOUNDATIONS MEDIUM SIZE CANOPY TREES AT PARKING LOT PLANTERS (CHINESE PISTACHE) LARGE CANOPY STREET TREES (CHINESE HACKBERRY) INFORMAL SHRUB MASSINGS AT VEHICULAR DRIVE THROUGHS LOW SPREADING SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER AT SIDEWALKS ORNAMENTAL GRASS PLANTING AT STORM BASINS MEDIUM SIZE SHRUB PLANTING BETWEEN DRIVE THROUGH AND PATIO SEATING AREA INFORMAL SHRUB SCREENING BETWEEN ROADS AND WALKWAYS STREET TREES (CHINESE HACKBERRY) GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS, EXCEPT STORMWATER PLANTERS, SHALL RECEIVE A 3" MINIMUM DEEP LAYER OF FIR BARK DRESSING. 2. ALL STORMWATER PLANTER BASINS SHALL RECEIVE A 2" LAYER DEEP LAYER OF 3/8" DIAMETER PEBBLES. 3. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER-CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER OPERATION. 4. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO BE PHASED COINCIDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. 5. ALLOW FOR A NON-LANDSCAPED CLEARANCE AREA OF 15 FT. LONG x 7 FT. SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES (TYPICAL). 6.A.c Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596PLANT PALETTEL1.7 Abelia spp. (ABELIA) Arctostaphylos 'Howard Mcminn' (MCMINN MANZANITA) Heteromeles arbutifolia (TOYON) Myrtus communis (COMMON MYRTLE) Plumbago auriculata (CAPE PLUMBAGO) Rhamnus califonica 'Eve Case' (COFFEEBERRY) Rhaphiolepis indica (INDIAN HAWTHORN) Rosmarinus 'Tuscan Blue' (TUSCAN ROSEMARY) Salvia leucantha (MEXICAN SAGE) Teucrium fruticans (GERMANDER) Xylosma congestum (SHINY XYLOSMA) Agapanthus africanus (LILY OF THE NILE) Dietes spp. (FORTNIGHT LILY) Erigeron karvinskiannus (SANTA BARBARA DAISY) Hemerocallis spp. (DAYLILY) Lavandula angustifolia (ENGLISH LAVENDER) Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze' (DWARF MAT RUSH) Nasella spp. (NEEDLE GRASS) Pennisetum spp. (FOUNTAIN GRASS) Phormium spp. (NEW ZEALAND FLAX) Tulbaghia violacea (SOCIETY GARLIC) Parthenocissus tricuspidata (BOSTON IVY) Rosmarinus 'Prostratus' (ROSEMARY) Arctostaphylos 'Point Reyes' (MANZANITA) Baccharis pilularis (DWARF COYOTE BRUSH) Coprosma x 'Kirkii' (COPROSMA) Celtis sinensis (CHINESE HACKBERRY) Cercis occidentalis (STD.) (WESTERN REDBUD) Gleditsia triacanthos (HONEY LOCUST) Lagerstroemia indica 'Tuscarora' (STD.) (CRAPE MYRTLE) Laurus 'Saratoga' (SARATOGA LAUREL) Liquidambar styraciflua (SWEETGUM) Pistacia chinensis (CHINESE PISTACHE) Quercus agrifolia (COAST LIVE OAK) Quercus coccinea (SCARLET OAK) Quercus virginiana (SOUTHERN LIVE OAK) Ulmus parvifolia (CHINESE ELM) 6.A.c Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) MED. SIZE CANOPY TREE (BEYOND) (CHINESE PISTACHE) VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW ACCENT PLANTING 12"BASIN SMALL ACCENT TREE (BEYOND) ON SLOPE OF BASIN (WESTERN REDBUD) TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH CLIMBING VINES VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW SPREADING SHRUBS BASIN12"E. 10TH STREET VEHICULAR ENTRANCE BASIN E.10TH STREET SIDEWALK VARIETY OF GRASSES AND MED. HEIGHT SHRUBS SMALL ACCENT TREE (BEYOND) ON SLOPE OF BASIN (WESTERN REDBUD) LOT 2 DRIVE-THROUGH 12"BASIN LOT 3 DRIVE-THROUGH VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW ACCENT PLANTING SMALL ACCENT TREE (BEYOND) ON SLOPE OF BASIN (WESTERN REDBUD)12"BASIN VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW ACCENT PLANTING MEDIUM HEIGHT EVERGREEN SHRUBS SMALL ACCENT TREE (BEYOND) ON SLOPE OF BASIN (WESTERN REDBUD)12"BASIN12"MEDIUM HEIGHT EVERGREEN SHRUBS VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW ACCENT PLANTING INTERIOR PARKING LOT WALKWAY 12"BASIN LOT 7 (CAR WASH) DRIVE-THROUGH SMALL ACCENT TREE (BEYOND) (CRAPE MYRTLE) VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW SPREADING SHRUBS BASIN12"VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW ACCENT PLANTING MED. SIZE EVERGREEN SHRUBS PERIMETER SIDEWALK ON E. 9TH STREET BASIN E. 9TH STREET VEHICULAR ENTRANCE/EXIT LOW SPREADING ACCENT PERENNIALS AND SHRUBS SMALL ACCENT TREE (CRAPE MYRTLE)12"PERIMETER SIDEWALK ON E. 9TH STREET VARIETY OF GRASSES AND MED. SIZE EVERGREEN SHRUBS LOT 6 (HOTEL) BUILDING BASIN 12"BASIN 12"PERIMETER SIDEWALK ON E. 9TH STREET VARIETY OF PERENNIAL GRASSES AND MEDIUM SIZE EVERGREEN SHRUBS LOT 6 (HOTEL) BUILDING VARIETY OF GRASSES AND LOW SPREADING SHRUBS BASIN12"LOT 6 FRONT ENTRANCE SIDEWALK 1 DRIVETHRU PICK-U P EGRE S S EGRE SS EGRE SS MAI N E N T RY SERVI CE ENT RY 5 8 SLOP E SLOPE STOR A G ESLOPESLOPE RE: KI T C HE N FOR S H EL VI NG IN THI S A R EA 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180'LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596SECTIONS: EACHBIO-BASIN AREAL1.8 COMMERCIAL CENTER SITE MAP 1 2 3 4 5 10 9 8 7 6 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 12 1011 CIRCLED NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO NUMBERED SECTION NORTH NO SCALE 6.A.c Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) MAIN ENTRY 5 8 LOT 4 LOT 6 HOTEL POOL OUTDOOR SEATING MECHANICAL MECHANICAL PARCEL LINES, TYPICALEAST 9TH STREET 1F 2F 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR STORM BASIN UNDER 10 FT. IN WIDTH (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180' 1A 2A 1C 1B 2C 1E 1F 2F 2E 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL)ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR STORM BASIN UNDER 10 FT. IN WIDTH (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 2B 1D 2D 1-1/4" MAINLINE LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.4MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.3 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.2PRELIMINARYIRRIGATION PLANL2.1SITE MAP THIS SHEET IRRIGATION LEGEND (POTABLE SYSTEM): 'HUNTER' #IC-600-SS 12-STATION STAINLES STEEL BOX WALL-MOUNT CONTROLLER; PROVIDE (ONE) 6-STATION EXPASNION MODULE; ALSO PROVIDE #WSS-SEN' SOLAR-SYNC WEATHER INFO RECEIVER, HARDWIRED TO CONTROLLER 'HUNTER' #WSS-SEN SOLAR-SYNC WEATHER SENSOR MOUNTED ON BUILDING ROOF LINE FREE OF ANY OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTIONS 'RAINBIRD' #FS-100P 1" PVC FLOW SENSOR (RATED 20 -300 GPM) WITH 'SUPERIOR' #3100 1" BRASS MASTER VALVE, NORMALLY OPEN 'WILKINS' #975XL2 2" REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLY WITH 'LEMEUR' ENCLOSURE ON CONCRETE PAD; PROVIDE R-19 'KING BROS' #SCHEDULE 80 PVC BALL VALVE; LINE SIZE, OR APPROVED; 'RAINBIRD' #44NP QUICK COUPLING VALVE, OR EQUAL; PROVIDE ONE #44K KEY WITH HOSE SWIVEL PER 5 QCV'S 'RAINBIRD' #PESB-PRS-D REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SERIES, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AND 'AMIAD' FILTER W/ 150 MESH SCREEN; SEE PLANS FOR SIZE 'RAINBIRD' #PESB-PRS-D REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SERIES, OR APPROVED EQUAL. SEE PLANS FOR SIZE MAIN LINE: SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE WITH SCHEDULE 40 PVC SOLVENT-WELD FITTINGS; SEE PLANS FOR LINE SIZE. PROVIDE 18" (MIN.) COVER LATERAL LINE: CLASS 200 PVC PIPE WITH SCHEDULE 40 PVC SOLVENT-WELD FITTINGS; SEE PLANS FOR LINE SIZE. PRIMER TO BE USED. PROVIDE 12" (MIN.) COVER; 3/4" LATERAL LINE (0.1-4.9 GPM) 1" LATERAL LINE (5.0-10.9 GPM) 1-1/4" LATERAL LINE (11.0-21.9 GPM) SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLEEVE AT PAVING CROSSING; PROVIDE 2X THE LINE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSED IRRIGATION PIPE (I.E. 8" SLEEVE FOR 4" MAINLINE, 4" FOR 2" LATERAL LINE). PROVIDE 24" (MIN.) COVER FOR MAIN LINE; 18" (MIN.) COVER FOR LATERAL LINE. 2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT CROSSING AT STREETS 'RAINBIRD' #XFD-09-18 ON-SURFACE DRIP LINE; EMITTERS AT 18" SPACING, FLOW AT 0.90 GPH; SET LENGTHS ON GRADE IN PARALLEL ROWS 18" APART PROVIDING CONTINUOUS COVERAGE ACROSS ALL PROPOSED SHRUB/GROUND COVER PLANTING AREAS; TUBING MAY SIMPLY BE SET MEANDERING THROUGHOUT NARROWER PLANTERS AS REASONABLY EFFICIENT; FOR SHRUBS LOCATED IN COMPOST ONLY, EXTEND TUBING ON EITHER SIDE OF PLANT (TYPICAL), PROVIDING WATER ON BOTH SIDES OF PLANTS. PROVIDE COMPRESSION FITTINGS AND ADAPTORS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS; INSTALL #MDCFPCAP END CAP WITH ADAPTOR AT FARTHEST POINT ON LOOP FROM RCV. STAKE TO GRADE WITH TIE-DOWN METAL STAKES AT 3 FT. SPACING (MAX); MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS NOT EXCEEDING 200 FT. IN ANY SINGLE LENGTH OF TUBING. 'RAINBIRD' FLUSH VALVE; #MDCFCAP REMOVABLE FLUSH CAP W/ #MDCFCOUP COUPLING CONTROLLER STATION NUMBER REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SIZE GALLONS PER MINUTE 'HUNTER' #PROS-12-PRS40-2000 -90 PART CIRCLE HIGH-POP SPRAY HEAD (12" POP-UP) 0.40 GPM @ 40 PSI 'HUNTER' #PROS-12-PRS40-1000 -90 PART CIRCLE HIGH-POP SPRAY HEAD (12" POP-UP) 0.40 GPM @ 40 PSI 'RAINBIRD' #1401 FLOOD BUBBLER (0.25 GPM) SYMBOL REPRESENTS (2) BUBBLERS TYPICAL ALL PROPOSED TREES; TO BE SET EQUAL SPACED AROUND TREE ROOTBALL POINT-OF-CONNECTION TO POTABLE WATER SUPPLY: PROVIDE CONNECTION TO DISCHARGE SIDE OF NEW 1" POTABLE WATER METER; VERIFY EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD. ADAPT TO NEW 1-1/4" PVC MAIN LINE AND EXTEND TO NEW BACKFLOW LOCATION. VERIFY A MINIMUM AVAILABLE STATIC WATER PRESSURE OF 70 PSI; IF EXCEEDS 90 PSI INSTALL 'WILKINS' #600 PRESSURE REGULATOR IN 10" ROUND PLASTIC VALVE BOX. EXTERIOR WALL-MOUNT CONTROLLER: PROVIDE 120 VOLT POWER WITHIN RIGID CONDUIT FROM SOURCE STUBBED-OUT BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CONTROLLER LOCATION; FINAL LOCATION ON WALL TO BE COORDINATED WITH PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT. ALL ABOVE GRADE CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN PVC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT SECURELY FASTENED TO EXTERIOR WALL. E F S 2 1 6.A.c Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) DRIVETHRUPICK-UPEGRESS EGRESSMAIN ENTRY 9 7 2 LOT 5 CARWASH LOT 4 QSR2 EAST 9TH STREET 1E 2E 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 1D 2D 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180' 1A 2A 1C 1B 2C 1E 1F 2F 2E 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL)ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR STORM BASIN UNDER 10 FT. IN WIDTH (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 2B 1D 2D 1-1/4" MAINLINE LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.1MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.4 PRELIMINARYIRRIGATION PLANL2.2SITE MAP THIS SHEET REFER TO SHEET L2.1 FOR IRRIGATION LEGEND 6.A.c Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL20.9'18 9 R18 0 ' LOT 2 COFFEE LOT 1 C-STORE FUEL PUMPS EAST 10TH STREETCHESTNUT STREETPARCEL LINES, TYPICALNOT A PART 1A 2A 1B 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL)ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 2B 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180' 1A 2A 1C 1B 2C 1E 1F 2F 2E 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL)ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR STORM BASIN UNDER 10 FT. IN WIDTH (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 2B 1D 2D 1-1/4" MAINLINE LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.4MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.1 PRELIMINARYIRRIGATION PLANL2.3SITE MAP THIS SHEET REFER TO SHEET L2.1 FOR IRRIGATION LEGEND 6.A.c Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 EGRESS SERVICEENTRYSLOPE SLOPE STORAGESLOPESLOPE RE: KITCHE N FOR SHEL VI N G IN THIS AR EA LOT 3 QSR1 LOT 4 QSR2 PARCEL L INES , TYP ICAL EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(STATE HIGHWAY 101)OFF RAMP 1C 2C 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 1 DRIVETHRU PICK- U P EGR ES S EGRE SS EGRE S S MAIN E NT RY SER VI C E ENTRY 5 8 SLOPE SLOPE STORA G E SLOPESLOPE RE: KITC HE N FOR SHE LV I N G IN THIS A R E A 96'20K RUL12K E08K PUL12K DSL 9 7 2 20.9' 18 9 R180' 1A 2A 1C 1B 2C 1E 1F 2F 2E 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE 1-1/4" MAINLINE ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL)ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR STORM BASIN UNDER 10 FT. IN WIDTH (TYPICAL) ONGRADE INLINE DRIP APPLICATION FOR ALL ORNAMENTAL SHRUB/ AND GROUND COVER AREAS (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) OVERHEAD SPRAY APPLICATION AT STORMWATER BASINS (OVER 10 FT. IN WIDTH) (TYPICAL) 2B 1D 2D 1-1/4" MAINLINE LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.3MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.2 PRELIMINARYIRRIGATION PLANL2.4SITE MAP THIS SHEET REFER TO SHEET L2.1 FOR IRRIGATION LEGEND 6.A.c Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LAUREL SQUARECOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTGILROY, CALIFORNIARW Stover & Associates, Inc.Landscape ArchitecturePh: 925.933.25831620 North Main Street, Suite 4Walnut Creek, CA 94596WATER USECALCULATIONSL2.5 NOTE: COMPLETE WELO CALCULATIONS WITH MAWA AND ETWU, AS WELL AS THE SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND WEO CHECKLIST WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE PERMIT APPROVAL PHASE FOR THE PROJECT. 6.A.c Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Landscape Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.d Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Revised 6.A.e Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Alta Survey (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) N70°03'03"E 126.90'(S70°41'10"E126.76' R-4)N70°03'03"E 556.82'(N70°41'10"E R-2,R-3)N70°03'03"E 293.55' BNDYN 2 2 ° 0 9 ' 2 5 " E 5 4 3 . 9 8 ' ( N 2 2 ° 4 7 ' 3 2 " E R - 2 , R - 3 ) N19°56'13"W 250.00'(N19°18'50"W 250.00' R-4)N70°03'03"E 166.65'(N70°03'47"W 166.77' R-1)N81°21'41"E 111.54'(S81°59'48"W 111.54' R-2,R-3)N70°03'03"E 698.15' BNDYN 2 2 ° 0 9 ' 2 5 " E 5 0 9 . 0 9 ' B N D YR=350.00'Δ=43°04'23"L=263.12'B N D Y ( R - 2 , R - 3)N65°13'48"E 100.14' BNDY(N65°51'55"E R-2,R-3)R=40.00' Δ=90°00'44" L=62.84' BNDY(R=40' Δ=90° L=62.83' R-1)N19°56'13"W 160.20' BNDY(160.10' R-1)N70°03'03"E 206.66' BNDY(N70°03'47"E 206.77' R-1)N19°56'13"W49.79' BNDYN70°03'47"E100.03' BNDY(N70°41'10"E100.00' R-4)N19°56'13"W 250.22' BNDY(N18°18'50" R-4)EXCEPTION #11ABUTTER'S RIGHTSBOOK 7680 PG 394EXCEPTION # 12,13,16INGRESS AND EGRESSBOOK 9328 PG 97(SEE DETAIL)EXCEPTION #1410' X 4' PGE EASEMENTBOOK 9760 PG 270PTR PARCEL 1FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANYFILE NO. NCS-906218-PHX1±0.8 ACRESPTR PARCEL 2FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANYFILE NO. NCS-906218-PHX1±0.9 ACRESPTR PARCEL 3FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANYFILE NO. NCS-906218-PHX1±1.6 ACRESPTR PARCEL 4FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANYFILE NO. NCS-906218-PHX1±3.5 ACRESN19°56'13"W 200.21' (200.10' R-1)N70°03'03"E 644.82'(S70°41'10"W R-2,R-3)N19°56'57"W 86.00'(N19°18'50"W R-2,R-3)43.00'43.00'N70°03'03"E 263.27'N19°56'57"W 86.00'(S19°18'50"E 86.00' R-3)450 EAST LLCPARCEL 1D.N. 20067349TRIOLO TRUSTD.N. 19138334450 EAST LLCPARCEL 2D.N. 20067349450 EAST LLCD.N. 20067348N70°03'03"E43.00'(R-1)N19°56'13"W 243.21'(243.10' R-1)N19°56'13"W 329.99' (330.03' R-1)N70°03'03"E 249.66' (S70°03'47"W 249.69' (R-1)N61°55'23"W 134.62'(S61°18'00"E 134.54' R-4)N19°56'13"W 147.95' (S19°18'50" 148.08' R-4) S19°56'13"E 487.10' (S19°18'50"E 487.03' R-4)60.03'40.01'N70°03'03"E 161.36'(N70°41'10" R-4)N65°13'48"E76.88'(S65°51'55"W76.82' R-4)R=350.00'Δ=5°44'06"L=35.03'N70°03'03"E4.92' (R-1)N70°03'03"E 1071.23'N19°56'57"W 34.12'(N19°18'50"W 34.07' R-2)30' 30' 30'30'N22°09'25"E 34.89'N70°03'03"E 536.79' (S79°W 536.21' R-5)4.12'43.00'43.00'180.24'376.58'88.00'N 2 4 ° 3 9 ' 4 9 " E 8 4 . 2 8 ' N19°56'13"W 58.04' N19°56'13"W 147.95'N70°03'03"E 293.55'EXC.12,13,16INGRESS & EGRESSEASEMENT (R-4)36.00'23.26'N65°13'48"E 100.14'450 EAST LLC PARCEL 1 D.N. 20067349450 EAST LLCD.N. 200673486.A.ePacket Pg. 52Attachment: Alta Survey (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) ISLAND PARCEL 1FIRST AMERICANTITLE COMPANYFILE NO.NCS-906218-PHX1PARCEL 2FIRST AMERICANTITLE COMPANYFILE NO.NCS-906218-PHX1PARCEL 3FIRST AMERICANTITLE COMPANYFILE NO.NCS-906218-PHX16.A.ePacket Pg. 53Attachment: Alta Survey (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) PARCEL 1FIRST AMERICANTITLE COMPANYFILE NO.NCS-906218-PHX1PARCEL 3FIRST AMERICANTITLE COMPANYFILE NO.NCS-906218-PHX1PARCEL 4FIRST AMERICANTITLE COMPANYFILE NO.NCS-906218-PHX16.A.ePacket Pg. 54Attachment: Alta Survey (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) HEDGE SCREENNOT A PARTNOT A PART60' PYLON SIGNLOCATIONPROPOSED LANEHOTEL(100 KEYS)QSR25,181 SFPATIO14' MONUMENTSIGN LOCATIONQSR 13,500 SFCOFFEE2,365 SFPATIOPATIOE. 10TH STREETCHESTNUT ST.E. 9TH STREETE L C A M I N O R E A L (S T A T E HW Y 1 0 1 E X I T R A M P )PUBLICOUTDOORFEATURE1412110PARCEL B 35,006 SFPARCEL C 41,786 SFPARCEL D 54,927 SFPARCEL F 75,364 SFD R I V E T H R U PI C K - U P E G R E S S E G R E S S E G R E S S M A I N E N T R Y S E R V I C E E N T R Y 40,000 SF +/-PROPOSED FACEOF CURB ±ROWDEDICATION20,000 GAL REGULAR 12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIU MC-STORE4,103 SF+/-FUELPUMPSPARCEL A 45,289 SF102' 6"40'PROPOSED 125'EXPRESS CAR WASHGILROY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTREF. NORTHSCALE 1" = 40' 0"FVMFFVVMW W W W WWPROPOSED LANE961063112222652014324178910063451781453842TRUCKS TRUCKS TRUCKS TRUCKSTRUCKS11651459R180.0000 PI C K - U P T H R U D R I V E E G R E S S E G R E S S E G R E S S M A I N E N T R Y E N T R Y S E R V I C E 2yd2yd4yd 2yd2yd4yd2yd4yd4yd2yd4yd4yd2yd2yd4ydHEDGE SCREENNOT A PARTNOT A PARTLOCATION60' PYLON SIGNPROPOSED LANEHOTEL(100 KEYS)5,181 SFQSR2PATIOSIGN LOCATION14' MONUMENT3,500 SFQSR 12,365 SFCOFFEEPATIOPATIOE. 10TH STREETCHESTNUT ST.E. 9TH STREETE X I T R A M P ) (S T A T E HW Y 1 0 1 E L C A M I N O R E A LFEATUREOUTDOORPUBLIC 35,006 SFPARCEL B 41,786 SFPARCEL C 54,927 SFPARCEL D 75,364 SFPARCEL F40,000 SF +/-OF CURB ±PROPOSED FACEDEDICATIONROW4,103 SF+/-C-STOREPUMPSFUEL 45,289 SFPARCEL A102' 6"40'EXPRESS CAR WASHPROPOSED 125'12216.0000 144.0000 R192.0000WP2AAAABBWP3AAWP3WP3WP2WP2WP3WP3BBBBBBBB EEEEWP3WP2WP2WP2EEBBEEBBEEAABBWP3DDEEEEEEDDDDDD0.040.050.060.060.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.780.840.730.850.961.261.181.291.331.321.271.201.070.920.790.630.470.300.210.160.140.180.310.600.700.710.670.640.610.560.430.240.060.040.060.080.100.100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.001.411.300.240.480.751.271.461.711.861.731.691.601.311.131.051.091.191.231.171.141.140.940.881.221.171.060.930.870.900.951.000.860.380.170.080.060.060.100.150.200.202.332.021.321.411.692.142.452.292.242.021.531.241.171.261.512.082.672.732.211.471.522.011.791.461.221.141.201.331.521.631.541.160.770.450.220.120.070.060.100.180.290.420.423.292.712.202.011.301.501.782.172.582.852.542.011.581.301.181.211.492.605.005.443.171.631.922.952.511.901.501.361.491.691.981.982.992.672.081.501.060.650.320.120.070.100.160.330.621.011.013.462.932.401.241.351.541.812.212.622.882.532.011.581.271.060.690.373.402.822.191.751.671.801.821.532.255.335.282.921.791.471.431.310.810.510.380.270.380.711.442.964.454.443.072.922.621.111.381.581.872.332.592.452.452.191.681.321.040.760.433.312.962.341.921.942.282.552.151.101.421.772.342.182.031.500.950.511.061.863.105.067.487.455.023.091.951.351.080.981.101.391.862.162.942.931.011.341.842.092.212.132.132.011.681.381.120.880.493.052.442.042.072.442.894.144.563.682.221.400.870.500.271.281.902.834.345.735.724.312.821.981.541.331.171.211.471.942.433.183.041.061.351.641.861.971.991.951.841.641.431.221.020.863.783.182.562.142.022.166.274.482.291.400.890.540.290.161.191.692.333.133.813.803.112.321.761.431.301.181.251.511.972.543.252.961.051.361.621.801.871.921.891.801.631.481.331.231.113.353.132.562.141.941.850.730.491.861.401.601.130.790.530.320.210.170.141.081.431.752.092.362.352.081.761.501.341.251.151.251.572.132.542.612.751.071.361.661.881.951.981.931.831.681.571.491.371.371.341.361.401.501.642.252.902.802.472.171.911.710.960.750.560.390.242.261.651.130.890.710.550.460.550.550.450.270.931.161.361.521.631.611.491.341.241.231.121.101.211.481.872.112.102.181.041.371.722.042.192.112.091.971.731.611.561.571.581.601.731.892.002.102.362.752.642.412.191.991.431.241.090.960.810.620.440.302.022.041.591.231.121.031.101.611.531.190.840.520.270.811.071.261.351.421.391.271.141.791.011.401.782.312.542.402.412.151.731.551.601.681.761.872.122.442.622.702.802.902.662.412.222.061.691.511.441.391.301.191.020.780.650.511.611.581.391.381.863.184.593.252.181.541.070.740.420.190.851.081.251.351.411.371.261.101.671.181.431.762.222.692.812.461.981.611.471.611.751.882.152.573.203.493.453.593.392.852.502.332.171.991.801.811.861.811.691.521.301.091.381.431.351.271.604.978.666.103.952.531.741.280.960.670.360.901.111.281.411.411.351.281.091.731.341.491.782.212.662.911.411.541.781.942.343.014.054.534.374.614.043.092.602.412.352.202.172.272.462.412.252.031.771.491.541.431.241.373.566.547.135.873.932.491.731.381.191.010.730.291.081.241.381.491.481.401.271.121.781.791.481.491.541.782.262.492.361.331.461.802.042.443.104.145.155.475.054.023.122.692.552.502.372.552.943.343.192.932.632.241.831.681.451.362.123.614.605.144.413.122.101.561.381.441.421.270.810.181.381.631.862.031.961.761.531.341.191.141.271.491.711.972.192.232.131.951.951.741.701.611.721.972.071.961.361.501.872.172.533.164.155.165.815.033.983.152.762.722.672.622.903.674.464.073.763.442.702.141.771.541.662.302.753.233.352.942.281.601.541.812.102.131.710.620.121.712.252.843.253.072.521.971.591.341.281.331.612.022.603.213.412.992.462.192.011.821.791.862.092.222.172.101.951.791.842.062.292.452.753.334.324.854.654.784.083.212.852.782.803.954.994.964.764.223.082.311.801.561.691.912.162.422.392.151.881.731.993.094.092.921.520.500.122.032.984.275.094.763.552.421.761.421.361.431.792.473.654.955.284.433.182.432.091.911.891.982.212.542.812.902.782.722.702.752.782.752.903.183.693.913.723.813.463.022.852.811.065.275.954.943.983.002.261.731.471.441.531.772.032.011.891.861.901.942.202.572.136.674.632.501.450.520.102.193.435.476.976.394.232.661.791.291.111.271.802.704.336.557.165.543.572.501.961.701.621.782.172.713.323.733.753.693.433.132.842.712.702.812.922.982.922.882.772.662.672.722.834.835.174.673.572.762.121.621.371.241.391.701.951.971.942.022.052.153.184.974.014.532.561.771.230.450.091.362.815.447.606.663.972.091.090.630.460.550.961.853.706.317.045.082.721.541.111.081.211.471.972.733.925.045.485.164.243.252.742.472.402.412.352.282.272.252.292.332.422.512.662.833.303.843.994.394.343.362.561.981.581.331.251.441.772.002.042.042.102.202.383.566.581.691.651.641.250.370.091.131.682.554.246.287.306.534.773.242.472.202.112.072.001.941.891.891.972.052.172.302.382.582.833.143.373.643.583.072.502.091.861.611.681.792.052.242.242.152.072.072.142.401.572.112.111.180.320.110.641.011.642.784.214.984.643.432.361.881.751.791.811.811.761.701.711.781.962.032.082.182.282.462.702.973.203.192.982.732.532.422.382.242.322.542.722.662.472.191.991.710.803.673.632.281.250.390.140.240.340.430.681.201.671.330.970.951.091.281.461.581.651.611.651.651.751.851.891.961.932.042.192.472.742.993.143.163.113.123.052.952.883.053.233.543.583.132.552.111.621.190.735.953.512.231.460.490.190.080.130.210.350.590.810.670.540.620.841.121.351.541.691.781.841.831.831.871.821.731.721.741.952.252.572.893.203.393.493.583.593.573.633.804.054.514.773.853.052.451.931.491.090.753.132.352.331.410.470.060.080.130.190.290.380.350.360.520.851.181.501.812.092.272.352.362.302.191.961.701.501.531.631.902.362.853.363.703.914.054.204.234.364.765.065.365.404.363.612.862.251.791.431.080.722.403.162.481.190.450.891.301.722.152.623.043.093.083.052.672.221.811.511.471.531.752.242.883.674.264.444.734.924.744.855.455.966.436.135.034.313.172.422.011.711.371.010.744.663.752.321.150.480.891.401.912.493.294.124.134.114.153.362.551.981.601.471.511.722.233.034.195.135.285.625.715.164.985.235.405.595.474.653.983.132.532.252.001.701.321.010.655.403.021.880.990.400.911.472.012.673.584.615.185.164.693.672.742.071.641.421.511.772.293.084.145.276.046.315.645.084.774.734.845.124.733.773.252.872.632.432.232.011.721.440.970.591.083.952.691.901.310.720.320.931.502.062.723.524.475.635.714.543.582.782.121.681.461.531.792.303.043.985.006.235.885.284.784.454.294.294.263.863.212.892.732.692.572.462.302.131.921.720.881.481.932.111.781.390.980.570.300.911.462.002.683.634.705.085.094.743.692.742.071.661.471.481.732.232.974.054.894.955.245.064.464.013.783.673.383.072.872.742.752.722.672.722.642.552.412.192.001.731.752.072.031.831.701.441.150.900.600.320.891.391.912.493.274.064.114.124.113.332.551.971.591.471.461.652.082.663.423.933.884.044.023.643.453.313.172.932.732.622.682.732.782.823.023.223.182.932.672.492.352.242.252.292.582.421.981.851.661.491.371.060.660.360.871.281.722.172.703.173.433.453.192.732.221.821.511.421.381.521.852.262.753.103.323.203.012.862.792.792.722.632.522.522.612.672.823.073.594.284.083.513.152.932.832.963.183.173.533.152.731.850.621.212.001.781.290.680.400.801.191.611.972.362.793.263.272.812.351.951.661.421.301.301.411.651.972.362.833.172.922.512.302.262.312.302.222.272.362.512.743.123.634.315.094.644.043.643.333.253.333.583.734.113.813.422.901.862.022.692.411.470.760.530.841.341.842.342.873.423.994.033.382.762.171.751.491.361.351.501.802.252.863.433.993.562.992.462.192.051.971.962.052.172.342.693.474.505.125.975.194.814.173.663.453.503.623.924.303.933.703.643.603.513.503.614.003.761.631.100.711.021.702.443.194.456.578.118.076.444.202.792.051.611.481.501.682.213.124.847.018.037.255.163.372.471.991.851.831.952.112.312.743.534.415.026.015.344.994.233.663.523.543.714.014.314.073.793.743.924.014.104.445.396.624.561.980.931.212.172.753.404.495.896.916.745.493.872.631.951.601.461.481.662.092.894.315.826.535.964.553.072.211.791.611.621.832.072.402.863.393.964.755.454.784.173.763.513.433.503.683.954.254.274.073.954.054.194.314.685.637.187.383.341.010.431.572.693.083.453.934.484.624.413.822.952.221.721.451.371.361.471.822.363.143.823.993.873.252.451.871.531.411.451.662.052.472.933.474.024.725.014.353.723.263.083.213.353.603.964.494.904.634.524.444.014.054.274.805.866.334.901.720.510.252.293.453.573.553.493.423.212.942.632.201.831.491.281.201.191.331.561.912.232.422.402.432.261.931.591.371.321.311.581.972.563.053.493.934.284.343.983.432.972.752.913.073.323.804.685.545.465.374.883.893.423.623.954.384.423.602.240.960.460.273.814.694.363.632.982.522.181.891.661.421.271.110.940.900.940.971.131.261.341.331.281.331.331.271.141.051.141.301.551.962.563.203.664.014.164.123.803.252.772.512.512.692.943.494.315.206.285.774.543.562.982.943.313.343.032.542.031.410.860.560.466.186.555.173.542.351.731.351.050.770.550.520.500.450.460.460.450.480.470.430.400.390.390.420.450.480.560.861.211.582.052.653.444.014.264.384.263.783.182.632.142.132.212.563.234.125.075.695.644.523.482.732.392.632.622.312.071.821.591.311.030.830.637.177.365.473.602.221.501.120.800.430.250.190.150.180.160.160.160.110.130.110.100.100.090.090.110.120.290.681.161.652.162.913.994.754.824.994.783.973.162.472.001.831.892.262.893.804.614.484.444.293.322.522.041.982.112.031.871.811.751.681.511.311.040.415.536.074.923.362.191.551.150.060.060.050.050.050.040.210.591.181.702.283.094.365.425.655.825.294.183.182.351.831.611.681.962.412.963.383.323.313.252.712.211.801.581.751.861.811.841.912.052.071.911.540.540.113.144.263.913.062.241.661.220.551.201.742.343.134.135.326.645.945.034.193.352.500.851.211.561.922.252.432.502.472.372.141.821.521.271.661.861.981.992.152.532.932.842.280.480.141.903.423.332.882.331.801.290.551.171.712.303.124.245.395.976.085.314.373.542.671.520.740.951.231.491.681.761.831.811.741.621.411.231.132.172.262.212.222.523.404.374.513.310.530.211.693.293.222.862.371.821.270.611.121.632.202.924.014.824.985.375.284.503.883.162.062.692.792.432.452.954.326.017.013.910.700.292.303.673.532.932.311.721.260.621.041.481.902.372.913.194.044.394.604.494.333.952.125.163.422.572.553.114.526.508.512.290.810.334.155.004.383.162.171.581.150.620.540.911.281.591.922.213.724.174.765.235.252.966.193.692.542.472.833.745.025.311.260.600.296.556.915.273.472.171.481.070.750.390.140.060.030.010.010.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.100.240.480.731.021.321.471.643.223.935.166.617.364.213.512.782.262.192.272.643.251.780.550.336.897.095.273.422.091.401.020.700.400.140.060.030.010.010.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.020.020.070.180.350.520.761.001.271.630.791.102.183.645.186.959.094.341.370.610.190.100.060.040.030.020.020.030.050.100.191.821.851.771.681.661.851.560.490.244.695.184.192.851.851.290.950.650.380.140.050.030.010.010.010.000.000.000.000.000.010.010.020.020.040.110.210.360.520.650.891.180.781.071.832.994.365.926.953.350.980.450.210.090.060.040.030.030.030.030.060.111.131.070.570.182.363.202.842.211.601.170.860.580.310.110.060.020.010.010.010.000.000.000.010.010.010.010.010.020.030.050.110.200.300.350.460.740.981.241.652.243.083.844.271.671.172.041.931.651.331.00 Gilroy, California Evergreen - Photometrics,No.DateDescriptionDrawing TitleSheet No.Consulting Engineersphone: (925) 621-5300 fax: (925) 474-2159belden@beldeninc.com5860 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Suite 15Pleasanton, California 94588BELDENSP1PHOTOMETRIC -SITE PLANCalculation SummaryProject: EVERGREEN COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER - GILROYDescriptionCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/MinTYPICAL PARKING AND DRIVESIlluminanceFc3.029.091.062.858.58Luminaire Schedule - LEDProject: EVERGREEN COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER - GILROYSymbolQtyLabelArrangementLum. WattsLum. LumensLLFLLDLDDUDFDescriptionFilename4AASINGLE152.556218350.9000.9001.0001.000GARDCO P26-64L-800-NW-G2-5W @ 20'p26-64l-800-nw-g2-5w.ies8BBBACK-BACK152.556218350.9000.9001.0001.000GARDCO P26-64L-800-NW-G2-5W @ 20'p26-64l-800-nw-g2-5w.ies4DDSINGLE152.556203830.9000.9001.0001.000GARDCO P26-64L-800-NW-G2-3 @ 20'p26-64l-800-nw-g2-3.ies8EESINGLE152.556211450.9000.9001.0001.000GARDCO P26-64L-800-NW-G2-4 @ 20'p26-64l-800-nw-g2-4.ies6WP2SINGLE46.862980.9000.9001.0001.000GARDCO PWS-48L-300-NW-G2-3 @ 12'PWS-48L-300-NW-G2-3.ies7WP3SINGLE46.863820.9000.9001.0001.000GARDCO PWS-48L-300-NW-G2-4 @ 12'PWS-48L-300-NW-G2-4.ies6.A.fPacket Pg. 55Attachment: Photometric Plan (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20,000 GAL REGUL AR12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUMLOT 3CHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 2 LOT 1 EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101EXIT RAMP)EXISTING ZONING: C3 (PROPOSED REZONE: PUD) EXISTING ZONING: CM (PROPOSED REZONE: PUD) EXISTING ZONING: C3(PROPOSED REZONE: PUD) EXISTING ZONING: CM(PROPOSED REZONE: PUD)ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORS1. OWNER/DEVELOPER: ALEX GONZALEZ EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. 2390 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 410 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 (602)567-7171 agonzalez@evgre.com 2. ARCHITECT: ROBERT M. LYMAN, AIA JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS, LLP 1375 LOCUST STREET, #202 WALNUT CREEK, CA, 94596 (925)930-9690 x114 robert@johnsonlyman.com 3. CIVIL ENGINEER: CHRIS GUENTHER, P.E., RCE #67033 MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS INC. 5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925) 225-0690 cguenther@msce.com 4. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: DEAN B. LEDGERWOOD II, CEG #2613 SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC 4729 W. JACQUELYN AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93722 (559)271-9700 5. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 841-66-010 841-66-011 841-66-014 841-66-015 6. SITE AREA: 6.8± ACRES 7. TOTAL BUILDING AREAS: 32,974± SF 8. NEW BUILDINGS FOOTPRINT: 86,150± SF 9. BUILDING COVERAGE: 11.1% 10. OPEN SPACE COVERAGE: 66.5% 11. LANDSCAPING TOTAL AREA: 22.4% 12. EXISTING/PROPOSED LAND USE: COMMERCIAL 13. EXISTING/PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING: C3 & CM PROPOSED: C3 (PUD) 14. NUMBER OF UNITS: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 HOTEL ROOMS: 112 15. PROPOSED UTILITIES: WATER : PUBLIC SEWER : PUBLIC STORM : PUBLIC ELECTRIC : PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (PG&E) GAS : PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (PG&E) TELEPHONE : AT&T CABLE : COMCAST ALL UTILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED 16. THE PROJECT IS IN FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION 'X' PER FIRM MAP PANEL 06085C0643H. 17. PROJECT MAY BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES. 18. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 19. ALL CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN WILL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF GILROY. 20. PROPOSED GRADING SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY, AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 21. ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 22. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 23. ALL STREETS WITHIN THE PROJECT WILL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 24. ALL STREET LIGHTS WITHIN THE PROJECT WILL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 25. ALL RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE PROJECT WILL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 26. ALL LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE PROJECT WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. TM 01 COVER SHEET TM 02 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN TM 03 TENTATIVE MAP TM 04 SITE PLAN TM 05 CROSS SECTIONS TM 06 10TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS TM 07 10th STREET IMPROVEMENTS TM 08 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN TM 09 UTILITY PLAN TM 10 INTERIM WATER QUALITY PLAN TM 11 FINAL WATER QUALITY PLAN TM 12 FIRE TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN TM 13 SOLID WASTE HANDLING PLAN TM 14 PHASING PLAN SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION AB - AGGREGATE BASE AC - ASPHALT CONCRETE AP - ANGLE POINT BNDY -BOUNDARY BW -BACK WALK CB -CATCH BASIN CL -CENTERLINE C&G -CURB AND GUTTER DI -DROP INLET E -ELECTRICAL SERVICE EG -EXISTING GROUND EL -ELEVATION EP -EDGE OF PAVEMENT ER -END OF RETURN ESMT -EASEMENT EVAE -EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT EX -EXISTING FC -FACE OF CURB FG -FINISH GRADE FH -FIRE HYDRANT FI -FIELD INLET FL -FLOWLINE GB -GRADE BREAK HDPE -HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE HP - HIGH POINT INV -INVERT IRR -IRRIGATION JT -JOINT TRENCH LP -LOW POINT LT -LEFT MH -MANHOLE P -PAD PAE -PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT PL -PROPERTY LINE PS -PROTECTIVE SLOPE PSE -PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PUE -PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PVC -POLYVINYL CHLORIDE RT -RIGHT R/W -RIGHT OF WAY RW -RECYCLED WATER SD -STORM DRAIN SS -SANITARY SEWER S/W -SIDEWALK TC -TOP OF CURB TI -TRAFFIC INDEX TYP -TYPICAL W -WATER WS -WATER SERVICE ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY RIGHT OF WAY / LOT LINE CENTERLINE FACE OF CURB STORM DRAIN & INLET STORM MANHOLE WATER LINE & VALVES FIRE HYDRANT WITH VALVE BLOWOFF AIR RELIEF VALVE SANITARY SEWER PIPE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CIVIL CUT: 9,650± CY FILL: 9,650± CY NET: 0 CY (BALANCE) PROJECT SITE I, CHRISTOPHER W. GUENTHER, CERTIFY THAT THIS TENTATIVE MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY OF GILROY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE STATE MAP ACT. A SOILS REPORT ON THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PREPARED BY DEAN B. LEDGERWOOD II, ENTITLED "GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTHEAST OF CHESTNUT STREET AND EAST 10TH STREET, GILROY, CALIFORNIA" DATED APRIL 27, 2020, WHICH HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY OF GILROY. I, IAN B. MACDONALD, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY STATE THAT THIS TENTATIVE MAP IS BASED UPON SURVEY UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IT COMPLIES WITH CITY OF GILROY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND STATE MAP ACT. THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED ON MARCH 23, 2020 AND IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988. NOTE: SEE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL. L1.1 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN, PLANT LIST L1.2 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN L1.3 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN L1.4 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN L1.5 PLANTING PLAN ENLARGEMENT A L1.6 PLANTING PLAN ENLARGEMENT B L2.1 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN L2.2 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN L2.3 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN L2.4 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN L2.5 HYDROZONE PLAN L2.6 WATER USE CALCULATIONS SHEET DESCRIPTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 6.A.g Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LEGEND EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING ONSITE RETAINING WALLS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (SEE NOTE 3) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN NOTE: 1)ALL EXISTING ONSITE UTILITIES, FENCES, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, BOLLARDS, PAVING, UNDERGROUND & SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE REMOVED. 2)PROTECT EXISTING ACCESS AND FIRE HYDRANT ADJACENT TO 9TH STREET 3)IF EXISTING TREE IS OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS, PROTECT IN PLACE. APN: 841-66-012 CITY OF GILROY APN: 841-66-013 PEACOCK PROPERTIES LLC EAST 10TH STREETCHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101 EXIT RAMP)EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CURBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CONCRETE SLABS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING LIGHT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING LIGHT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING POLE TO BE REMOVED REMOVE EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN 10'X4' PG&E EASEMENT BOOK 9760 PG 270 EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED. IF OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE, PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED. IF OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE, PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED REMOVE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT BOOK 9328 PG 97 ABUTTER'S RIGHTS BOOK 7680 PG 394 EXISTING FH TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVED ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORS6.A.g Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LOT 1 1.04 AC LOT 2 0.76 AC LOT 3 1.02 AC LOT 4 1.27 AC LOT 5 1.02 AC LOT 6 1.73 AC EAST 10TH STREETCHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101 EXIT RAMP)APN: 841-66-012 CITY OF GILROY APN: 841-66-013 PEACOCK PROPERTIES, LLC 13' PSE 3' R/W DEDICATION CALTRANS ABUTTER'S RIGHTS (SEE NOTE 1)N19°56'13"W 153.27' BNDYN70°03'03"E 316.50' BNDY R=350.00' Δ=43°04'23" L=263.12'N22°09'25"E 509.09' BNDYN70°03'03"E 698.15' BNDY N19°56'13"W 250.22' BNDYN70°03'47"E 100.03' BNDYS19°56'13"E 49.79' BNDY N70°03'03"E 206.66' BNDY S43°00'57"E 196.10'S19°52'50"E 180.64'N19°56'00"W 181.97'N22°15'00"E 137.72'S 6 7 ° 4 9 ' 5 8 " E 1 9 0 . 9 7 'N20°01'33"W 80.09'N70°26'49"E 42.87' S19°56'56"E 8.94' S19°55'56"E 43.28'N31°50'21"E 58.87'N65°02'42"E 40.67' N69°26'52"E 140.70' N20°06'27"W 18.19' S70°10'09"W 21.22' N19°56'21"W 6.15' N70°02'10"E 161.44' S70°05'39"W 35.09' S68°08'00"E 28.09' N16°26'31"E 13' PSE CITY R/W CALTRANS R/W EX PG&E EASEMENT EX INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT 3' PSE 3' PSE R/W DEDICATION N65°13'48"E 77.03' BNDY R=34.38' Δ=87°50'03" L=52.70' N19°56'57"W 10.50' BNDY ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSNOTES: 1.PROJECT TO REMAP ABUTTER'S RIGHTS WITH CALTRANS. 6.A.g Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Scale: 1"=10' EAST 10TH STREETA Scale: 1"=10' EAST 9TH STREETB Scale: 1"=10' CHESTNUT STREETC PARKING REQ'D PARKING PROVIDED (CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION) 4,103 SF (COFFEE SHOP) 2,365 SF (QSR 1) 3,500 SF (QSR 2) 5,182 SF (CAR WASH) 3,600 SF (HOTEL) 66,500 SF TOTAL +/- 82,250 SF 1/250 17 STALLS 17 STALLS 1/100 + 5 EMPL 15 29 1/100 + 9 EMPL 23 44 1/100 + 10 EMPL 31 62 14 18 126 95 TOTAL 226 STALLS 265 STALLS PARCEL AREA 45,463 SF 32,955 SF 44,355 SF 55,245 SF 44,501 SF 75,236 SF 297,755 SF PARCEL LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 BLDG AREA 2 0,000 GAL REGU L AR12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUMAPPROX. 66,500 SF FF 193.75 5,182 SF FF 192.3 3,500 SF FF 193.75 LOT 3 4,103 SF FF 194.2CHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET LOT 6 4,500 SF FF 193.75 LOT 5 5,181 SF FF 193.75 LOT 4 2,365 SF FF 193.75 LOT 2 4,103 SF FF 194.2 LOT 1 EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101EXIT RAMP)A A B B C C CALTRANS R/W 13' PSE 13' PSEPLAZA AREA PLAZA AREA "NO PARKING ANY TIME" SIGN, R26 (CA) "NO PARKING ANY TIME" SIGN, R26 (CA) "NO PARKING ANY TIME" SIGN, R26 (CA) REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING DRIVEWAY INSTALL NEW CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK PG&E EASEMENT 3' PSE CALTRANS R/W CITY R/W 3' PSE SEE SHEET 06 FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ENTIRE WIDTH OF 9TH STREET FRONTAGE TO BE OVERLAID WITH 2" HMA WITH PAVEMENT SECTION DIG-OUTS TO BE DETERMINED BY DEVELOPER'S GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND CITY ENGINEER BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING CITY STANDARD STREET LIGHT (TYP) 12' R/W DEDICATION EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING DRIVEWAY ENTIRE WIDTH OF NORTH HALF OF 10TH STREET FRONTAGE TO BE OVERLAID WITH 2" HMA WITH PAVEMENT SECTION DIG-OUTS TO BE DETERMINED BY DEVELOPER'S GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND CITY ENGINEER. BIKE PARKING "THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT" SIGN, W74 (MUTCD) Scale: 1"=10' PARKING STALL DETAIL1 ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSSUMMARY LEGEND: DESIGNATED TRUCK LOADING AREA PROPOSED EASEMENT PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREA BIORETENTION BASIN AREA NOTE: A RECIPROCAL ACCESS AGREEMENT WILL BE RECORDED ACROSS THE PARCELS TO FACILITATE CROSS ACCESS AND PARKING. 6.A.g Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) E.9TH STREET CITY R/W CHESTNUT STREET CITY R/W E.10TH STREET CALTRANS R/W US-101 CALTRANS R/W ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSScale: 1"=10' NORTH-SOUTH SECTIONH MATCH LINE: SEE BELOWMATCH LINE: SEE ABOVEScale: 1"=10' WEST-EAST SECTIONI MATCH LINE: SEE BELOWMATCH LINE: SEE ABOVEMATCH LINE: SEE BELOWMATCH LINE: SEE ABOVEMATCH LINE: SEE BELOWMATCH LINE: SEE ABOVEMATCH LINE: SEE BELOWMATCH LINE: SEE ABOVE6.A.g Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) CHESTNUTSTREETEAST 10TH STREET CHESTNUTSTREETEAST 10TH STREET ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORS13' PSE CALTRANS R/W CITY R/W 10th STREET - EXISTING CONDITION 10th STREET - INTERIM CONDITION EX MEDIAN EX FACE OF CURB EX FACE OF CURB CITY R/W EX DOUBLE YELLOW LINE CALTRANS R/W CITY R/W CITY R/W INTERIM LANDSCAPING PHASE 1 FRONTAGE LANDSCAPING ROW DEDICATION GRIND AND OVERLAY NORTH SIDE OF 10TH STREET ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE TEMPORARY AC DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE 6.A.g Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 0,000 GAL REG U L A RCHESTNUTSTREETEAST 10TH STREET 250' STORAGE LENGTH "THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT" SIGN, W74 (MUTCD)ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORS13' PSE "NO PARKING ANY TIME" SIGN, R26 (CA)"NO PARKING ANY TIME" SIGN, R26 (CA) CALTRANS R/W CITY R/W 10th STREET - FINAL CONDITION EXTEND EX DOUBLE YELLOW LINE BY 100'CITY R/W PROPOSED 90' MEDIAN TAPER EXTEND CROSSWALK STRIPING CONFORM TO EX MEDIAN LIMIT OF PROPOSED STRIPING WESTBOUND LEFT-TURN FOR MONTEREY ROAD/10TH STREET 6.A.g Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20,000 GAL REGUL A R 12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUMLOT 3CHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 2 LOT 1 EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101EXIT RAMP)12" RCP SD15 " R C P S D 18" RCP SD18" RCP SD15" RCP SD24" RCP SDB B A A C C D D E E F F G G SEE SHEET TM 06 FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CITY R/W CALTRANS R/W I TM05 I TM05 H TM05 H TM05 13' PSE 3' PSE 3' PSE 1.5% 2.0%1.0%FF 194.2 FF 194.0 FF 193.75 FF 193.75 FF 193.75 2.0%1.0%0.6% 1.5%2.0%2.0%1.0%1.0%0.6% VALLEY GUTTER VALLEY GUTTER VALLEY GUTTER VALLEY GUTTER VALLEY GUTTER0.5%TC 193.82 TC 193.04 TC 194.20 TC 194.74 TC 194.40 CURB CUTTC 193.32 TC 193.64 TC 193.7 TC 194.35 TC 193.88 TC 194.40 TC 194.12 194.02 TC 193.35 TC 194.57 TC 193.4 TC 194.41 TC 194.44 TC 192.5 192.00 191.50 CURB CUTTC 192.42 CURB CUT TC 192.42 191.50 191.0 TC 193.3 TC 193.0 TC 192.95 TC 192.6 TC 192.55 TC 193.25 TC 192.4 TC 192.75 TC 193.08 TC 193.3 TC 193.0 TC 192.7 CURB CUT TC 192.3 TC 192.3TC 193.05 TC 192.4 EX TC 192.90 CURB CUTTC 191.2 CURB CUTTC 191.95 CURB CUT TC 191.8 CURB CUTTC 192.0 CURB CUTTC 192.15 CURB CUTTC 192.05 EX TC 192.2 EX TC 192.50 HPTC 192.4 HPTC 192.4 HP TC 192.25 HPTC 191.7 193.3 192.5 TC 194.1 TC 193.10 TC 193.3 EX CB GR 191.82 12" CMP INV 189.92 EX SDFI GR 191.66 EX 12" CMP 12" INV 188.54 THRU 6" INV 188.54 IN CURB CUT TC 193.30 SDFI GR 191.0 INV 188.5 BUBBLE-UP GR 190.1 INV 188.5 SDFI GR 190.0 INV 187.5 SDCB GR 191.9 INV IN 188.4 (N) INV OUT 188.4 (SE) EX CURB INLET CONVERT TO MANHOLE GR 191.69 6" IN THRU 188.31 12" CMP INV THRU 188.31 SDMH INV 186.7 SDMH INV 186.6 SDCB GR 191.50 INV 189.5 SDCB GR 191.0 INV 189.0 SDCB GR 190.6 INV 189.6 BUBBLE-UP GR 190.1 INV 188.1 SDFI GR 190.0 INV 187.5 BUBBLE-UP GR 191.0 INV 189.0 SDCB INV 188.4 SDMH INV 185.0 CURB CUT TC 192.90 CURB CUT TC 192.95 SDCB GR 191.6± EX 12" CMP INV 189.8± THRU 6" INV IN INV 189.9 SDFI RIM 191.6 INV 190.30 SDFI RIM 191.4 INV 188.73 SDFI RIM 191.5 INV 189.46 SDCB GR 192.2 INV OUT 189.7 BUBBLE-UP GR 191.6 INV IN 189.15 SDFI GR 191.5 12" INV OUT 189.0 SDCB GR 191.0 INV IN 188.0 (NW) INV OUT 188.0 (E) BUBBLE UP GR 190.5 INV IN 187.0 SDFI GR 190.3 INV IN 186.9 SDMH INV 186.3 SDCB GR 192.5 INV 188.4 BUBBLE-UP GR 192.3 INV 187.95 SDFI GR 192.0 INV 187.5 SDFI GR 191.1 INV 185.9 TOP 192.1 BOP 191.1 TOP 192.0 BOP 191.0 TOP 191.5 BOP 190.5 TOP 190.5 BOP 189.5 TOP 190.5 BOP 189.5 TOP 191.6 BOP 190.6 TOP 192.0 BOP 191.0 TOP 190.8 BOP 189.8 TOP 192.5 BOP 191.5 FF 193.75 2.0%1.5%VALLEY GUTTER192.05 TC 192.7 CURB CUT TC 192.3 CURB CUTTC 192.05 CURB CUTTC 191.6 CURB CUTTC 192.0 CURB CUTTC 191.8 EX TC 193.0 TC 192.5 HPTC 193.2 EX CB REPLACE WITH CITY STD DI GR 192.16 INV 12" OUT 189.27 SDCB GR 191.5 INV 189.5 SD RISER RIM 190.0 INV 187.2 SD RISER GR 191.1 INV 184.9 SD RISER RIM 191.6 INV 189.0 SDMH INV 185.5 SD PUMP BUBBLE-UP GR 191.1 INV 189.0 SDMH INV 185.0 TOP 192.1 BOP 191.1 TOP 190.5 BOP 189.5 TOP 191.6 BOP 190.6 BLDG Scale: 1"=10' SECTIONA LANDSCAPING E.10TH STREET CITY R/W 3:1 BLDG BIO-RETENTION 3:1 E.10TH STREET CITY R/W Scale: 1"=10' SECTIONB DRIVE THRU 3:1 BLDG BIO-RETENTION 3:1 E.10TH STREET CALTRANS R/W DRIVE THRU Scale: 1"=10' SECTIONC BLDG HWY 101 EXIT RAMP CALTRANS R/W DRIVE THRU Scale: 1"=10' SECTIOND EARTH SWALE LIMITS OF GRADING HWY 101 EXIT RAMP CALTRANS R/W DRIVE THRU Scale: 1"=10' SECTIONE EARTH SWALE LIMITS OF GRADING Scale: 1"=10' SECTIONF 3:1 BIO-RETENTION 3:1 E.9TH STREET CITY R/W DRIVE THRU Scale: 1"=10' SECTIONG E. 9TH STREET CITY R/W BLDG ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSNOTE: 1)ROOF DRAINAGE TO BE CONVEYED USING THRU-CURB DRAINS AND ROUTED VIA OVERLAND FLOW TO PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 2)DUE TO LIMITED VERTICAL RELIEF, SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN LIEU OF CONTOURS. THE EARTHWORK SUMMARY IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXISTING GROUND AND THE PROPOSED SUBGRADE / PAD ELEVATIONS. STRUCTURAL SECTIONS ARE ASSUMED TO BE 12" (4"AC/8"AB) AND THE SLABS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SLAB ON GRADE (5"PCC/4"AB). ANY SOIL REMEDIATION IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR ONSITE WITH NO IMPORT OR EXPORT. THE CALCULATION MAKES NO PROVISION FOR STRIPPING OR SUB EXCAVATION. DUE TO VARIABLES SUCH AS COMPACTION, SHRINKAGE AND THE CONTRACTOR'S METHOD OF OPERATION, THE VOLUME OF DIRT MOVED WILL IN ALL LIKELIHOOD DEVIATE FROM THE CALCULATED VOLUME. THOSE ITEMS MARKED N/I HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN OUR CALCULATIONS AT THIS TIME. 6.A.g Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20,000 GAL REGUL AR 12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUM8" DIP W10" VCP SS 8" DIP W10" VCP SS8" DIP W10" VCP SS 12" RCP SD15 " R C P S D 8" DIP W8" DIP W8" DIP W8" DIP W8" DIP W 8" DIP W 8" DIP W 8" D I P W 10" VCP SS 10" VCP SS 10" VCP SS 10" VCP SS 18" RCP SD18" RCP SD 8" PVC W 15" RCP SD24" RCP SDLOT 3CHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 2 LOT 1 EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101EXIT RAMP)FH FH WATER SERVICE CONNECTION WATER SERVICE CONNECTION WATER SERVICE CONNECTION WATER SERVICE CONNECTION WATER SERVICE CONNECTION CALTRANS R/WCITY R/W PG&E EASEMENT SEE SHEET TM 06 FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS RELOCATE EX FH WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PUMPFHPSE PSE PSE FH FH SEE NOTE 1 SEE NOTE 1 ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSLEGEND: STORM DRAIN STORM DRAIN INLET STORM DRAIN MANHOLE STORM DRAIN FIELD INLET STORM DRAIN BUBBLE-UP STRUCTURE SANITARY SEWER PIPE SANITARY SEWER INLET SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT OIL/WATER SEPARATOR WATER PIPE FIRE HYDRANT WATER METER BACKFLOW PREVENTER BLOW-OFF VALVE PROPOSED EASEMENT NOTES: 1.ALL UTILITIES SERVICING THE SITE TO BE UNDERGROUND. 2.ALL UTILITY WORK ALONG 10TH STREET WILL BE DONE AT NIGHT WITH DEVELOPER PAYING FOR PREMIUM INSPECTIONS. 6.A.g Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LEGEND: BIORETENTION BASIN AREA IMPERVIOUS PARKING AREA PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREA IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK AREA NOTES: 1.IN THE INTERIM CONDITION, ALL STORMWATER WILL BE CAPTURED ON SITE, RESULTING IN NO NET DISCHARGE. 2.STOCKPILE BERM WILL BE GRADED TO RETAIN ALL RUNOFF ON SITE. CALTRANS R/WCITY R/W PG&E EASEMENT EX FACE OF CURB PHASE 1 LANDSCAPING STOCKPILE BERM, SEE NOTE 2 TEMPORARY AC DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PG&E EASEMENT INTERIM LANDSCAPING PSE PSE PSE INTERIM LANDSCAPING ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSPROPOSED EASEMENT OVERFLOW STORM DRAIN INLET IN BIORETENTION AREA1 BIORETENTION AREA 3' TYP 6.A.g Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LEGEND: DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA) LIMITS DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA #1DMA 1 BIORETENTION BASIN AREA IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE AREA IMPERVIOUS PARKING AREA IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREA PERVIOUS PAVING AREA IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK AREA 2 0,000 GAL REGU L A R 12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUMCALTRANS R/WCITY R/W PSE PSE PSE APPROX. 66,500 SF FF 193.75 5,182 SF FF 192.3 3,500 SF FF 193.75 LOT 3 4,103 SF FF 194.2CHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET LOT 6 4,500 SF FF 193.75 LOT 5 5,181 SF FF 193.75 LOT 4 2,365 SF FF 193.75 LOT 2 4,103 SF FF 194.2 LOT 1 EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101EXIT RAMP)DMA 1 DMA 3 DMA 4 DMA 5 DMA 10 DMA 8 DMA 13 DMA 2 DMA 11 DMA 12 DMA 9 DMA 6 DMA 8 DMA 712" RCP SD15 " R C P S D 18" RCP SD18" RCP SD15" RCP SD24" RCP SDPG&E EASEMENT ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSOVERFLOW STORM DRAIN INLET IN BIORETENTION AREA1 BIORETENTION AREA AREA (SF)AREA (AC) EXISTING PERVIOUS 25,796 0.592 EXISTING ROOF 26,097 0.599 EXISTING PARKING 245,862 5.644 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS 271,959 6.243 TOTAL AREA 297,755 6.8 EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS AREA ID LOT SURFACE TYPE AREA (SF)AREA (AC)PERVIOUS AREA (SF) PERVIOUS AREA (AC) IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF) IMPERVIOUS %EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF) IMPERVIOUS AREA (AC) ROOF AREA (SF) ROOF AREA (AC) SIDEWALK AREA (SF) SIDEWALK AREA (AC) PARKING AREA (SF) PARKING AREA (AC) ROAD AREA (SF) ROAD AREA (AC) REQUIRED SURFACE AREA SURFACE AREA PROVIDED BMP USED DMA1 LOT 1 ROOF/OPENSPACE 40,961 0.940 6,229 0.143 34,732 0.848 35,355 0.797 4,103 0.094 5,530 0.127 17,000 0.390 8,099 0.186 1,414 1,888 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA2 LOT 1 OPENSPACE 7,395 0.170 1,238 0.028 6,157 0.833 6,281 0.141 0 0.000 140 0.003 931 0.021 5,122 0.118 251 639 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA3 LOT 2 ROOF/OPENSPACE 33,744 0.775 6,889 0.158 26,855 0.796 27,544 0.617 2,365 0.054 5,158 0.118 14,814 0.340 4,518 0.104 1,102 1,361 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA4 LOT 3 ROOF/OPENSPACE 30,632 0.703 7,225 0.166 23,407 0.764 24,130 0.537 3,500 0.080 2,512 0.058 14,208 0.326 3,187 0.073 965 1,175 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA5 LOT 4 ROOF/OPENSPACE 53,513 1.228 11,918 0.274 41,595 0.777 42,787 0.955 5,182 0.119 3,203 0.074 27,346 0.628 5,864 0.135 1,711 1,970 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA6 LOT 5 ROOF/OPENSPACE 27,125 0.623 8,490 0.195 18,635 0.687 19,484 0.428 3,600 0.083 1,131 0.026 13,904 0.319 0 0.000 779 992 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA7 LOT 5 OPENSPACE 15,379 0.353 9,241 0.212 6,138 0.399 7,062 0.141 0 0.000 0 0.000 6,138 0.141 0 0.000 282 471 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA8 LOT 5 OPENSPACE 3,643 0.084 415 0.010 3,228 0.886 3,270 0.074 0 0.000 0 0.000 3,228 0.074 0 0.000 131 200 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA9 LOT 6 ROOF/OPENSPACE 10,270 0.236 2,249 0.052 8,021 0.781 8,246 0.184 7,422 0.170 631 0.014 0 0.000 0 0.000 330 866 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA10 LOT 6 OPENSPACE 10,670 0.245 2,540 0.058 8,130 0.762 8,384 0.187 0 0.000 1,341 0.031 6,789 0.156 0 0.000 335 428 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA11 LOT 6 OPENSPACE 37,802 0.868 4,728 0.109 33,074 0.875 33,547 0.759 0 0.000 2,016 0.046 31,058 0.713 0 0.000 1,342 1,342 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA12 LOT 6 ROOF/OPENSPACE 22,017 0.505 4,200 0.096 17,817 0.809 18,237 0.409 7,020 0.161 6,512 0.149 4,285 0.098 0 0.000 729 848 BIO-RETENTION AREA DMA13 LOT 3 OPENSPACE 4,604 0.106 4,604 0.106 0 0.000 460 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 18 0 SELF TREATING AREA (SF)AREA (AC) EXISTING IMPERVIOUS 271,959 6.243 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS 227,789 5.229 NET IMPERVIOUS 183,619 4.215 NOTE: CITY OF GILROY LOW IMPACT POST-CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 1,2,3, AND 4 RELATING TO SITE DESIGN AND RUNOFF REDUCTION, WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, RUNOFF RETENTION, AND PEAK MANAGEMENT, RESPECTIVELY, HAVE BEEN MET FOR THIS PROJECT. 3' TYP PROPOSED EASEMENT 6.A.g Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20,000 GAL REGU L A R 12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUMEX FH FH EX FH FH150' RADIUS CIRCLECENTERED ON FH, TYPICALEAST 10TH STREETCHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101 EXIT RAMP)FH CALTRANS R/WCITY R/W PSE PSE PSE FH FH 30°60°90°120°150° 180°37.088ft Min Radius(Outer Wheel)21.592ft Min Radius (Inner Wheel) 42 . 2 5 6 f t M i n R a d i u s (O u t e r B o d y ) 21. 4 0 2 f t Max Kickout 1.159ft 40 8 22 Pumper Fire Truck Overall Length 40.000ft Overall Width 8.167ft Overall Body Height 7.745ft Min Body Ground Clearance 0.656ft Track Width 8.167ft Lock-to-lock time 5.00s Max Wheel Angle 45.00°ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSLEGEND: LC ROADWAY BLUE REFLECTOR AT FIRE HYDRANTS NTS 6"BLUE REFLECTORPAINT CURB REDPER CALTRANS A24D R1-1 R26F (CA) INSTALL NEW SIGN AND POST PER NOTED DESIGNATION INSTALL NEW STRIPING PER NOTED DESIGNATIONS RED CURB (FIRE LANE NO PARKING) BLUE REFLECTIVE MARKER AT FIRE HYDRANT STOP SIGN NO PARKING FIRE LANE FIRE TRUCK PROFILE SCALE:1"=10' FIRE TRUCK TEMPLATE SCALE:1"=1' PROPOSED EASEMENT 6.A.g Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20,000 GAL REGU L A R12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUMTRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE EAST 10TH STREETCHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101 EXIT RAMP)CALTRANS R/W CITY R/W PG&E EASEMENT PSE PSE PSE 30°60°90°120°150° 180°29.3ft Min Radius(Outer Wheel)12.879ft Min Radius (Inner Wheel) 32 . 4 3 4 f t M i n R a d i u s (O u t e r B o d y ) 12 . 7 f t Max Kickout 1.513ft 35 4.5 20 Rear-Load Garbage Truck Overall Length 35.000ft Overall Width 8.375ft Overall Body Height 10.546ft Min Body Ground Clearance 1.000ft Track Width 8.375ft Lock-to-lock time 6.00s Curb to Curb Turning Radius 29.300ft ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSTRUCK PROFILE SCALE:1"=10' TRUCK TEMPLATE SCALE:1"=1' LEGEND: PROPOSED EASEMENT 6.A.g Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20,000 GAL REGUL A R12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUM8" DIP W10" VCP SS 8" DIP W10" VCP SS8" DIP W10" VCP SS 12" RCP SD1 5 " R C P S D 8" DIP W 8" DIP W 8" DIP W 8" D I P W 10" VCP SS 10" VCP SS 10" VCP SS 10" VCP SS 18" RCP SD18" RCP SD 8" PVC W 15" RCP SD24" RCP SDLOT 3CHESTNUT STREETEAST 9TH STREET LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 2 LOT 1 EAST 10TH STREET EL CAMINO REAL(HIGHWAY 101EXIT RAMP)PHASE 2A PHASE 2B PHASE 2C PHASE 2D PHASE 2E PHASE 2F PHASE 1 LOT 2 FRONTAGE TO BE COMPLETED DURING PHASE 2B BY END USER. SEE PHASING NOTE 1. LOT 3 FRONTAGE TO BE COMPLETED DURING PHASE 2C BY END USER. SEE PHASING NOTE 1. LOT 1 CORNER FRONTAGE TO BE COMPLETED BY EVERGREEN IN PHASE 1. SEE PHASING NOTE 1. CALTRANS R/W CITY R/W PG&E EASEMENT 12' INTERIM LANDSCAPING (PHASE 1) TEMPORARY AC DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE (PHASE 1) PSE PSE PSE 9TH STREET PAVING AND CURB WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS PART OF PHASE 1. 10TH STREET PAVING AND CURB WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS PART OF PHASE 1.ENGINEERSPLANNERS5142B FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925)225-0690SURVEYORSLEGEND: PHASE 1 WORK PHASE 2 WORK PHASING NOTES: 1.LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED WITH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMITS PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. IN INTERIM, DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE DECORATIVE FENCING WITH GILROY IMAGING. 2.THE FOLLOWING WILL BE CONSIDERED PART OF PHASE 1: A)BACKBONE STREET (ALL CONSTRUCTION, UTILITIES, JOINT TRENCH, LANDSCAPE, STORMWATER TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT, ELECTRICAL, LIGHTING, MAPPING AND EASEMENTS). B)ALL PROJECT FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 9TH ST, 10TH ST AND CHESTNUT ST (SIDEWALK, LANDSCAPE, INTERIM LANDSCAPE, LIGHTING, JOINT TRENCH, SIGNAGE) C)OFFSITE UTILITY ASSESSMENTS, REMOVAL, AND CONNECTIONS. D)ANY OFFSITE PAVEMENT REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT AND/OR SLURRY. E)FINAL MAP. F)STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS TO SUPPORT ONSITE AND OFFSITE PHASE 1 WORK. PROPOSED EASEMENT 6.A.g Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Tentative Map & Civil Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1.7'20,000 GAL REGULAR 12,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREM IUM12'R20'R20'R14'61'43'9'25'18925'18'10.3'10.6'E 1 0 T H S T R E E TC H E S T N U T S T R E E T E. 9 T H S T R E E TE L C A M I N O R E A L ( S T A T E H W Y 1 0 1 E X I T R A M P ) 31.9'R15'R20'1.7'20,000 GAL REGULA R 1 2,000 GAL DIESEL 8,000 GAL PREMIUME 10TH STREET12'R 2 0 'R20'R14'61'43'9'25'1892 5 ' 18' 10.3' 10.6' CHESTNUT STREET 31 . 9 'R15'R20'SITE PLAN SP-2STARBUCKSE 10TH & HWY 10120210472.0GILROY, CA06.09.202104060201080SCALE: 1"=20'-0"TRUE NORTH30 Executive Park, Suite 100Irvine, CA 92614t: 949 296 0450 f: 949 296 04796.A.hPacket Pg. 70Attachment: Starbucks Elevations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 C 4 C 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D 6 C 6 C 6 C 1 A,E 1 A,E 1 A,E 1 A,E 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 C 5 C 2 C 8 A 8 A 8 A 8 A 10 11 11 11 9 9 4 C 3 D 3 D 6 D 6 D 5 C 5 C 6 C 1 A,E 1 A,E 7 C 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 8 A 8 A 8 A 11 11 9 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: AS NOTED 2021-06-15 E 10th & Hwy 101 GILROY, CA 90063 20210472.0 30 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 t: 949 296 0450 f: 949 296 0479 FINISH SCHEDULE 1 2 FINISH MATERIAL 7 5 6 METAL CANOPY/POST ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOORS / WINDOWS SYSTEM STUCCO FINISH: WITH INTEGRAL COLOR & TEXTURE BOARD AND BATTEN HARDIPANEL VERTICAL SIDING A B C FINISH COLOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME PAINTED BLACK 8 WALL SCONCE 9 D 10 METAL COPING PRE-FINISHED - BLACK TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DEC786 MINER'S DUST SIGNAGE (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)11 LAPPED SIDING HARDIPLANK SIDING 4 DOUBLE PANE CLEAR GLASSE LOW CONCRETE PLANTER WALL METAL PANEL BRIDGER STEEL SHIPLAP TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DET621 PALOMINO PONY 3 6.A.h Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Starbucks Elevations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 C 4 C 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D 6 C 6 C 6 C 1 A,E 1 A,E 1 A,E 1 A,E 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 C 5 C 2 C 8 A 8 A 8 A 8 A 10 11 11 11 9 9 4 C 3 D 3 D 6 D 6 D 5 C 5 C 6 C 1 A,E 1 A,E 7 C 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 8 A 8 A 8 A 11 11 9 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: AS NOTED 2021-06-15 E 10th & Hwy 101 GILROY, CA 90063 20210472.0 30 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 t: 949 296 0450 f: 949 296 0479 FINISH SCHEDULE 1 2 FINISH MATERIAL 7 5 6 METAL CANOPY/POST ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOORS / WINDOWS SYSTEM STUCCO FINISH: WITH INTEGRAL COLOR & TEXTURE BOARD AND BATTEN HARDIPANEL VERTICAL SIDING A B C FINISH COLOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME PAINTED BLACK 8 WALL SCONCE 9 D 10 METAL COPING PRE-FINISHED - BLACK TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DEC786 MINER'S DUST SIGNAGE (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)11 LAPPED SIDING HARDIPLANK SIDING 4 DOUBLE PANE CLEAR GLASSE LOW CONCRETE PLANTER WALL METAL PANEL BRIDGER STEEL SHIPLAP TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DET621 PALOMINO PONY 3 6.A.h Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Starbucks Elevations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 C 4 C 3 D 3 D 3 D 3 D 6 C 6 C 6 C 1 A,E 1 A,E 1 A,E 1 A,E 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 C 5 C 2 C 8 A 8 A 8 A 8 A 10 11 11 11 9 9 4 C 3 D 3 D 6 D 6 D 5 C 5 C 6 C 1 A,E 1 A,E 7 C 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 8 A 8 A 8 A 11 11 9 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: AS NOTED 2021-06-15 E 10th & Hwy 101 GILROY, CA 90063 20210472.0 30 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 t: 949 296 0450 f: 949 296 0479 FINISH SCHEDULE 1 2 FINISH MATERIAL 7 5 6 METAL CANOPY/POST ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOORS / WINDOWS SYSTEM STUCCO FINISH: WITH INTEGRAL COLOR & TEXTURE BOARD AND BATTEN HARDIPANEL VERTICAL SIDING A B C FINISH COLOR HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME PAINTED BLACK 8 WALL SCONCE 9 D 10 METAL COPING PRE-FINISHED - BLACK TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DEC786 MINER'S DUST SIGNAGE (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)11 LAPPED SIDING HARDIPLANK SIDING 4 DOUBLE PANE CLEAR GLASSE LOW CONCRETE PLANTER WALL METAL PANEL BRIDGER STEEL SHIPLAP TO MATCH DUNN EDWARDS DET621 PALOMINO PONY 3 6.A.h Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Starbucks Elevations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.i Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Chick Filet (QSR2) Elevations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.i Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Chick Filet (QSR2) Elevations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 28'-8" A.F.F.T.O. TOWERAE25'-4" A.F.F.T.O. TOWERF18'-4" A.F.F.T. O. PARAPETC9'-0" TO B.O.CANOPYDBFINISH FLOORFINISH FLOOR100B101A102A104106AM-3M-3G-1G-2G-2P-3P-3P-3A30003A30002312212M-2M-1M-1M-4ABCEF28'-8" A.F.F. T.O.TOWERFINISH FLOOR25'-4" A.F.F. T.O.TOWERDFINISH FLOOR108A108B108C108DM-2A30002A30003212M-4M-1312SHEET NUMBER:date:project no:A-201YYMMDD - ####October 30, 2020keyed notes:No.DESCRIPTION123BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1REVISION LOGresident/client:San Rafael, CA 949012175 Francisco Blvd. East, Ste.GBluewave Expressbuilder:architect:structural engineering:civil engineering:BLUEWAVE EXPRESS - 100' BUILDING PROTOTYPEDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:STATUS:comments:NOTED--IRSGOBYNo.DESCRIPTION1FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONSgeneral notes:SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR SOUTH ELEVATION01SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR NORTH ELEVATION0210'-8" (TYP.)LIGHTING FIXTURE. RE:ELECTRICAL PLANSLIGHTING FIXTURE. RE:ELECTRICAL PLANSDOWNSPOUT ANDTHRU WALL SCUPPER.(P-3) FINISH ON ALL METALDOWNSPOUTS, TYPICAL.OVERFLOWSCUPPERPRE-FINISHEDALUMINUM CANOPYBOBRICK STAINLESSSTEEL SHELFS-8"x24" SERVICESHELF1x8 HARDIEFRIEZE BOARDLIGHT FIXTURE; RE:ELECTRICAL PLANSMATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULECodeBase ColorBase MaterialBase Manuf.RemarksM-1DEW325 - VANILLASHAKE (DUNNEDWARDS)HARDIE BOARD ANDBATTEN SIDINGHARDIE SIDINGAPPLY ON METALFURRING STRIPSM-2DE6112 - CEDARCHEST (DUNNEDWARDS)HARDIE BOARD ANDBATTEN SIDINGHARDIE SIDINGAPPLY ON METALFURRING STRIPSM-3DET621 - PALOMINOPONY (DUNNEDWARDS)STUCCO-APPLY 2 COATS OFELASTOMERICPAINT.M-4SILVER METALLICPOWDER COATEDSTEEL SIDINGBRIDGER STEELAPPLY WITH 1"SPACING GAPG-1SOLARBAN 70XLGLAZINGVITRO/PPGCLEAR ON CLEARG-2SOLARBAN 90GLAZINGVITRO/PPGCLEAR ON CLEARP-3DET621 - PALOMINOPONY (DUNNEDWARDS)PALOMINO PONYDUNN EDWARDSMETAL DOORSRED CEDARWINDOW TRELLIS6.A.jPacket Pg. 76Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) A30001A30101A3010112328'-8" A.F.F. T.O.TOWER18'-4" A.F.F. T.O.PARAPET25'-4" A.F.F. T.O.TOWER12324'-8" A.F.F. T.O.TOWER9'-0" TO B.O.CANOPYFINISH FLOORFINISH FLOORFINISH FLOORFINISH FLOORA801B801A001108CP-32-GA30001M-1M-23-MM-4SHEET NUMBER:date:project no:A-202YYMMDD - ####October 30, 2020keyed notes:No.DESCRIPTION123BUILDING ELEVATIONS 2REVISION LOGresident/client:San Rafael, CA 949012175 Francisco Blvd. East, Ste.GBluewave Expressbuilder:architect:structural engineering:civil engineering:BLUEWAVE EXPRESS - 100' BUILDING PROTOTYPEDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:STATUS:comments:NOTED--IRSGOBYNo.DESCRIPTION1FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, TYPICALgeneral notes:SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"EAST/WEST EXT. ELEVATIONS01SCALE: N/AEXTERIOR RENDERINGS02ALUMINUM OVERHEADROLLING DOORRE: DOOR SCHEDULEALUMINUM OVERHEADROLLING DOORRE: DOOR SCHEDULECLEAR ANODIZEDALUMINUM CANOPY22 GA. PRE-FINISHEDGALVANIZED METALCAP FLASHING. SLOPETO DRAIN.MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULECodeBase ColorBase MaterialBase Manuf.RemarksM-1DEW325 - VANILLASHAKE (DUNNEDWARDS)HARDIE BOARD ANDBATTEN SIDINGHARDIE SIDINGAPPLY ON METALFURRING STRIPSM-2DE6112 - CEDARCHEST (DUNNEDWARDS)HARDIE BOARD ANDBATTEN SIDINGHARDIE SIDINGAPPLY ON METALFURRING STRIPSM-3DET621 - PALOMINOPONY (DUNNEDWARDS)STUCCO-APPLY 2 COATS OFELASTOMERICPAINT.M-4SILVER METALLICPOWDER COATEDSTEEL SIDINGBRIDGER STEELAPPLY WITH 1"SPACING GAPG-1SOLARBAN 70XLGLAZINGVITRO/PPGCLEAR ON CLEARG-2SOLARBAN 90GLAZINGVITRO/PPGCLEAR ON CLEARP-3DET621 - PALOMINOPONY (DUNNEDWARDS)PALOMINO PONYDUNN EDWARDSMETAL DOORS4'-0"19'-8"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"8'-4"8'-4"COMPOSITE SHINGLESOR METAL ROOF T.B.DWESTERN RED CEDARBRACKETS. RE: ARCHAND STRUCTURALCEDAR TRELLIS6.A.jPacket Pg. 77Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.j Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.j Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.j Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.j Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.j Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.j Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.j Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Bluewave Carwash Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:52:09 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA001 GG OCT 23 2020 2003081 COVER SHEET HYATT PLACE | GILROY, CA GARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENT © 20206.A.k Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) TRUCKS2yd2yd4yd PORTE COCHERE POOL E 9TH STREET HOTEL 112 KEYS 5 STORIES OUTDOOR SEATING OUTDOOR SEATING MECH MECH BICYCLE PARKING TRASH ENCLOSURE 5 A702 A7022 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:46:24 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA051 GG OCT 23 2020 2003081 SITE PLAN© 20201" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN1 6.A.k Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) TV TV & PROJECTION SCREENTV & PROJECTION SCREEN MIRROR STRETCHING AREA MIRROR DRYER DRYER UPUP TRASH TRASH2442 CAB.36DSR-H36ASR-S36ATS36ICDDDW HD2448 24542448 2442 24CAB.D CH2442 D 2436 2436 DHDCC DH TS12BLWA3021 A301 A301 A302 2 1 2 275 SF WORK ROOM 275 SF EMPLOYEE AREA 66 SF TOILET 122 SF COMPUTER 199 SF MEETING ROOM STORAGE 156 SF SALES 583 SF MEETING ROOM 573 SF MEETING ROOM 205 SF ELECTRICAL 181 SF MAINTENANCE 44 SF JAN 293 SF MECHANICAL103 SF STORAGE 86 SF FIRE PUMP 127 SF LINEN STORAGE 75 SF LINEN CHUTE 845 SF LAUNDRY 655 SF FITNESS 57 SF CORRIDOR 42 SF TOILET 173 SF WOMEN'S 149 SF MEN'S 336 SF ELEVATOR LOBBY 92 SF CORRIDOR 487 SF FOOD PREP 116 SF DISHWASHING 64 SF STORAGE 281 SF GUEST KITCHEN 643 SF GUEST DINING 75 SF GM OFFICE 49 SF LUGGAGE 152 SF VESTIBULE 86 SF VESTIBULE 291 SF CORRIDOR 159 SF STAIR #1 561 SF MEETING ROOM 315 SF HOST/BAR/CAFE 215 SF LOBBY 155 SF CHECK IN 220 SF BUSINESS CENTER 386 SF LOUNGE 2 614 SF LOUNGE 1 61 SF GRAB-N-GO 672 SF CORRIDOR 444 SF BREAKOUT 163 SF STAIR #2 65 SF ELEVATOR 64 SF ELEVATOR 473 SF MECH 427 SF MECH 2 A103 A702 1 4 A702 3 A702 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:42:54 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA101 GG OCT 23 2020 2003081 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 01© 20203/32" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 011 GENERAL NOTES - FLOOR PLAN A. FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES APPLY TO A100 SERIES SHEETS. ALL KEYED NOTES MAY NOT OCCUR ON THIS SHEET AND DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER SHEETS EXCEPT THOSE NOTED. B. SEE SITE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR PLATING NFORMATION 6.A.k Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) UPUP A3021 A301 A301 A302 2 1 2 634 SF KING 1 BR ACC (KE) 366 SF Q/Q (QB) 366 SF Q/Q (QB) 299 SF KING (KB) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 366 SF Q/Q (QB) 521 SF Q/Q ACC (QC) 92 SF STORAGE 300 SF KING 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 366 SF Q/Q (QA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 300 SF KING (KA) 214 SF HOUSE KEEPING30 SF ELEC 96 SF ICE 332 SF ELEV LOBBY 1033 SF CORRIDOR 161 SF STAIR #1 164 SF STAIR #2 ROOF BELOWROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF ABOVE L3 KING ACC (KC) L4 Q/Q ACC (QC) L5 KING ACC (KC) L3 KING 1 BR (KD) L4 KING 1 BR ACC (KE) L5 KING 1 BR (KD) L3 STORAGE L4 ICE & GUEST LAUNDRY L5 IDF 2 A103 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:42:56 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA102 GG OCT 23 2020 2003081 FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 2-5© 20203/32" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 2-51 GENERAL NOTES - FLOOR PLAN A. FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES APPLY TO A100 SERIES SHEETS. ALL KEYED NOTES MAY NOT OCCUR ON THIS SHEET AND DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER SHEETS EXCEPT THOSE NOTED. B. SEE SITE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR PLATING NFORMATION 6.A.k Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LEGEND - ROOF PLAN TAPERED INSULATION WALKWAY PAD ROOF CRICKET ROOF ANCHOR FALL PROTECTION CABLE VENT THROUGH ROOFVTR WINDOW WASHING DAVIT ROOF DRAIN A3021 A301 A301 A302 2 1 2 TPO ROOF OVER TAPERED INSULATION AHU AHUAHU R.D. O.D. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ROOF HATCH R.D. O.D. R.D. O.D. R.D. O.D. R.D. O.D. R.D. O.D. R.D. O.D. R.D. O.D. SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPE SLOPE 2 A103 100'-0"100'-0" ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:42:56 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA103 GG OCT 23 2020 2003081 ROOF PLAN© 20203/32" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN1 GENERAL NOTES - FLOOR PLAN A. FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES APPLY TO A100 SERIES SHEETS. ALL KEYED NOTES MAY NOT OCCUR ON THIS SHEET AND DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER SHEETS EXCEPT THOSE NOTED. B. SEE SITE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR PLATING NFORMATION 1" = 20'-0" ROOF SCREENING SECTION DIAGRAM2 6.A.k Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LEGEND - EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIALS PANEL-1 PANEL-2 PANEL-3 PANEL-4 PANEL-5 EIFS-1 EIFS-2 DEFS-1 BRICK-1 PANEL-6 LEVEL 01 100'-0" LEVEL 02 115'-0" LEVEL 03 124'-9" LEVEL 04 134'-6" LEVEL 05 144'-3" T/O ROOF 154'-0" T/O UPPER PARAPET 165'-4" T/O LOWER PARAPET 158'-4" T/O PARAPET 160'-6" BRICK-1 METAL COPING, TO MATCH EIFS-1EIFS-1INTEGRATED PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM WINDOW & LOUVERILLUMINATED SIGN DEFS-1 ON INSIDE FACE OF PANEL-3 BRICK-1 EIFS-2PANEL-1PANEL-2PANEL-3 EIFS-2 6'-0"5'-10" 7 1/2"2'-1"8'-0"6'-0" 12'-8 1/2"10'-0"7'-0"3'-0"5'-0"5'-0"6'-0"3'-0"8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"3'-0" PANEL-2 6'-0"6'-0"65'-8"6'-6"1'-6"2'-1"7 1/2" 5'-10" TYP 6'-6"PANEL-3 PANEL-2 20'-7 1/2"11'-8"4'-4" 1 A451 3 A451 LT-16 LEVEL 01 100'-0" LEVEL 02 115'-0" LEVEL 03 124'-9" LEVEL 04 134'-6" LEVEL 05 144'-3" T/O ROOF 154'-0" T/O UPPER PARAPET 165'-4" T/O LOWER PARAPET 158'-4" T/O PARAPET 160'-6" PANEL-1 PANEL-5EIFS-1 BRICK-1 PANEL-2 PANEL-4PANEL-3 PANEL-3 EIFS-2EIFS-1ILLUMINATED SIGN PANEL-38'-4"9'-3 1/2"9'-3 1/2"9'-3 1/2"11'-9 1/2"3'-0"11'-0"5'-7"SP-1 (SPANDREL GLAZING)1'-6"6'-6"2'-1"7 1/2" 5'-10" TYP60'-10"ILLUMINATED SIGN 1 A452 2 A452 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:57:23 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA301 GG OCT 23 2020 2003081 BUILDING ELEVATION© 2020GENERAL NOTES - EXTERIOR ELEVATION A. ELEVATION KEYED NOTES APPLY TO A300 SERIES SHEETS. ALL KEYED NOTES MAY NOT OCCUR ON THIS SHEET AND DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER SHEETS EXCEPT THOSE NOTED. 3/32" = 1'-0" BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH1 3/32" = 1'-0" BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH2 6.A.k Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LEGEND - EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIALS PANEL-1 PANEL-2 PANEL-3 PANEL-4 PANEL-5 EIFS-1 EIFS-2 DEFS-1 BRICK-1 PANEL-6 LEVEL 01 100'-0" LEVEL 02 115'-0" LEVEL 03 124'-9" LEVEL 04 134'-6" LEVEL 05 144'-3" T/O ROOF 154'-0" T/O UPPER PARAPET 165'-4" T/O LOWER PARAPET 158'-4" T/O PARAPET 160'-6" PANEL-3EIFS-2 EIFS-1 BRICK-1 PANEL-3 5'-0"6'-6"1'-6"3'-0"3'-0" 6'-0"1'-8"8'-4"3'-6"3'-0"3'-0"8'-0"3'-2"10'-0"3'-5 1/2"60'-10"EIFS "V" REVEAL TYPICAL LEVEL 01 100'-0" LEVEL 02 115'-0" LEVEL 03 124'-9" LEVEL 04 134'-6" LEVEL 05 144'-3" T/O ROOF 154'-0" T/O UPPER PARAPET 165'-4" T/O LOWER PARAPET 158'-4" T/O PARAPET 160'-6" BRICK-1 PANEL-2 PANEL-3 DEFS-1EIFS-1 8'-0"5'-0"6'-6"PANEL-33'-8"10'-0"3'-0"7'-0"3'-0"3'-5 1/2"10'-0"65'-8"4'-0 1/2"12'-11 1/2"3'-2"15'-0"3'-2" 2 A451 ILLUMINATED SIGN ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:43:01 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA302 GG OCT 23 2020 2003081 BUILDING ELEVATION© 20203/32" = 1'-0" BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST1 3/32" = 1'-0" BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST2 GENERAL NOTES - EXTERIOR ELEVATION A. ELEVATION KEYED NOTES APPLY TO A300 SERIES SHEETS. ALL KEYED NOTES MAY NOT OCCUR ON THIS SHEET AND DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER SHEETS EXCEPT THOSE NOTED. 6.A.k Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) LEGEND - EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIALS PANEL-1 PANEL-2 PANEL-3 PANEL-4 PANEL-5 EIFS-1 EIFS-2 DEFS-1 BRICK-1 PANEL-6 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:43:02 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA310 <checker> OCT 23 2020 2003081 MATERIAL INFORMATION© 2020EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE SPEC NO. MANUFACTURER LOCATION STYLE DESCRIPTION FINISH/COLOR NOTES PANEL-1 NICHIHA FRONT & REAR ELEV HORIZONTAL REVEALS (SMALL) METALLIC SERIES - RIBBED GUNSMOKE PANEL-2 JAMES HARDIE FRONT & REAR ELEV HORIZONTAL REVEALS @ 8" HIGH ARTISAN V-GROOVE SIDING COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7594 PANEL-3 PAC-CLAD MAIN WRAP / LOW ROOF CANOPY / 2ND FLOOR BANDING / COLUMN ENCLOSURES PAC-3000 CS (FIRE RETARDANT CORE) N/A ALUM. MUSKET GRAY PANEL-4 PAC-CLAD WINDOW INFILL PAC-3000 CS (FIRE RETARDANT CORE) INTEGRATED INTO WINDOW ALUM. MUSKET GRAY PANEL-5 PAC-CLAD REAR ELEV PAC-3000 CS (FIRE RETARDANT CORE) N/A TO MATCH DEFS-1 EIFS-1 STO/DRYVIT FIELD EIFS 3" THICK INTEGRAL DRAINAGE MAT FINISH: LYMESTONE/FINE COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7631) 2" TALL REVEALS ALIGN WITH WINDOW MULLIONS EIFS-2 STO/DRYVIT ACCENT BANDING 3" THICK INTEGRAL DRAINAGE MAT FINISH: LYMESTONE/FINE COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7642) 2" TALL REVEALS ALIGN WITH WINDOW MULLIONS DEFS-1 STO/DRYVIT SOFFIT 3" THICK INTEGRAL DRAINAGE MAT FINISH: LYMESTONE/FINE COLOR: TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7631) 2" TALL REVEALS ALIGN WITH WINDOW MULLIONS BRICK-1 ENDICOTT CLAY PRODUCTS CO. FIRST FLOOR RUNNING BOND, MODULAR N/A MAGANESE IRONSPOT VELOUR MODULAR PANEL-6 LONGBOARD CEILINGS AT PORTE COCHERE & CANOPIES 4" V-GROOVE PLANKS N/A LIGHT CHERRY PANEL-1 PANEL-4PANEL-2 PANEL-3 PANEL-5 PANEL-6 EIFS-2 DEFS-1 EIFS-1 BRICK-1SW7631 SW7631 SW7642 SW7594 SW7631 GUNSMOKE MUSKET GRAYMUSKET GRAY LIGHT CHERRY LT-16 (SATIN BLACK) 6.A.k Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) W1: GROUND FLOOR MASONRY WALL · 4" BRICK VENEER MODULAR · 1" AIR SPACE · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R10 MIN.) · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W2: FIELD EIFS · EIFS FINISH SYSTEM · 3" RIGID INSULATION (R-15MIN) · DRAINAGE PLANE · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W3: ACCENT EIFS · EIFS FINISH SYSTEM · 3" RIGID INSULATION (R-15MIN) · DRAINAGE PLANE · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W4: PANEL 1 -BASE · FIBER CEMENT PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W5: PANEL 2 -BASE · FIBER CEMENT PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W6: PANEL 3 -BASE · COMPOSITE METAL PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W7: PANEL 4 -BASE · COMPOSITE METAL PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD F1: TYP. FLOOR STRUCTURE: · FINISHES PER SCHEDULE · CONCRETE TOPPING · SOUND MAT · REINFORCED CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB · 5/8" GYP. BD. CEILING HUNG FROM FLOOR STRUCTURE R1: MAIN ROOF STRUCTURE: · ROOFING MEMBRANE · ROOF PROTECTION BOARD · RIGID INSULATION · 10" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB · 5/8 " GYPSUM BOARD CEILING R2: CANOPY ROOF STRUCTURE: · "PAC-CLAD" TITE-LOC METAL · ROOFING MEMBRANE · 2" RIGID INSULATION · CORRUGATED MTL. DECKING · TUBE STEEL FRAMING · METAL FRAMING · "PAC-CLAD" REVEAL SOFFIT CONSTRUCTION TYPES ROOF CONSTRUCTION FLOOR CONSTRUCTION WALL CONSTRUCTION ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:43:02 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA451 <checker> OCT 23 2020 2003081 WALL SECTIONS© 2020WALL SECTIONS PER HYATT PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN 1/4" = 1'-0" WALL SECTION11/4" = 1'-0" WALL SECTION3 1/4" = 1'-0" WALL SECTION2 6.A.k Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) A701 3 W1: GROUND FLOOR MASONRY WALL · 4" BRICK VENEER MODULAR · 1" AIR SPACE · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R10 MIN.) · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W2: FIELD EIFS · EIFS FINISH SYSTEM · 3" RIGID INSULATION (R-15MIN) · DRAINAGE PLANE · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W3: ACCENT EIFS · EIFS FINISH SYSTEM · 3" RIGID INSULATION (R-15MIN) · DRAINAGE PLANE · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W4: PANEL 1 -BASE · FIBER CEMENT PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W5: PANEL 2 -BASE · FIBER CEMENT PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W6: PANEL 3 -BASE · COMPOSITE METAL PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD W7: PANEL 4 -BASE · COMPOSITE METAL PANEL · AIR & MOISTURE BARRIER · 2" RIGID INSULATION (R-10MIN) · 2" METAL Z FURRING · 5/8" EXTERIOR GRADE SHEATHING · 6" METAL STUDS · 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD F1: TYP. FLOOR STRUCTURE: · FINISHES PER SCHEDULE · CONCRETE TOPPING · SOUND MAT · REINFORCED CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB · 5/8" GYP. BD. CEILING HUNG FROM FLOOR STRUCTURE R1: MAIN ROOF STRUCTURE: · ROOFING MEMBRANE · ROOF PROTECTION BOARD · RIGID INSULATION · 10" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB · 5/8 " GYPSUM BOARD CEILING R2: CANOPY ROOF STRUCTURE: · "PAC-CLAD" TITE-LOC METAL · ROOFING MEMBRANE · 2" RIGID INSULATION · CORRUGATED MTL. DECKING · TUBE STEEL FRAMING · METAL FRAMING · "PAC-CLAD" REVEAL SOFFIT CONSTRUCTION TYPES ROOF CONSTRUCTION FLOOR CONSTRUCTION WALL CONSTRUCTION ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:43:03 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA452 <checker> OCT 23 2020 2003081 WALL SECTIONS© 20201/4" = 1'-0" WALL SECTION11/4" = 1'-0" WALL SECTION2 WALL SECTIONS PER HYATT PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN 6.A.k Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:43:03 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA701 <checker> OCT 23 2020 2003081 WALL DETAILS© 20201" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL1 1" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL2 1" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL3 1" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL4 1" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL5 1" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL6 1" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL7 1" = 1'-0" SECTION DETAIL8 DETAILS PER HYATT PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN 6.A.k Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN + PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN PORTLAND|OAKLAND SERADESIGN.COMNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYCHECKED BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NO: REVISIONS SERA Design and Architecture, Inc.Copyright protected.See Design Agreement.For use on this project only.Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this material is prohibited.© 201810/23/2020 11:43:04 AMHYATT PLACE | GILROY, CAGARLIC CENTER DEVELOPMENTA702 <checker> OCT 23 2020 2003081 SITE DETAILS© 20203/8" = 1'-0" POOL SCREEN WALL ELEVATION1 1/2" = 1'-0" PATIO SCREEN WALL SECTION31/2" = 1'-0" POOL COLUMN WALL SECTION41/2" = 1'-0" REFUSE SCREEN WALL SECTION5 3/8" = 1'-0" REFUSE SCREEN WALL ELEVATION2 DETAILS PER HYATT PROTOTYPICAL DESIGN 6.A.k Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.k Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.k Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Hyatt Hotel Plans (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Gilroy Center NEC E 10th Street & Chestnut Road Gilroy, California DESIGN GUIDELINES October 13, 2020 6.A.l Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Overview and Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Cross Easements and Circulation ............................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Parking, Parking Lot & Drive Aisle Design ............................................................................................... 4 2.4 Pedestrian Connections ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.5 Refuse Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.6 Utility Structures ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.7 Walls and Fences ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.8 Setbacks ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 ARCHITECTURE .......................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Architectural Character .......................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Roof Design ........................................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 LIGHTING ................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 7 4.2 General Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 LANDSCAPING ........................................................................................................................................... 8 5.1 Landscape Concept ................................................................................................................................ 8 6.0 SIGNAGE .................................................................................................................................................... 9 6.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 9 6.2. General Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 9 7.0 SECURITY ................................................................................................................................................... 9 7.1 General Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit “A” – Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Exhibit “B” – Colors and Materials Palette............................................................................................................. 11 Exhibit “C” – Project Details and Amenities ........................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit “D” – Project Details and Amenities continued .......................................................................................... 13 Exhibit “E” – Trash Enclosure Design ..................................................................................................................... 14 Exhibit “F” – Landscaping Details .......................................................................................................................... 15 Exhibits“G” – Representative Exterior Elevations ............................................................................................. 16-23 6.A.l Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 3 Gilroy Center Design Guidelines 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview and Purpose Garlic Center consists of approximately 7 acres of commercially zoned property with 660 feet of frontage on E 10th Street, 200 feet of frontage along Chestnut Street, 700 feet of frontage on E 9th Street, and 600 feet of frontage on the Hwy 101 offramp in Gilroy, California, as shown on Exhibit “A” (the “Development”). These Design Guidelines are intended to promote the integrated development of multiple parcels in a functionally efficient and architecturally cohesive manner. These Design Guidelines (hereafter “Guidelines”) govern the development of the Parcels (hereinafter referred to as a “Parcel” or “Parcels”) constituting the Development. The objective is for each Parcel to be developed by its tenant or owner (“Owner”) with building colors, elevations, exterior materials, landscaping and signage conveying a sense of high quality and continuity throughout the Development. In the event of discrepancy between these Guidelines, any provision of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Garlic Center and the requirements of (Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, LLC) or its Assignee (“Declarant”) in connection with granting the design approval required under the Declaration, or applicable governmental authority granting design approvals for the Development, the most restrictive standard shall apply. 2.0 SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES 2.1 Grading and Drainage Finish floor elevations and site-grading design shall comply with the master grading and drainage plan for the Development on file with the Declarant. Site grading design shall cause all water to drain away from buildings and shall complement the architectural and landscape design. Care shall be taken to ensure that any landscape berming does not impair drainage across the Parcels as intended in the master grading and drainage plan. Grade transition between Parcels shall be free from excessive slopes (other than where retaining walls are contemplated in the master grading and drainage plan). Retaining walls, garden walls and other such site features constructed immediately adjacent to or connecting with a building must be constructed of a material that visually matches the exterior building or that is an integral material in the landscape. 6.A.l Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 2.2 Cross Easements and Circulation The site plan for each Parcel shall be designed to encourage cross-site usage to occur between the adjacent Parcels, and shall conform to the requirements of the Declaration and the City of Gilroy. Vehicular and pedestrian pathways through the Development shall be designed so that onsite circulation between the Parcels is fluid and provides a feeling of continuity. Circulation design shall provide for safe and adequate means of ingress and egress of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and within the Development. 2.3 Parking, Parking Lot & Drive Aisle Design Spaces shall be clearly defined by white paint and shall, at a minimum, be designed to meet applicable governmental requirements. Screening, parking stalls, and landscaping shall comply with the Declaration and City Code. Any variance requires prior Declarant approval. The Owner’s architect must allow for and graphically designate on the Parcel’s site plan all accessible parking spaces and include location of required signage, ramps and any necessary crosswalks from parking area(s) to building(s). The parking lots and drive aisles shall be designed to accommodate appropriately sized vehicles for fire service, delivery and trash disposal, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Gilroy. Curb radii and parking landscape island geometrics shall be adjusted as necessary to accommodate larger vehicle circulation. All sidewalk and parking lot ramps and pedestrian walkways must adhere to ADA codes and City of Gilroy Planning and Building Department requirements. Acceptable parking area materials include asphaltic concrete paving over a crushed aggregate base. The minimum section design shall be determined by the Owner’s geotechnical investigation report. All concrete curbing shall be cast-in-place, except for the use of extruded curbing as a temporary construction material where approved by Declarant. 2.4 Pedestrian Connections and Spaces Walkways shall connect all Parcels to E 10th Street, Chestnut Street and/or E 9th Street in the safest and most convenient manner possible. Strong pedestrian connections shall also be provided between adjoining Parcels. Pedestrian spaces will be created to encourage outdoor gathering and dining. Amenities such as specialty paving, shade elements (trees, or shading structure), enhanced lighting such as low-level pedestrian lighting and string lights. Varied seating concepts are encouraged such a communal seating (picnic tables), lounge seating, café seating, fire and water elements. Outdoor spaces may include detail elements such as tree grates, 6.A.l Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 5 alcoholic beverage separation fences, planter pots. 2.5 Refuse Areas Refuse areas shall be screened with a masonry wall not less than six (6) feet in height and of a size sufficient to accommodate dumpsters and/or compactors that will hold all refuse generated between collection times. All such screen walls shall be constructed using materials and finishes compatible with the building(s) to be constructed on the Parcel. All refuse enclosures must be provided with metal gates as depicted in Exhibit “D”. Refuse collection areas shall be designed and located on the Parcels to meet all applicable governmental requirements, be convenient for depositing refuse generated on-site and provide clear and convenient access to refuse collection vehicles, thus minimizing wear- and-tear to onsite and offsite improvements. All refuse areas must be designed to remain clean, dry and odor free. All “wet-type” refuse containers shall be designed to prevent leakage of liquids onto the Parcels. 2.6 Utility Structures The design of any wireless communication facilities must be appropriately integrated with the design of the Development and is expressly subject to written approval by Declarant in its sole and absolute discretion. Utility equipment must be located and screened in accordance with the City of Gilroy Code. Electrical switchgear, gas meters and service doors should be painted to match the backgrounds in which they are placed. All water, gas, sewer, electrical and communication lines must be installed underground. Architectural screening shall be constructed using materials and finishes compatible with the building(s) to be constructed on the Parcel. 2.7 Walls and Fences The texture, color, material and design of all walls and fences shall match the design of the Development and shall harmonize with the design of the building(s) to be constructed on the Parcel. Wrought iron, natural rock, brick cement stuccos over CMU and split face block are recommended materials. All wall and fence designs shall be approved by the Declarant prior to being submitted to the City of Gilroy. No barbed wire, chain link are permitted. 2.8 Setbacks Building setbacks shall be provided per the City approved PUD Site Plan. 6.A.l Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6 3.0 ARCHITECTURE 3.1 Architectural Character The architectural character of the Garlic Center is that of a quality rustic agrarian modern shopping center. This will be achieved through the use of materials and colors that reflect Gilroy’s agrarian history while incorporating contemporary forms and details. Representative images of the enhanced four-sided building architecture typical of the center are depicted in the provided concept elevations. An established palette of colors and materials fitting with the rustic agrarian modern design of the center is presented on the Colors and Materials board in Exhibit “B”. Each building shall incorporate some or all of the materials, methods and colors in its design, though some variation for corporate identity is allowed. Break down building massing to a human scale eliminating uninterrupted flat facades by articulating a wall plane with the following architectural elements: o Change in plane at change in material. o Change in color, texture or material. o Windows, Columns, Piers. o Trellises, awnings or canopies. Storefront frames should be clear anodized aluminum. Any variation, including incorporation of complementary accent colors and additional design elements, must be approved by Declarant in advance, in its sole and absolute discretion. All sides of all structures are important and must receive similar architectural treatment. The Development shall, as a whole, be an integrated project where all buildings have drawn from a common palette and share a common theme in their design. 3.2 Roof Design Building roofs to have a combination of at least 2 of the following: gable, shed or flat roofs. All sloping roofs must be covered with an appropriate material approved by Declarant, refer to Color and Materials Exhibit “B”. Parapet cap flashing should be a neutral color. Air conditioners, evaporative coolers, solar collectors (with or without attached tanks), antennas, satellite dishes, parabolic devices and any other similar equipment must be fully screened from view on all sides. No such equipment shall be installed on the roof unless screened from ground level view within the Development and from adjoining streets. Miscellaneous items such as vents and flues should be located to occur on the least prominent side of any ridgeline (to the extent possible). Vents, flues and flashing must be coated with a flat paint to match the color of the roof. 6.A.l Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 7 4.0 LIGHTING 4.1 Purpose The following guidelines are intended to ensure that lighting is used to increase safety, provide visual accent, create mood and designed so as not to be a nuisance. Additionally, lighting shall enhance the architectural features of the building structures and reinforce design concepts. 4.2 General Regulations The maximum height of parking lot light fixtures, from finished grade at the base of light standard to top of standard or fixture, shall be 20 feet above ground level. All parking lots must be lit from the interior and/or at the edge of the parking lot, directed to the lot and away from properties outside of the Development. All parking lot light fixtures, bases and poles shall match the design specifications provided on Exhibit “C”. Light fixtures shall be full 90 degrees cut off. Light sources shall be LED. Lighting elements shall be consistent throughout the whole development (manufacturer, finish, and color). All lighting plans must conform to the levels and placement required by the master photometric lighting plan on file with the Declarant and shall be submitted to and approved by the Declarant prior to submittal to the City of Gilroy. Attached building fixtures shall be of the type indicated in the specifications provided on Exhibit “C”. The proposed style of building lights are specified for building elevations. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting is also encouraged throughout the site. This lighting should be used in areas such as walkways, patios, entrances, exits and pedestrian gathering areas. Large area floodlights and roof mounted spotlights are not permitted. 6.A.l Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 8 5.0 LANDSCAPING 5.1 Landscape Concept The landscape design shall follow the City of Gilroy Code requirements, incorporate low water-use plant species, complement the architecture of the center, and be cohesive throughout the Development. The plant material palette can be found in Exhibit “E”. Modest enhancements to landscaping may be added subject to the approval of the Declarant. All Parcels shall be landscaped in a manner that reinforces and complements any existing landscape elements. All landscaping should be designed, selected and placed in a manner that is easy to maintain and requires limited irrigation. Water conserving designs are encouraged; however, large expanses of wood chips, decomposed granite or rock materials without ground cover and/or shrubs are prohibited. The Owner is responsible for submitting a landscape plan as well as a site hardscape plan delineating walkway, sidewalk finishes and accent detailing at entries, patios or outdoor spaces, to be approved by the Declarant. Each Parcel tenant or owner must install a system to irrigate the landscaping on their Parcel. Each Parcel, when developed, shall be designed such that the right of way landscaping along the frontage can be removed from the temporary right-of-way irrigation line (initially installed by the Declarant), and integrated into the permanent irrigation system serving that Parcel. The intent is that when the site is fully developed, each Owner will irrigate their Parcel and the corresponding right-of-way landscaping in front of their Parcel, and the temporary right-of-way irrigation line will be shut off. All irrigation controllers must be installed outside of any building, in lockable enclosures, and be readily accessible to the Declarant for the purpose of managing the center. 6.A.l Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 9 6.0 SIGNAGE 6.1 Purpose The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure all signage is consistent, integrated with the Development’s architectural character and designed in a manner that will not create a nuisance or diminish the visibility and/or value of other Parcels. 6.2. General Regulations All signage shall be aesthetically appropriate and shall be designed to guide both pedestrian and vehicular traffic and circulation. Design of all signage, including building and monument signage, is subject to the review and approval of the Declarant and must be designed in accordance with the Master Sign Plan for the Development (Refer to separate document). 7.0 SECURITY 7.1 General Regulations Each Parcel shall be designed with appropriate security measures to ensure the safety of the employees and customers of the Development. All building entrances and exits shall be illuminated, and parking lot lighting shall be designed with safety in mind. In no event are guard dogs permitted as a safety enhancing feature. 6.A.l Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 10 Exhibit “A” – Site Plan 6.A.l Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 11 Exhibit “B” – Colors and Materials 6.A.l Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 12 Exhibit “C” - Project Details and Amenities 6.A.l Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 13 Exhibit “D” - Project Details and Amenities Continued 6.A.l Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 14 Exhibit “E” – Trash Enclosure Design 6.A.l Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 15 Exhibit “F” – Landscape Plant List 6.A.l Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 16 Exhibit “G” – Convenience Store - East Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 17 Exhibit “G” – Convenience Store - North Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 18 Exhibit “G” – Convenience Store - South Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 19 Exhibit “G” – Convenience Store – West Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20 Exhibit “G” – Quick Serve Restaurant - East Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 21 Exhibit “G” – Quick Serve Restaurant - North Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 22 Exhibit “G” – Quick Serve Restaurant - South Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 23 Exhibit “G” – Quick Serve Restaurant - West Elevation 6.A.l Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Gilroy Center Design Guidelines (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) The Gilroy Center Gilroy, CA 95020 March 16, 2021 Prepared by: Address: 2831 W. Weldon Ave. | Phoenix, AZ 85017 Phone: 602-272-9356 Fax: 602-272-4608| www.bootzandduke.com Comprehensive Sign Plan 6.A.m Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) TABLE OF CONTENTSCOMPREHENSIVE SIGN PACKAGE • THE GILROY CETNER • GILROY, CALIFORNIA Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 2 6.A.m Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) CRITERIA 3Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 GILROY CENTER established 6.A.m Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) CRITERIA 4Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 GILROY CENTER One(1) 7’ Fuel Center Monument Signs on 10th St Two(2) 15’ Monument Signs on 10th St and Chesnut St One(1) 75’ Freeway Pylon Sign on 9th St and State Highway 6.A.m Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) TENANTTENANTTENANTNOT TO EXCEED 80%OF SIGN BAND IN HEIGHTOR 30” MAXIMUMNOT TO EXCEED 80% SUITE FRONTAGE CONSTRUCTION .063" ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION. 5" DEEP RETURNS, .040" CLC, COLOR AS PER OCCUPANT. 1" TRIM CAP, COLOR AS PER OCCUPANT. MOUNTING MOUNT FLUSH TO WALL. FACE 3/16" SG ACRYLIC, COLOR AS PER OCCUPANT. ILLUMINATION INTERNAL LEDs SPACED AS NECESSARY FOR PROPER ILLUMINATION WITH REMOTE POWER SUPPLIES WALL WALL #8 SCREWS & WALL ANCHORS (as needed) 5" RETURNS 1" TRIMCAP 3/16" ACRYLIC FACE 5" RETURNS 1" TRIMCAP 3/16" ACRYLIC FACE NON-ILLUMINATED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS SERVICE ACCESS DOOR VENTS WALL ELECTRICAL JUNCTION BOX- BY TENANT. SEPARATE CIRCUIT PER N.E.C. DISCONNECT SWITCH or RECOVERY PRIMARY POWER IN 1/2” FLEX CONDUIT LED TRANSFORMER 12 VOLT DC SECONDARY 120 VOLT PRIMARY LEDs #8 SCREWS & WALL ANCHORS (Min 4 Per Letter) 5" RETURNS 1" TRIMCAP 3/16" ACRYLIC FACE LED ILLUMINATED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS LISTED5" RETURNS 1" TRIMCAP LEDs 3/16" ACRYLIC FACE 5 TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL PAN CHANNEL LETTERS Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 6.A.m Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) NOT TO EXCEED 80%OF SIGN BAND IN HEIGHTOR 30” MAXIMUMNOT TO EXCEED 80% SUITE FRONTAGE CONSTRUCTION .063" CLC RETURNS 3” DEEP WITH .090” ALUMINUM FACES PAINTED COLOR AS PER OCCUPANT 3/16 CLEAR LEXAN BACKS CLIP MOUNTED TO THE LETTERS MOUNTING STUD MOUNTED 1” OFF THE WALL TO CREATE HALO ILLUMINATION. ILLUMINATION INTERNAL LEDs SPACED AS NECESSARY FOR PROPER ILLUMINATION WITH REMOTE POWER SUPPLIES LEXAN BACK CLEAR SPACER NUT MOUNTING STUD 3" RETURNS SERVICE ACCESS DOOR VENTS ELECTRICAL JUNCTION BOX- BY TENANT. SEPARATE CIRCUIT PER N.E.C. DISCONNECT SWITCH or RECOVERY PRIMARY POWER IN 1/2” FLEX CONDUIT LED transformer 12 volt DC secondary 120 volt primary L.E.D LIGHTS WALL LISTED LED HALO ILLUMINATED REVERSE PAN CHANNEL LETTERS 3" RETURNS L.E.D LIGHTS FACE 3" RETURNS WALL FACE STUD IN PAD 3" RETURNS FACE NON ILLUMINATED REVERSE PAN CHANNEL LETTERS 6 TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL REVERSE PAN CHANNEL LETTERS Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 TENANTTENANTTENANT 6.A.m Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 7 TYPICAL ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020NOT TO EXCEED 80%OF SIGN BAND IN HEIGHTNOT TO EXCEED 80% LEASED FRONTAGE CONSTRUCTION ALUMINUM ANGLE FRAME SKINNED WITH .090” ALUMINUM PAINTED CUSTOMER SPECIFIED COLORS .125” or .090” ROUTED ALUMINUM PANEL MOUNTING FLUSH TO THE BUILDING WITH HARDWARE AS NECESSARY ILLUMINATION LED OR FLUORESCENT ILLUMINATION WITH INTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES OR BALLASTS LED ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN LED TRANSFORMER 12 VOLT DC SECONDARY 120 VOLT PRIMARY LED LIGHTS DISCONNECT SWITCH .125 or .090” Routed Aluminum Panel LISTED FLUORESCENT LAMP ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN BALLAST FLUORESCENT LAMPS DISCONNECT SWITCH LISTED .125 or .090” Routed Aluminum Panel 6.A.m Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 8 EXAMPLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 6.A.m Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) SIGNAGESIGNAGE 9 EXAMPLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGESIGNAGE SIGNAG E SIGNAGE SIGN A G E SIGN A G E SIGN A G E SIGN A G E SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGE SIGNAGESIGNAGE SIGNAG E SIGNAGE SIGN A G E SIGN A G E SIGN A G E SIGN A G E 6.A.m Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 10 WINDOW GRAPHICS Scale: 3/4” = 1’-0” Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 6.A.m Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Scale: 3/32” - 1”-0” Monument Sign: - Structure: Aluminum Angle Skinned with .090” Aluminum Painted to Match - Faces: Routed .125 Painted to Match with Routed Copy - Backed: 3/16” Acrylic Stud Mounted to the Face - Vinyl: TBD - Illumination: LEDs Spaced as Necessary for Ample Illumination - Power: 120v to 12v Power Supplies in Sign as Necessary for LED Count - Installation: On ASA Pipe and Footer at Customer Specified Location Manufacture and Install One(1) Internally Illuminated Pylon Sign 720.00 Sq. Ft.P1 75’-0”30’-0”7’-0” 24’-0”5’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0”6’-0”6’-0”6’-0”6’-0”6’-0”6’-0”1234512345 9’-9” Option 11 PYLON SIGN Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 6.A.m Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 11 PYLON SIGN EXAMPLE Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 1234512345 1234512345 6.A.m Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 16’-0”3’-6”12 MONUMENT SIGN Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 Scale: 3/8” - 1”-0” Monument Sign: - Structure: Aluminum Angle Skinned with .090” Aluminum Painted to Match - Faces: Routed .125 Painted to Match with Routed Copy - Backed: 3/16” Acrylic Stud Mounted to the Face - Vinyl: TBD - Illumination: LEDs Spaced as Necessary for Ample Illumination - Power: 120v to 12v Power Supplies in Sign as Necessary for LED Count - Installation: On ASA Pipe and Footer at Customer Specified Location Manufacture and Install Two(2) Internally Illuminated Monument Sign 81.78 Sq. Ft.M1 1’-8”1’-8”1’-8”1’-8”1’-8”1’-8”7’-8” 1234512345 9’-0” 11’-3” 8’-0” 6.A.m Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 13 MONUMENT SIGN Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 Scale: 3/8” - 1”-0” Monument Sign: - Structure: Aluminum Angle Skinned with .090” Aluminum Painted to Match - Faces: Routed .125 Painted to Match with Routed Copy - Backed: 3/16” Acrylic Stud Mounted to the Face - Vinyl: TBD - Illumination: LEDs Spaced as Necessary for Ample Illumination - Power: 120v to 12v Power Supplies in Sign as Necessary for LED Count - Installation: On ASA Pipe and Footer at Customer Specified Location Manufacture and Install Two(2) Internally Illuminated Monument Sign 68.33 Sq. Ft.M2 1234512345 1’-5”1’-5”1’-5”2’-8”4’-0”3’-4”2’-8” 14’-0” 16’-1” 5’-10”7’-10”6’-0”7’-0”6.A.m Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 14 FUEL CENTER SIGN Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 Scale: 1/2” - 1”-0” Monument Sign: - Structure: Aluminum Angle Skinned with .090” Aluminum Painted to Match - Faces: Routed .125 Painted to Match with Routed Copy - Backed: 3/16” Acrylic Stud Mounted to the Face - Vinyl: TBD - Illumination: LEDs Spaced as Necessary for Ample Illumination - Power: 120v to 12v Power Supplies in Sign as Necessary for LED Count - Installation: On ASA Pipe and Footer at Customer Specified Location Manufacture and Install One(1) Internally Illuminated Directory Sign 45.95 Sq. Ft. TBDF1 6.A.m Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 15 SITE PLAN NOT A PART NOT A PART Comprehensive Sign Program - The Gilroy Center - Gilroy, CA 95020 M2 M1F1 P1 6.A.m Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) March 23,2021 Laurel Square (Evergreen at 10th St. & Chestnut) - Proposed Deviations from the Sign Code 1. Two monument signs (referenced as M1 and M2 above) are proposed. M1 is proposed at 16 ft tall (Code specifies 14 ft tall). And at 7’ in height, M2 complies with Code. Additionally, the sign copy area for each of these signs is 82sf for M1 and 68sf for M2 (which is less than the max. 100sf area allowed per Code). 2. The freeway pylon sign (P1 above) is designed to be 75 ft in height because the site is below freeway grade by approximately 15 ft. The sign area is proposed at 720sf (instead of the 330sf permitted by code) to overcome the challenged visibility presented by the presence of trees along the Freeway off-ramp which are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans and they will not approve the removal of the trees or trimming them sufficiently to gain optimum visibility for the sign. 6.A.n Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Gilroy Center Sign Deviations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) GARLIC CENTER NON-COMPLIANCE ITEMS 10-13-20 30.19.10 Commercial use table. (a) Statement of Intent. The intent of this commercial use table is to clearly and precisely designate permitted uses and conditional uses within each of the following districts: C3 Shopping Center Commercial District Project proposed uses comply with the allowed uses of the C3 District 30.19.20 Commercial site and building requirement table. (a) Statement of Intent. The intent of the commercial site and building requirement table is to clearly and precisely establish the basic site and building regulations which shall apply to all development in each of the following districts: C3 Shopping Center Commercial District (b) Designation of Commercial Site and Building Requirements. The figures in the commercial site and building requirement table establish lot, yard, and height requirements for each of the commercial zoning districts. The table also indicates where additional site and building requirements, including but not limited to off-street parking, landscaping, signing, fences and obstructions, and performance standards, apply to commercial zoning districts. (c)(1) Commercial Site and Building Requirement Table. Commercial District Requirements PO C1 C3 HC CM LOT REQUIREMENTS Lot Size in Square Feet (min.) (Lots Created Prior to September 2005) 8,000 none none none none Lot Size in Square Feet (min.) (Lots Created After September 2005) 8,880 none none none none LOT COVERAGE * * * * * YARD REQUIREMENTS (Minimum Setbacks in Feet) Front (Measured from the Face of Curb) 31 31 41 31 26 Side (Adjacent to Street) (Measured from the Face of Curb) 21 21 31 31 26 6.A.o Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Zoning Deviations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Commercial District Requirements PO C1 C3 HC CM Side (All Other Side Yards) 6 ** 0 ** ** Rear ** ** 0 ** ** HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS (Maximum) Building Height in Feet1 35 35 55 55 35 Number of Stories 2 2 4 4 2 Yard Requirements Front and Side Yards - 41’ required Side Yards adjacent to streets - 31’ required Project provides: 17’ min setback from face of curb at E 10th St (does not comply) 50’ min setback on Chestnut (complies) 8’ 10” min setback on E 9th St. (does not comply) Height Requirements Maximum height 55’ allowed Project proposes 60’ maximum height at hotel. (does not comply) Maximum stories – 4 stories allowed Project proposes 5 stories at hotel. (does not comply) 30.38.60 Commercial zone landscape standards. Landscaping in commercial zones shall be designed using the following standards and shall enhance the aesthetic quality of the development by using the following requirements: (a) All development in commercial and mixed-use zones shall provide a minimum of twenty-one (21) feet of landscaping, measured from face of curb, adjacent to public streets (public sidewalks may be permitted in the landscape area); Project Setback 17’ from face of street curb, minimum. (does not comply) 6.A.o Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Zoning Deviations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) (b) At least eight percent (8%) of the gross total land area of the site, outside of the public right-of-way, shall be landscaped, except in the downtown specific plan zones where there are typically no front and side yard setbacks; Landscape Area = 69,511 sf +/- (23.4% of Site Area = 297,500 sf +/-). This complies. (c) All portions of a site over forty (40) square feet in area not specifically used for buildings, parking, driveways, walkways, or similar uses shall be landscaped; Complies (d) In all landscaped areas, trees shall be planted on average every twenty (20) feet on center or with a greater spacing as appropriate to maintain proper tree health as determined by a licensed landscape architect; clustering of trees may be permitted with the approval of the director of public works; Planner to review proposed planting plan and compare with requirements. (e) Parking lot landscape islands with a minimum of fifty (50) square feet in area, and including a tree, shall be located in parking lots every twelve (12) stalls, and shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area; 265 stalls/12 = 22 planters, 50 sf min = 1,100 sf min. Project complies (f) All landscape areas shall be at least five (5) feet wide, except as approved by the community development director due to specific site situations where the minimum width is impractical; Project Complies (g) Parking lot landscape areas containing trees shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide, except as approved by the community development director due to specific site situations where the minimum width is impractical; Some planters are 7’ min clear inside. (does not comply) (h) Parking areas shall be screened from view from adjacent residential areas and streets, except at driveways and street corners where visibility is needed; Not applicable (i) Landscaping shall be used to manage and treat storm water to the maximum extent feasible; Complies (j) Three (3) foot high screening shall be located where necessary in commercial parking lots and drive- through uses to block headlights from shining into adjacent residential areas. (Ord. No. 2018-06, § 1, 3- 19-18) This is provided along Chestnut St. Note that there are no adjacent residential areas. 6.A.o Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Zoning Deviations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) SIGNAGE DEVIATIONS: - The 2 master shopping center signs are proposing are 16 ft tall while Code specifies 14 ft tall. Additionally, the sign copy we are proposing in these monument signs is 82 sq ft and what is allowed by code is 100 sq ft. - The freeway pylon sign is designed 75 ft because the site is below freeway grade by approximately 15 ft. The sign is designed at 480 sq ft of copy (and Code only allows for 330 sq ft of copy). 6.A.o Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Zoning Deviations (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.p Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Art Sculpture Concept (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.p Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Art Sculpture Concept (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.p Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Art Sculpture Concept (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) A Kinetic Wind Sculpture Proposal for Garlic Center (E 10th Street and Chestnut Street, Gilroy, CA) Concept Drawing by Ride Art Studio DAY TIME VIEW 6.A.p Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Art Sculpture Concept (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) A Kinetic Wind Sculpture Proposal for Garlic Center (E 10th Street and Chestnut Street, Gilroy, CA) Concept Drawing by Ride Art Studio NIGHT TIME VIEW 6.A.p Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Art Sculpture Concept (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 19’14’10’6’ A Kinetic Wind Sculpture Proposal for Garlic Center (E 10th Street and Chestnut Street, Gilroy, CA) Optional Pad DIMENSIONS Rotation of cloves Concept Drawing by Ride Art Studio Copyright © 2021 Ride Art, LLC 6.A.p Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Art Sculpture Concept (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) A Kinetic Wind Sculpture Proposal for Garlic Center (E 10th Street and Chestnut Street, Gilroy, CA) Concept Drawing by Ride Art Studio Copyright © 2021 Ride Art, LLC MATERIALS & FINISH Stainless Steel Powderdoated Stainless Steel: Light Yellow Powdercoated Stainless Steel: Green Powdercoated Stainless Steel: White Suggested Uplights (not included in sculpture proposal) Internal Color Changing LED Light (12v) (included in sculpture proposal) Optional Pad (not included in sculpture proposal) 6.A.p Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Art Sculpture Concept (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut and Tenth MND Links: Initial Study/MND Appendix A Air Quality/GHG Appendix B Tree Report (cityofgilroy.org) Appendix C Historic-Resource-Evaluation Appendix D Geotechnical Template (cityofgilroy.org) Appendix E Phase-I-and-Phase-II Appendix-F---Noise-and-Vibration-Report-9172020 (cityofgilroy.org) Appendix-G-Traffic-Impact-Analysis (cityofgilroy.org) 6.A.q Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Chestnut and Tenth MND (Links) (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project File Numbers: Z 20-04, AS 20-14, TM 20-03 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS August 8, 2021 CEQA Lead Agency: City of Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 (408) 846-0429 In Consultation with: 6.A.r Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 1 August 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments ................................................................................................. 3 Section 3.0 Draft Initial Study/MND Text Revisions ....................................................................... 7 Section 4.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix A: Draft Initial Study Comment Letters 6.A.r Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 2 August 2021 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 30-day Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) public review period for the Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial project started June 25, 2021 and ended July 26, 2021. The following pages contain responses to comments submitted by agencies, organizations, and individuals during the IS/MND public review period. Copies of the comment letters are attached to this document. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5, the recirculation of the MND is required when the document must be “substantially revised” after public notice of its availability. A “substantial revision” is defined as: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. CEQA does not require formal responses to comments on an Initial Study/MND and the decision- making body shall adopt the proposed MND only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and the MND reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis [CEQA Guidelines §15074(b)]. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 3 August 2021 SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Below is a list of the agencies that submitted comments on the Initial Study/MND. Copies of the actual letters submitted to the City of Gilroy are attached to this document. Letter Number Commenter Date Received Page of Response 1 Caltrans July 23, 2021 3 2 Santa Clara Valley Water District July 26, 2021 6 The specific comments have been excerpted from the letter and are presented as “Comment” with each response directly following (“Response”). RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1 FROM CALTRANS, DATED JULY 23, 2021. Comment 1.1: Appendix G, Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 10. Please note that the actual ramp capacity can be lower than the capacity used in the ramp analysis due to surges in freeway demand during peak periods. To understand the full impacts of the project on affected freeway segments, Caltrans recommends that an updated queueing analysis be performed for the following ramp terminal intersections to determine whether vehicle queues can be accommodated within the ramps: - US-101 southbound off-ramp to Tenth Street/ SR-152 - US-101 northbound loop on-ramp from Tenth Street Vehicle queues due to project-added traffic shall be accommodated within the ramps and freeway traffic shall not be impacted. If the project generated traffic impacts ramp operations, impacts shall be mitigated, or a fair share fee shall be allocated for mitigation. The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy and Caltrans for any proposed mitigation measures. Response 1.1: A supplemental queuing analysis for the two ramps was completed as requested in the above comment letter and is summarized below. US 101 southbound off-ramp to Tenth Street/SR 152 analysis: The existing queue lengths at the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Tenth Street/SR 152 were obtained from the TRAFFIX level of service calculations at the ramp intersection with Tenth Street and verified based on the field observations. Observations in the field showed that the peak-hour southbound queue length on this off-ramp do not extend onto the freeway mainline. The queue length reported by TRAFFIX appears to be longer than the actual maximum queue length observed in the field, representing a more conservative queue length estimate. With the addition of the project traffic, the queue lengths at this ramp are projected to increase. The analysis indicates that the addition of trips from the proposed project will result in an increase of the projected southbound queue length by approximately 13 vehicles during the PM peak-hour (20 vehicles during the Saturday peak-hour). However, the projected 6.A.r Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 4 August 2021 queues would be accommodated entirely on the ramp and would not extend back and disrupt the freeway mainline. The queuing analysis at the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Tenth Street/SR 152 is summarized in the table below. US 101 Southbound off-ramp Queuing Analysis Per Movement Queue Length Per Movement Queue Length Ramp/Scenario SBT/L SBR SBT/L SBR Total US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Tenth Street/SR 152 Existing Storage 3,850 Existing AM 23 20 575 500 1,075 PM 49 28 1,225 700 1,925 SAT 58 24 1,450 600 2,050 Background AM 33 26 825 650 1,475 PM 63 40 1,575 1,000 2,575 SAT 64 32 1,600 800 2,400 Background Plus Project AM 33 36 825 900 1,725 PM 66 50 1,650 1,250 2,900 SAT 68 48 1,700 1,200 2,900 Maximum Queue 2,900 Storage – Maximum 950 Notes: 1 Queue lengths were obtained from TRAFFIX assuming 25 feet per vehicle. 2 SBT/L = southbound shared through and left; SBR = southbound right Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Responses to Comments on the Proposed Chestnut & Tenth Commercial Project Transportation Analysis. August 4, 2021. US 101 northbound loop on-ramp to Tenth Street analysis: Field observations revealed that, currently, the ramp meter at the US 101 northbound loop on-ramp from Tenth Street is not operational during neither the AM not the PM peak hours. Therefore, no standing queues were observed within this ramp. Assuming the ramp meter was operational during the AM peak-hour (direction of commute traffic) at the completion of the proposed project, as discussed in Appendix G of the Initial Study, this ramp is projected to serve a total of 465 AM peak-hour trips under background plus project conditions. This ramp currently has a queue storage capacity of approximately 900 feet (approximately 36 vehicles). Assuming a meter rate of 900 vehicles per hour, the projected traffic volume could be served by the meter service rate and the queue accommodated within the loop on-ramp. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 5 August 2021 The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND. Comment 1.2: Section 3.0, Project Description, Figure 3.1-1 the project proposes a public outdoor feature beyond the access control State ROW line, therefore, requiring an encroachment permit. Due to the nature of this feature, this may also require additional legal agreements with Caltrans. If this public outdoor feature is required by the project, please proceed with the encroachment permit process described below. If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users. Response 1.2: This comment is noted. The project applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit and obtain legal agreements from Caltrans as appropriate. The project shall comply with applicable ADA standards if Caltrans facilities are impacted and maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. The comment does not raise issues about the adequacy of the IS/MND. Comment 1.3: Potential impacts to the State ROW from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Response 1.3: The project is not proposing to provide temporary construction-related access points along state facilities. All access during the construction phase of the project shall be provided via existing driveways located along local streets. Project related construction noise impacts are discussed in Section 4.13 Noise of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND. Comment 1.4: Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto the Right of Way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a complete encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating the State ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception requires, and/or airspace lease agreement. Response 1.4: This comment is noted. If an encroachment permit is required from Caltrans, the project applicant shall complete the encroachment permit submittal process. The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the IS/MND. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 6 August 2021 Comment 1.5: As the Lead Agency, the City of Gilroy is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Response 1.4: A draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which identifies required mitigation measures, method of verification for completion, responsibility for verification, and schedule/timing, has been prepared for the project and would be adopted with the MND. The comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the IS/MND. RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 2 FROM SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, DATED JULY 26, 2021. Comment 2.1: According to FEMA FIRM Map 06085C0643H, dated May 18, 2009, the proposed development is adjacent to FEMA floodplain ‘Zone AH,’ which has a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 193-feet (NAVD 88). Topography for the immediate area outside of the FEMA floodplain, more specifically along Tenth Street, show elevations that are lower than 193-feet (NAVD 88). This may provide a flow path for the BFE to cross Tenth Street and ultimately subject the proposed site to flooding. Please verify the existing topography outside of the adjacent Zone AH, and additionally within the proposed site. There should be no flow paths lower than 193-feet (NAVD 88), and the proposed development should be protected from flooding up to this elevation. Response 2.1: As discussed on page 101 of the Initial Study/MND, the project site is located within Zone X and not in a 100-year flood zone. As stated in the above comment, the project site is located adjacent to land within Zone AH that has a base flood elevation of 193 feet. The project site has an elevation of 193 feet. As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall be required to import fill material to the site and achieve finished floor elevations of at least 193.75 (NAVD 88). Elevation of the site would ensure that no flow paths lower than 193 feet are present on-site, preventing the proposed commercial development from potential flooding. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 7 August 2021 SECTION 3.0 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MND TEXT REVISIONS This section contains revisions to the text of the Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study dated June 2021. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Page 1 Section I. Description of the Project: ADD the following text: APN: 841-66-010, 841-66-011, 841-66-014, and 814-66-015 Initial Study, Page 105 Section 4.10.2 Impact Discussion, checklist question h): ADD the following text: As described in checklist question g) above, the project site is designated as Flood Zone X, which is not a 100-year flood zone or considered a special hazard flood zone in the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps.1 The project site is adjacent to Flood Zone AH, which has a base flood elevation of 193 feet amsl.2 As noted in Section 4.7 Geology and Soils, the project site has an elevation of 193 feet amsl.3 To address potential flooding on-site given the site’s proximity to areas in Zone AH and ensure that no flow paths lower than 193 feet are present, the proposed project shall be required to import fill material to the site and achieve finished floor elevations of at least 193.75 (NAVD 88) as a condition of approval. 1 FEMA. “Special Flood Hazard Area.” Accessed June 5, 2020. https://www.fema.gov/special-flood-hazard- area#:~:text=The%20land%20area%20covered%20by,purchase%20of%20flood%20insurance%20applies. 2 Ibid. 3 Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development Northeast of Chestnut Street and East of Tenth Street, Gilroy, California. April 27, 2020. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Responses to Comments City of Gilroy 8 August 2021 SECTION 4.0 CONCLUSION The comments received on the IS/ND did not raise any new issues about the project’s environmental impacts, or provide information indicating the project would result in new environmental impacts or impacts substantially greater in severity than disclosed in the Initial Study/MND. Minor clarifications were added to the text of the Initial Study/MND (refer to Section 3.0 Draft Initial Study/MND Text Revisions). The text revisions do not constitute a “substantial revision” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 and recirculation of the MND is not required. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 www.dot.ca.gov July 23, 2021 SCH #: 2021060521 GTS #: 04-SCL-2021-00911 GTS ID: 23397 Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/101/6.151 Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna St Gilroy, CA 95020 Re: Chestnut & Tenth Commercial Project + Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Dear Kraig Tambornini: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Chestnut & Tenth Commercial Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identifie d and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the June 2021 Draft MND. Project Understanding The project is located in Gilroy, CA between East 10th Street, Chestnut Street, and US - 101. The proposed project would demolish existing industrial, commercial, and office structures to allow for the construction of a 120-room hotel, a carwash, and four commercial buildings. Highway Operations Appendix G, Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 10. Please note that the actual ramp capacity can be lower than the capacity used in the ramp analysis due to surges in freeway demand during peak periods. To understand the full impacts of the project on the affected freeway segments, Caltrans rec ommends that an updated queuing analysis be performed for the following ramp terminal intersections to determine whether vehicle queues can be accommodated within the ramps: ● US-101 southbound off-ramp to Tenth Street/SR-152 ● US-101 northbound loop on-ramp from Tenth Street 6.A.r Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner July 23, 2021 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Vehicle queues due to project-added traffic shall be accommodated within the ramps and freeway traffic shall not be impacted. If the project generated traffic impacts ramp operations, impacts shall be mitigated, or a fair share fee shall be allocated for mitigation. The project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy and Caltrans for any proposed mitigation measures. Right of Way (ROW) Section 3.0, Project Description, Figure 3.1-1. The project proposes a public outdoor feature beyond the access control State ROW line, therefore requiring an encroachment permit. Due to the nature of the feature, this may also require additional legal agreements with Caltrans. If this public outdoor feature is required by the project, please proceed with the encroachment permit process described below. If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users. Construction-Related Impacts Potential impacts to the State ROW from project-related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, visit: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/transportation- permits. Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto the State ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating the State ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to D4Permits@dot.ca.gov . 6.A.r Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner July 23, 2021 Page 3 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” To download the permit application and to obtain more information on all required documentation, visit https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep/applications. Lead Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of Gilroy is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon at Llisel.Ayon@dot.ca.gov . Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email LDIGR-D4@dot.ca.gov . Sincerely, MARK LEONG District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse 6.A.r Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. From:Kraig Tambornini To:Carolyn Neer Subject:FW: EXTERNAL - RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt MND for Tenth and Chestnut Commercial Project, Gilroy, CA Date:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 9:58:00 AM Attachments:image001.png FIRMETTE_d0e1519e-e668-46bc-ac75-b21629695d0a.pdf image003.png From: Benjamin Hwang <BHwang@valleywater.org> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 4:52 PM To: Kraig Tambornini <Kraig.Tambornini@ci.gilroy.ca.us> Cc: Yvonne Arroyo <yarroyo@valleywater.org> Subject: EXTERNAL - RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt MND for Tenth and Chestnut Commercial Project, Gilroy, CA Hi Kraig, Valley Water staff has reviewed the NOI for the subject project and has the following comment: According to FEMA FIRM Map 06085C0643H, dated May 18, 2009, the proposed development is adjacent to FEMA floodplain ‘Zone AH,’ which has a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 193-feet (NAVD 88). Topography for the immediate area outside of the FEMA floodplain, more specifically along Tenth Street, show elevations that are lower than 193-feet. (NAVD 88). This may provide a flow path for the BFE to cross Tenth Street and ultimately subject the proposed site to flooding. Please verify the existing topography outside of the adjacent Zone AH, and additionally within the proposed site. There should be no flow paths lower than 193-ft (NAVD 88), and the proposed development should be protected from flooding up to this elevation. If you have any further questions regarding this comment, please feel free to email, or contact me at (408) 510-0768. Thank you, BENJAMIN HWANG, P.E. ASSISTANT ENGINEER II - CIVIL Community Projects Review Unit Watersheds Design and Construction Division bhwang@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-3066 Cell. (408) 510-0768 6.A.r Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 www.valleywater.org Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection From: Kraig Tambornini <Kraig.Tambornini@ci.gilroy.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 5:24 PM To: harry.freitas@rds.sccgov.org; dev.review@vta.org; Brent.Pearse@vta.org; Eugene.Maeda@vta.org; plan.review@vta.org; rmckeown@mtc.ca.gov; CPRU-Dropbox <CPRU@valleywater.org>; Yvonne Arroyo <yarroyo@valleywater.org>; AKIRK@BAAQMD.GOV; amackenzie@openspaceauthority.org; dplunkett@openspaceauthority.org; Edmund.Sullivan@scv- habitatagency.org; Alvaro.meza@gilroyunified.org; caltrans_d4@dot.ca.gov; Melanie.brent@dot.ca.gov; Mark.Leong@dot.ca.gov; phillip.hammer@waterboards.ca.gov; director@wildlife.ca.gov; nwic@sonoma.edu; Janet Laurain <jlaurain@adamsbroadwell.com>; Alex Lantsberg <alantsberg@nccrc.org>; mvandersluis@greenbelt.org; Janet Laurain <jlaurain@adamsbroadwell.com> Cc: Jimmy Forbis <Jimmy.Forbis@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Pedro Espinoza <Pedro.Espinoza@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Karen Garner <Karen.Garner@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Cindy McCormick <Cindy.McCormick@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Julie Wyrick <Julie.Wyrick@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Daryl Jordan <Daryl.Jordan@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Gary Heap <Gary.Heap@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Saeid Vaziry <Saeid.Vaziry@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Jonathan Crick <Jonathan.Crick@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Andy Faber <andy.faber@berliner.com>; Jolie Houston <jolie.houston@berliner.com> Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt MND for Tenth and Chestnut Commercial Project, Gilroy, CA To whom it Concerns: Attached please find a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chestnut and Tenth Street Commercial Project. The project proposes to demolish the existing Chestnut Center and construct a new 120-room hotel, carwash, four commercial buildings that include drive through services and a gasoline service station. The four commercial buildings and carwash would total approximately 19,649 square feet. The 6.8 acre site would be subdivided into six separate parcels. Public review of the MND begins on June 25, 2021 and ends on July 26, 2021. The attached notice has been scheduled for publication on Friday June 25, 2021 in the Gilroy Dispatch https://gilroydispatch.com. The MND for the project will be published for public review on the City website at: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/298/Development-Activity-Projects, and on the State Clearinghouse website at: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/Search/Advanced - Type in the SCH# of your project. If filtering by “Lead Agency” Select the correct project. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) If you have questions or comments contact Kraig Tambornini, at kraig.tambornini@cityofgilroy.org or (408) 846-0214. Respectfully, KRAIG TAMBORNINI SENIOR PLANNER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Direct 408.846.0214 l Kraig.Tambornini@cityofgilroy.org Main 408.846.0440 l www.cityofgilroy.org Mobile 669.286.6003 l 7351 Rosanna Street | Gilroy | CA 95020 Please be aware that all application, license, and permit requests must be submitted to the City electronically. More information is provided on each department’s home page (links below): Planning Applications, Permits & Fees | Gilroy, CA - Official Website (cityofgilroy.org) Building & Safety Division | Gilroy, CA - Official Website (cityofgilroy.org) Business licenses: http://ca-gilroy.civicplus.com/207/Business-Licenses Public Works Department | Gilroy, CA - Official Website (civicplus.com) Email addresses to send applications, permits, licenses or engineering requests are as follows. Misdirected email submittals will be returned for resubmittal, and may result in delays in filing: Planning Applications: planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org. Building Permits: PlanSubmittal@cityofgilroy.org Business Licenses: UB@ci.gilroy.ca.us Engineering/Public Works: EngineeringCounter@cityofgilroy.org Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. We can slow the spread of COVID-19 when we work together. For Santa Clara County information related to COVID-19, please call 211 or go to https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/home.aspx. 6.A.r Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 7/21/2021 at 8:05 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 121°33'51"W 37°0'26"N 121°33'13"W 36°59'57"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 6.A.r Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth 6.A.r Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.r Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.r Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.r Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.r Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.r Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: MND Response to Comments 080621 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 Memorandum DATE: August 27, 2021 TO: Kraig Tambornini, City of Gilroy FROM: Carolyn Neer, Project Manger Kristy Weis, Principal Project Manager SUBJECT: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project – Responses to Late Comments Received and Text Revisions Two late comment letters were received on the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial project, subsequent to the conclusion of the 30- day public comment period on July 26, 2021. One comment letter was received from Lozeau Drury LLP on August 17, 2021 and the second was received from Patrick Flautt on August 18, 2021. Copies of these late comment letters are included in Attachment A. Section I. Responses to Comments of this memo includes a summary of the written comments pertaining to the adequacy of the Initial Study/MND with responses. Comments regarding the merits of the project are not included in the summary below and do not warrant responses under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Clarifying text revisions to the Initial Study/MND are included in Section II. Draft Initial Study/MND Text Revisions of this memo. The comments received do not raise any significant new information or substantial evidence in light of the whole record to warrant recirculation of the MND or preparation of an environmental impact report per CEQA Guidelines 15064 and 15073.5. Text revisions in Section II of this memorandum do not constitute a substantial revision as there is no new impact, mitigation measure, or revision to the project. The comments do not provide substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant effect on the environment that was not previously disclosed in the Initial Study/MND nor do they represent a disagreement among experts, as explained in the detailed responses to the comments in Section I of this memo. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 I. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Summary of Comments from Lozeau Drury LLP (dated August 17, 2021): 1. Potential indoor air quality health risk impacts from formaldehyde-based building materials 2. Potential presence of special-status species, including the monarch butterfly 3. Potential impact on bird species from window collisions 4. Potential impact on wildlife from vehicle collisions due to project-generated traffic 5. Potential for cumulative biological impacts The air quality comments in this comment letter were derived from an August 15, 2021 letter from Francis J. Offermann PE CIH, which was included as Exhibit A of this comment letter. The biological resources comments in this comment letter were derived from an August 17, 2021 letter from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, which was included as Exhibit B of this comment letter. Response: The comment letter (including attachments) is over 120 pages in length. The explanation and rationalization for potential impacts by the project provided in the comment letter are speculative; reference information irrelevant to the project, project site, or surrounding area; unsubstantiated; and based on conjecture. The below responses and the biological memorandum completed by the City’s consulting biologist dated August 25, 2021 exemplify this and explain in detail why the comments do not represent substantial evidence that the project would result in a new significant impact not previously disclosed in the Initial Study/MND. The analysis in the biological memorandum supports, amplifies, and clarifies the statements and analysis in the Initial Study/MND. None of the project impacts, mitigation, or impact conclusions warrant revision based on the comments received. 1. Potential indoor air quality health risk impacts from formaldehyde-based building materials The project’s air quality, including health risk, impacts were evaluated pursuant to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring air quality standards are met and maintained. The project’s air quality (including health risk) impacts are discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality of the Initial Study, and in further detail in the technical air quality analysis included in Appendix A of the Initial Study. While BAAQMD recognizes formaldehyde as an outdoor toxic air contaminant (TAC) from automobile and truck exhaust and has a significance threshold for health risk for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in a million, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not define a specific threshold for indoor formaldehyde or regulate indoor air quality. It is unclear how the commenter is applying the BAAQMD threshold of significance for cancer risk from TACs to indoor levels of formaldehyde. On page 5 of the comment letter, it is stated: “The California Supreme Court made clear the importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact.” The BAAQMD CEQA guidelines do not define a specific threshold for indoor levels of formaldehyde. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 3 The commenter is speculating that composite wood materials would be used in the interior of the proposed buildings. Page 4 of Exhibit A states: “Because the hotel will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde TCM materials….” Indoor building materials will not be known until the building permit stage. Even if materials containing formaldehyde were to be used, it is speculative for the City to estimate the type and volume of building materials that may contain formaldehyde as directed on page 6 of Exhibit A of the comment letter. Per Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines, speculative analysis is not acceptable. To determine indoor formaldehyde levels, the City would need to: (a) speculate the methodology to analyze indoor formaldehyde levels from buildings materials because there is no established BAAQMD methodology; (b) speculate the type and volume of building materials that would be used; and (c) speculate the other sources of formaldehyde that would be present because other sources of formaldehyde indoors includes consumer products such as furniture and carpet. For these reasons, no impact associated with indoor formaldehyde has been identified and there is no nexus by which to require mitigation related to it. Besides indoor formaldehyde concerns, Exhibit A of the comment letter discusses PM2.5 outdoor concentrations. On pages 11 and 12 of Exhibit A of the comment letter, it is suggested that high efficiency air filters be installed due to high traffic noise levels and exceedances of outdoor PM2.5 standards. Page 10 of Exhibit A references data for the project as being in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – Marriott Townplace Suites in the City of San José and how nearby roadways to the project site include ones in the City of San José. The project is not discussed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – Marriott Townplace Suites document by the City of San José, nor is the project located in the City of San José. Exhibit A asserts the air quality analysis for the project needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project with other existing and projected emissions from local PM2.5 sources. Cumulative impacts from PM2.5 concentrations were analyzed in the Initial Study. As discussed briefly on pages 185-186 of the Initial Study/MND and in detail in Appendix A of the Initial Study/MND, the project (with the implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ- 1.1 on page 43 of the Initial Study/MND) would result in less than significant cumulative health risks associated with PM2.5 concentrations. Per the BAAQMD Guidelines, since the project does not propose sensitive receptors, a health risk assessment for on-site occupants was not completed. 2. Potential presence of special-status species, including the monarch butterfly The comment letter questions whether there are no special-status species on-site due to disturbance and lack of natural communities and asserts that the Initial Study/MND “did not rely on either a survey for wildlife on site nor a review of species-occurrence databases or expert knowledge” (pages 7-8 of the comment letter). David J. Powers & Associates, Inc., the City’s CEQA consultant who has successfully completed CEQA evaluations for hundreds of projects in Santa Clara County, reviewed the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index) that identifies potential endangered species and migratory birds that may occur in the project area, the 2020 6.A.s Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 certified Final Gilroy 2040 General Plan EIR (SCH#2015082014) that evaluated impacts to biological resources from the buildout of the City’s General Plan (which includes the project site), the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (VHP), and the site and surrounding area. Given the long history of intensive development of the project site, the absence of any habitat suitable for special-status species, and decades of experience performing CEQA evaluations for projects in Santa Clara County, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. has ample experience to evaluate whether sites such as the project site could support special-status species even without focused wildlife surveys. Nevertheless, H.T. Harvey & Associates (the City’s biological consultant) conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the project site on August 23, 2021 to confirm conditions on- site. H.T. Harvey & Associates also reviewed aerial photographs, topographic maps, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database, bird records from the project vicinity report to the eBird database, the iNaturalist records database, and the VHP. The credentials of Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., the senior wildlife ecologist from H.T. Harvey & Associates that conducted the survey and review of existing databases and information, include doctoral research at Stanford University on the impacts of urbanization on riparian bird communities in the South Bay and work involving the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal and state Endangered Species Acts, and VHP compliance, for hundreds of projects in Santa Clara County for over more than 20 years as a professional ecological consultant. Dr. Rottenborn works closely and extensively on a wide variety of biological resource topics as a Vice President at H.T. Harvey & Associates, including invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, special-status plants, sensitive and regulated habitats, wildlife movement, and bird-safe design. Dr. Rottenborn also has lived in Morgan Hill since 2004 and birded widely throughout southern Santa Clara County, is very familiar with the spatial and seasonal distribution, and habitat associations of birds in the vicinity of the project site. During the reconnaissance survey, Dr. Rottenborn verified existing biological conditions and the site’s potential to support special-status species of plants and animals; other legally protected animals, such as migratory birds; and sensitive/regulated habitats such as jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, potential waters of the state, and riparian habitats. The survey included an assessment of habitats for special-status species and other protected animals both on the site and in adjacent areas that could be impacted either directly or indirectly by proposed activities, as well as an assessment of adjacent habitats that could potentially support source populations of sensitive species that could then disperse onto the project site. Dr. Rottenborn also assessed potential habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats in trees and buildings on the site, and considered the manner in which birds might fly over, through, or past the project site. A copy of the assessment completed by H.T. Harvey & Associates is included as Appendix H to the Initial Study/MND (refer to Section II. Draft Initial Study/MND Text Revisions). The assessment concurred with the conclusions in the Initial Study/MND. No changes to the impact assessment or mitigation measures are necessary based on the survey/assessment completed by H.T. Harvey & Associates. A summary of the results of the survey and assessment are provided below and text has been added to the Initial Study/MND to include the results of the assessment (see Section II. Draft Initial Study/MND Text Revisions). 6.A.s Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 5 In more than his 20 years of ecological consulting in the South Bay, Dr. Rottenborn has worked on few sites that had lower value to wildlife, when considering both the site and surrounding areas, than the project site. Dr. Rottenborn found that although the site does support habitat for common, widespread, urban-adapted species, the site does not support any features that provide high-quality habitat for more sensitive species or species of conservation concern. This finding is consistent with the Initial Study/MND. Of the 17 species listed in Table 1 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment in Exhibit B referenced on page 7 of the comment letter, only five (Anna’s hummingbird, American crow, northern mockingbird, bushtit, and house cat) were actually observed on the site; the barn swallow is indicated as “foraged on site,” but this species forages aerially, so it was likely seen above, rather than on, the site if it was seen foraging. The other 11 species were reported as flying over or past the site, or perched off-site, and their inclusion in the list is less relevant to the assessment of species occurring on the project site itself. Dr. Rottenborn agrees with Dr. Smallwood that more species would be recorded if more time was spent on the project site. This would be particularly true if additional surveys were conducted during the spring and fall migratory periods for various groups of birds, or during winter when a different suite of bird species is present in the region. However: • Unlike larger sites with more heterogeneous or structurally complex habitats, this site is small and provides very little (and very simple) habitats. As a result, spending more time at the site at any given time would not reveal much, if any, additional site use by wildlife. For example, during Dr. Rottenborn’s site visit, he was confident that there were not large numbers of bird species that were present but that he could not detect due to dense vegetation, their cryptic nature, or other factors. Rather, he was confident that he was easily able to observe most, if not all, of the bird species that were actually using the site at the time of my visit. • The number of species that would be recorded even with extensive survey effort over multiple seasons would be low due to the very low quality (or absence) of habitat that the project site provides for most regionally-occurring species. • Most individuals recorded by further surveys would be represented by fly-over birds or very low numbers of individuals. Intensive survey effort over multiple seasons or even multiple years would not reveal actual use of the site by, or importance of the site to, many animal species beyond those mentioned in our assessment above of potentially occurring animals. On page 5 of Exhibit B of the comment letter, Dr. Smallwood states: “What my survey does not inform me, and what a larger survey effort could, is which of the potentially occurring special-status species actually occur at the site in addition to the red-tailed hawk I detect near the site. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by rarity of special-status species, which also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed.” Habitat suitability is key in determining whether special-status species will occur on a project site, and the project site lacks the resources required by special-status species. No nocturnal or crepuscular, cryptic, or fossorial special- status species are expected to use the habitats on the project site, and surrounding development and heavily traveled roads prevent non-volant species (such as non-flying 6.A.s Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6 mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) from reaching the project site from distant areas of potential occurrence. The lack of detections of such species during Dr. Rottenborn’s or Dr. Smallwood’s surveys is the result of their absence, and expending considerable effort to attempt to prove their absence through labor-intensive surveys would not change that conclusion. On pages 5-6 of Exhibit B, Dr. Smallwood asserts: “Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that I performed at sites of proposed projects, my survey effort at the project site carried a 19% chance of detecting a listed species.” This highly speculative conclusion completely ignores the fundamental importance of habitat suitability on the project site relative to the habitat needs of special-status species occurring in the region; proximity of the project site to (or its remoteness from) source populations of special-status species; and, for less mobile species such as non-flying mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, the barriers to dispersal between areas of actual occurrence and the project site posed by intensive urban development and heavily traveled roads. Assessment of the potential occurrence of special- status species on this project site should rely on assessment of the specific habitat conditions on and near the project site, and whether those conditions are conducive to use by special- status species. Dr. Smallwood’s assessment and conclusions rely much too heavily on records derived from databases (including records up to 30 miles from the site) and results of studies conducted elsewhere and not heavily enough on the conditions of the actual project site and its surroundings, as interpreted in the context of the habitat associations of the region’s special-status species. Page 7 of the comment letter questions whether disturbance precludes the occurrence of special-status species. There are many types of “disturbance,” ranging from intensive use of areas (such as the project site) by human pedestrians and vehicles to occasional land disturbance such as cultivation of agricultural fields to natural disturbance such as fire and flooding. “Disturbance” in and of itself does not preclude the occurrence of special-status species, as some special-status species are associated with early-successional habitats that may be maintained by disturbance. However, special-status animals that occur in the Gilroy area are not associated with areas that are subject to the types and magnitude of human activity – frequent occurrence of pedestrians, frequent activity of numerous vehicles, regular maintenance of site conditions and vegetation – that occur on the project site. More importantly, special-status animals in the region are not associated with areas where existing substrate (e.g., asphalt and buildings), coupled with human and vehicular activity, precludes the presence of habitat resources required by those species. Similarly, the general statement that “many special-status species occur in anthropogenic environments” on page 7 of the comment letter is overly generic and not relevant to the project. Many special-status species are associated with, for example, grasslands, stock ponds, salt ponds, reservoirs, agricultural lands, and other habitats that are created or maintained by humans. However, no anthropogenic conditions on the project site would be attractive to special-status species due to the absence of required habitat resources, such as appropriate food, cover, or nesting/roosting sites, and the intensive human activity on the project site precludes the presence of conditions that are suitable for use by regionally occurring special-status species. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 7 Page 8 of the comment letter suggests the City should review databases such as eBird and iNaturalist, and stated that Dr. Smallwood reviewed these databases and found the project site either occurs within the geographic ranges or occurs near where others have reported sightings of at least 49 special-status species of wildlife. Databases such as eBird and iNaturalist can provide useful information on locations where species have been recorded, but that information is useful primarily (a) if those databases indicate the presence of a special-status species on a given project site, or close enough to the site to be impacted by a project, or (b) as a guide in determining which species should be considered for possible occurrence on a given project site. However, habitat conditions on and adjacent to the site then need to be considered – as they were by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. for the Initial Study/MND and again by H. T. Harvey & Associates for the follow-up assessment – to determine whether habitat conditions in areas that could be impacted by the project would actually support those species. Dr. Smallwood’s assessment included in Exhibit B of the comment letter included a vague and general statement that the site occurs within the range of or near observations of 48 special-status wildlife species (48 species, not 49 as indicated in the comment letter, were listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment in Exhibit B of the comment letter). Dr. Smallwood’s assessment provided no evidence that those databases indicate the presence of special-status species on this site or close enough to the site to be impacted significantly. As indicated in Table 2 of Exhibit B of the comment letter, those 48 species included no species represented by occurrences on the project site; four were reported as being “adjacent” to the site (defined as on “the neighboring property”), 12 as being “very close” (defined as being within 1 mile of the project site), 24 as being “nearby” (defined as “within several miles”) and eight as being “in region” (defined as “with a radius of 20 or 30 miles or so”). H.T. Harvey & Associates agree that many of the species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment occur within those distances from the project site, as suitable habitat for those species is present in the Gilroy area, but suitable habitat for those species is not present close enough for those species to be impacted by the project itself. Furthermore, only nine of the 48 species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment meet the long- standing criteria for being considered “special-status” species.1 The nine species in Table 2 that would meet the criteria for special-status species, if they were to occur near the project site, are the monarch butterfly, white-tailed kite, peregrine falcon, willow flycatcher, 1 For purposes of the Initial Study/MND analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are: • Listed under Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. • Listed under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. • Listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4. For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are: • Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. • Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species. • Designated by the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a California species of special concern. • Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515). 6.A.s Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 8 tricolored blackbird, San Francisco common yellowthroat, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and western red bat. Although any of these nine species could fly through the project vicinity during migration or dispersal, none are expected to use habitats on the project site itself or to be impacted significantly by the project. Of the four species listed in Table 2 as having eBird or iNaturalist records “adjacent” to the project site, only one – the white-tailed kite – meets the definition of a special-status species. eBird records of this species include a single record along the East Tenth Street off-ramp to northbound U.S. 101 (i.e., across the freeway from the project site) on December 20, 2017 and an individual in the northeast quadrant of East Ninth Street and Chestnut Street on November 9, 2017. Based on these occurrences, white-tailed kites could occasionally perch in trees on the site, but they would not be expected to breed on or near the site, and no suitable foraging habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the site. Rather, the existence of two occurrences 1.5 months apart in November and December suggests a single wintering bird or postbreeding dispersant that occurred briefly near the project site. The other three species listed in Table 2 as having been recorded adjacent to the project site were red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and rufous hummingbird. Red-tailed hawks and turkey vultures may regularly fly high over the site, but they are not expected to occur frequently, if at all, on the project site itself. Rufous hummingbirds could occur in small numbers on the site, foraging at bottlebrush and flower eucalyptus trees, during migration. Page 8 of the comment letter mentions the potential for monarch butterflies given the eucalyptus trees on-site. There are eight eucalyptus tree species on-site. The four eucalyptus trees on the project site frontage on Chestnut Street near the intersection of Chestnut Street and Tenth Street would be removed as a result of the project. Eucalyptus trees can be used by congregations of roosting monarchs, but only in geographic areas where monarchs actually form winter roosts, and only in tree stands with certain characteristics. While monarchs migrate through the Gilroy area, and an individual monarch or two could roost in just about any tree, shrub, or sufficiently tall/dense herbaceous plant in the region, there are no places in Santa Clara County where monarchs forms roosting congregations, such as winter roosts. The following webpage shows the locations of such roost sites: https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/find-an-overwintering-site-near-you/. This website is recommended by recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance to provide information on the locations of overwintering roost sites, and according to that website, there are no monarch roosts anywhere in Santa Clara County. Monarchs roost in areas that have appropriate thermal conditions in winter, and those conditions occur primarily near the bay and the coast. Eucalyptus used by monarchs as regular roost sites for large numbers of individuals consist of stands of trees, rather than single, scattered trees, as those tree stands that are used by monarchs have certain thermal conditions and protection from wind. The eucalyptus trees along the U.S. 101 off-ramp to East Tenth Street and the four eucalyptus trees near the corner of Chestnut Street and East Tenth Street do not comprise the types of stands used by wintering monarch congregations. iNaturalist shows a single monarch record in the Gilroy area, mapping it in the middle of the U.S. 101 freeway just north of East Tenth Street. However, the photo shows the surroundings as appearing suburban (e.g., a residential yard), clearly not on the project site or 6.A.s Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 9 in the mapped location; iNaturalist intentionally obscures the precise locations of records of some special-status species to avoid disturbance or collecting, and that could possibly explain the mapped location of that individual. Monarchs occur more widely in Santa Clara County than indicated by iNaturalist records, and this species could occur during migration virtually anywhere in the Gilroy area. As a result, it is possible that occasional migrant monarchs move through, and could even occasionally stop to briefly perch or roost (individually), in vegetation on the project site. However, no milkweed (the species’ larval host plant) was observed on the site during H.T. Harvey & Associates’ reconnaissance-level survey and monarchs, therefore, would not breed on the site. Furthermore, the project site provides no higher-quality habitat for even migrating monarchs than any other site with trees or shrubs in the Gilroy region. The commenter asserts that the Initial Study/MND overlooks impacts to species in the aerosphere (page 8 of the comment letter). As discussed above, habitat conditions on the site are of low quality for most native birds found in the region. Nevertheless, there is a suite of common, urban-adapted bird species that occur in such urban areas and are expected to occur on the site with some regularity, as discussed previously. However, with the possible exception of a few highly urban-adapted species such as American crows or Brewer’s blackbirds, no bird species are expected to occur on the site in large numbers, and all of the species expected to occur regularly are regionally abundant species. No special-status birds are expected to occur on the site, or even to fly through the site with any regularity or in numbers, due to the absence of suitable habitat. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area and is surrounded by commercial development and busy roadways. No sensitive habitats are located in the site vicinity. The nearest waterbody, Miller Slough, is located 0.35 mile to the north, and the nearest open lands are agricultural lands 0.42 mile to the east. The site is separated from those more natural areas by dense commercial and/or residential development and the heavily traveled U.S. 101. The project site is not located in a landscape position that would result in high numbers of birds, especially migratory birds, to be moving past the site. The site is not located along or very close to major streams or rivers, wetlands, riparian habitats, shorelines, ridgelines, or other types of features that attract or concentrate migrating birds. Rather, the types of birds that occur in and around, and migrate (at elevations low enough for any interaction with the project site) through, the project vicinity are urban-adapted birds that are widespread in the Gilroy area. Under project conditions, the numbers of birds that use the site are expected to increase somewhat due to the proposed expansion of landscape areas on the site. The project proposes to plant 201 new trees on, and 19 new trees adjacent to, the project site. However, as shown on page 8 of the Initial Study/MND, the project’s planting plans include primarily nonnative trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, which offer fewer resources to native birds than native vegetation. Relatively few native plants are proposed. Further, the plants would be scattered around the site, interspersed with pavement and buildings. No larger patches of vegetation with ground-level, understory, and canopy vegetation – vegetation that might provide higher- quality habitats for resident and migrant birds – are proposed. Therefore, proposed landscaping would not provide high-quality habitat for native birds, bats, or other wildlife; 6.A.s Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 10 any increase in bird abundance as a result of the proposed landscaping would be modest; and no special-status birds or other animals are expected to increase in abundance on the site as a result of the project. Individuals of many bird, bat, and invertebrate species that occur in the region are expected to fly over the site on occasion (i.e., use the aerosphere over the project site). These species will not necessarily use the terrestrial developed/landscaped habitat on the project site, but will fly over the site en route between other habitats in the region. The aerosphere above the project site does not provide especially valuable habitat for flying wildlife because (1) the site is relatively small compared to the extensive availability of aerosphere habitat in the surrounding vicinity; (2) the portion of the aerosphere to be occupied by the 66-foot-tall hotel and the other one-story structures is very limited; (3) the terrestrial habitat on the site does not provide high-quality habitat for wildlife species (e.g., natural areas such as grasslands or riparian habitat) such that flying wildlife would be expected to use this area regularly or as essential habitat; and (4) the site is not located along a route that large numbers of flying wildlife regularly travel (e.g., along the edges of the San Francisco Bay or along a major stream corridor on the urbanized Santa Clara Valley floor). Page 20 of Exhibit B of the comment letter recommends detection surveys in addition to the pre-construction survey required in mitigation measure MM BIO-1.1 on pages 50-51 of the Initial Study. Mitigation measure MM BIO-1.1 is identified in the Initial Study/MND to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code to avoid and/or reduce impacts to nesting birds (if present on-site during construction) to a less than significant level. The mitigation includes the completion of pre-construction surveys of nesting birds on and adjacent to the site by a qualified biologist and discusses steps to be taken to avoid impacts to nesting birds, if found on-site. The mitigation requires a report documenting the survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) be submitted by the qualified biologist to the City for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. Based on the discussion in the Initial Study/MND and this response, labor-intensive detection surveys to attempt to prove absence of a species are not necessary when a reconnaissance-level habitat assessment performed by an expert determines that species will not occur, or will not occur in a way that could lead to a significant impact. H.T. Harvey & Associates has conducted that survey and habitat assessment and have concluded, as the Initial Study/MND did, that the project will not result in a significant impact to special-status species. Therefore, no biological resources mitigation measures are needed for impacts to any species other than the mitigation for impacts to nesting birds described in mitigation measure MM BIO-1.1 in the Initial Study/MND. 3. Potential impact on bird species from window and other building collisions It is true that many birds migrate through the South Bay along the Pacific Flyway each year, as asserted on page 11 of Exhibit B of the comment letter. Although some of these migrants travel through the site vicinity, the habitat on the project site is not heavily used by migrating birds for reasons discussed above in response number 2. Only very low numbers of birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway are expected to occur on the project site or within the portion of the aerosphere that is to be occupied by the proposed hotel and other buildings. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 11 Page 11 of Exhibit B states that: “At least 37 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, most of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations….” This is a highly misleading statement, which could easily be misinterpreted as meaning 37 species of special-status birds are known to occur in the project area, relies on the overly broad characterization of both (a) what constitutes a “special-status species” and (b) how far from the actual project site – up to 30 miles – Dr. Smallwood considered records to be in “the project area.” Although many of the species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s report (i.e., species that he considers to be “special-status species”) in Exhibit B of the comment letter may well have been recorded colliding with windows on some site, somewhere, none of these species are expected to occur regularly or in large numbers on the project site or, when moving through the vicinity, in the airspace that would be occupied by buildings proposed by the project. Furthermore, only nine of the species listed in Table 2 are considered special-status species according to long-standing criteria for such a designation. Page 9 of the comment letter and page 16 of Exhibit B of the comment letter suggests that additional information on “intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight” needs to be assessed to evaluate the potential impacts of the project’s buildings on birds as a result of collisions. H.T. Harvey & Associates has enough experience with the avifauna of the Gilroy area to be able to infer the nature of bird movements through the site vicinity without additional, detailed study. There are a number of other factors that contribute to the numbers of bird fatalities at buildings. These include the biology of the birds (e.g., habitat associations, and status as residents, migrants, or wintering birds), the architecture of buildings (e.g., the extent of glazing), the presence and location of landscape vegetation opposite glazing, the location of the building (e.g., collisions are anticipated to be higher at buildings located near parks and natural areas), and lighting features. Due to these factors, bird collision rates with buildings vary enormously on a site-specific basis. In his assessment, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the proposed hotel will result in 194 bird fatalities annually based solely on the estimated extent of glazing on the hotel’s exterior. To support this estimate, Dr. Smallwood cites an average number of birds killed per square meter of glass that he calculated based on reported numbers in previous monitoring studies. However, without considering whether the biology of the birds, architecture of the buildings at which these studies were performed, the presence and location of landscape vegetation, the locations of the buildings, as well as lighting conditions were comparable to the proposed hotel, it is not possible to calculate with any accuracy an estimated number of bird deaths per square meter for the proposed project. For these reasons, the estimate of 194 bird fatalities per year is likely an overestimate and the actual number of birds expected to collide with the building on an annual basis is much lower. H.T. Harvey & Associates performed a site-specific evaluation of collision risk with the building that incorporates results of their August 23, 2021 site visit and a detailed review of the building’s location, architecture, and landscape plan. This approach is appropriate to 6.A.s Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 12 determine relative collision risk on the project site and whether the proposed building would result in a significant impact under CEQA due to bird collisions with the proposed hotel and other buildings. This approach is consistent with project-specific bird collision risk assessments that H. T. Harvey & Associates has performed for numerous projects in the San Francisco Bay area. Because birds do not necessarily perceive glass as an obstacle, windows or other structures that reflect the sky, trees, or other habitat may not be perceived as obstacles, and birds may collide with these structures. Similarly, transparent windows can result in bird collisions when they allow birds to perceive an unobstructed flight route through the glass (such as at corners), and when the combination of transparent glass and interior vegetation (such as in planted atria) results in attempts by birds to fly through glass to reach the vegetation. A number of factors play a role in determining the risk of bird collisions with buildings, including amount and type of glass used, lighting, properties of the building (e.g., size, design, and orientation), type and location of vegetation around the building, and building location. H.T. Harvey & Associates reviewed protypical elevation and rendering of the proposed hotel. The façades include extensive unglazed surfaces, breaking up the glazed areas considerably. The facades do not have extensive, unbroken glazing that is expected to result in large numbers of bird collisions. The plans and rendering do not depict any features that are expected to result in high numbers of bird collisions, such as atria where extensive vegetation is present behind glass windows or terraces with landscape plantings behind glass handrails. Nevertheless, some bird-building collisions are expected to occur. Some birds could collide with glazing because they see the reflections of the sky or vegetation, or because they do not perceive the glass as a solid and will attempt to fly through it. There are some features evident in these plans and renderings where bird collisions are more likely to occur compared to other locations because they may not be as easily perceived by birds as physical obstructions. For example, the plans show transparent glass corners in several locations. Where these features are located along potential flight paths that birds may use when traveling to and from landscape vegetation on the site, the risk of bird collisions is higher because birds may not perceive the intervening glass and may therefore attempt to fly to vegetation on the far side of the glass. Birds may also see vegetation reflected in glass, especially at areas of more extensive glazing and/or within larger panes of glazing on the building’s lower floors. However, having reviewed bird collision risk for numerous projects involving varying amounts of exterior glazing, H.T. Harvey & Associates’ predominant impression of the proposed hotel is that it presents a low collision risk due to the overall limited extent of glazing and the lack of any features that would represent particular hazards to birds. As discussed above in response number 2, relatively low numbers of native, resident birds and occasional migrants occur in the project vicinity, and even during migration, the number of native birds expected to occur in the project vicinity will be low. Because predominantly nonnative trees and plants will be planted around the proposed hotel in association with paved roadways, pedestrian walkways, and the roof terrace, the site would not provide high- quality habitat for native birds following construction. Due to the low numbers of birds in the 6.A.s Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 13 site vicinity, the limited quality of habitat on the site itself, and the surrounding urban context, the numbers of birds expected to make use of the site in the future would be low. As a result, the relatively limited areas of glass in the façades of the proposed hotel are expected to result in collisions by relatively few birds, and avian injury or mortality due to bird collisions with the proposed hotel would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect on populations of common, urban-adapted bird species that use the site. Thus, avian collision impacts are less than significant. Text has been added to the Initial Study/MND to incorporate this information. Pages 21-22 of Exhibit B of the comment letter recommends compensatory mitigation for avian collisions on-site. Per the discussion above, although some collisions would occur, leading to injury and mortality of some birds, it is not necessary for a project to reduce collision fatalities to zero to avoid a significant impact under CEQA. The number of collisions that are expected to occur, both overall and to any particular species, would be low enough that it would represent a very, very small proportion of regional bird communities and populations. Therefore, the impact would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect on populations of common, urban-adapted bird species that use the site. Thus, this impact to be less than significant under CEQA, and no mitigation is necessary. 4. Potential impact on wildlife from vehicle collisions due to project-generated traffic It is possible that increased traffic as a result of the project could result in a rise in the number of animals killed in the project vicinity. However, Dr. Smallwood cites a study conducted on Vasco Road in Contra Costa County as the basis for estimating the number of animals killed per mile of roadway due to the project (see pages 17 and 18 in Exhibit B of the comment letter). Vasco Road is a 17.7-mile county roadway that extends through extensive areas of open agricultural fields, ranchlands, and parklands, including the Vasco Road Regional Preserve. The wildlife species that inhabit these areas as well as their life histories, abundances, and movement patterns are completely different from the species that occur in the vicinity of the proposed project, which are part of an urban wildlife community. As a result, the numbers and species of wildlife killed along Vasco Road are not comparable to the numbers and species of wildlife expected to be killed on roadways in the project vicinity. Thus, Dr. Smallwood’s estimates of the numbers of wildlife species expected to be killed as a result of vehicle collisions are not applicable to the project. Although increased traffic as a result of the project could result in a rise in the number of animals killed in the project vicinity, any such species impacted are expected to be common, urban-adapted species, and any increase in traffic associated with the proposed project is not expected to result in a substantial impact on the regional populations of these common wildlife species. As discussed above in response number 2 and 3, special-status birds are not expected to make appreciable use of the project site and surrounding urban areas where most of vehicle traffic would be located, and no special-status invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, or mammals are present in the project vicinity. Thus, no significant impacts would occur due to project-generated traffic. Text has been added to the Initial Study/MND to incorporate this information. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 14 5. Potential for cumulative biological impacts The cumulative impacts to biological resources from the buildout of the City’s General (which includes the development of the project site as proposed) was evaluated the certified 2020 Gilroy 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2015082014) (General Plan EIR). The General Plan EIR concluded that future development projects (such as the proposed project), in compliance with existing regulations (including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan), would not result in in a significant impacts to biological resources. The Initial Study/MND discussion on page 185 tiers from the certified General Plan EIR for cumulative biological impacts, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. As discussed in the Initial Study, the project would comply with applicable regulations including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Summary of Comments from Patrick Flautt (dated August 18, 2021): 1. Support extending pedestrian pathway throughout the site 2. Support employee and customer use of public transit and recommend utilizing Measure B E&E funding and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority marketing outreach resources 3. Recommend increased bicycle parking be provided 4. Recommend installation of bike fixit station with air kit bike pump station at public outdoor feature 5. Recommend installation of electric car charging stations 6. Recommend implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program Response: The comment letter included suggestions for bicycle and pedestrian improvements on-site and TDM measures for the project. As discussed in the Initial Study, the project does not result in significant impacts to bicycle or pedestrian facilities or impacts pertaining to Vehicle Miles Traveled or operational air quality emissions that warrant the suggested measures as mitigation measures. There is no nexus for the City to require the project implement the suggested measures under CEQA. No comments were raised regarding the adequacy of the IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 15 II. DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MND TEXT REVISIONS This section contains revisions to the text of the Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Initial Study/MND dated June 2021. Text revisions in this section do not constitute a substantial revision as there is no new impact, mitigation measure, or revision to the project. Text revisions in this section provide information to clarify and amplify the analysis and conclusions already disclosed in the Initial Study/MND. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text. Initial Study page iii ADD the following text at the bottom of the page: Appendix H: Biological Memorandum Initial Study page 45 REVISE the first paragraph under Section 4.4 Biological Resources as follows: This discussion is based, in part, on an Arborist Report prepared by HortScience Bartlett Consulting in June 2020 and a biological memorandum by H.T. Harvey & Associates dated August 25, 2021. A copyCopies of thisthese reports isare included in Appendix B and Appendix H, respectivelyto this Initial Study. Initial Study page 47 ADD the following text after the first paragraph under Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions: A review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation website, the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database, bird records from the project vicinity reported to the eBird database, iNaturalist records database, and the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (VHP) were completed in relation to the project site. A reconnaissance-level survey and assessment of the project site and vicinity was also completed by H.T. Harvey & Associates, the City’s consulting biologist, and concluded that because the site is completely developed, no suitable habitat for special-status plants is present. As a result, special-status plants are not expected to occur on the site, and a focused botanical survey was not warranted (refer to Appendix H for additional details about the survey and assessment). Habitat/Vegetation A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site has been developed and has supported commercial land uses for more than 40 years. The project site is currently surrounded by dense commercial development and heavily used roads (e.g., U.S. 101 to the east and East Tenth Street to the south). The nearest waterbody, Miller Slough, is located 0.35 mile to the north, and the nearest open lands are agricultural lands 0.42 mile to the east. The site is separated from those more natural areas by dense commercial and/or residential development and the heavily traveled U.S. 101. The project site itself is dominated by pavement and buildings. Very little vegetation is present on the site. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 16 Initial Study page 49 REVISE the paragraph after Table 4.4-1 as follows: Sensitive and regulated habitats are rare, ecologically valuable, and/or protected by federal, state, regional, and/or local laws. Generally, such habitats require permits from regulatory agencies if they are to be disturbed, altered, or lost. There are no sensitive habitats or wetlands on or adjacent to the project site, as confirmed during the reconnaissance-level survey. The project site is located approximately 0.85 miles east of Uvas Creek riparian habitat and is separated from this waterway by urban development (i.e., roadways and structures). Similarly, no sensitive communities of concern that are tracked by the CNDDB, or any features regulated under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, were identified on or adjacent to the site. Thus, sensitive and regulated habitats are determined to be absent from the project site. Due to the lack of sensitive habitats, and the human disturbance and development in the project area, special-status plant and animal species are not likely to be on-site. Wildlife A number of special-status animal species are known to occur (or to have occurred historically) in the Gilroy area. However, all of these species are associated with habitats that do not occur on the project site and/or do not tolerate the very high level of human activity present on the project site. The site does support habitat for common, widespread, urban-adapted species, including Anna’s hummingbird, American crow, European starling, northern mockingbird, red-winged blackbird, and Brewer’s blackbird. In addition to these birds, other birds were observed near the project site including rock pigeons, turkey vultures, and red-talked hawk during the reconnaissance survey. No other vertebrate taxa were observed on-site. No signs of the presence of rooting bats (e.g., guano, urine staining, or visual or auditory detection) were observed. The buildings on the site are unlikely to support large numbers of roosting bats, if any, due to the absence of cavities and crevices (and/or the absence of suitable roost sites), and no suitable roosting habitat for bats (e.g., cavities, deep crevices, or exfoliating bark) was observed in the trees on the site. Nevertheless, regionally common bat species such as California myotis or Mexican free-tailed bats may occasionally forage over the site. In addition, it is possible that occasional migrant monarchs move through, and could even occasionally stop to briefly perch or roost (individually), in vegetation on the project site. However, no milkweed, the species’ larval host plant, was observed on the site during the reconnaissance-level survey, and monarchs, therefore, would not breed on the site. No higher-quality habitat for wildlife is present in adjacent areas. Refer to Appendix H for additional details about species observed and expected on-site. Initial Study page 52 REVISE the discussion under checklist question d) as follows: The project site is designated Urban-Suburban according to the Habitat Plan and is currently developed and surrounded by urban development. Neither the site or adjacent properties contain any riparian corridors, wildlife areas, open space, or wetlands that provide habitat or movement corridors for wildlife species in the region. As discussed in detail in Appendix H, no bird species are expected to occur on the site in large numbers, and all of the species expected to occur regularly are regionally abundant species. No special-status birds are expected to occur on the site, or even to fly through the 6.A.s Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 17 site with any regularity or in numbers, due to the absence of suitable habitat. Due to the low numbers of birds in the site vicinity, the limited quality of habitat on the site itself, and the surrounding urban context, the numbers of birds expected to make use of the site in the future would be low. As a result, the relatively limited areas of glass in the façades of the proposed hotel are expected to result in collisions by relatively few birds, and avian injury or mortality due to bird collisions with the proposed hotel would not have a substantial adverse effect on populations of common, urban-adapted bird species that use the site (refer to Appendix H for more information about the potential for avian collision with buildings on-site). In addition, since special-status birds are not expected to make appreciable use of the project site and surrounding urban areas where the majority of vehicle traffic would be located, and no special-status invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, or mammals are present in the project vicinity, the project would not have a significant impact to special-status species from project-generated vehicle trips. Based on the above discussionFor these reasons, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites. Appendix G ADD the following Appendix H: Biological Memorandum after Appendix G: 6.A.s Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 Memorandum August 25, 2021 Project #10785 To: Kristy Weis and Carolyn Neer, David J. Powers & Associates From: Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., H. T. Harvey & Associates Subject: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments from LOZEAU DRURY LLP Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has prepared responses to comments on biological resources issues submitted by LOZEAU DRURY LLP on the June 2021 Initial Study, Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project (IS/MND). LOZEAU DRURY LLP provided comments in an August 17, 2021 letter to the City of Gilroy. All of the biological resources comments were derived from an August 17, 2021 letter from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, which was included as Exhibit B to the comments provided by LOZEAU DRURY LLP. The proposed project is located on 6.8 acres of currently developed land bounded by East Tenth Street to the south, Chestnut Street to the west, East Ninth Street to the north, and the southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp to East Tenth Street to the east in Gilroy, California. The project proposes to demolish existing structures on the site and add a 66-foot tall, 5-story hotel, a car wash, and four additional commercial buildings totaling 17,000 square feet of floor space. The project would be considered a covered project per the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (VHP)1 and therefore would comply with all VHP conditions as applicable. Before providing our responses to comments, we have added some information about the site’s biological resources based on a review of background information, a brief site visit, and our extensive experience with the biota of the Gilroy area. H. T. Harvey & Associates Assessment of Biological Resources Methods To provide background information on the potential for occurrence of sensitive biological resources on the Chestnut & Tenth Street project site, H. T. Harvey & Associates senior wildlife ecologist Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D. 1 ICF International. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES reviewed the IS/MND; aerial photos 2 and topographic maps; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database 3 (CNDDB); bird records from the project vicinity reported to the eBird database 4, which has been established by the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology to archive records of birds seen worldwide; the iNaturalist records database 5; and the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (VHP). This background information supplemented my extensive experience working with biological resources in the Gilroy area. In addition to performing my doctoral research at Stanford University on the impacts of urbanization on riparian bird communities in the South Bay, I have performed work involving the California Environmental Quality Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, as well as work involving VHP compliance, for hundreds of projects in Santa Clara County over more than 20 years as a professional ecological consultant. I was heavily involved in field work for and preparation of the county’s Breeding Bird Atlas 6; I have served two 3-year terms as a member of the Board of Directors of Western Field Ornithologists; I have served three 3-year terms (including one as Chair) on the California Bird Records Committee, which maintains the official records of California’s avifauna; and I have served as one of the regional editors for Northern California for the publication North American Birds for more than 15 years. Although much of my experience has involved birds, I work closely and extensively on a wide variety of biological resource topics as a Vice President at H. T. Harvey & Associates, including invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, special-status plants, sensitive and regulated habitats, wildlife movement, and bird-safe design. Having lived in Morgan Hill since 2004 and birded widely throughout southern Santa Clara County, I am very familiar with the spatial and seasonal distribution, and habitat associations, of birds in the vicinity of the project site. Following our review of background information, I conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the project site on August 23, 2021. Although I was familiar with the site, having visited the immediate vicinity of the site (including O’Henry’s Donuts on the site itself) many times, I conducted this survey to verify existing biological conditions and the site’s potential to support special-status species of plants and animals; other legally protected animals, such as migratory birds; and sensitive/regulated habitats such as jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, potential waters of the state, and riparian habitats. The survey included an assessment of habitats for special-status species and other protected animals both on the site and in adjacent areas (e.g., in developed and landscaped areas on adjacent properties) that could be impacted either directly or indirectly by proposed activities, as well as an assessment of adjacent habitats that could potentially support source populations of sensitive species that could then disperse onto the project site. I also assessed potential habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats in trees and buildings on the site, and I considered the manner in which birds might fly over, through, or past the project site. Because the site is completely developed, no suitable habitat for special-status plants is present. As a result, special- status plants are not expected to occur on the site, and a focused botanical survey was not warranted. 2 Google Inc. 2021. Google Earth (Version 7.3.2.5776) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com. 3 [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2021. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed August 2021 from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. 4 Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2021. eBird. http://www.ebird.org/. Accessed through June 2021. 5 https://www.inaturalist.org/observations 6 Bousman, W. G. 2007. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 3 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Environmental Setting Habitat/Vegetation. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site has been developed and has supported commercial land uses for more than 40 years. The project site is currently surrounded by dense commercial development and heavily used roads (e.g., U.S. 101 to the east and East Tenth Street to the south). The nearest waterbody, Miller Slough, is located 0.35 mile to the north, and the nearest open lands are agricultural lands 0.42 mile to the east. The site is separated from those more natural areas by dense commercial and/or residential development and the heavily traveled U.S. 101. The project site itself is dominated by pavement and buildings. Very little vegetation is present on the site. As reported in the IS/MND, 29 trees are located on or adjacent to the project site, and only two of these trees (a Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii] and a coast live oak [Quercus agrifolia]) are native to the San Francisco Bay area. Dense hedges of bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.) line the eastern edge and portions of the southern edge of the site (along the southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp to East Tenth Street), as well as the eastern portion of the north edge of the site along East Ninth Street. A row of mature eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees is present along the eastern edge of the site. Wildlife. In more than 20 years of ecological consulting in the South Bay, I have worked on few sites that had lower value to wildlife, when considering both the site and surrounding areas, than the project site. Although the site does support habitat for common, widespread, urban-adapted species, the site does not support any features that provide high-quality habitat for more sensitive species or species of conservation concern. During the 70 minutes I spent on the site on August 23, I detected six bird species (five natives and one non-native) on/using the site itself: • Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna) – one was foraging on bottlebrush flowers along the northeastern edge of the project site along East Ninth Street, and another was off-site at the fire station at the corner of Chestnut Street and East Ninth Street. • American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) – two individuals were perched near the Wendy’s restaurant across Chestnut Street to the west, and one eventually flew to the project site, perching on a light pole and then foraging in the narrow strip of landscaping along Chestnut Street. • European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) – one individual of this non-native species was foraging on anthropogenic food waste at the McDonald’s restaurant across East Tenth Street from the project site and then flew to the project site, perching on a light pole and then on the roof of the O’Henry’s Donuts shop. Small flocks were observed flying around the site vicinity, farther from (and not using) the project site. • Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) – three adults were in the bottlebrush hedge along East Ninth Street in the northeastern part of the project site; two of these birds were associated with, and were observed feeding, a fledgling near its nest in a hedge north of the fire station (the nest and fledgling were outside the project site). 6.A.s Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES • Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) – a number of individuals, with a maximum of 12 seen at any one time, were foraging on food waste at the nearby McDonald’s restaurant. Though most flew back and forth between the McDonald’s and the shopping center across Chestnut Street from the project site, one individual perched briefly on the roof of the O’Henry’s Donuts shop. • Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) – a number of individuals, with a maximum of 16 seen at any one time, were foraging on food waste at the nearby McDonald’s restaurant and flying back and forth between the McDonald’s and the shopping center across Chestnut Street from the project site. Occasionally, individuals would perch on a light pole adjacent to the project site along Tenth Street or on the roof of the O’Henry’s Donuts shop. In addition to the birds listed above, the following birds were observed near the project site: • Non-native species: nine rock pigeons (Columba livia) flying around commercial areas to the south, one Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto) flying high over the area just north of the project site, and seven house sparrows (Passer domesticus), four at the McDonald’s and three on the north side of Ninth Street across from the project site. • Native species: two turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) and one red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) soaring high over the general vicinity of the project site and three house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) flying over the site. Aside from birds, I observed no other vertebrate taxa during my site visit. However, two old California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows, both with debris and cobwebs at their entrances (and therefore likely unoccupied), were along the northern edge of the project site in dirt along East Ninth Street. Also, the nest of a tree squirrel was in a nearby, off-site London planetree (Platanus x acerifolia) at the corner of Chestnut Street and East Ninth Street. The only tree squirrels in urban, valley-floor areas of Gilroy are the non-native eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), as the native western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) is absent from such areas, occurring nearby only as close as more natural habitats in the Santa Cruz Mountains.7 In addition to the species I observed on and near the site, other common, widespread, urban-adapted species are expected to occur on the project site, as the bottlebrush hedges and eucalyptus trees on and adjacent to the site are undoubtedly used by other species. The assessment by Dr. Smallwood included in LOZEAU DRURY LLP’s comments indicated that he observed one additional bird species, the bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) on the site in “perimeter trees”, and he observed barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) foraging “on site” (presumably over the site, as this species forages aerially). Other common, widespread, urban-adapted birds that may occur on the project site include residents such as the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), California scrub- jay (Aphelocoma californica), and lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and during migration and winter, the ruby- crowned kinglet (Corthylio calendula), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla) may forage and roost on the site. Some transients may use the bottlebrush and eucalyptus trees during migration, including species such as hummingbirds 7 https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&subview=map&taxon_id=46023 6.A.s Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 5 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES that are attracted to the nectar of these plants’ flowers and insectivores that feed on nectar-attracted insects or on pysllids that may infest eucalyptus trees; these include the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), orange-crowned warbler (Leiothlypis celata), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), and others. Common urban-adapted mammal species that may occur on the project site include the native raccoon (Procyon lotor) and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and nonnative house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), eastern gray squirrel, and eastern fox squirrel. All of the species mentioned here, and all of those that could occur on the site, are species that are common and widespread in the region, including in urban areas, during the seasons in which they could potentially occur on the project site, and none of them are of conservation concern. No signs of the presence of roosting bats (e.g., guano, urine staining, or visual or auditory detections of bats) were observed during the August 23 focused survey. The buildings on the site are unlikely to support large numbers of roosting bats, if any, due to the absence of cavities and crevices (and/or the absence of suitable roost sites), and no suitable roosting habitat for bats (e.g., cavities, deep crevices, or exfoliating bark) was observed in the trees on the site. Nevertheless, regionally common bat species such as California myotis (Myotis californicus) or Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) may occasionally forage over the site. No higher-quality habitat for wildlife is present in adjacent areas either. Vegetation within the right-of-way along U.S. 101 and in the U.S. 101/Tenth Street interchange is dominated by non-native species and lacks the structural complexity (with ground cover, understory, and tree canopy cover in the same areas) of habitats that support large numbers of native species in the region. The heavy traffic disturbance along these roads further limits the value of adjacent areas to wildlife. Areas to the north, west, and south are also intensively developed and lack high-quality wildlife habitat. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats Definition of “Special-Status”. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are protected by state, federal, or local governments as “threatened, rare, or endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of our environmental review of projects such as this, we define special-status species as described below. For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are: • Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. • Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. • Listed by the CNPS as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4. For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are: • Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES • Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species. • Designated by the CDFW as a California species of special concern. • Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515). Special-Status Plant Species. The project site is dominated by heavily disturbed anthropogenic habitat (i.e., developed/landscaped areas), which precludes the presence of special-status plant species that occur in more natural habitats in the region. Therefore, special-status plants are absent from the project site and immediately adjacent areas. Special-Status Animal Species. A number of special-status animal species are known to occur (or to have occurred historically) in the Gilroy area. However, all of these species are associated with habitats that do not occur on the project site and/or do not tolerate the very high level of human activity present on the project site. Put simply, any species that would find suitable nesting, roosting, and/or foraging habitat and resources on a heavily developed/disturbed site like the Chestnut & Tenth project site has ample habitat throughout much of the San Francisco Bay area and would therefore not be so scarce or of such limited distribution as to meet any of the criteria for special-status species listed above. Specific special-status animal species, and reasons why they are not expected to occur on the project site, are discussed in greater detail in our response below to Table 2 in Dr. Smallwood’s assessment. Sensitive and Regulated Habitats. Sensitive and regulated habitats are rare, ecologically valuable, and/or protected by federal, state, regional, and/or local laws. Generally, such habitats require permits from regulatory agencies if they are to be disturbed, altered, or lost. The CDFW ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, tracked in the CNDDB. The most commonly regulated habitats are wetland and aquatic habitats including rivers, streams, ponds, and seasonal wetlands, which fall under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Board via Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or the CDFW via Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. No potentially jurisdictional features (e.g., wetlands or drainages that would be subject to jurisdiction of any resource agencies) were identified on or adjacent to the project site during our reconnaissance-level survey. Similarly, no sensitive communities of concern that are tracked by the CNDDB, or any features regulated under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, were identified on or adjacent to the site. Thus, sensitive and regulated habitats are determined to be absent from the project site, and the project will have no impact on these sensitive resources. Responses to LOZEAU DRURY LLP Comments H. T. Harvey & Associates’ responses to comments in the letter from LOZEAU DRURY LLP are provided below. The text of the original comments is provided verbatim (or with minor edits to abbreviate text), in boldface, followed by our response. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 7 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Dr. Smallwood reconnoitered the area for 120 minutes. During that brief visit, he observed the presence of 17 species of vertebrate wildlife at the Project site. Most of the species he observed relevant to the Project’s impacts were bird species. Had he spent more time at the site, Dr. Smallwood explains he would have detected even more species. Of the 17 species listed in Table 1 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment, only five (Anna’s hummingbird, American crow, northern mockingbird, bushtit, and house cat [Felis catus]) were actually observed on the site; barn swallow is indicated as “foraged on site”, but this species forages aerially, so it was likely seen above, rather than on, the site if it was seen foraging. The other 11 species were reported as flying over or past the site, or perched off-site, and their inclusion in the list is less relevant to the assessment of species occurring on the project site itself. We agree that more species would be recorded if more time were spent on the project site. This would be particularly true if additional surveys were conducted during the spring and fall migratory periods for various groups of birds, or during winter when a different suite of bird species is present in the region. However: • Unlike larger sites with more heterogeneous or structurally complex habitats, this site is small and provides very little (and very simple) habitats. As a result, spending more time at the site at any given time would not reveal much, if any, additional site use by wildlife. For example, during my site visit, I was confident that there were not large numbers of bird species that were present but that I could not detect due to dense vegetation, their cryptic nature, or other factors. Rather, I was confident that I was easily able to observe most, if not all, of the bird species that were actually using the site at the time of my visit. • The number of species that would be recorded even with extensive survey effort over multiple seasons would be low due to the very low quality (or absence) of habitat that the project site provides for most regionally-occurring species. • Most individuals recorded by further surveys would be represented by fly-over birds or very low numbers of individuals. Intensive survey effort over multiple seasons or even multiple years would not reveal actual use of the site by, or importance of the site to, many animal species beyond those mentioned in our assessment above of potentially occurring animals. Dr. Smallwood points out that the City incorrectly determined that “(1) disturbance precludes the occurrence of special-status species, and (2) all special-status species depend solely on natural communities.” Contrary to these incorrect assumptions, Dr. Smallwood explains that “many assignments of special status have been to species that occur only in California or whose geographic ranges are small or diminishing,” and “many special-status species occur in anthropogenic environments.” While these concepts are technically correct, they are irrelevant to the question of whether and how special-status species might use this particular site. There are many types of “disturbance”, ranging from intensive use of areas (such as the project site) by human pedestrians and vehicles to occasional land disturbance such as cultivation of agricultural fields to natural disturbance such as fire and flooding. “Disturbance” in of itself does not preclude the occurrence of special-status species, as some special-status species are associated with early-successional 6.A.s Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 8 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES habitats that may be maintained by disturbance. However, special-status animals that occur in the Gilroy area are not associated with areas that are subject to the types and magnitude of human activity – frequent occurrence of pedestrians, frequent activity of numerous vehicles, regular maintenance of site conditions and vegetation – that occur on the project site. More importantly, special-status animals in the region are not associated with areas where existing substrate (e.g., asphalt and buildings), coupled with human and vehicular activity, precludes the presence of habitat resources required by those species. Similarly, the general statement that “many special-status species occur in anthropogenic environments” is overly generic and not relevant to the Chestnut & Tenth project. Many special-status species are associated with, for example, grasslands, stock ponds, salt ponds, reservoirs, agricultural lands, and other habitats that are created or maintained by humans. However, no anthropogenic conditions on the project site would be attractive to special- status species due to the absence of required habitat resources, such as appropriate food, cover, or nesting/roosting sites, and the intensive human activity on the project site precludes the presence of conditions that are suitable for use by regionally occurring special-status species. Dr. Smallwood points out that the IS/MND did not rely on either a survey for wildlife on site nor a review of species-occurrence databases or expert knowledge. Given the long history of intensive development of the project site, the absence of any habitat suitable for special- status species, and decades of experience performing CEQA evaluations for projects in Santa Clara County, David J. Powers & Associates has ample experience to evaluate whether sites such as the Chestnut & Tenth project site could support special-status species even without focused wildlife surveys. Nevertheless, as reported above, H. T. Harvey & Associates has now conducted a survey and focused assessment of species and conditions on the site and has confirmed that the site lacks suitable conditions for special-status species. No changes to the impact assessment or mitigation measures are necessary based on the survey/assessment that H. T. Harvey has now conducted. He notes that there are multiple databases that would have been useful to determine presence and likelihood of presence, such as eBird and iNaturalist. Dr. Smallwood reviewed these databases and found that the Project site “either occurs within the geographic ranges or occurs near where others have reported sightings of at least 49 special-status species of wildlife.” The occurrence of special-status species at or near the Project site warrants discussion and analysis in an EIR to ensure that any impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. Databases such as eBird and iNaturalist can provide useful information on locations where species have been recorded, but that information is useful primarily (a) if those databases indicate the presence of a special-status species on a given project site, or close enough to the site to be impacted by a project, or (b) as a guide in determining which species should be considered for possible occurrence on a given project site. However, habitat conditions on and adjacent to the site then need to be considered – as they were by David J. Powers & Associates for the IS/MND and again by H. T. Harvey for this follow-up assessment – to determine whether habitat conditions in areas that could be impacted by the project would actually support those species. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 9 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Dr. Smallwood’s assessment included the vague and general statement that the site occurs within the range of or near observations of 48 special-status wildlife species (48 species, not 49 as indicated in the comment letter, were listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment). His assessment provided no evidence that those databases indicate the presence of special-status species on this site or close enough to the site to be impacted significantly. As indicated in Table 2, those 48 species included no species represented by occurrences on the project site; four were reported as being “adjacent” to the site (defined as on “the neighboring property”), 12 as being “very close” (defined as being within 1 mile of the project site), 24 as being “nearby” (defined as “within several miles”) and eight as being “in region” (defined as “with a radius of 20 or 30 miles or so”). We agree that many of the species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment occur within those distances from the project site, as suitable habitat for those species is present in the Gilroy area, but suitable habitat for those species is not present close enough for those species to be impacted by the project itself. Furthermore, only nine of the 48 species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment meet the criteria for being considered “special-status” species listed in our assessment above. Those criteria are consistently implemented by H. T. Harvey when performing CEQA evaluations based on our best professional judgment and industry standards that we have seen employed throughout the South Bay and elsewhere in the state. For example, we do not consider U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bird species of conservation concern; birds of prey protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503.5; California “watch list” birds; or Western Bat Working Group species to be special-status species unless they also meet one of the other criteria listed in our assessment above. In addition, most of the species in Table 2 listed as California bird species of special concern have that status only when nesting; due to the absence of any suitable nesting habitat for such species on or adjacent to the project site, these species would not be considered “California species of special concern” if they were to occur in the site vicinity as nonbreeding visitors, such as flyover migrants. The only nine species in Table 2 that would meet our criteria for special-status species, if they were to occur near the project site, are the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus; a candidate for listing under FESA), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; a California fully protected species), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; a California fully protected species), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii; listed under CESA), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; listed under CESA), San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa; a California species of special concern year- round), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus, a California species of special concern), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii; a California species of special concern), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii; a California species of special concern). Although any of these nine species could fly through the project vicinity during migration or dispersal, none are expected to use habitats on the project site itself or to be impacted significantly by the project. Of the four species listed in Table 2 as having eBird or iNaturalist records “adjacent” to the project site, only one – the white-tailed kite – meets our definition of a special-status species. eBird records of this species include a single record along the East Tenth Street off-ramp to northbound U.S. 101 (i.e., across the freeway from the project site) on December 20, 2017 and an individual in the northeast quadrant of East Ninth Street and Chestnut Street on November 9, 2017. Based on these occurrences, white-tailed kites could occasionally perch in trees on the site, but they would not be expected to breed on or near the site, and no suitable foraging habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the site. Rather, the existence of two occurrences 1.5 months apart in November 6.A.s Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 10 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES and December suggests a single wintering bird or postbreeding dispersant that occurred briefly near the project site. The other three species listed in Table 2 as having been recorded adjacent to the project site were red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). Red-tailed hawks and turkey vultures may regularly fly high over the site, but they are not expected to occur frequently, if at all, on the project site itself. Rufous hummingbirds could occur in small numbers on the site, foraging at bottlebrush and flower eucalyptus trees, during migration. One such species is the monarch butterfly, which Dr. Smallwood said requires a special survey effort due to the species’ rapid decline in California and the existence on the Project site of eucalyptus trees, a suitable habitat for the butterflies. Eucalyptus trees can be used by congregations of roosting monarchs, but only in geographic areas where monarchs actually form winter roosts, and only in tree stands with certain characteristics. While monarchs migrate through the Gilroy area, and an individual monarch or two could roost in just about any tree, shrub, or sufficiently tall/dense herbaceous plant in the region, there are no places in Santa Clara County where monarchs forms roosting congregations, such as winter roosts. The following webpage shows the locations of such roost sites: https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/find-an-overwintering-site-near-you/ This website is recommended by recent USFWS guidance 8 to provide information on the locations of overwintering roost sites, and according to that website, there are no monarch roosts anywhere in Santa Clara County. Monarchs roost in areas that have appropriate thermal conditions in winter, and those conditions occur primarily near the bay and the coast. Eucalyptus used by monarchs as regular roost sites for large numbers of individuals consist of stands of trees, rather than single, scattered trees, as those tree stands that are used by monarchs have certain thermal conditions and protection from wind. The eucalyptus trees along the U.S. 101 off-ramp to East Tenth Street and the four eucalyptus trees near the corner of Chestnut Street and East Tenth Street do not comprise the types of stands used by wintering monarch congregations. iNaturalist shows a single monarch record in the Gilroy area, mapping it in the middle of the U.S. 101 freeway just north of East Tenth Street.9 However, the photo shows the surroundings as appearing suburban (e.g., a residential yard), clearly not on the project site or in the mapped location; iNaturalist intentionally obscures the precise locations of records of some special-status species to avoid disturbance or collecting, and that could possible explain the mapped location of that individual. Monarchs occur more widely in Santa Clara County than indicated by iNaturalist records, and this species could occur during migration virtually anywhere in the Gilroy area. As a result, it is possible that occasional migrant monarchs move through, and could even occasionally stop to briefly perch or roost (individually), in vegetation on the project site. However, no milkweed (Asclepias spp.), the species’ larval host plant, was observed on the site during my reconnaissance-level survey, and monarchs 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Recommendations. 9 https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&subview=map&taxon_id=48662 6.A.s Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 11 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES therefore would not breed on the site. Furthermore, the project site provides no higher-quality habitat for even migrating monarchs than any other site with trees or shrubs in the Gilroy region. Dr. Smallwood found that the IS/MND also relied on the erroneous presumption that impacts to biological resources occurred only to terrestrial habitats, thus overlooking an entire category of species that rely primarily on the aerosphere. As discussed above, habitat conditions on the site are of low quality for most native birds found in the region. Nevertheless, there is a suite of common, urban-adapted bird species that occur in such urban areas and are expected to occur on the site with some regularity, as discussed previously. However, with the possible exception of a few highly urban-adapted species such as American crows or Brewer’s blackbirds, no bird species are expected to occur on the site in large numbers, and all of the species expected to occur regularly are regionally abundant species. No special-status birds are expected to occur on the site, or even to fly through the site with any regularity or in numbers, due to the absence of suitable habitat. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area and is surrounded by commercial development and busy roadways. No sensitive habitats are located in the site vicinity. The nearest waterbody, Miller Slough, is located 0.35 mile to the north, and the nearest open lands are agricultural lands 0.42 mile to the east. The site is separated from those more natural areas by dense commercial and/or residential development and the heavily traveled U.S. 101. The project site is not located in a landscape position that would result in high numbers of birds, especially migratory birds, to be moving past the site. The site is not located along or very close to major streams or rivers, wetlands, riparian habitats, shorelines, ridgelines, or other types of features that attract or concentrate migrating birds. Rather, the types of birds that occur in and around, and migrate (at elevations low enough for any interaction with the project site) through, the project vicinity are urban-adapted birds that are widespread in the Gilroy area. Under proposed conditions, the numbers of birds that use the site are expected to increase somewhat due to the proposed expansion of landscape areas on the site. The project proposes to plant 201 new trees on, and 19 new trees adjacent to, the project site. However, according to the IS/MND, the project’s planting plans include primarily nonnative trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, which offer fewer resources to native birds than native vegetation. Relatively few native plants are proposed. Further, the plants will be scattered around the site, interspersed with pavement and buildings. No larger patches of vegetation with ground-level, understory, and canopy vegetation – vegetation that might provide higher-quality habitats for resident and migrant birds – are proposed. Therefore, proposed landscaping would not provide high-quality habitat for native birds, bats, or other wildlife; any increase in bird abundance as a result of the proposed landscaping would be modest; and no special- status birds or other animals are expected to increase in abundance on the site as a result of the project. Individuals of many bird, bat, and invertebrate species that occur in the region are expected to fly over the site on occasion (i.e., use the aerosphere over the project site). These species will not necessarily use the terrestrial developed/landscaped habitat on the project site, but will fly over the site en route between other habitats in the region. The aerosphere above the project site does not provide especially valuable habitat for flying wildlife because (1) the site is relatively small compared to the extensive availability of aerosphere habitat in the 6.A.s Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 12 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES surrounding vicinity; (2) the portion of the aerosphere to be occupied by the 66-foot-tall hotel and the other one- story structures is very limited; (3) the terrestrial habitat on the site does not provide high-quality habitat for wildlife species (e.g., natural areas such as grasslands or riparian habitat) such that flying wildlife would be expected to use this area regularly or as essential habitat; and (4) the site is not located along a route that large numbers of flying wildlife regularly travel (e.g., along the edges of the San Francisco Bay or along a major stream corridor on the urbanized Santa Clara Valley floor). The IS/MND failed to address the potential adverse impact on bird species from window collisions. According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project will most likely have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. The City has not analyzed or mitigated these potential impacts to special-species birds. Dr. Smallwood identifies the now widely-recognized impact of bird collisions with windows and other building structures: Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates were likely biased too low, because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016). Dr. Smallwood’s site visit confirmed the presence of many bird species that would travel through the Project site’s air space. He also notes that “most of the special-status species in Table 2 [of his comment] have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations.” In an effort to assess the scope of the Project’s impacts on bird species using the area, Dr. Smallwood has calculated an estimate of the number of bird fatalities that would result from collisions with the Project. The IS/MND did not include any figures on how much glass would be used on the Project’s hotel facades, which is important in analyzing impacts to wildlife from window collisions. Based on an average rate of facades as a function of square footage of 13 recent office buildings and hotels in California, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the building will include about 2,673 m2 of glass on its facades. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s own data and review of a number of scientific studies, the mean fatality rate of bird deaths per m2 of glass per year is 0.073. Id. He therefore estimates that the project could result in 194 bird deaths per year, a number which could be up to 3 times higher when accounting for fatalities 6.A.s Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 13 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers. This death rate would continue every year until the structure were either renovated to reduce bird collisions, or was removed. Dr. Smallwood provides detailed information about the types of factors that would contribute to a Project’s bird collision risks and available mitigation measures. As it stands, however, “the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk.” Dr. Smallwood concludes that key additional information for impacts assessment and mitigation include “intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.” Because this impact was not addressed in the IS/MND and Dr. Smallwood has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project’s windows will impact birds, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze the impact of window collision on bird species. It is true that many birds migrate through the South Bay along the Pacific Flyway each year. Although some of these migrants travel through the site vicinity, the habitat on the project site is not heavily used by migrating birds for reasons discussed above. Only very low numbers of birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway are expected to occur on the project site or within the portion of the aerosphere that is to be occupied by the proposed hotel and other buildings. Although many of the species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s report (i.e., species that he considers to be “special-status species”) may well have been recorded colliding with windows on some site, somewhere, none of these species are expected to occur regularly or in large numbers on the project site or, when moving through the vicinity, in the airspace that would be occupied by buildings proposed by the project. Furthermore, only nine of the species listed in Table 2 should be considered “special-status species” according to our long-standing criteria for such a designation. Dr. Smallwood’s letter suggests that additional information on “intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight” needs to be assessed to evaluate the potential impacts of the project’s buildings on birds as a result of collisions. We disagree, as we have enough experience with the avifauna of the Gilroy area to be able to infer the nature of bird movements through the site vicinity without additional, detailed study. In addition, there are a number of other factors that contribute to the numbers of bird fatalities at buildings. These include the biology of the birds (e.g., habitat associations, and status as residents, migrants, or wintering birds), the architecture of buildings (e.g., the extent of glazing), the presence and location of landscape vegetation opposite glazing, the location of the building (e.g., collisions are anticipated to be higher at buildings located near parks and natural areas), and lighting features. Due to these factors, bird collision rates with buildings vary enormously on a site-specific basis. In his assessment, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the proposed hotel will result in 194 bird fatalities annually based solely on the estimated extent of glazing on the hotel’s exterior. To support this estimate, Dr. Smallwood cites an average number of birds killed per square meter of glass that he calculated based on reported numbers in previous monitoring studies. However, without considering whether the biology of the birds, architecture of the buildings at which these studies were performed, the presence and location of landscape vegetation, the locations of the buildings, as well as lighting conditions were comparable to the 6.A.s Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 14 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES proposed hotel, it is not possible to calculate with any accuracy an estimated number of bird deaths per square meter for the proposed project. In our opinion, the estimate of 194 bird fatalities per year is likely an overestimate, and the actual number of birds expected to collide with the building on an annual basis is much lower. H. T. Harvey & Associates Assessment of Collision Risk. In order to evaluate collision risk with the building, we performed a site-specific assessment that incorporates results of our August 23, 2021 site visit and a detailed review of the building’s location, architecture, and landscape plan. In our opinion, this approach is appropriate to determine relative collision risk on the project site and whether the proposed building will result in a significant impact under CEQA due to bird collisions with the proposed hotel and other buildings. This approach is consistent with project-specific bird collision risk assessments that H. T. Harvey & Associates has performed for numerous projects in the San Francisco Bay area. Because birds do not necessarily perceive glass as an obstacle 10 windows or other structures that reflect the sky, trees, or other habitat may not be perceived as obstacles, and birds may collide with these structures. Similarly, transparent windows can result in bird collisions when they allow birds to perceive an unobstructed flight route through the glass (such as at corners), and when the combination of transparent glass and interior vegetation (such as in planted atria) results in attempts by birds to fly through glass to reach the vegetation. A number of factors play a role in determining the risk of bird collisions with buildings, including amount and type of glass used, lighting, properties of the building (e.g., size, design, and orientation), type and location of vegetation around the building, and building location. Figure 1 below depicts a prototypical elevation of one of the alternatives (the tallest one) for the design of the facades of the proposed hotel; the second alternative, not included here, is very similar but lacks a stepped parapet. Figure 2 below is a rendering of a prototypical Hyatt Place hotel, generally indicating the expected appearance of the hotel proposed at the Chestnut & Tenth project. Figure 1. Prototypical façade indicating the likely appearance of the proposed hotel. 10 Sheppard, P. and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-Friendly Building Design, 2nd Ed. The Plains, VA: American Bird Conservancy. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 15 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Figure 2. Rendering showing a prototypical façade indicating the likely appearance of the proposed hotel’s facades. These façades include extensive unglazed surfaces, breaking up the glazed areas considerably. These facades do not have extensive, unbroken glazing that is expected to result in large numbers of bird collisions. The plans and rendering do not depict any features that are expected to result in high numbers of bird collisions, such as atria where extensive vegetation is present behind glass windows or terraces with landscape plantings behind glass handrails. Nevertheless, we do expect some bird-building collisions to occur. Some birds will collide with glazing because they see the reflections of the sky or vegetation, or because they do not perceive the glass as a solid and will attempt to fly through it. There are some features evident in these plans and renderings where bird collisions are more likely to occur compared to other locations because they may not be as easily perceived by birds as physical obstructions. For example, the plans show transparent glass corners in several locations. Where these features are located along potential flight paths that birds may use when traveling to and from landscape vegetation on the site, the risk of bird collisions is higher because birds may not perceive the intervening glass and may therefore attempt to fly to vegetation on the far side of the glass. Birds may also see vegetation reflected in glass, especially at areas of more extensive glazing and/or within larger panes of glazing on the building’s lower floors. However, having reviewed bird collision risk for numerous projects involving varying amounts of exterior glazing, our predominant impression of the proposed hotel is that it presents a low collision risk due to the overall limited extent of glazing and the lack of any features that would represent particular hazards to birds. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 16 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES As discussed above, relatively low numbers of native, resident birds and occasional migrants occur in the project vicinity, and even during migration, the number of native birds expected to occur in the project vicinity will be low. Because predominantly nonnative trees and plants will be planted around the proposed hotel in association with paved roadways, pedestrian walkways, and the roof terrace, the site would not provide high-quality habitat for native birds following construction. Due to the low numbers of birds in the site vicinity, the limited quality of habitat on the site itself, and the surrounding urban context, the numbers of birds expected to make use of the site in the future would be low. As a result, the relatively limited areas of glass in the façades of the proposed hotel are expected to result in collisions by relatively few birds, and avian injury or mortality due to bird collisions with the proposed hotel would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect on populations of common, urban-adapted bird species that use the site, in our opinion. Thus, we consider this impact to be less than significant under CEQA. The IS/MND does not address the impacts the Project’s vehicle trips will have on wildlife. The Project will generate 5,425 vehicle trips per day with a net increase over existing trips of 4,686 vehicle trips per day. According to the IS/MND, the project will generate about 2,194 vehicle trips per job. This translates into more than 800,000 vehicle trips per year among employees, not including the predicted VMT for hotel guests, which do not appear to have been predicted in the IS/MND. Yet the IS/MND does not analyze the impacts on wildlife that will be caused by this increase in traffic on roadways servicing the Project. Vehicle collisions have the potential to impact dozens of special-status species. Vehicle collisions with wildlife is not a minor issue, but rather results in the death of millions of species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains: For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. . . . During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles studied × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying these 1,825 miles per fatality to my prediction of the project’s 800,810 annual VMT, I predict 439 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 21,950 wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s calculations, he concluded that “the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife.” Because Dr. Smallwood has provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that this impact from the Project’s traffic may be significant, the City must analyze such impacts in an EIR. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 17 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES We acknowledge that increased traffic as a result of the project could result in a rise in the number of animals killed in the project vicinity. However, Dr. Smallwood cites a study conducted on Vasco Road in Contra Costa County as the basis for estimating the number of animals killed per mile of roadway due to the project 11. Vasco Road is a 17.7-mile county roadway that extends through extensive areas of open agricultural fields, ranchlands, and parklands, including the Vasco Road Regional Preserve. The wildlife species that inhabit these areas as well as their life histories, abundances, and movement patterns are completely different from the species that occur in the vicinity of the proposed hotel, which are part of an urban wildlife community. As a result, the numbers and species of wildlife killed along Vasco Road are not comparable to the numbers and species of wildlife expected to be killed on roadways in the hotel vicinity. Thus, in our opinion, Dr. Smallwood’s estimates of the numbers of wildlife species expected to be killed as a result of vehicle collisions are not applicable to the project. Although increased traffic as a result of the project could result in a rise in the number of animals killed in the project vicinity, any such species impacted are expected to be common, urban-adapted species, and any increase in traffic associated with the proposed project is not expected to result in a substantial impact on the regional populations of these common wildlife species. As discussed above, special-status birds are not expected to make appreciable use of the project site and surrounding urban areas where the majority of vehicle traffic would be located, and no special-status invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, or mammals are present in the project vicinity. Thus, in our opinion, this impact is less than significant under CEQA. Responses to Additional Comments by Dr. Smallwood H. T. Harvey & Associates’ responses to selected additional comments by Dr. Smallwood, included in his assessment, are below. The text of the comments is provided in boldface, followed by our recommended response. Potentially Occurring Animal Species Table 1. Species of vertebrate wildlife I detected at the project site at Chestnut and 10th in Gilroy, 14 August 2021 As discussed previously, of the 17 species listed in Table 1 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment, only five (Anna’s hummingbird, American crow, northern mockingbird, bushtit, and house cat) were actually observed on the site; barn swallow is indicated as “foraged on site”, but this species forages aerially, so it was likely seen above, rather than on, the site. The other 11 species were reported as flying over or past the site, or perched off-site, and their inclusion in the list is less relevant to the assessment of species occurring on the project site itself. What my survey does not inform me, and what a larger survey effort could, is which of the potentially occurring special-status species actually occur at the site in addition to the red-tailed hawk I detect near the site. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common 11 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 18 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES species. This difference can be explained by rarity of special-status species, which also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Please see our discussion of special-status species above. The vast majority of species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s assessment do not meet H. T. Harvey’s criteria for special-status species. Furthermore, habitat suitability is key in determining whether special-status species will occur on a project site, and the Chestnut & Tenth project site lacks the resources required by special-status species. No nocturnal or crepuscular, cryptic, or fossorial special-status species are expected to use the habitats on the project site, and surrounding development and heavily traveled roads prevent non-volant species (such as non-flying mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) from reaching the project site from distant areas of potential occurrence. The lack of detections of such species during my or Dr. Smallwood’s surveys is the result of their absence, and expending considerable effort to attempt to prove their absence through labor-intensive surveys would not change that conclusion. Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that I performed at sites of proposed projects, my survey effort at the project site carried a 19% chance of detecting a listed species. This highly speculative conclusion completely ignores the fundamental importance of habitat suitability on the project site relative to the habitat needs of special-status species occurring in the region; proximity of the project site to (or its remoteness from) source populations of special-status species; and, for less mobile species such as non-flying mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, the barriers to dispersal between areas of actual occurrence and the project site posed by intensive urban development and heavily traveled roads. Assessment of the potential occurrence of special-status species on this project site should rely on assessment of the specific habitat conditions on and near the project site, and whether those conditions are conducive to use by special-status species. Dr. Smallwood’s assessment and conclusions rely much too heavily on records derived from databases (including records up to 30 miles from the site that were deemed relevant by Dr. Smallwood) and results of studies conducted elsewhere and not heavily enough on the conditions of the actual project site and its surroundings, as interpreted in the context of the habitat associations of the region’s special-status species. I saw no evidence in the IS/MND that any survey was performed for biological resources on site. No survey was performed for wildlife. The results of my survey and habitat assessment are described above. These conclusions in the IS/MND are derived from two related flawed premises that: (1) disturbance precludes the occurrences of special-status species, and (2) all special-status species depend solely on natural communities. Please see my previous response to comments in the LOZEAU DRURY LLP comment letter concerning the issue of “disturbance” and wildlife use of anthropogenic habitats. While the concept of “disturbance” in and of itself does not preclude the occurrence of special-status species, the types of disturbance that have occurred for decades on and adjacent to this site are important contributing factors to the absence of suitable habitat conditions 6.A.s Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 19 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES for special-status species. Similarly, while some special-status species use, or even rely heavily on, certain types of anthropogenic habitats instead of more natural communities, what is most relevant to this project is the issue of whether the specific, unnatural, urban conditions on the project site provide suitable habitat for special-status species – and they do not. Many special-status species occur in anthropogenic environments ‒ species such as oak titmouse, California gull, yellow-billed magpie, and Nuttall’s woodpecker. None of these species meet H. T. Harvey & Associates’ criteria for “special-status” species that need to be considered in a CEQA evaluation. Of these species, the oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) and Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii) may occur on the site as infrequent visitors during dispersal, but they are not expected to breed, occur regularly, or occur in large numbers; the California gull (Larus californicus) may occur as a nonbreeder, with small numbers of individuals possibly eating anthropogenic food waste; and the yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli) is not expected to occur on the site at all, given the species’ absence from heavily urbanized areas such as the project site in the South Bay. Examples of species assigned special status for their rarity include peregrine falcon, Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler. Of these species, the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) does not meet H. T. Harvey & Associates’ criteria for “special-status” species that need to be considered in a CEQA evaluation, and the yellow warbler is considered a California species of special concern only when nesting, whereas it would occur on the project site only as an occasional migrant. Otherwise, this statement is not relevant to the issue of whether these species actually occur on the site or would be impacted by the project. Detection surveys for Monarchs, bats, and other species should be performed in support of a more appropriate analysis of potential impacts in an EIR. Please see our previous statements regarding why monarchs would not occur on the site other than as occasional migrants. Bats may forage over the site, but they are not expected to roost on the site (at least, not in sufficient numbers to be significantly impacted) due to the absence of high-quality roosting habitat and the lack of any evidence of roosting, as determined by the August 23, 2021 reconnaissance survey. No other species necessitate species-specific surveys for the purpose of CEQA analysis, as evaluation of habitat conditions on and surrounding the site is adequate to determine that the project will not have a significant impact on any special-status species. Not only does the IS/MND rely on no survey performed for wildlife on site, but neither does the IS/MND rely on any review of species-occurrence data bases and expert knowledge. As noted above, I reviewed information from the CNDDB, VHP, eBird, and iNaturalist in assessing the potential for occurrence of special-status species on the site. CNDDB shows only one special-status species occurrence mapped in the site vicinity – a 1938 occurrence of pallid bat from an unspecific location “in the vicinity of Gilroy”. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Otherwise, the nearest CNDDB-mapped special-status species are from Uvas Creek far to the southwest of the site and Llagas Creek far to the east. Therefore, no CNDDB-mapped records suggest that special-status species might be impacted by the project. My assessment of the potential for occurrence of special-status species, described above and based on both a site visit and expert knowledge of the biota of the Gilroy area, came to the same conclusions as those in the IS/MND – that the project will not have a significant impact on special-status species. In my reviews of eBird and iNaturalist, I found that the site either occurs within the geographic ranges or it occurs near where others have reported sightings of at least 49 special-status species of wildlife (Table 2). Of these species, 16 have been reportedly seen within 1 mile of the project site. Please see my responses to these comments above. At least 37 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). This highly misleading statement, which could easily be misinterpreted as meaning 37 species of special-status birds are known to occur in the project area, relies on the overly broad characterization of both (a) what constitutes a “special-status species” and (b) how far from the actual project site – up to 30 miles – Dr. Smallwood considered records to be in “the project area”. Please see my previous responses to these issues. According to the scientific literature, most of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations. Although many of the species listed in Table 2 of Dr. Smallwood’s report (i.e., species that he considers to be “special-status species”) may well have been recorded colliding with windows on some site, somewhere, none of these species are expected to occur regularly or in large numbers on the project site or, when moving through the vicinity, in the airspace that would be occupied by buildings proposed by the project. Furthermore, only nine of the species listed in Table 2 should be considered “special-status species” according to our long-standing criteria for such a designation. Nowhere in the IS/MND is there any concern expressed for bird-window collision impacts, nor is there any mitigation proposed to avoid, minimize or compensate for such impacts. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 194 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts. Please see our assessment of the potential significance of bird-building collision impacts above; we have determined that this impact is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 21 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Please see our assessment of the potential significance of bird-building collision impacts above; we have determined that this impact is less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation measures, including fatality monitoring, are necessary. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption. Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the IS/MND, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species and nesting birds. Please see our previous statements regarding why special-status species are not expected to be impacted significantly by the project. Labor-intensive detection surveys to attempt to prove absence of a species are not necessary when a reconnaissance-level habitat assessment performed by an expert determines that species will not occur, or will not occur in a way that could lead to a significant impact. We have conducted that survey and habitat assessment and have concluded, as the IS/MND did, that the project will not result in a significant impact to special-status species. Therefore, no biological resources mitigation measures are needed for impacts to any species other than the mitigation for impacts to nesting birds described in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1 of the IS/MND. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. Please see our assessment of the significance of impacts of bird-building collisions above. Although some collisions will occur, leading to injury and mortality of some birds, it is not necessary for a project to reduce collision fatalities to zero to avoid a significant impact under CEQA. In our opinion, the number of collisions that we expect to occur, both overall and to any particular species, would be low enough that it would represent a very, very small proportion of regional bird communities and populations. Therefore, the impact would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect on populations of common, urban-adapted bird species that use the site. Thus, we consider this impact to be less than significant under CEQA, and no mitigation is necessary. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Attachment A: Late Comments Received 6.A.s Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Via E-mail August 17, 2021 Tom Fischer, Chair John Doyle, Vice Chair Joan Lewis, Commissioner Fabian Morales Medina, Commissioner Andrew Ridley, Commissioner Manny Bhandal, Commissioner Adilene Jezabel Moreno, Commissioner Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner City of Gilroy Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Email: kraig.tamborini@cityofgilroy.org Planning Commission City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 E-mail: Tom.fischer@cityofgilroy.org John.doyle@cityofgilroy.org Joan.lewis@cityofgilroy.org Fabian.morales@cityofgilroy.org Andrew.ridley@cityofgilroy.org Manny.bhandal@cityofgilroy.org Adilene.moreno@cityofgilroy.org Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project – August 19, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item No. V.B Dear Chair Fischer, Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Tamborini: I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 270 and its members living in and around the City of Gilroy (“LIUNA”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project located on two parcels at 401 and 405 East Tenth Street in Gilroy (the “Project”). After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude that it fails to analyze all environmental impacts and implement all necessary mitigation measures. LIUNA respectfully requests that the City Planning Division prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. These comments have been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist 6.A.s Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 2 of 11 Francis Offermann, PE, CIH and wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Mr. Offermann’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by reference and entirety. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and are incorporated herein by reference and entirety. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to demolish and remove on-site improvements, construct and operate a 66-foot tall, five-story, 120-room hotel, as well as a car wash and four commercial buildings. Three of the commercial structures would have drive-through service and the fourth would include a gasoline service station and a convenience store. The Project will generate 5,425 vehicle trips per day with a net increase over existing trips of 4,686 vehicle trips per day. An average of 119 employees are expected to work at the Project site, with most of those employed in the proposed hotel. II. LEGAL STANDARD As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505). “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA). The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self- government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before 6.A.s Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 3 of 11 the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440. Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05. Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the 6.A.s Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 4 of 11 prescribed fair argument. Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original). CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA: …must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124–25 (“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121–23. III. DISCUSSION There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project’s Indoor Air Quality Impacts Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH has conducted a review of the Project and the documents provided to the Planning Commission and prepared expert comments on the Project’s indoor air emissions and associated health risks. Mr. Offermann concludes it is likely that the Project will expose future employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer- causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and listed by the State of California as a Toxic Air Contaminant (“TAC”). MND, p. 33. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 per million. Id., p. 37 (Table 4.3-2). While the City acknowledges formaldehyde as a TAC, it discusses it only in the abstract and in the context of diesel exhaust, thus failing to acknowledge 6.A.s Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 5 of 11 the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks, no analysis, and no identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to indoor air from the Project. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used indoors contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He explains, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Offermann Comments, pp. 2-3. Mr. Offermann calculates that future employees of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of 17.7 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Offermann Comments, p. 4. This exceeds BAAQMD’s CEQA significance thresholds for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id. Mr. Offermann stresses that his calculations account for the fact that wood products for the project would be compliant with the most recent CARB standards. Id., pp. 4-5. Based on his review of the Project, Mr. Offermann concludes that the potential for significant formaldehyde exposure requires further assessment prior to approval of the Project, and he proposes mitigation measures that will help achieve acceptable indoor concentrations. Offermann Comments, p. 5. Mr. Offermann prescribes several steps for the project proponent to take to assess the formaldehyde emissions in building materials and furnishings, such as defining indoor air quality zones and calculating formaldehyde emissions rates and risks using standard industry methods. Id., pp. 5-7. As for mitigation, Mr. Offermann recommends both source mitigation (the preferred method due to its lower initial and operating costs) and ventilation mitigation. Id., pp. 8-13. Source mitigation requires builders to select materials that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (“NAF”) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (“ULEF”) resins to ensure that the BAAQMD cancer risk standards are met. Id., p. 11. When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”); see also Communities for a Better Envt. v. California Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110- 11 (“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”). The California Supreme Court made clear the importance that an air district significance 6.A.s Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 6 of 11 threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 (“As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact.”). Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the BAAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958. The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). In that case, the Supreme Court expressly held that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800- 01. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801. In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800. The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. The emissions will be a direct result of the construction of the Project using CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which do not adequately mitigate cancer risks from formaldehyde emissions. Once built, the Project will emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks. The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly found that if a project has this type of air emissions and health impacts on both the environment and users and residents, its proponent must address those impacts in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project’s TAC emissions as well as those existing off-site emissions. The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800. Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id. (citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d)). It goes without saying that the future employees of the Project are human beings 6.A.s Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 7 of 11 and the health and safety of those employees must be subjected to CEQA’s safeguards. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”). The proposed Project will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future employees to cancer risks potentially in excess of BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 per million. The City fails to address or mitigate the significant impact of the Project’s formaldehyde emissions. Mr. Offermann’s comments constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on indoor air quality from formaldehyde emissions. An EIR must be prepared for the Project prior to approval to address this impact. B. The Project Will Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources That the IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate. 1. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the IS/MND is inadequate because it is based on flawed premises regarding the occurrence of special-status species and therefore underestimated these species. The evening of August 14, 2021, Dr. Smallwood visited the project site and its vicinity and performed a reconnaissance level survey of wildlife utilizing the area of the Project. Smallwood Comments, p. 1. Dr. Smallwood reconnoitered the area for 120 minutes. Id. During that brief visit, he observed the presence of 17 species of vertebrate wildlife at the Project site. Id., p. 2. Most of the species he observed relevant to the Project’s impacts were bird species. Id., p. 4. Had he spent more time at the site, Dr. Smallwood explains he would have detected even more species. Id., pp. 4-6. Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Unfortunately, the IS/MND’s reliance on false premises to reach conclusions about the Project site resulted in a skewed baseline. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood points out that the City incorrectly determined that “(1) disturbance precludes the occurrence of special-status species, and (2) all special-status species depend solely on natural communities.” Smallwood Comments, p. 6. Contrary to these incorrect assumptions, Dr. Smallwood explains that “many assignments of special status have been to species that occur only in California or whose geographic ranges are small or diminishing,” and “many special-status species occur in anthropogenic environments.” Id. A skewed baseline such as the one used by the City here ultimately “mislead(s) the public” by engendering inaccurate analyses of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and cumulative impacts for biological resources. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners, 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 8 of 11 Dr. Smallwood points out that the IS/MND did not rely on either a survey for wildlife on site nor a review of species-occurrence databases or expert knowledge. Smallwood Comments, p. 7. He notes that there are multiple databases that would have been useful to determine presence and likelihood of presence, such as eBird and iNaturalist. Id. Dr. Smallwood reviewed these databases and found that the Project site “either occurs within the geographic ranges or [] occurs near where others have reported sightings of at least 49 special-status species of wildlife.” Id., pp. 7-8 (Table 2). One such species is the monarch butterfly, which Dr. Smallwood said requires a special survey effort due to the species’ rapid decline in California and the existence on the Project site of eucalyptus trees, a suitable habitat for the butterflies. Id., p. 7. The occurrence of special-status species at or near the Project site warrants discussion and analysis in an EIR to ensure that any impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. In addition to this failure to fully assess species occurrences, Dr. Smallwood found that the IS/MND also relied on the erroneous presumption that impacts to biological resources occurred only to terrestrial habitats, thus overlooking an entire category of species that rely primarily on the aerosphere. Smallwood Comments, p. 7. The IS/MND neglected to consider this portion of habitat, and as a result, no attention was paid to the impacts the Project will have on avian species from collisions with the building’s windows and other structures. An EIR is necessary to consider the species present in the aerosphere at the Project site. 2. The IS/MND failed to address the potential adverse impact on bird species from window collisions. According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project will most likely have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. The City has not analyzed or mitigated these potential impacts to special-species birds. Dr. Smallwood identifies the now widely-recognized impact of bird collisions with windows and other building structures: Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates were likely biased too low, because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016). Smallwood Comments, p. 11. Dr. Smallwood’s site visit confirmed the presence of many bird 6.A.s Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 9 of 11 species that would travel through the Project site’s air space. Id. He also notes that “most of the special-status species in Table 2 [of his comment] have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations.” Id. In an effort to assess the scope of the Project’s impacts on bird species using the area, Dr. Smallwood has calculated an estimate of the number of bird fatalities that would result from collisions with the Project. Smallwood Comments, p. 12. The IS/MND did not include any figures on how much glass would be used on the Project’s hotel facades, which is important in analyzing impacts to wildlife from window collisions. Based on an average rate of facades as a function of square footage of 13 recent office buildings and hotels in California, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the building will include about 2,673 m2 of glass on its facades. Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s own data and review of a number of scientific studies, the mean fatality rate of bird deaths per m2 of glass per year is 0.073. Id. He therefore estimates that the project could result in 194 bird deaths per year, a number which could be up to 3 times higher when accounting for fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers. Id. This death rate would continue every year until the structure were either renovated to reduce bird collisions, or was removed. Id. Dr. Smallwood provides detailed information about the types of factors that would contribute to a Project’s bird collision risks and available mitigation measures. Smallwood Comments, pp. 12-16. As it stands, however, “the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk.” Id., p. 16. Dr. Smallwood concludes that key additional information for impacts assessment and mitigation include “intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.” Id. Because this impact was not addressed in the IS/MND and Dr. Smallwood has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project’s windows will impact birds, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze the impact of window collision on bird species. 3. The Project will have a significant impact on wildlife from vehicle collisions because of increased traffic generated by the Project. The IS/MND does not address the impacts the Project’s vehicle trips will have on wildlife. The Project will generate 5,425 vehicle trips per day with a net increase over existing trips of 4,686 vehicle trips per day. According to the IS/MND, the project will generate about 2,194 vehicle trips per job. MND, Appendix A. This translates into more than 800,000 vehicle trips per year among employees, not including the predicted VMT for hotel guests, which do not appear to have been predicted in the IS/MND. Yet the IS/MND does not analyze the impacts on wildlife that will be caused by this increase in traffic on roadways servicing the Project. Vehicle collisions have the potential to impact dozens of special-status species. Vehicle collisions with wildlife is not a minor issue, but rather results in the death of millions of species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains: 6.A.s Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 10 of 11 For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. . . . During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles studied × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying these 1,825 miles per fatality to my prediction of the project’s 800,810 annual VMT, I predict 439 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 21,950 wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. Smallwood Comments, p. 19 (emphasis in original). Based on Dr. Smallwood’s calculations, he concluded that “the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife.” Id. Because Dr. Smallwood has provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that this impact from the Project’s traffic may be significant, the City must analyze such impacts in an EIR. 4. The IS/MND failed to address the cumulative impacts of past, ongoing, and future projects on wildlife. The IS/MND uses the incorrect standard for assessing cumulative impacts. Smallwood Comments, p. 19. As Dr. Smallwood notes, “the IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. If that was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. . . . the IS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects.” Id., p. 20. Instead, Dr. Smallwood explains that “CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. . . . An EIR is needed to address cumulative impacts from loss of both terrestrial and aerial habitat, from bird-window collision mortality and from road mortality.” Id. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner Comments re: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project August 17, 2021 Page 11 of 11 IV. CONCLUSION In light of the above comments, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Michael R. Lozeau 6.A.s Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) EXHIBIT A 6.A.s Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: August 15, 2021 To: Michael Lozeau Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Project, Gilroy, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4489) Pages: ghi Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 6.A.s Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 of 18 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 6.A.s Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 3 of 18 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to the Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Project, Gilroy, CA, the buildings consist of a hotel building. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 of 18 The employees of the hotel building are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the hotel will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the hotel employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 5 of 18 Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6 of 18 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 7 of 18 CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 8 of 18 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. 𝐶𝑖𝑛= 𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑄𝑜𝑎 (Equation 1) where: Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non- Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the 6.A.s Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 9 of 18 health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a 6.A.s Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 10 of 18 result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., SR-87, I-280, West San Carlos Street, Josepha Street, Park Avenue, Bird Avenue etc.) as well as air traffic from San Jose International Airport and railroad traffic by Caltrain, the VTA, Amtrak, Union Pacific, and the Altamont Corridor Express. According to Table 3.6-4 in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – Marriott Townplace Suites (City of San Jose, 2021), the future noise levels at the building façade range from 61-70 dBA DNL. As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – Marriott Townplace Suites (City of San Jose, 2021), the Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 11 of 18 An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 12 of 18 Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers rout inely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation 6.A.s Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 13 of 18 system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 14 of 18 California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. City of Gilroy. 2021. Initial Study – Chestnut and Tent Street Commercial Project – AS 20- 14 (20070017), TM 20-03 (20070020), and Z 20-04 (20070021). EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf 6.A.s Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 15 of 18 OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 6.A.s Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 16 of 18 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”. Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health, 6.A.s Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 17 of 18 Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 6.A.s Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 18 of 18 cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e., Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH Indoor Environmental Engineering 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: 415-567-7700 Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com http://www.iee-sf.com Education M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985) Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Professional Experience President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present. Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing. Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment. Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building. Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index. Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment. Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California. Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987. Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations. Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984. Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control). Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting. Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny. Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations. Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment. Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980. Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers. Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director. Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977. Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97) - Member of Drafting Committee • Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee - Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee - Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee - Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee • Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000) - Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) • D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres - Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee • E-06 Performance of Building Constructions American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON) PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993. Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998. Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003. Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008. Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016. SPECIAL CONSULTATION Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1. Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters. Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive. Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993. Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death. Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation. Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997. Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA. Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004. Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e- cigarettes. PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS : F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982. W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986. W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987). F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988. F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989. F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989. R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990. S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991. F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991. F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991). F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992). F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992. F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992. S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L. Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K. Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994. L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996. F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001. F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M. Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints 6.A.s Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005. F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010. F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012. F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012. R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S. Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014. F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015. F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 10 OTHER REPORTS: W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983. R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984. W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984. A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984. R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984. K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi- Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990. A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990. F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997. S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998. F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue. F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008. L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010. F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010. F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014. PRESENTATIONS : "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. "Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986. "Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987. "Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988. "Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988. "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989. "Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989. "How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992. "Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990. "Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990. "Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990. "Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991. "Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991. "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 6.A.s Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991. "Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991. "Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992. "Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992. "International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995. “Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994. ”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998. ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995. “New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995. "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995. “Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997. “Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995. “Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995. “Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995. “IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996. “Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996. “Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA. “IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996. “Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997. “How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997. “Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997. “Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997. “Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997. “Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998. “The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998. “Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998. “Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998. “Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998. “Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999. “Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001. “Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000. “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000. “Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001. “Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002. “Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002. “Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003. Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005. “Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003. “Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004. “Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005. “Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007. “Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008. “Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008. “Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008. “Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008. “Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009. “New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010. “Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010. “Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010. “Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010. “IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011. “What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011. “Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. “Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011. “Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015. “Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014. “Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015. “Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015. “Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015. “Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016. “Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) EXHIBIT B 6.A.s Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Attn: Kraig Tamborini, Senior Planner City of Gilroy Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020-6197 17 August 2021 RE: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Dear Mr. Tamborini, I write to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project (City of Gilroy 2021). I understand this project would add a 66-foot tall, 5-story hotel, a car-wash, and four additional commercial buildings totaling 17,000 square feet of floor space, all on 6.8 acres. Unfortunately, the analysis of baseline conditions is incomplete and flawed, and the impacts analysis neglects potential impacts to wildlife that are both substantial and significant, including from glass windows and traffic. My qualifications for assessing habitat and identifying potential impacts to wildlife are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT I visited the site of the proposed project for 2 hours starting at 18:00 hours on 14 August 2021. Using binoculars, I scanned for wildlife from the roadside. Conditions were clear and warm, and no wind. Current ground conditions across most of the project site are ill-suited for most species of vertebrate wildlife. However, perimeter trees and hedges support wildlife by providing forage, cover, and nest substrates (Photo 1). Also supporting wildlife is that 6.A.s Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2 portion of the aerosphere above the site’s paved surface. The aerosphere above the site is clear of obstacles to flight traffic of volant wildlife species. I saw hundreds of birds representing multiple species flying through that airspace. Many American crows arrived to the site to roost for the night, and hundreds of other birds flew to other night roosts from foraging grounds. Photo 1. The project site viewed east-southeast on 14 August 2021. At the project site, I saw Anna’s hummingbirds (Photo 2), a flock of Bushtits (Photo 3), American crows and a northern mockingbird (Photos 4 and 5), and other species. In all, I detected the presence of 17 species of vertebrate wildlife at the project site (Table 1). Photo 2. Anna’s hummingbird at the project site, 14 August 2021. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 3 Photo 3. Bushtit at the project site, 14 August 2021. Photos 4 and 5. American crow (left) and northern mockingbird (right) at the project site, 14 August 2021. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4 Table 1. Species of vertebrate wildlife I detected at the project site at Chestnut and 10th in Gilroy, 14 August 2021. Common name Species name Status1 Note Canada goose Branta canadensis Fly-by Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Perched just off site Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Flyover Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Flyover Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Flyover Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna In hedges European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Flyover Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Foraged on site Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Flyover American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many arrived to roost for night Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos In hedge Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Perimeter trees Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Flyover Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Flyover House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Flyover Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria Flyover House cat Felis catus Non-native Lives on site 1 BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey). My detections of 17 species of vertebrate wildlife should be interpreted within the context of my survey effort. The results of one reconnaissance-level survey qualify as thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of a proposed project site. Such surveys better serve as starting points toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community. With only so many species detectable in the short time I had to perform a visual-scan survey on 14 August 2021, I would have been remiss to have reported that only 17 species of wildlife occur in the area. However, when surveys are diligently performed and outcomes are appropriately analyzed, the number of species detected within the survey effort can inform of the number of species likely to be detected with a larger survey effort during the same time of year. This potential is of critical importance when making determinations about occurrence likelihoods of special-status species, which I will discuss further below. By recording when I detected each species, I was able to forecast the number of species likely to be detected with a longer effort using the same visual scan method. Figure 1 shows my cumulative counts of species detected with increasing time into my survey. Just as I have seen for many other survey efforts, a nonlinear regression model fit the data very well, explaining 99% of the variation in the data. The model shows progress towards the inevitable asymptote of the number of species detectable over a longer time period using the same survey method. In the case of this project site, my model predicted I would have eventually detected 45 species at the project site. The pattern in the data from the project site indicates that had my survey continued, I would have kept 6.A.s Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 5 right on detecting species as birds revealed themselves in the site’s trees and hedges or as birds flew over the site. Figure 1. Actual and predicted relationships between the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on visual scans on 14 August 2021 at the project site. Note that the relationships would differ if the survey was based on another method or during night or another season. Also note that the cumulative number of vertebrate species across all methods, times of day, and seasons would increase substantially. I could have detected many more species than predicted by also performing surveys at other times of day to detect nocturnal and crepuscular species, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance, or surveys of different methods such as se of acoustic detectors or thermal-imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migratory birds. As it was, I detected 17 species. My reconnaissance-level survey, performed carefully and analyzed appropriately, informs me that the site and its surrounds is richer in volant wildlife than implied by the IS/MND. What my survey does not inform me, and what a larger survey effort could, is which of the potentially occurring special-status species actually occur at the site in addition to the red-tailed hawk I detect near the site. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by rarity of special-status species, which also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 2). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species, which are inclusive of listed species.) As demonstrated in Figure 1, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort; the harder one looks, the more one sees. Therefore, greater survey effort increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected, which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species. Based Y Actual count of species Model prediction r2 = 0.99, loss = 2.8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Minutes into surveyCumulative number of wildlife species detected6.A.s Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6 on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that I performed at sites of proposed projects, my survey effort at the project site carried a 19% chance of detecting a listed species. I would have needed to survey 5 times as long as I did to have a reasonable chance of detecting a listed species, but the important point is that there remains a chance of doing so. Figure 2. Probability of detecting ≥1 Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species of wildlife listed under California or federal Endangered Species Acts, based on survey outcomes that I logit- regressed on the number of wildlife species I detected as an expert witness during 152 site visits across California. The vertical line represents the numbers of species detected at the project site on 14 August 2021. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Other than for trees, I saw no evidence in the IS/MND that any survey was performed for biological resources on site. No survey was performed for wildlife. It appears that no wildlife survey was performed because City of Gilroy concluded that special -status species of wildlife are absent from the site. According to the IS/MND (p.49), “Due to the lack of sensitive habitats, and the human disturbance and development in the project area, special-status plant and animal species are not likely to be on-site.” And (p. 50), “Based on the highly urbanized and disturbed nature of the project site, natural communities or habitats for special-status plant and wildlife species are not present.” These conclusions in the IS/MND are derived from two related flawed premises that: (1) disturbance precludes the occurrences of special-status species, and (2) all special-status species depend solely on natural communities. In fact, many assignments of special status have been to species that occur only in California or whose geographic ranges are small or diminishing, and some have been to species for their rarity. Many special- status species occur in anthropogenic environments ‒ species such as oak titmouse, California gull, yellow-billed magpie, and Nuttall’s woodpecker. Examples of species Number of species detectedProbability of detecting Fully Protected, Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 95% CI 152 site visits 6.A.s Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 7 assigned special status for their rarity include peregrine falcon, Cooper’s hawk, white- tailed kite, and yellow warbler. Determinations of occurrence likelihood of wildlife species should not follow from weak or even false premises, but rather from due diligence of appropriate surveys performed by experienced wildlife ecologists. A special survey effort is needed for Monarch butterfly, which is a species undergoing rapid decline in California. The eucalyptus trees at the site provide suitable habitat, as likely do the hedge vegetation and other trees. Detection surveys for Monarchs, bats, and other species should be performed in support of a more appropriate analysis of potential impacts in an EIR. Not only does the IS/MND rely on no survey performed for wildlife on site, but neither does the IS/MND rely on any review of species-occurrence data bases and expert knowledge. Multiple data bases are available to anyone who wishes to learn which species have been seen where. These data bases are not useful for determining absences of species because they are not informed by scientific sampling, but they are useful for determining presence and the likelihood of presence. Due diligence has not been applied to characterization of environmental conditions nor to analysis of potential project impacts. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the environmental setting and analyze potential impacts. In my reviews of eBird and iNaturalist, I found that the site either occurs within the geographic ranges or it occurs near where others have reported sightings of at least 49 special-status species of wildlife (Table 2). Of these species, 16 have been reportedly seen within 1 mile of the project site. During my visit, I saw one of these species (red- tailed hawk) perched on a transmission tower located across the Highway from the site. Based on these records, there is a high likelihood that special-status species use the project site. Monarch butterfly was also recorded very close to the site, although the exact location was obscured to protect the animals. The likelihood that special-status species use the site increases further by considering that many species of wildlife are not as bound to the terrestrial environment as the IS/MND implies. The IS/MND considers potential impacts to biological resources to consist solely of the loss and fragmentation of terrestrial habitat, where habitat is considered to consist of vegetation cover on natural substrate. Indeed, terrestrial habitat loss has been a significant, wide-spread problem that has, for example, contributed to a 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the past 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). This stunning loss comports with my own impression from decades of monitoring of bird populations in California, and it comports with the impressions of colleagues who have been performing their own monitoring programs. This loss poses dire ecological and economic consequences that have yet to be fully understood, but which must be considered in any serious analysis of cumulative impacts. Habitat loss and fragmentation have also contributed to declines of mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Many scientific papers have been published to report these losses. But impacts can also be caused by constructing edifices that protrude into the aerosphere above the project’s footprint. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 8 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species as determined by sightings records on eBird (https://eBird.org) and iNaturalist (https://www. inaturalist.org/observations), where ‘adjacent’ means the neighboring property, ‘very close’ means within 1 miles, ‘nearby’ means within several miles, and ‘in region’ means within a radius of 20 or 30 miles or so. Species Scientific name Status1 Occurrence likelihood Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus FC Very close (obscured) Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close California gull Larus californicus WL Very close Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia WL Nearby Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Adjacent Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Adjacent Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus BOP, WL Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi BOP, WL Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Very close White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, WL, BOP Adjacent American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius BOP, WL Nearby Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BCC, BOP Nearby Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus SSC3, BOP Nearby Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma BOP Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SCC2 Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SCC2 Nearby Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Nearby Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Adjacent Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close 6.A.s Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth 9 Species Scientific name Status1 Occurrence likelihood Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Very close Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2, BCC Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby San Francisco common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa SSC3, BCC Nearby Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC Nearby Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Lawrence’s goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei BCC Very close Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC In region Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG In region Yuma myotis Myotis yumanesis WBWG: H In region Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: M In region Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG In region Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG: M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M Nearby 1 Listed as FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CE = California endangered, CT = California threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008). 6.A.s Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth 10 The IS/MND neglects a large portion of habitat that is essential to many species. To understand this part of their habitat, one must consider the very definition of habitat. Simply put, habitat is defined by a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998, Smallwood 2002). Every species on Earth is morphologically adapted through thousands of generations of life and death to exist within an environmental medium. The central medium for many species is life itself: mosses grown on trees, barnacles on whales, and tapeworms in gut. For many other species it is soil, including for many species of nematode, pocket gophers, and even California tiger salamander. For a vast number of species, it is water. Indeed, most people do not hesitate to characterize whales, fishes, squid, and shrimp as aquatic animals living in aquatic habitats. Less often appreciated is the gaseous atmosphere as a medium of life (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017), but it is one of the most important habitat mediums of our planet. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008). Many species of flora and fauna are morphologically adapted to living in that part of the atmosphere referred to as the aerosphere. Plants disseminate pollen via the aerosphere. Plant pollinators travel from one plant to the next via the aerosphere. Spiders disperse by deploying web-parachutes to catch winds of the aerosphere. Vast numbers of insects disperse and migrate through it. Many species of vertebrate wildlife depend on it for olfactory and acoustic communication, forage, dispersal, migration, and home range patrol. Birds and bats evolved two of their four ambulatory limbs into wings that are specifically adapted to particular uses of the atmosphere: short powerful wings for speed, long slender wings for glide, and broad wings for maneuverability, as examples. The atmosphere is so important an element of habitat to wildlife that some birds sleep while in flight, and bats and owls hunt in it in the pitch-dark of the moonless night. The aerosphere is an essential element of habitat for a vast number of wildlife species. Certainly, we have all witnessed plants and animals using the aerosphere as habitat. Those of us vulnerable to allergic rhinitis are aware of pollen in the aerosphere. Mosquitos are hard to ignore. And all of us have seen birds flying from one place to another. Some of us have also had the privilege to study volant animals – animals that fly. As one of those so privileged, I have observed and recorded flights of birds and bats across thousands of hours of directed surveys. I have recorded flight patterns in behavior surveys and in 1,000 hours of nocturnal surveys by use of a thermal-imaging camera, and I have studied flying golden eagles using GPS-telemetry. My studies have particularly focused on how flights result in collisions with anthropogenic structures. I study impacts to wildlife caused by insertions of human structures into the aerosphere. Most insertions of anthropogenic structures into the aerosphere are inserted without a thought given to their potential impacts to volant wildlife. Impacts can include habitat loss, energetic costs of having to navigate around the structure, increased predation risk from predators using the structures as hunting perches or foraging screens, and collision mortality. Electric transmission and distribution lines are hung from towers and poles with little regard for their near invisibility to birds. Communication towers are likewise installed where convenient rather than where least harmful to volant wildlife. The same is true for wind turbines (Smallwood et al. 2017) and utility-scale solar projects 6.A.s Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 11 (Smallwood 2020). Buildings also go up without much of a thought to wildlife impacts. But buildings often pose a second, and perhaps more deadly, threat to volant wildlife, and that is their windows. Without evolutionary experience with windows, birds are vulnerable to the transparency of many windows, to the reflectance of vegetation and other birds in many windows, to the false perception of cavity space of some windows, and to confusion caused by interior lighting issuing from windows at night. BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY At 66 feet tall, the hotel would extend into much of the bird traffic I observed at the project site. The IS/MND provides no renderings of the proposed hotel, but I assume its facades would be composed of extensive structural glass, which has been the recent trend.1 The project would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates were likely biased too low, because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016). Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway. My observations during my visit to the site confirmed that birds fly through the airspace of the project, even during the nonmigratory season. At least 37 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, most of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, newly protected by California’s revised Fish and Game Code section 3513, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). Nowhere in the IS/MND is there any concern expressed for bird-window collision impacts, nor is there any mitigation proposed to avoid, minimize or compensate for such impacts. As I will show in the next section, many birds can be expected to be killed 1 Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building façades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Glass markets in the USA experienced 5% growth in both 2011 and 2016, and was forecast to grow 2.3% per year since 2016 (TMCapital 2019). Increasing window to wall ratios and glass façades have become popular for multiple reasons, including a growing demand for ‘daylighting.’ 6.A.s Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 12 by windows of the proposed project. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address this potential impact. Project Impact Prediction Predicting the impacts caused by loss of aerial habitat and the energetic costs of birds having to navigate around the buildings is possible, but I am unprepared to make such predictions. However, I am prepared to predict bird-window collision mortality. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). The IS/MND provides no details of the hetel’s facades, so I relied an average rate of glass on facades as a function of square footage of 13 recent office buildings and hotels proposed in California, and among which I was able to compare glass extent to floorspace. I estimated the proposed project would include at least 2,673 m2 of glass on its facades, which applied to the mean fatality rate would predict at least 194 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 116-275). The 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be at least 19,540 bird deaths (95% CI: 11,600-27,478). These estimates would be perhaps 3 times higher after accounting for the proportions of fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers where studies have been performed. Collision fatalities would continue until the buildings are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 194 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts. Bird-Window Collision Factors Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature, and which I suggest ought to be used to draft Bird-Safe Guidelines for City of Gilroy and which ought to be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed project. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect (5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other reflective surface (6) Size of window (7) Type of glass 6.A.s Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 13 (8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation (13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants (15) Relative abundance (16) Season of the year (17) Ecology, demography and behavior (18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions (1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure’s collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although mortality would increase with larger expanses of glass. (2) Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation. (3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions. (4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. It might play a significant role in the proposed project, which includes extruded window frames of many windows. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 14 (5) Window or façade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifrán et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities f ound and proportion of façade that was glazed. (6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows. (7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings. (8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. (9) Height of structure.—Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesis- testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? Some of the most notorious buildings are low-rise buildings. (10) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation, but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientation affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018). Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different orientations would help. (11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University. (12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016). 6.A.s Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 15 (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016, Ocampo- Peñuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass façade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the façade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m away, and birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows. (14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass façades of the project’s building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods. (17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds. (18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn’s (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper’s hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project’s windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 16 (19) Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window. For most of the known or suspected collision risk factors, the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk. Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight. Window Collision Solutions Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts. However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature. Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post-construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. (1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts (1A) Marking windows (1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation (1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation (1D) Managing nocturnal lighting (1A) Marking windows.— Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 17 (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 10 years hence. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations. (2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts (2A) Deciding on location of structure (2B) Deciding on façade and orientation (2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows (2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants (2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs (3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed. ROAD MORTALITY The IS/MND fails to address the potential impacts of wildlife-automobile collision mortality. The IS/MND is fundamentally flawed for not analyzing this impact – an impact that has been studied a great deal over the last several decades. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study (Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fatalities for the 6.A.s Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 18 proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year that were killed by automobiles. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether traffic generated by the project would similarly result in local impacts to wildlife. Increased use of existing roads would increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, and so it can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway, human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonička et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonička et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within 0.1 miles of stream crossings >40 times other than expected (K. S. Smallwood, 1989-2018 unpublished data). Reptiles are killed on roads where roadside fences end or where fences are damaged (Markle et al. 2017). There has even been a function developed to predict the number of golden eagles killed along the road, where the function includes traffic volume and density of road-killed animals available for eagles to scavenge upon (Lonsdorf et al. 2018). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in an EIR. Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife Given the results of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, VMT can serve as a useful predictor of wildlife-automobile collision mortality. The IS/MND predicts a daily VMT of 2,194 per job, which would translate to 800,810 miles per year among employees. It is unclear, however, whether the IS/MND predicts VMT for hotel guests. Nevertheless, the predicted VMT per job is a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating (Photos 6 and 7). Photo 6. A Gambel’s quail dashes across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 19 Photo 7. A mourning dove killed by vehicle traffic on a California road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020. For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles studied × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying these 1,825 miles per fatality to my prediction of the project’s 800,810 annual VMT, I predict 439 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 21,950 wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 20 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS According to the IS/MND (p. 185), “Given the project’s consistency with the General Plan, compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of the identified standard conditions of approval, the project and other cumulative projects consistent with the General Plan would not contribute to significant cumulative biological Resources...” With this argument, the IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. If that was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed mitigation measures. The project’s mitigation includes no avoidance measures and no compensatory measures. But anyway, the IS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. An EIR needs to be prepared, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts. An EIR is needed to address cumulative impacts from loss of both terrestrial and aerial habitat, from bird-window collision mortality and from road mortality. MITIGATION MM BIO-1.1 Preconstruction Survey A preconstruction survey should be performed, but not as a substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. This is especially true of surveys given a week or less to detect birds hiding their nests in the dense hedges at the project site before construction begins. A much more serious survey effort is needed in advance of the preconstruction surveys. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed b y species experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption. Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the IS/MND, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species and nesting birds. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 21 Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, an EIR should be prepared, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is insufficient to reduce the project’s impacts to special-status species to less than significant. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Guidelines on Building Design If the project goes forward, it should adhere to the available guidelines prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines that recommend actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess efficacy and to quantify post- construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. Road Mortality Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below). Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries would likely be caused by bird-window 6.A.s Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 22 collisions and animal-automobile collisions, but some would be injured for other reasons. Many of these animals would need treatment caused by collision injuries. Thank you for your attention, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667 Bartonička, T., R. Andrášik, M. Dula, J. Sedoník, and M. Bíl. 2018. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21467 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745. Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44 -52. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. City of Gilroy. 2021. Mitigated Negatve Declaration: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project. Gilroy, California. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 23 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal–vehicle collisions in Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244. Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1–20. DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3. Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780. Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Gauthreaux, Jr., S. A., J. W. Livingston, and C. G. Belser. 2008. Detection and discrimination of fauna in the aerosphere using Doppler weather surveillance radar. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:12-23. Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerj.460. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 24 Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82. Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 25 Lonsdorf, E. C. A. Sanders-Reed, C. Boal, and T. D. Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle-vehicle collisions to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633-1644. Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI 10.5751/ACE-00787-100206. Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1 Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R. P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771. Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Markle, C. E., S. D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The true cost of partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342-350. Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications. 2nd edition. University of Wisconsin Press Madison, WI. Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652 6.A.s Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 26 O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Rebolo-Ifrán, N., A. di Virgilio, and S. A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird-window collisions in southern South America: a two-scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54351-3 Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14. Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 27 Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19. TMCapital. 2019. 2019 Building products report: enduring growth beyond short-term challenges. https://www.tmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ BuildingProd_AnnualReport_2019-08-14.pdf Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Peñuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird-window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4215 Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on “Project Birdsafe.” The Loon 82:34-37. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California. Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two. Cell (530) 601-6857 puma@dcn.org Ecologist Expertise • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities; • Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions. Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience  668 professional publications, including:  88 peer reviewed publications  24 in non-reviewed proceedings  554 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews  8 in mass media outlets  87 public presentations of research results Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised 6.A.s Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation. Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines. Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001. Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding. Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS. Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape. Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues. Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California. Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County 6.A.s Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration. Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis. Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E. Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Projects Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue. Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built. Planning for additional repowering projects is underway. Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions. Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports. Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review. Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below). Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species. Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population. Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management. Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits. GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County. Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams. Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc. Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats. Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language. Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards. Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California. Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards. Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); doi:10.3390/d12030098. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863. Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities. Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084. Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 – 6.A.s Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 7 71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018. Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18. Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 8 Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225. Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254. Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223. Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524. Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 9 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100. Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640. Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro- ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355. Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001. Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109. Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9:253-261. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35. Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 10 Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329. Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958. Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847. Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491. Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 11 Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594. Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64. Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White- tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M. Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178. Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259. Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order. Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67. Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests. Biological Conservation 62:149-159. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 12 Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. Peer-reviewed Reports Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500- 2016-066 Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M. Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065 6.A.s Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 13 Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted but not published. Sacramento, California. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.altamontsrcarchive.org/alt_doc/cec_final_report_08_11_04.pdf Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp. Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp. Non-Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus. Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway. Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 14 Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay. Environmental Conservation 30:210-211. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management. Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects. Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075. Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075. EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural 6.A.s Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 15 sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA. Taipei, Taiwan. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County) Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in 6.A.s Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 16 former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). SRC document P238, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P232, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. SRC document P231, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. SRC document P229, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P228, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee). Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 17 Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. SRC document P168, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P171, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P161, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. SRC document P153, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. SRC document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009. Alameda County SRC document P-145. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 18 Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. SRC document P107, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. SRC document P106, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. SRC document P103, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. SRC document P101, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010. Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision- related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 19 Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s recommended four-month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23. Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43. Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004. SRC Document P26. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]). April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget. Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22. Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20. Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement. Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 20 Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization. Reports to Clients Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client. Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch and Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological Diversity. 28 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 21 Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR. Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one. Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 22 Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp 6.A.s Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 23 Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009. Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow- billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 24 Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, puma@yolo.com . 34 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval 6.A.s Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 25 Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp. Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p. Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp. Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 26 Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment to support an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial re-assessment of an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jefferson- Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 27 Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp. Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model. Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp. Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp. Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp. Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment 6.A.s Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 28 of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp. Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California mountain lion track count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed). Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 29 Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and their management under the Martell SYP. Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp. EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide Energy Research Group, University of California. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits. Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA. Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis. Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages) I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:  Replies on UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2021; 13);  14 Charles Hill Circle Design Review (2021; 11);  SDG Commerce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26);  Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project DSEIR (2021; 98);  Clawiter Road Industrial Project IS/MND, Hayward (2021; 18);  Garnet Energy Center Stipulations, New York (2020);  Heritage Wind Energy Project, New York (2020: 71);  Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project IS/MND, Martinez (2020; 11); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 30  Cambria Hotel Project Staff Report, Dublin (2020; 19);  Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20);  Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23);  Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26);  Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19);  Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22);  Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21);  Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24);  Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27);  2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4);  1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);  Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);  11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17);  Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);  Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64);  Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12);  Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28);  Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted;  Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);  3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19);  Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8);  2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25);  Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4);  2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8);  Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3);  Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16);  Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5);  Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24);  AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);  Replies to responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse (2020; 15);  Clover Project MND, Petaluma (2020; 27);  Ruby Street Apartments Project Env. Checklist, Hayward (2020; 20);  Replies to responses on 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 5);  3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 9);  Steeno Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);  UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2020; 24);  North Pointe Business Center MND, Fresno (2020; 14);  Casmalia and Linden Warehouse IS, Fontana (2020; 15);  Rubidoux Commerce Center Project IS/MND, Jurupa Valley (2020; 27);  Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center MND, Menifee (2020; 23);  First Industrial Logistics Center II, Moreno Valley IS/MND (2020; 23);  GLP Store Warehouse Project Staff Report (2020; 15);  Replies on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 29);  2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 31  Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30);  Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16);  Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14);  Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);  Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17);  1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28);  1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:  Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46);  Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);  Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24);  Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18);  The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19);  Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);  Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);  27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);  2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11);  Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13);  Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18);  East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22);  Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);  555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);  Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27);  1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19);  Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27);  Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26);  Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);  Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);  Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13);  Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22);  Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9);  Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12);  ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9);  Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14);  Replies to responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19);  PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13);  Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);  Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19)  World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19);  Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12);  West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);  Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 32  Replies to responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10);  Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);  Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26);  Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34);  1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);  Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14);  SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21);  PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23);  Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);  Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);  Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14);  Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7);  Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36);  We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);  Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);  Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9);  Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35);  Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);  Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);  The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);  Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9);  Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22);  North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30);  South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);  Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44);  Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15);  Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);  LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);  Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);  South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);  CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);  2nd replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11);  Replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7);  Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12);  Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21);  Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22);  Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);  Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21);  2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12);  Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);  City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);  Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);  Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);  IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 33  Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);  Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12);  2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30);  At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);  Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10);  Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);  Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57);  750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14);  Replies to responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12);  San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);  CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);  Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18);  Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);  North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11);  Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);  Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23);  Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18);  Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13);  CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23);  Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24);  Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15);  800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18);  2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22);  Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15);  Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21);  Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15);  Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9);  Replies to responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13);  Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27);  Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48);  Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);  The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);  Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin County (2017; 5);  Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5);  San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22);  Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12);  Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12);  MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12);  PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45);  Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);  Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5);  Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 34  Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13);  Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);  Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);  Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14);  Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12);  CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12);  Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9);  City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7);  Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49);  Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25);  Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15);  Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016);  Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6);  Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5);  Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12);  Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);  Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9);  Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18);  Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27);  Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14);  Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41);  Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38);  Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31);  Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6);  Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10);  White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9);  Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9);  Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6);  Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Rosamond (2015; 28);  Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR, Fontana (2015, 9);  Columbia Business Center MND, Riverside (2015; 8);  West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR, Fontana (2015, 10);  Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28);  Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10);  World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR, Moreno Valley (2015, 12);  Elkhorn Valley Wind Power Project Impacts, Oregon (2015; 143);  Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS, Sacramento (2014, 21);  Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);  Replies on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR, Mojave (2014, 12);  Palen Solar Electric Generating System FSA (CEC), Blythe (2014, 20);  Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9);  Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills impacts + Addendum, Wyoming (2014; 105); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 35  Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);  Replies on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18);  Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3);  Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23);  Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16);  Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9);  West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18);  Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);  Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49);  Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19);  Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12);  Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31);  Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11);  Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);  Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16);  Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13);  Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13);  Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6);  Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);  Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10);  Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);  FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9);  Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6);  Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8);  Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23);  Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; );  Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9);  Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10);  Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp);  Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8);  North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62);  Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects Ism Lancaster (2012; 8);  J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review, Orinda (2012; 14);  Replies on Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8);  Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9);  Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS, near Joshua Tree (2012; 15);  Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR, El Centro (2012; 16);  Ocotillo Sol Project EIS, Imperial Valley (2012; 4);  Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Kern County (2012; 5);  Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program IS/MND (2012; 11); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 36  Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16);  City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28);  Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9);  Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4);  Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9);  Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13);  Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16);  Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7);  Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6);  Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41);  Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17);  St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10);  Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009; 9);  SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);  Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);  Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9);  Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3);  Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142);  Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2);  Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3);  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9);  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11);  Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);  SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);  Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66);  Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20);  Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33);  Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15);  Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);  Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37);  Replies to responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 37  North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);  Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies);  Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18);  Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15);  Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);  Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);  Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);  Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21);  Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10);  Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41);  UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23);  Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18);  Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6);  Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23);  Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9);  Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7);  Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3);  UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);  Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22);  Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);  California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20);  Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13);  UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001; 26);  Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);  Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5);  Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10);  Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000);  US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4);  California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11);  Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);  Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9).  California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);  Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);  Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation);  Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8);  Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998);  Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28);  Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998); 6.A.s Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 38  San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10); Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:  Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12);  Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);  Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);  Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.);  NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);  Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);  Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.);  Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.);  Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.);  Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);  Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);  Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);  State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);  Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);  Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);  Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);  NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45): 11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);  Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997). Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:  Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society-- Western Section (2001);  Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);  Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 39 103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Posters at Professional Meetings Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas. Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ. Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society. Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars Dog detections of bat and bird fatalities at wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. East Bay Regional Park District 2019 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 13 November 2019. Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999- 6.A.s Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 40 2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017. Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017. Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015. From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California. The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015. Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015. Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013. Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012. Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011 Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011. Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife 6.A.s Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 41 Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities. California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010. Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006. Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006. Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006. Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 42 Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004. Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004. The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003. Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000. Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000. Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 43 Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999. Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999. Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999. Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998. “No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997. In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995. Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995. Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 44 Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994. Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993. Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993. Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C. Davis, August 6, 1993. Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis. May 1993. Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993. Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990. Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990. Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988. A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986. The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985. Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; 6.A.s Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 45 Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California. Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.  Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011.  Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.  Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.  Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.  Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Printed Mass Media Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op- Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 46 Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Radio/Television PBS News Hour, FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011. KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009; KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008; KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour. October, 2000; KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997. Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review) Journal Journal American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology 6.A.s Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 47 Journal Journal Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans. Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS Ecology Tropical Ecology Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J Biological Control The Condor Committees • Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento 6.A.s Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 48 Other Professional Activities or Products Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified. Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects. Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities. Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas. Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm. Memberships in Professional Societies The Wildlife Society Raptor Research Foundation Honors and Awards Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987 J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978 CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981 National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982 National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978 Community Activities District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007 Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07 Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004 Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002 Davis Visioning Group member Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates 6.A.s Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 49 Representative Clients/Funders Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker EDF Renewables Blum Collins, LLP National Renewable Energy Lab Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Salka Energy Lozeau | Drury LLP Comstocks Business (magazine) Law Offices of Roy Haber BioResource Consultants Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Tierra Data Law Office of John Gabrielli Black and Veatch Law Office of Bill Kopper Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center Law Office of Donald B. Mooney EcoStat, Inc. Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Navy Law Office of Steven Thompson US Department of Agriculture Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Forest Service California Wildlife Federation US Fish & Wildlife Service Defenders of Wildlife US Department of Justice Sierra Club California Energy Commission National Endangered Species Network California Office of the Attorney General Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Fish & Wildlife The Humane Society California Department of Transportation Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Forestry Environmental Protection Information Center California Department of Food & Agriculture Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Ventura County Counsel Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) County of Yolo Seatuck Environmental Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Save Our Scenic Area Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound East Bay Regional Park District Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk County of Alameda Alameda Creek Alliance Don & LaNelle Silverstien Center for Biological Diversity Seventh Day Adventist Church California Native Plant Society Escuela de la Raza Unida Endangered Wildlife Trust Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman and BirdLife South Africa Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc. AquAlliance Bob Sarvey Oregon Natural Desert Association Mike Boyd Save Our Sound Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Emerald Farms Lisa Rocca Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Kevin Jackson Southern California Edison Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Nancy Havassy Northern Territories Inc. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) David Magney Environmental Consulting Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc. Wildlife History Foundation Panorama Environmental, Inc. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation Ogin, Inc. 6.A.s Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Smallwood CV 50 Representative special-status species experience Common name Species name Description Field experience California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Track surveys in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Monitoring & habitat restoration Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non-target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus distichlus Captures; habitat assessment Bats Thermal imaging surveys California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Numerical & behavioral surveys Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Numerical & behavioral surveys Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Numerical & behavioral surveys White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Numerical & behavioral surveys Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Large area surveys Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Numerical & behavioral surveys Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Monitored success of relocation and habitat restoration Analytical Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report. Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Expert testimony 6.A.s Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.s Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: MND Additional Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199 Linda C. Klein 415.262.5130 lklein@coxcastle.com File No. 088570 August 24, 2021 VIA E-MAIL Mr. Kraig Tambornini Senior Planner City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna St. Gilroy, CA 95020 Re: Response to Late Comment Letter from Lozeau Drury Dear Kraig: We write on behalf of the applicant, Evergreen Devco, Inc. (“Evergreen”), of the proposed commercial development (“Project”) proposed for property located at Chestnut and Tenth Street. This letter responds to the late comment letter submitted by Mr. Michael Lozeau on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 270 (“Union”). For the reasons explained below, the Union fails to offer substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project would have significant environmental impacts. 1. The Fair Argument Standard And CEQA Impacts Judicial review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) applies the fair argument standard. The Union “has the burden of proof to demonstrate by citation to the record the existence of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact.” (Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 778.) “[S]ubstantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (e)(1).) “Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.” (§ 21080, subd. (e)(2); Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 192.) “Unless the administrative record contains [substantial] evidence, and [plaintiffs] cite[] to it, no ‘fair argument’ that an EIR is necessary can be made.” (South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1612–1613.) Moreover, even under the fair argument standard, a court “must give the lead agency the benefit of the doubt on any legitimate, disputed issues of credibility.” (Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 677, 692.) 6.A.t Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Mr. Kraig Tambornini August 24, 2021 Page 2 Importantly, a challenger must point to a significant impact of a project on the environment. “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA v. BAAQMD”).) Therefore, evidence of impacts to Project buildings, construction workers, or future users from existing environmental factors is not substantial evidence of a significant impact under CEQA. The Union twists the holding of CBIA v. BAAQMD (and has an incorrect pinpoint citation) by truncating a quote. As the full quote shows, CBIA v. BAAQMD holds the opposite of what the Union claims: Given the text of section 21083 and other relevant provisions of the statutory scheme to which it belongs—including CEQA’s statute-wide definition of “environment”—the phrase in question is best interpreted as limited to those impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment. Even if one reads into CEQA’s definition of “environment” a concern with people—a reading that, notwithstanding section 21060.5, is conceivable given the Legislature’s interest in public health and safety—section 21083 does not contain language directing agencies to analyze the environment’s effects on a project. Requiring such an evaluation in all circumstances would impermissibly expand the scope of CEQA. . . . Indeed, the key phrase “significant effect on the environment” is explicitly defined by statute in a manner that does not encompass the environment’s effect on the project. (§ 21068 [“‘Significant effect on the environment’ means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”].) And nowhere in the statute is there any provision that cuts against the specificity of that definition by plainly delegating power for the agency to determine whether a project must be screened on the basis of how the environment affects its residents or users. (Id. at p. 387 [emphasis added].) Accordingly, impacts of a project on itself (including its workers and employees) are not CEQA impacts. (Id.; see Clews Land & Livestock, LLC, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 194.) 2. The Union Has Not Provided Substantial Evidence That The Project Would Have Significant Air Quality Impacts On the Environment The Union claims that the Project will create significant health risks to future employees from off-gassing of formaldehyde used in the glue of composite wood products and future guests from PM2.5 emissions. Even if this was true, for the reason explained above, the Union has not provided substantial evidence of a significant CEQA impact (i.e., that the Project would have a substantial impact on the existing environment). (CBIA v. BAAQMD, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 6.A.t Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Mr. Kraig Tambornini August 24, 2021 Page 3 387; see Parker Shattuck Neighbors, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 782 [“We conclude that the health risks to workers and residents identified by petitioners do not constitute ‘substantial adverse effects on human beings’ or otherwise create a fair argument that the disturbance of contaminated soil may have a significant effect on the environment.”].) (a) There Is No Substantial Evidence Of Dangerous Formaldehyde Levels There are several reasons why the Union’s air quality expert, Mr. Offermann, fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant impact related to formaldehyde gas on the environment. First, Mr. Offermann uses an incorrect threshold for the safe exposure concentration of formaldehyde. Specifically, Mr. Offermann uses the Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (“NSRL”) of 40 µg/day to derive a “safe” concentration of formaldehyde of 2 µg/m3 for a continuous 24-hour exposure. He also uses reference exposure levels (“RELs”) from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”). (Union Letter, Ex. A, p. 2.) The NSRL and RELs cited by Mr. Offermann are not intended for indoor air quality. (Ex. 1, p. 1.) According to our air quality experts, “[a] more appropriate standard is from the World Health Organization (“WHO”), which has a formaldehyde guideline for indoor air of 100 µg/m3.” (Id., citing WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality (2010), available at https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/128169/e94535.pdf.) This WHO standard is protective of both short-term (30 minutes or more) and chronic (lifetime) exposures. (Id.) This health-protective level is 50 times greater than the value derived by Mr. Offermann (Ex. 1, p. 1), and well above the levels found in studies of new homes cited by Mr. Offermann, as well as above the lifetime exposure level of formaldehyde Mr. Offermann calculated for a full-time hotel employee keeping the same job for 45 years. (Union Letter, Ex. A, p. 4.) Accordingly, Mr. Offermann provides no evidence of a significant risk to a full-time Project employee. Second, Mr. Offermann failed to account for the fact that formaldehyde levels in building materials will drop as the material off-gases. (Ex. 1, p. 2.) Mr. Offermann incorrectly assumes the same concentration of formaldehyde will be present year after year, for 45 years. (Union Letter, Ex. A, p. 4.) Accordingly, Mr. Offermann’s exposure results are artificially high. As noted above, even the artificially high result are below WHO’s standard for indoor air quality. Third, Mr. Offermann suggest that the Project would have insufficient outdoor air ventilation. But he relies on studies of residences. (Union Letter, Ex. A, p. 9.) He offers no evidence that commercial construction has poor air ventilation or that this specific Project has inadequate ventilation. Thus, Mr. Offermann’s opinion is not supported by facts and does not qualify as substantial evidence. (See Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 677, 690.) Finally, Mr. Offermann failed to provide any evidence that the formaldehyde off-gassing from the Project would create an adverse human health impact. Instead, he asks the City to perform the study to make the determination. (Union Letter, Ex. A, pp. 5–9.) Simply claiming 6.A.t Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Mr. Kraig Tambornini August 24, 2021 Page 4 that more studies are needed is not substantial evidence of a fair argument that a Project would have significant impacts on the environment. (Parker Shattuck Neighbors, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 786.) (b) There Is No Evidence Of That Additional Analysis Of PM2.5 Is Required Contrary to Mr. Offermann’s statement (Union Letter, Ex. A, p. 11), the MND includes an air quality analysis that analyzes whether PM2.5 emission levels would exceed applicable standards (MND, pp. 38, 40 & Appendix A). The MND concludes that PM2.5 emissions would be less than significant. (Id.) The analysis supporting this conclusion, found in Appendix A of the MND, is not challenged. Moreover, air quality impacts cannot be estimated from traffic noise. (Ex. 1, p. 2.) For this reason, Mr. Offermann’s opinion, which is based on estimating air quality from traffic noise, is not substantial evidence. 3. The Union Has Provided No Substantial Evidence That The Project Would Have Adverse Impacts On Biological Resources (a) The MND Uses A Property Baseline And Accounts For All Special Status Species The Union alleges that the wildlife baseline in the MND is inadequate because there was no survey or a review of species-occurrence databases. To support this claim, the Union notes that its biologist, Dr. Smallwood, observed the presence of 17 species at the Project site on August 14, 2021, most of which were bird species. (Union Letter, p. 7.) To the contrary, the biological resources analysis in the MND is based on a site visit and a tree survey. (MND, pp. 49–50 & Appendix B.) Further, focused surveys were not warranted for the following reasons: (1) the Project site is located in an urban area surrounded by existing commercial development and a seven-lane highway; (2) the Project site is designated Urban- Suburban land in the Santa Clara Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (“Habitat Plan”), which is defined as an area where native vegetation has been cleared for residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, or recreation; and (3) in the City consultant’s professional opinion, based on the highly urbanized and disturbed nature of the Project site, natural communities and habitats for special-status plant and wildlife species were determined not to be present. Dr. Smallwood opines that prior site disturbance does not preclude the occurrence of special-status species and that the monarch butterfly could be present onsite and requires a special survey. Dr. Smallwood’s opinions are based on speculation and ignore the fact that the MND’s conclusions are based not only on the site’s prior disturbance, but also on its location and lack of sensitive habitat. (MND, p. 49.) In addition, Dr. Smallwood ignores the fact that the Project site is within the boundaries of the Habitat Plan. (MND, p. 53.) The Habitat Plan is the overarching conservation mechanism 6.A.t Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Mr. Kraig Tambornini August 24, 2021 Page 5 for the area and has been endorsed and approved by all applicable regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. The Habitat Plan streamlines the permitting process by pre-identifying mitigation obligations for impacts of species habitat. Rather than separately permitting and mitigating individual projects, the Habitat Plan evaluates natural resource impacts and mitigation requirements comprehensively in a way that is more efficient and effective for at-risk species and their essential habitats. The Habitat Plan states that urban development in the City of Gilroy that is equal to or greater than 2 acres is covered by the Habitat Plan. The Project site is 6.8-acres and is therefore covered. As such, the analysis and mitigation protocols with respect to the 18 species accounted for under the Habitat Plan’s conservation provisions are applicable to the Project. (See MND, p. 53.) The 18 species in the Habitat Plan were selected based on their potential to be affected by covered activities, their occurrence in the study area, the adequacy of data for the species, and the species’ current and foreseeable listing status. While the Bay checkerspot butterfly is identified as a covered species, there is no evidence that the monarch butterfly could be present in the Habitat Plan area or on the site. The Habitat Plan identifies areas of potential habitat for the covered species and where species-specific surveys are required prior to development The project site is not designated as requiring a Bay checkerspot butterfly survey. The Habitat Plan includes conservation measures to protect all 18 special-status species that it covers. It does not identify any conservation measures specific to the Project site. In fact, the Habitat Plan explicitly allows urban development on the site. Specifically, the site has a land cover designation of Urban – Suburban. The site does not have a natural communities land cover designation identified for the purpose of protection, enhancement, and restoration. The Habitat Plan intentionally allows development in certain areas, including the Project site, and creates a Reserve System on other property within the Habitat Plan area that will protect land for the benefit of covered species, natural communities, biological diversity, and ecosystem function. By reference to the Habitat Plan and by conducting a site visit to confirm that the site is highly urbanized and does not possess special-status plant and wildlife species, the MND took into consideration potential special status species in its conclusion that impacts to such species would be less than significant with mitigation. (b) The Union Does Not Provide Substantial Evidence That The Project Would Have A Significant Impact On Any Bird Species Based on a report by Dr. Smallwood, the Union claims that the Project will have a significant impact on birds due to window collisions. (Union Letter, p. 8.) Specifically, Dr. Smallwood, using numbers unrelated to the Project, suggests that the Project will result in multiple bird fatalities. (Id.) This argument is flawed for several reasons. 6.A.t Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Mr. Kraig Tambornini August 24, 2021 Page 6 Dr. Smallwood says that the MND failed to show the windows of the Project. Not so. Elevations of the Project are included on pages 9, 11, and 12. The elevations show that the Project would not contain any large, uninterrupted glass planes. There are several stucco, brick, metal, an aluminum components to the buildings. In addition, the elevations show that many of the windows would be recessed or under overhangs. These features reduce the likelihood of bird collisions. (San Francisco Planning Department, Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings, p. 2, available at https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019- 09/Design%20Guide%20Standards%20for%20Bird%20Safe%20Bldgs_Final.pdf.) The Project also does not propose bird refuge areas that would attract birds to the site or substantial light sources. Further, the Project site is in an urban area surrounded by development and there are no large areas of bird habitat on or around the site. (See MND, p. 47–51.) Assuming arguendo that Dr. Smallwood is correct, he has not stated that the bird fatalities would create a significant adverse impact on any specific bird species. Accordingly, even assuming everything stated in his report is true, the report is not substantial evidence supporting a finding that the Project would have a significant environmental impact on birds. (c) The Project Would Not Have A Significant Impact On Wildlife From Road Collisions The Union claims the Project will have a significant impact on wildlife from vehicle collisions because the Project will increase traffic and the MND fails to analyze this impact. (Union Letter, p. 9.) This claim is based on a 2009 study conducted in a highly rural area of Contra Costa County located more than 85 miles away from the Project site that identified an association between trips and wildlife fatality. Unlike rural Contra Costa County, the Project is in a highly urbanized area, surrounded by commercial development, a seven-lane arterial, and U.S. 101. The Project site does not contain any natural communities or habitats for special-status wildlife species. (MND, p. 50.) Neither the site nor adjacent properties contain any wildlife areas or open space. (MND, p. 52.) Therefore, the likelihood of wildlife being on roadways surrounding the site is low. There is no evidence that the conclusions of the cited 2009 study would apply to the Project. Moreover, the Union offers no evidence that any incremental increase in wildlife fatalities on surrounding roads from the Project’s contribution to heavily trafficked areas would result in a significant impact on a biological species. (d) The MND Properly Analyzes Cumulative Impacts The Union claims that the MND uses an incorrect standard for assessing cumulative impacts, particularly on biological resources. (Union letter, p. 10.) It states that the MND implies that cumulative impacts are residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts and argues that an EIR is needed to address cumulative impacts, but that is not the case. (See MND, p. 185.) 6.A.t Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Mr. Kraig Tambornini August 24, 2021 Page 7 A cumulative impact is a change that results from the incremental impact of a project when added to other projects. (14 Cal Code Regs., § 15355, subd. (b).) The MND thus properly considered the Project impacts together with “other cumulative projects” when addressing cumulative impacts. (MND, p. 185.) Regarding biological resources, the Habitat Plan addresses cumulative regional impacts to biological species. Consistency with the Habitat Plan, including compliance with its conditions and payment of its fees, provides assurance that the Project will comply with the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the National Community Conservation Program Act, and not make cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts in the region on sensitive species. Finally, Dr. Smallwood does not claim that the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact or that the Project’s impacts when added to the impacts of other projects would create a new significant cumulative impact on biological resources. Instead, he claims an EIR is needed because cumulative impacts are not performed as required by CEQA. (Union Letter, Ex. B, p. 20.) Dr. Smallwood is a biologist and not an attorney. His legal opinions are not substantial evidence and he fails to provide scientific evidence that the Project would create significant cumulative impacts on birds or wildlife. 4. Conclusion Evergreen commends the City for its thorough environmental review. For the reasons stated above, even a lengthy letter from the Union’s lawyer failed to find legal weakness with the MND. The City should feel confident that it properly executed its CEQA duties and move forward with a decision on the Project. Sincerely, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Linda C. Klein Attachment: Letter from Ramboll US Corporation regarding Air Quality Comments from Francis J. Offerman 088570\13391022v3 6.A.t Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) EXHIBIT 1 6.A.t Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1/2 November 9, 2018 Ramboll 201 California Street Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 USA T +1 415 796 1950 F +1 415 398 5812 https://ramboll.com Ref 1690010151 Elizabeth Cobb Vice President, Development Shea Properties 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 elizabeth.cobb@sheaproperties.com RE: At Dublin Development, Comments on October 30, 2018 Francis J. Offermann Memorandum Regarding Indoor Air Quality Dear Elizabeth: Per your request, Ramboll US Corporation (Ramboll) has prepared comments in response to the October 30, 2018 memorandum prepared by Francis J. Offerman, PE, CIH on indoor air quality at the At Dublin Development (“the Project”). We focus on two issues raised by Mr. Offerman: 1) Formaldehyde health risk 2) The need for PM2.5 filtration HEALTH RISK FROM INDOOR AIR CONCENTRATIONS OF FORMALDEHYDE Mr. Offermann’s analysis is overly conservative. Mr. Offermann derives a “safe” concentration of formaldehyde of 2 µg/m3. This value is not from regulatory guidance, but rather is derived by Mr. Offermann using overly conservative assumptions. Mr. Offermann uses the Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 40 µg/day to derive this value. Neither the NSRL nor the Relative Exposure Levels (RELs) cited by Mr. Offermann are meant for residential indoor air. These reference levels are not appropriate for use for residential indoor air quality. A more appropriate standard is from the World Health Organization (WHO), which has a formaldehyde guideline specifically for indoor air (WHO 2010)1 of 100 µg/m3 as protective both for short-term (30 minutes or more) and chronic (lifetime) exposures. This health-protective guideline level is 50 times greater than the value derived by Mr. Offermann. Mr. Offermann’s Approach is Not Consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Approach for Regulating Building Materials The California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted an Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) to control formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, which became effective in 2009. ARB took this action to reduce health risk from formaldehyde emissions from building materials. Mr. Offermann’s recommendation to analyze the health risk impacts from formaldehyde from 1 http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/128169/e94535.pdf 6.A.t Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 2/2 building materials in the EIR is not consistent with the State’s approach for regulating emissions from composite wood products. Moreover, the arguments that Mr. Offermann makes are against all new furniture and buildings materials in homes and not specifically related to this project. Formaldehyde present in building materials will decrease with time. Formaldehyde in building materials are released from the material, as Mr. Offermann points out. However, once released, there is less formaldehyde left in the material, and the building material will thus release less and less formaldehyde with time. However, Mr. Offermann not only assumes that all of the formaldehyde in indoor air of relatively new residences is from the building material, he also assumes that the same concentration of formaldehyde will be present year after year over a 30-year period. The reality is that (1) indoor air concentrations of formaldehyde is likely due to many sources, and (2) the formaldehyde that originates from the building material will decrease with time. Thus, Mr. Offermann’s statement that “…future residents will experience a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 180 per million…” is based on false assumptions. REQUIREMENT FOR MERV 13 FILTRATION SYSTEMS In the Offerman memo, he makes a claim “that based on the high future traffic noise level of 73.6 dBA CNEL projected in the At Dublin Draft EIR, that the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will be substantially higher than 10 µg/m3, and warrant installation of MERV 13 air filters in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.” We believe this statement is misleading as one cannot estimate the outdoor air concentration of PM2.5 simply by the traffic noise level. In his memo, he references Article 38 of the San Francisco Health Code, which requires MERV 13 or equivalent filtration if a new development is located within an Air Pollution Exposure Zone (APEZ). In general, an APEZ includes areas that have PM2.5 concentrations greater than 10 µg/m3 or where cumulative excess cancer risk is greater than 100 in a million. Any locations within 500 feet of any Freeway are also included in the APEZ. Thus, the threshold of 10 µg/m3 originates from the definition of the APEZ. We do note that the DEIR estimates that the maximum increase in concentration of PM2.5 as a result of increased traffic would be 0.005 µg/m3. Together with the average background concentration from 2015-2017 (8.3 µg/m3) the resulting ambient concentration of PM2.5 would be 8.305 µg/m3 which is significantly lower than 10 µg/m3. Moreover, the closest sensitive receptors to Interstate 580 (I-580) is greater than 1,000 feet. Thus, if Article 38 of the San Francisco Health Code were applicable in the City of Dublin, the estimated concentration of PM2.5 would still not trigger the requirement to install MERV 13 filters. Yours sincerely Michael Keinath, PE David Kim, PhD Principal Senior Managing Consultant Service Line Leader (Americas) D +1 415 796 1940 Air Quality and Climate Change M +1 510 333 1742 D +1 415 7961934 dkim@ramboll.com M +1 510 8821734 mkeinath@ramboll.com 6.A.t Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Applicant Response to Comments [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) General Plan Compliance Review Table Tenth and Chestnut Commercial PUD Policy Consistency Analysis Policy LU 1.1 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. Consistent – The project site is located in an area intended for commercial development. The intensity of development is considered appropriate. Policy LU 1.4 Mix of Uses. Encourage a diverse mix of land uses to achieve a balance between jobs and housing, to ensure the community’s long-term, and to increase job opportunities in the city to assist in equalizing the job/housing balance. Through the Land Use Diagram, the City shall encourage a range of housing types, mixed-use districts, a diversity of businesses and industries, and adequate services and leisure activities to meet the social and economic needs of residents. Consistent –The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would include a range of commercial uses on-site including a gas station, convenience store, coffee shop, two fast food restaurants, gas station, and hotel. It is noted that the project’s consistency with this policy would reduce GHG emissions by proposing uses that reduce citywide VMT. LU 1.6 Areas with Fragmented Property Ownership Encourage coordinated development in areas where a fragmentation of property ownership poses potential impediments for orderly and efficient LU-20 City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan | Adopted November 2, 2020 development (e.g., layout of streets, lots, utilities). Projects where such impediments are identified shall demonstrate good faith effort to acquire and consolidate adjacent parcels in cases where to do so would improve the development potential of the project, consistent with the General Plan policies and other City development standards Consistent – This project will assemble 4 lots to facility redevelopment of 6.8 acres as a single project. LU 1.8 Vacant and Underutilized Sites Monitor vacant and underutilized residential and non-residential land to encourage infill development on those sites Consistent – This project will result in comprehensive redevelopment of a site that will build out the entire property. LU 4.1 Clustering Commercial Uses Encourage new commercial uses to group into clustered areas or centers containing professional offices, retail sales and services. Clustered development shall locate at the intersections of major thoroughfares, and exclude “strip” commercial development (shallow depth, linear form, parking in front of building). Consistent – The project replaces a small strip commercial with a commercial village connected with walkways and a more pedestrian friendly experience. LU 4.2 High Quality Design Encourage distinctive and high quality commercial architecture that respects the character of Gilroy and discourages the use of “franchise architecture”. Consistent – The project includes a comprehensive design program. LU 4.4 Commercial Design Standards and Review Procedures Require commercial centers to incorporate high standards of site design, construction, buffering, and screening to ensure their compatibility and opportunity to enhance residential neighborhoods. Consistent – same comment as above. LU 4.5 Landscaping in Commercial Areas Require that landscaping on commercial properties be well maintained. The City shall encourage those properties currently without landscaping to provide landscaping. Consistent – CC&Rs are recommended to require common maintenance of landscaping etc. LU 4.8 Tourist-Oriented Commercial Encourage tourist-oriented retail uses to locate near U.S. 101 interchanges and Gilroy Gardens Consistent – The project includes a brand name quality hotel. 6.A.u Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: General Plan Compliance Table [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) General Plan Compliance Review Table Tenth and Chestnut Commercial PUD Policy Consistency Analysis LU 4.10 Outdoor Activities Encourage outdoor cafes and other outdoor activities in appropriate commercial areas, especially Downtown, to create vibrant public spaces and maximize pedestrian activity Consistent – The project includes outdoor dining and gathering areas. LU 4.12 Zoning Change Requests Carefully consider zone change requests to the Commercial-Industrial (CM) District to ensure compatibility of the range of allowed uses with surrounding existing and planned future uses Consistent – The project proposes a PUD that will promote redevelop of C3 and CM zoned sites as a single project. LU 8.1 Community Beautification Ensure the beautification of Gilroy by acquiring easements or development rights for open space, planting street trees, and landscaping public right-ofways Consistent – The project includes robust landscaping and street trees on the frontage. Policy LU 8.2 Community Gateway. Require new development at “gateways” to the city (i.e., including Monterey Road, Pacheco Pass, Hecker Pass, and U.S. 101 interchanges) to incorporate high-quality, site and architectural design, distinctive landscaping, public art and/or other improvements that enhance the visual integrity of such areas. Consistent – The project includes a high quality of design and would incorporate new street trees and public art. LU 8.3 Landscaping along U.S. 101 Coordinate with Caltrans and the County to enhance the landscaping along U.S. 101, and encourage new developments facing U.S. 101 to provide landscape screening and to protect and enhance views of farmland and the surrounding hills Consistent – Conditions of approval are recommended to work with Caltrans to allow landscaping in offramp right of way areas near the southeast corner of the site. LU 8.5 Public Art Encourage the installation of public art in conjunction with residential and non-residential development Consistent – The project is proposing an attractive sculpture at its main pedestrian entryway. LU 8.7 Signs and Billboards Require the location of signs and billboards to respect the surrounding context in order to minimize any negative impact on the visual environment. Land Use | 2 City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan | Adopted November 2, 2020 LU-35 Enforce sign regulations and design standards to reduce sign clutter and illegal signage along corridors Consistent – The sign program proposes monument and pylon signage that would complement the architecture and that is appropriately scaled for the intended locations of each type of sign. M 1.7 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions by developing a transportation network that makes it convenient to use transit, ride a bicycle, walk, or use other non-automobile modes of transportation. Consistent – The project reduces overall Citywide VMT, will promote a walkable commercial center, and include bicycle parking. M 1.8 Street Landscaping Require landscaping as a part of all new street design, including street trees, landscaped medians and buffers, and high-quality street furniture Consistent – Street tree planting is included. M 3.2 New Development Require new development to include a system of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that link all land uses, provide accessibility to parks and schools, and connect to M-16 City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan | Adopted November 2, 2020 all existing or planned external street and trail facilities in accordance with the Mobility Diagrams. Consistent – See discussion above. M 3.9 Bicycle Parking Require adequate short- and long-term bicycle parking for all land uses except for single-family residential uses Consistent – As proposed and conditioned the site will include required bicycle parking. 6.A.u Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: General Plan Compliance Table [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) General Plan Compliance Review Table Tenth and Chestnut Commercial PUD Policy Consistency Analysis Policy M 4.2. Transit and Development. Require new development to fully accommodate, enhance, and facilitate public transit, including pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. Consistent – The proposed project would orient buildings to the street and minimize the visual appearance of parking to enhance the pedestrian experience on East Tenth Street. Street trees would be planted along East Tenth Street and East Ninth Street to create shade for pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, the project would construction two pedestrian access paths on East Tenth Street and install ADA compliant curb ramps at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Ninth Street, increasing pedestrian connectivity to the site and surrounding uses. Bicycle parking would be provided adjacent to the proposed hotel and commercial buildings, consistent with CBC and VTA parking requirements. The project’s consistency with this policy would reduce GHG emissions by providing improvements at the pedestrian and bicycle level that facilitate employees and customers to bike and walk to the site, thereby reducing emissions from automobile trips. M 5.1 Standard Level of Service (LOS) Maintain traffic conditions at LOS C or better at Gilroy intersections and roadways, allowing some commercial and industrial areas (e.g., downtown Gilroy, First Street corridor) to operate at LOS D or better. Existing LOS D areas within City include the Gilroy Premium outlets, Gilroy Crossings, and Regency Commercial areas. Exceptions to this standard will be allowed only where the City Council determines that. the improvements needed to maintain the City’ s standard level of service at specific locations are infeasible Consistent – The project is required to pay traffic impact fees, will provide additional right of way for widening along its Tenth Street/Automall frontage and will contribute to off-site traffic improvements as required by the project conditions. M 5.8 Commercial Driveways Require new commercial development to minimize commercial driveways and locate them to prevent conflicts at intersections and with other driveways. Also encourage the reduction of duplicative existing commercial driveways. Consistent – The driveways are designed to accommodate vehicle access and avoid conflicts with street circulation. M 5.9 U.S. 101 Landscaping and View Protection Coordinate with Caltrans and Santa Clara County to provide additional landscaping along the U.S. 101 right-of-way to enhance its attractiveness, recognizing that it is the primary “visitor-serving” traffic artery in the Planning Area. Also, encourage new developments facing U.S. 101 to provide landscape screening and to protect and enhance existing views of farmland and surrounding hi Consistent – The project will landscape all frontages and will work with Caltrans to pursue opportunities to enhance the offramp landscaping with durable groundcover plantings. EP 5.1 Downtown and Local-Serving Retail Encourage the establishment and expansion of commercial businesses that increase local spending within Gilroy and provide needed goods and services to residents and businesses. Consistent – The center will provide more local services and dining opportunities and provide transient occupancy for visitors to come to Gilroy. EP 5.3 Retail Mix Coordinate with retail centers to maintain a fresh mix of stores and an attractive shopping environment Consistent – The center will provide additional options to residents in Gilroy to 6.A.u Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: General Plan Compliance Table [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) General Plan Compliance Review Table Tenth and Chestnut Commercial PUD Policy Consistency Analysis shop, dine and obtain services. EP 7.3 Public Art Support private efforts to create art in public places (e.g., murals, statues) as a means to create a vibrant community that attracts residents and businesses Consistent – The project includes proposed art. M 5.22 Roadway Improvement Right-of-Way Dedication Require proposed new development to dedicate right-of-way, as shown in Appendix D, necessary for improvements to roadways on which the new development fronts Consistent – the project includes roadway dedication and will improve the walkways along its frontage. EP 8.2 Jobs to Employed Resident Ratio Seek to improve the city’s jobs to employed resident ratio through land use management, in part to support the City’s fiscal health Consistent – The project provides additional jobs in the community. Policy PFS 7.5 Street Trees. Strive to line the City’s streets with trees so that they become enjoyable and beautiful spaces, creating a rich “urban forest” for the enjoyment of future generations. Tree species should be selected that will provide a canopy of shade and have root systems that will not cause sidewalk buckling and other damage, to the extent practicable. Consistent – The proposed project would plant 220 trees, including street trees on along adjacent roadways. Additionally, the project would include landscaped seating areas and pedestrian paths along the project’s Tenth Street frontage. 6.A.u Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: General Plan Compliance Table [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) REV 7/31/2018 -1- RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CHESTNUT AND TENTH COMMERCIAL PROJECT (SCH# 2021060521), AND; APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT ZONE CHANGE REQUEST, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XXVI OF THE GILROY CITY CODE, TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVLOPMENT C3/PUD ZONING DISTRICT FOR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT TENTH AND CHESTNUT STREETS (APN’s: 841-66-010, 011, 014 AND 015), FILED BY EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC. FILE NUMBER Z 20-04, (20070021) WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, on behalf and with the consent of the property owner Donald J. Triolo (Trustee for “The Triolo Revocable Living Trust” and agent for 450 East LLC), Evergreen Development Company Inc. submitted an application requesting a planned development rezoning from the C3 and CM zoning districts to a C3 PUD zoning district for 6.8 acres of property located at 401 and 411 East Tenth Street (aka, Automall Parkway) and 450 East Ninth Street, between Chestnut Street and Hwy 101 Offramp; and WHEREAS, the project includes concurrent applications for vesting tentative map TM 20-03 (20070020) and architectural and site review AS 20-14 (20070017); and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2021, the application submittal was accepted as complete; and WHEREAS, an initial study/mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared and recommended for adoption as the environmental document for the project, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2021, environmental mitigation measures were agreed to by the applicant as contained in a draft mitigated negative declaration (MND) environmental document prepared for the project, and in compliance with the requirements of CEQA the MND was published, noticed and circulated for a 30-day public review period from June 25, 2021 through July 26, 2021; and WHEREAS, minor comments on the MND were received during the public review period, and responses to the comments received on the MND environmental document were prepared that resulted in no changes being made to the analysis, conclusions and determinations of the MND; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2021 at a duly noticed meeting the Planning Commission continued the project to September 2, 2021 and held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the MND environmental document prepared for the project, together with the zone change request and related entitlements, the staff report, 6.A.v Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Reso Z 20-04 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) REV 7/31/2018 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX and all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the MND and project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that 1) incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project would or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmental would occur, and 2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as proposed together with project conditions and mitigation measures, may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the Community Development Department, Planning Division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby recommends to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Zone Amendment Z 20-04 as shown on the attached Zoning Change Exhibit “A” based on the following findings pursuant to Gilroy Code Article XXVI (Planned Development Overlay), Article LII (Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance) and Section 30.50.50 (Planned Unit Development Approval): 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City of Gilroy’s General Plan in that it would promote a cohesive redevelopment of property with a planned commercial development that includes a mix of desirable uses and promoting the General Services land use designation and relevant City policies; 2. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not create any adverse environmental impacts in that the project site does not have any unique physical or environmental constraints that would preclude development as proposed and as anticipated by the City General Plan and zoning documents; 3. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public peace, health, safety, morals, or welfare given that the property would be required to develop in accordance with an approved PUD development plan adopted pursuant to City Code Section 30.50.50, which has been requested and processed concurrently with this C3 PUD zoning amendment, that would assure all applicable codes and regulations are adhered to at time of development; and 4. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to persons or property in the City given that the amendment would continue to allow commercial development of the site which is compatible with the surrounding shopping center commercial, commercial industrial and public facility uses adjacent to the site. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September 2021 by the following roll call vote: 6.A.v Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Reso Z 20-04 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) REV 7/31/2018 -3- RESOLUTION NO. 21-XX AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ __________________________________ Karen L Garner, Director Tom Fischer, Chairperson 6.A.v Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Reso Z 20-04 [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 6.A.wPacket Pg. 364Attachment: Z 20-04 Exhibit A (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 E NINTH STREET, CHESTNUT STREET, 401 AND 411 E TENTH STREET/AUTOMALL PARKWAY, APN: 841-66-010, 011, 014 AND 015. FILE NUMBER AS 20-14 (20070017) WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, on behalf and with the consent of the property owner Donald J. Triolo (Trustee for “The Triolo Revocable Living Trust” and agent for 450 East LLC), Evergreen Development Company Inc. submitted an application requesting architectural and site review permit approval to develop a planned commercial shopping center complex and hotel on a 6.8 acre property located at 401 and 411 East Tenth Street (aka, Automall Parkway) and 450 East Ninth Street, between Chestnut Street and Hwy 101 Offramp; and WHEREAS, the project includes concurrent applications for planned development rezoning from the C3 and CM zoning districts to a C3 PUD zoning district Z 20-04 (20070021) and vesting tentative map TM 20-03 (20070020); and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2021, the application submittal was accepted as complete; and WHERAS, an initial study/mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared and recommended for adoption as the environmental document for the project, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2021 at a duly noticed meeting the Planning Commission continued the project to September 2, 2021 and held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the project; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the Community Development Department, Planning Division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Article L, Planning department Applications, the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby find as follows: 1) The project as proposed and conditioned has been analyzed and confirmed to comply with Section 30.50.43 scope of review criteria. 2) The project as proposed and conditioned complies with the C3 PUD zoning standards adopted for the project as Z 20-04. 3) The commercial land use is allowed within the General Services Commercial land use designation. 6.A.x Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Reso AS 20-14 Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Resolution No. 2020-__ Page 2 4) The findings required pursuant to section 30.50.50 for approval of a planned unit development approval are met as follows: a. The project conforms to the Gilroy general plan in terms of general location and standards of development given that the project consists of a C3PUD commercial development which is anticipated for the site based on the General Services Commercial land use designation. b. The project provides the type of development which will fill a specific need of the surrounding area as it will result in a planned commercial shopping center with outdoor gathering areas, high quality design details, public art, internal and external pedestrian connectivity, expanded retail services for residents, a desirable hotel use for visitors, and new employment opportunities, which are all encouraged by the general plan. c. The project will not require urban services beyond those which are currently available, as the City has infrastructure available to serve the commercial development as anticipated by the General Plan and the project shall be designed to comply with City standards. d. The project will provide a harmonious, integrated plan which justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the normal requirements of this chapter given that the project will provide additional right of way along Tenth Street/Automall Parkway which warrant setback reductions to the base C3 zoning, proposes a highly desirable hotel use which warrants an increase in height, would promote a pedestrian oriented urban frontage by reducing the setbacks along the Tenth Street and Ninth Street frontages, and proposes well designed signage that will complement the architecture of the center and provide for adequate visibility and identification for the center and services contained therein. e. The project reflects an economical and efficient pattern of land uses in that the site is fully developed with adequate parking and circulation to accommodate all of the intended uses, as well as providing for pedestrian enhancements and outdoor gathering areas which are supported and desirable for the development. f. The project includes greater provisions for landscaping and open space than would generally be required by providing outdoor gathering spaces, and landscaping extending fully to the public street. g. The project utilizes creative, aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings, open space and site design to blend with the character of surrounding areas as detailed in the comprehensive design guidelines prepared for the commercial center. h. The project would not create traffic congestion, noise, odor, or other adverse effects on surrounding areas, as detailed in the environmental document prepared for the project. i. The project will provide adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary, as indicated on project development plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby recommends to the City Council approval of AS 20-14, subject to the conditions Attachment A and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment B. 6.A.x Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Reso AS 20-14 Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Resolution No. 2020-__ Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ____ by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ __________________________________ ___________, Secretary _____________, Chairperson 6.A.x Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Reso AS 20-14 Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Resolution No. 2020-__ Page 4 ATTACHMENT A 6.A.x Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Reso AS 20-14 Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) ATTACHMENT A STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS 20-14 Note: The following abbreviations identify the City department or division responsible for determining compliance with these conditions. The first group listed has responsibility for compliance at plan check, the second confirms compliance with the condition at final inspection, prior to final occupancy or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or as specified in the condition. If only one group is identified, they have responsibilities from initial review through compliance verification. In the context of these Conditions of Approval, the term “Developer” means permit applicant, property owner, operator, permittee, lessee, and/or tenants using the space(s) for the intended use(s). Developer shall comply with project conditions for the life of the project. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS BL Building Division/Inspectors PK Parks/Landscape Design CA City Attorney PL Planning Division CC Chemical Control Agency PW Public Works/Engineering FP Fire Prevention TR Traffic Division PD Police Department WW Wastewater/Source Control COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT(S). 1. APPROVED PROJECT: Approval is granted to construct a commercial shopping center and 5 story hotel as a planned unit development on Assessor Parcel No’s. 846-66-010, 011, 014 & 014. Development plan approval shall include and be in conformance with the following project plans and documents: • Architectural Plans for Laurel Square last revised Oct 1, 2020, prepared by JL Architects, consisting of Sheets A0-A12. • Civil Plans, Vesting Tentative Map/Development Plan for Laurel Square dated April 2021, prepared by MacKay & Somps, consisting of 14 sheets. • Landscape Plans for Garlic Center dated 6-22-21 by RW Stover and Associates Inc. consisting of sheets L0-L2.5 (14 sheets) • Photometric Site Plan for Gilroy Commercial Development, by Belden CE, Sheet SP 6.A.y Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) • ALTA NSPS Land Title Survey by MacKay & Somps • Gilroy Center Design Guidelines prepared for Evergreen dated 10.13.20 • Comprehensive Sign Plan dated 3.16.2021 prepared by Bootz & Duke Signs • Art Sculpture Concept Drawings by Ride Art Studio • Updated Phasing Plan received 8.25.21 The following pad building plans are approved • Bluewave Express plans dated October 30,2020 Sheets A-201 and A-202 and elevation renderings (9 sheets) • Chick Filet Elevations [Brand Compliant Design Solution] (2 sheets) • Starbucks E 10th & HWY 101 dated 2021-06-15, Site Plan SP-2, Renderings and Elevations (4 Sheets) • QSR1 (Speculative) The following Hotel building plans are approved. • Hyatt Place Gilroy Ca Garlic Center Development plans dated October 23, 2020 by SERA Architecture, Sheet A001, A051, A101-A103, A301-302, A310, A4551-A452, A701-A702 (12 sheets) & Hyatt Colors and Materials Board Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Adjustment or modification including any site or building changes made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee for compliance with the C3 PUD zoning approvals, and may require additional entitlement review and approval. Any conflicts amongst project plan sheet details shall be resolved by the Community Development Director. 2. RELATED ENTITLEMENTS: This permit is subject to adoption of rezoning Z 20- 04 establishing a commercial C3 PUD and the mitigation measures of MND SCH 2021060521). 3. TENTATIVE MAP: If the concurrent application for TM 20-03 is pursued, Developer shall establish a common site management agreement for the development. The site management shall be responsible for the maintenance and enforcement of parking, private streets, landscaping, and other interior areas held in common by the complex. Such responsibilities shall be provided within the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the development. The City shall review all CC&Rs prior to recordation Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the project property shall be consistent with the terms of this permit and the City Code. If there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the City Code or this permit, the City Code or this permit shall prevail 6.A.y Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 4. PHASING: Project phasing shall be completed consistent with the Phasing Plan Sheet TM 14, as revised. Phase 1 consists of all site frontage improvements and landscaping, common driveways and drive aisles (including landscaping enhancement in public rights of way as shown on the plan). Phase 2 consists of buildout of each building pad site. 5. WATER LIMITATIONS: Developer shall be advised that the approval is subject to the drought emergencies provisions pursuant to the Gilroy City Code Chapter 27.98. 6. INDEMNIFICATION: Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process. 7. PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date for this approval shall run concurrent with the tentative parcel map approval, which shall expire October 4, 2023 (two years from the final decision date). This related approval AS 20-14 shall expire within 12 months after recordation of the Final Parcel Map or within 12 months from expiration of the Tentative Map approval (if a final map is not pursued). If development is not pursued within 12 months of the Final Map recordation or Tentative Map Expiration Date, this approval shall be deemed automatically revoked. Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Developer must submit a written application for any time extension, with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code. The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any BUILDING PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN, whichever is first issued, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 8. HABITAT PERMIT: Concurrent with or prior to an application for a grading permit, Developer shall submit a Habitat Permit application to the City of Gilroy. The application shall consist of the application processing fee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Application For Private Projects and Fees and Conditions (available on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency website: https://www.scv- 6.A.y Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) habitatagency.org/). The grading permit will be issued only after approval of the Habitat Plan permit and payment of assessed fees. 9. PUBLIC ART: Prior to issuance of building permits, submit a request for approval and installation of a suitable, significant piece of public-oriented sculpture or similar public art installation, which shall be completed prior to occupancy. All public art must be reviewed and approved by the City of Gilroy Arts and Culture Commission and City Council. 10. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision-maker. 11. MITIGATION MEASURES: All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) must be addressed during grading/building permit submittal and construction. The applicant must note how they have addressed each mitigation measure to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee, prior to issuance of permits. 12. CERTIFICATION OF BUILDING PERMIT PLANS: The project architect shall certify in writing that the architectural design shown in the building permit plans match the plans approved by the Community Development Director or designee/Planning Commission/City Council. Any changes must be clearly noted. The project architect shall also certify that the structural plans are consistent with the architectural plans. In the event of a discrepancy between the structural plans and the architectural plans, the architectural plans shall take precedence, and revised structural drawings shall be submitted to the Building Division. 13. COLORS AND MATERIALS: Plans submitted for building permit applications shall include all exterior building materials and colors, including product and finish manufacturer name, color name and number, and surface finish type (e.g. stucco with sand finish, plaster with smooth finish) to be used in construction. 14. WINDOWS AND DOORS: The manufacturer type, design, material, and installation details for all windows within the project shall be specified in the construction drawings for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee. 15. FENCES AND WALLS: All fencing and walls are to be shown on construction drawings for review and approval. The design and location must comply with all height and setback requirements. 16. BICYCLE RACKS OR STORAGE: Developer shall provide a minimum of 24 bicycle racks as indicated on approved plans and subject to compliance with building code requirements. The racks shall be an “inverted U,” or equivalent as 6.A.y Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) approved by the Community Development Director and must secure the frame and both wheels. Racks shall be located near the building entrance (i.e., within constant visual range) unless it is demonstrated that they create a public hazard or locating them there is otherwise infeasible. If space is unavailable near building entrances, the racks must be designed so that the lock is protected from physical assault. Bicycle lockers may be provided in addition to bicycle racks. 17. LOADING ZONES: Plans for issuance of building permit shall show location of all designated loading zones. Deliveries shall be scheduled outside of regular busines hours and peak traffic periods. Striping and signage for loading and unloading activities may be required to be posted as determined by the Community Development Director. 18. TRASH ENCLOSURE: Details of an opaque screen trash enclosure are to be shown on construction drawings and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. The trash enclosure should match the architectural design, color, and materials of the primary structure. The trash enclosure for food service uses shall be equipped with hot water, a drain inlet to the sanitary sewer system, and a locking device. 19. SCREENING OF APPERTUNANCES: Show on construction drawings details of screening for all exterior equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, post indicator valves, backflow prevention devices, utility meters, mailboxes and address directories, etc. Ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers shall not be visible from any public right-of-way and shall be adequately screened through the use or combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and landscaping. In addition to the above, backflow preventers shall be painted dark green, except the fire connection which shall be painted yellow. The final placement and design of these items shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee. 20. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT: Developer shall ensure rooftop mechanical equipment, including but not limited to heating and cooling systems, plumbing vents, ducts, antennas and other appurtenances protruding from the roof are recessed or otherwise screened pursuant to the City zoning code. Details of the roof equipment and roof screens shall be included in the building permit drawings and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. 21. ROOF AND BUILDING DRAINPIPES: Developer shall install all roof and building drainpipes and downspouts inside building elements. These items shall not be visible on any exterior building elevations. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 22. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM Developer shall comply with the master sign program approved for the project. Separate sign permit approval shall be required for building signage and new sign copy. Signage shall conform to the Sign Program. 23. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance, proposed landscaping shall be shown on the site plan and submitted with the construction drawings for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee. Landscaping shall be extended beyond the property to include any right of way extending to the roadway curb or pavement edge as necessary and as indicated on the Civil phasing plan and landscape plan. This shall include extending landscaping and providing a pedestrian connection into the site within the US 101 right-of-way located at the southeast corner of the site, at the offramp at Tenth Street intersection. 24. LANDSCAPE MULCH: As part of the Landscape Plan submittal, Developer shall clarify a minimum three (3) inch layer of mulch to be applied on all exposed soil surfaces, as required by the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). 25. INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES: Developer shall not include any invasive plant species, such as those listed by the California Invasive Plant Council. 26. LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE: Prior to issuance of building permits or initiation of the proposed use, whichever comes first, Developer shall submit a completed Landscape Documentation Package, including a soil analysis/management report along with appropriate application review fees, to the Community Development Department, including required documentation for compliance verification, and obtain approval of such plans. 27. IRRIGATION SENSORS: Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall (as part of the irrigation system) indicate on construction drawings sensors that suspend or alter irrigation operation during unfavorable weather conditions (e.g. automatic rain shut-off devices). The following conditions shall be met prior to RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL INSPECTION, or ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 28. ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Prior to occupancy, Developer shall complete all required offsite and onsite improvements related to the project, including structures, paving, and landscaping, unless otherwise allowed by the Community Development Director, or stated in these conditions. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 29. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION: Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or building permit final sign-off, Developer of each pad shall complete all landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans. This condition pertains to buildout of each parcel. The Phase I landscaping shall be installed as specified under Condition 4. 30. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION: Prior to occupancy or initiation of the proposed use, or completion of each build-out phase of development, Developer shall submit a signed Certificate of Completion, along with all necessary supporting documentation and payment to the Community Development Department, for compliance verification of the landscape installation. Developer is required under the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) to provide a copy of the approved Certificate of Completion to the property owner or his or her designee. 31. PLANNING INSPECTION: Inspection(s) by the Planning Division may be required for the foundation, framing, application of exterior materials, and final completion of each structure to ensure that the construction matches the approved plans. 32. SITE CLEAN-UP: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Developer shall remove all construction materials, debris, and vehicles from the subject property. The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 33. CONSTRUCTION RELATED NOISE: To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following measures at the construction site: a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays; b. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; c. Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site; d. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; e. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; 6.A.y Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) f. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; and g. Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.” 34. CONSTRUCTION RELATED AIR QUALITY: To minimize potential construction- related impacts to air quality, Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following basic control measures at the construction site: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.” 6.A.y Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 35. DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATED SOILS: If contaminated soils are discovered, the Developer will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; b. Contractor will stockpile soil during development activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options; c. Contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate filed screening instrumentation; d. Contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; e. Contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and f. Contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed. 36. DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50’ of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. 37. DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: In the event of an accidental discovery of archaeological resources during grading or construction activities, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site: “If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is onsite, shall be notified and evaluate the find. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not onsite, the City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained (at Developer’s expense) to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and implemented by the responsible party.” 6.A.y Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 38. DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Developer shall include the following language in all grading, site work, and construction plans: “If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 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.” The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES that the use permitted by this entitlement occupies the premises. 39. GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY: Storefronts (including windows) must always maintain a minimum of 75 percent transparency along the ground floor of the building(s). No signage, window tinting/treatment, permanent/affixed furniture, or sunshades which permanently block the windows/storefronts are permitted. Sunshades which maximize transparency while providing UV light screening for building occupants may be permitted, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee. 40. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: For the life of the project, Developer shall maintain landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans, except as otherwise permitted or required by law. Significant changes to the number, placement, and selection of plant species may require a modification to this approval, to be determined by the Community Development Director or designee. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) FIRE INSPECTION DIVISION 41. The car wash facility shall be equipped with water recycling equipment and shall also be equipped with a sand oil water clarifier size to meet the expected demand. 42. For future plans, show the underground fire water supply components (point of connection, piping type & size, backflow preventer (DDCA), fire department connection (FDC), post indicator valve (PIV), etc. The fire water supply shall be designed to the current NFPA 24 standard. Note that 6” is the minimum underground fire hydrant supply line pipe size. Show all fire hydrants. 43. Buildings shall be equipped with a fire sprinkler system designed to the appropriate standard (NFPA 13) for the highest expected hazard. A stainless steel continuous riser pipe connection shall connect to an internal fire riser (the fire riser pipe shall be located inside the building). All fire sprinkler system components shall be monitored per the current NFPA 72. 44. A Fire Flow calculation for the project shall be based on the largest building and its construction type in conformance with the IFC/CFC Appendix B Table B105. The below data is more than 12 months old, but it has been provided for informational purposes: 45. The fuel station located on Parcel A shall comply with current state and federal tank (underground and/or above ground) laws and regulations. Condition: A sewer test manhole shall be installed for each building in an accessible location. Food facilities shall be equipped with a grease interceptor with a sample box per the grease trap/interceptor sizing policy. Contact Jennifer Rojero at 408-846-0438 for details. 46. The trash enclosure floor drains shall be equipped with a Zurn (or equivalent) Vandal Proof floor drain lid with screen and small grease trap (e.g. 40 pound). 47. The car wash facility shall be equipped with water recycling equipment and shall also be equipped with a sand oil water clarifier sized to meet the expected demand. BUILDING DIVISION 48. Prior to submittal of permits, the applicant shall contact the Building Division to schedule a pre-construction meeting. 49. Based on 246 proposed visitor parking spots, short term bicycle parking is required at five-percent (5%) of the visitor parking spots, with a minimum of 13 short term bicycle parking spots are required. Based on 37 proposed Tenant-Occupant 6.A.y Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) required parking spots, long term bicycle parking is required at five-percent (5%) of the tenant-occupant required parking, with a minimum of 2 (covered) long term bicycle parking spots required. PUBLIC WORKS MASTER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following conditions make up the ENTITLEMENTS for your project. They authorize and approve the specific terms of your project. The following conditions shall be addressed on the construction plans submitted for any BUILDING PERMIT or GRADING PERMIT, and shall be satisfied prior to issuance of whichever permit is issued first, or if another deadline is specified in a condition, at that time. 50. PAYMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FEE – At the time of first improvement plan submittal, the applicant shall submit a $20,000 (twenty thousand dollar) initial deposit for project plan check and construction inspection. This deposit will be credited/accounted toward final plan check and inspection fee for the project. In addition, the applicant shall submit a detailed project cost estimate prepared by the project engineer, to approval of the City Engineer, with the initial project plan submittal. The cost estimate shall be broken out into on-site and off-site improvements. Prior to plan approval, the applicant shall pay 100% of the plan check and inspection fee based on the approved project cost estimate. Public Works will not sign-off on the issuance of the project building permit without full payment of this plan check and inspection fee. 51. Funding Agreement – The applicant shall execute the “Funding Agreement” dated ________ that provides the framework to secure payment for the City to conduct the project traffic mitigations in lieu of the developer making the physical improvements, collection of development impact fees, and create a lien or other acceptable means of security, as described in the document between the Developer, Evergreen Development Company – 2019, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, and the City of Gilroy. The agreement shall be executed by the developer within thirty (30) days of project entitlement to the approval of the City Engineer. The proposed development shall comply with all terms and conditions specified in the Agreement. (PUBLIC WORKS) 52. PLAN SUBMITTAL – The Engineering project plans shall be submitted, in full, with the building permit plans. Improvement plans are required for both on-site and off- site improvements, and the improvement plan set cover sheet shall include an index referencing on-site and off-site improvements. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Gilroy Municipal Code and Standard Specifications and Details and are subject to all laws of the City of Gilroy by reference. The improvement plans shall include all civil project plans including, but not limited to, site plans, grading plans, utility plans, joint trench, off-site plans, lighting (photometric) 6.A.y Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) plans, and landscaping plans within the public right-of-way. The plan shall clearly identify both public and private utilities. The improvement plans shall be submitted with the Public Works Engineering submittal checklist provided by the City, and available on the City website. In addition: a. A complete set of improvement plans shall consist of Civil site design, landscape site design, Electrical, Joint Trench. Any walls or structural features part of the landscape design shall also be included; b. Improvement plans are required for both on-site and off-site improvements. A separate plan set for each shall be prepared, or at the approval of the City Engineer, onsite and offsite sheets can be combined into one plan set; c. The improvement plan submittal, including utility sheets, shall show appropriate line types and labels to identify different type of utilities and pipe sizes. Utility boxes, hydrants, backflow preventers, etc. shall be relocated/installed behind the back of sidewalk; d. Improvement plans (as second sheet in plan set) shall contain Approved Conditions of Approval; e. Improvement plans shall include General Notes found in the City of Gilroy General Guidelines; f. Improvement plans shall be completed per the Public Works Engineering submittal checklist, which can be found in the City’s website. At first submittal, a completed checklist shall be included in the submittal package, and shall show which items have been included. g. The improvement plan cover sheet shall include a table summarizing all facilities (Streets, Utilities, Parks, Landscaping, etc.), showing the ownership of all facilities, access rights to, and the maintenance responsibilities of all facilities; h. Improvement and grading plans shall show existing topo and features at least 50’ beyond the project boundary. The plan shall clearly show existing topo, label contour elevations, drainage patterns, flow lines, slopes, and all other property encumbrances; i. If the project has excess fill or cut that will be off-hauled to a site or on-hauled from a site within the city limits of Gilroy, an additional Haul Permit is required. A statement indicating the need to obtain a Haul Permit must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan; j. All grading and improvement plans shall identify the vertical elevation datum, date of survey, and surveyor; k. A Title Report shall be submitted with first submittal improvement plans. An existing site plan shall be submitted showing all existing site conditions and title report easements. The plan shall include bearing and distance information for all right-of-way and easements; l. The plan shall show any proposed easements to be dedicated for any needed purpose, or any easement expected to be abandoned through separate instrument. This includes PUE, PSE, EVAE, Cross-Property Access Easement, Landscape Easement, Drainage Easement, Pole Line Easement, etc.; 6.A.y Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) m. To ensure the plans are coordinated and there are no conflicts between disciplines, the applicant shall provide a “composite exhibit” showing Civil, Landscape, Electrical, and Joint Trench design information (as a separate sheet titled “Composite Plan”) to confirm that there are no conflicts; n. All Solid Waste Vehicle circulation movements shall be modeled and shown on a separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the City Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled using AutoTurn swept analysis software, and shall include all turning and street circulation movements; o. All Emergency Vehicle circulation movements shall be modeled and shown on a separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be prepared to the City Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled using AutoTurn swept analysis software, and shall include all turning and street circulation movements; p. All utility boxes exposed to traffic or in a driveway, including sanitary sewer and/or water meter boxes, shall have traffic-rated boxes and lids; q. All on-site recycled water system improvements, including appurtenances, shall be located within a PSE. (PUBLIC WORKS) 53. UTILITY PLANS – A utility plan shall be provided for all projects as specified within these conditions of approval. To ensure coordination between the applicant and the relevant utility company: a. The applicant shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. Show preferred and alternative locations for all utility vaults and boxes if project has not obtained PG&E approval. A licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer shall sign the composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans. (All dry utilities shall be placed underground). b. The applicant shall negotiate any necessary right-of-way or easement with PG&E, or any other utilities, subject to the review and approval by the Engineering Division and the utility companies. c. A “Will Serve Letter” shall be provided for each utility company expected to service the subdivision. Early coordination with the utility companies is necessary to obtain this letter. Coordination of City utilities shall be through the Engineering Division. d. A note shall be placed on the joint trench composite plans which states that the plan agrees with City Codes and Standards and that no underground utility conflict exists. (PUBLIC WORKS) 54. UTILITY RESPONSIBILITIES – Storm and sewer utilities in private areas shall be privately owned and privately maintained. The water system in Gilroy is owned and maintained by the City. Conversely, public utilities within utility easements on private property remain the responsibility of the individual utility companies to maintain. The plans shall note the inspection, ownership and maintenance responsibility for each utility shown on the plans within a Table of Responsibilities on the project cover sheet 6.A.y Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) of the improvement plans submitted with the initial plan submittal. The table shall include the list of streets, the responsible party for inspection of the improvements, who is responsible for the ownership of the utility, and who is responsible for the maintenance of the utility. An example of this table, including the types of utilities to be listed, can be provided by the Engineering Division upon request. (PUBLIC WORKS) 55. PREPARATION OF ELECTRICAL PLANS – The project electrical plans shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer experienced in preparing these types of plans. The applicant shall submit, with the improvement plans submitted with the initial plan submittal, a letter from the design Electrical or Civil Engineer that states the electrical plan conform to City Codes and Standards, and to the approved improvement plans. The letter shall be signed and stamped by the professional engineer that prepares the improvement plans. (PUBLIC WORKS) 56. EXISTING FACILITIES PROTECTION – All existing public utilities shall be protected in place and if necessary relocated as approved by the City Engineer. No permanent structure is permitted within City easements without the approval of the City of Gilroy. (PUBLIC WORKS) 57. WATER QUALITY – Project design shall comply with the Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Low Impact Development & Post-Construction Requirements. The applicant shall submit the Source Control Checklist as well as the appropriate Performance Requirements Checklist found in Appendix A of the manual at the time of the initial submittal for building permit. The manual can be found at the following site: www.cityofgilroy.org/261/Storm-Water-Management (PUBLIC WORKS) 58. DEVELOPER STORM WATER QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY – The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures, and implement such measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or a project stop order. (PUBLIC WORKS) 59. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) – The applicant shall perform all construction activities in accordance with Gilroy Municipal Code Section 27C, Municipal Storm Water Quality Protection and Discharge Controls, and Section E.10, Construction Site Storm Water Run-Off Control Program of the Regional NPDES Permit. Detailed information can be located at: www.flowstobay.org/documents/business/construction/SWPPP.pdf. This sheet shall be printed and included in all building construction plan sets permitted for construction in the City of Gilroy. (PUBLIC WORKS) 60. FIRE DEPARTMENT HYDRANT FLOW TEST – The applicant shall perform a Fire Hydrant flow test to confirm the water system will adequately serve the development, and will modify any part of the systems that does not perform to the standards established by the City. Applicant shall coordinate with Fire Department for the Fire 6.A.y Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Hydrant flow test. The flow test results shall be submitted with the initial plan submittal. (PUBLIC WORKS) 61. WATER CONSERVATION – The project shall fully comply with the measures required by the City’s Water Supply Shortage Regulations Ordinance (Gilroy City Code, Chapter 27, Article VI), and subsequent amendments to meet the requirements imposed by the State of California’s Water Board. This ordinance established permanent voluntary water saving measures and temporary conservation standards. (PUBLIC WORKS) 62. PROJECT STUDIES – The applicant shall submit, for City approval, any applicable water, sewer, storm drain or traffic studies for the development deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. These studies shall provide the supporting hydraulic calculation for pipe sizing per the City Standard Design Guidelines. The study shall be reviewed and approved by Engineering. If the results of the study indicate that this development contributes to the over-capacity of the trunk line, the applicant will be required to mitigate the impact by removing and replacing, or upsizing of the existing utilities to accommodate the appropriate level of project flows to the approval of the City Engineer. The improvements shall be addressed on the construction drawings, to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 63. MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE – The project shall comply with all City Master Plans to the approval of the City Engineer. Street improvements, all street sections, the design of all off-site storm drainage facilities, sewer and water lines shall be in accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City Master Plan as approved by the City Engineer. Improvements deemed necessary by the City Engineer shall be shown on the project improvement plans. (PUBLIC WORKS) 64. IMPACT FEES – The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. The City’s latest impact fee schedule is available on the City’s website. Payment of all Impact Fees is required at first building permit issuance. Fees shall be based on the current fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy. Note that impact fees increase at the beginning of each fiscal year, July 1. Specific fee language is provided further in these conditions of approval. (PUBLIC WORKS) 65. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – At first improvement plan submittal, the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The SWMP shall analyze the existing and ultimate conditions and facilities, and the study shall include all off-site tributary areas. Study and the design shall be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition). Existing off-site drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount, and velocity shall not be altered by the development. The plan shall be to the approval of the City Engineer and shall be approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 6.A.y Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 66. STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN – At first improvement plan submittal, the applicant shall submit a design level Stormwater Control Plan Report (in 8 ½ x 11 report format), to include background, summary, and explanation of all aspects of stormwater management. The report shall also include exhibits, tables, calculations, and all technical information supporting facts, including but not limited to, exhibit of the proposed site conditions, which clearly delineates impervious and pervious areas on site. The plan shall provide a separate hatch or shading for landscaping/pervious areas on-site including those areas that are not bio-retention areas. This stormwater control plan report format does not replace, or is not in-lieu of any stormwater control plan sheet in the improvement plans. The stormwater control plan shall include a signed Performance Requirement Certifications specified in the Stormwater Guidance Manual. At applicant’s sole expense, the stormwater control plan shall be submitted for review by an independent third party accepted by the City for compliance. Result of the peer review shall be submittal and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 67. REPAIR OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – The applicant shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal, and all new improvements that are damaged during construction or removed because of the applicant’s operations. The applicant shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. Said repairs shall be completed prior to the first occupancy of the project. (PUBLIC WORKS) 68. TRIANGULAR AREA OF VISIBILITY – Landscaping and permanent structures located within the 10' triangular area of visibility at the driveway, and 45’ triangular area of visibility at any project corner, shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 9’, and/or be less than 2’ in height. This includes all PG&E above ground structures and other utility facilities. The sight triangle shall be shown on the site civil plans, to the approval of the City Engineer, to demonstrate this condition. (PUBLIC WORKS) 69. DRIVEWAY DESIGN – Driveway grades shall be designed to keep a standard design vehicle from dragging or “bottoming out” on the street or driveway, and to keep water collected in the street from flowing onto the lots. The details of such design shall be provided on the site civil plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 70. GRADING & DRAINAGE – All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerns. There shall be no earthwork disturbance or grading activities between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. If approved, the applicant shall submit a Winterization Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion control devices and other techniques in accordance with Gilroy Municipal Code § 27C to minimize erosion. Specific measures to control sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential construction contamination sediment runoff, construction pollution and other potential construction contamination shall be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention 6.A.y Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall supplement the Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These documents shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board, with a copy provided to the Engineering Division before a grading permit will be issued. A project WDID# shall be added to the grading plans prior to plan approval. (PUBLIC WORKS) 71. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER – Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer shall review the final grading, pavement design and drainage plans to ensure that said designs are in accordance with the recommendations or the project geotechnical study, and the peer review comments. The applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer’s approval shall then be conveyed to the City either by letter, or by signing the plans. All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved project’s design level geotechnical report. All grading activities shall be conducted under the observation of, and tested by, a licensed geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed with the City of Gilroy for each phase of construction, stating that all grading activities were performed in conformance with the requirements of the project’s geotechnical report. The applicant shall add this condition to the general notes on the grading plan. Certification of grades and compaction are required prior to Building Permit final. This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan. (PUBLIC WORKS) 72. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION – Site design, including building finished floor elevations, shall comply with the 1995 Uvas Creek Overflow Floodplain Delineation Project prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. The project will be required to have a hydrologist review the project grading, to confirm this project does not have cumulative impacts to floodwaters. The City will require a review letter by Schaaf & Wheeler (Contact Caitlin Gilmore at 415-823-4964, Schaaf & Wheeler) be submitted to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 73. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – The applicant shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the Engineering Division for removal of existing trees in the public right-of-way, prior to the issuance of a building permit or demolition building permit, whichever is issued first. (PUBLIC WORKS) 74. PHASED PERMITS – The applicant may, with the approval of the City Engineer, phase the permits to expedite the construction process. If this is done, each phase of the work will require a separate and complete set of plans to be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of the said permit. Overlapping of permits may occur, if approved by the City Engineer. No work on the next phase of construction, in advance of the permitted work, may occur. No “at risk” work will be permitted. Only the below phased permitted work will be allowed: 6.A.y Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) a. Rough Grading b. Fine Grading c. Underground Utilities d. Site Improvements e. Landscaping f. Off-Site Plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of work. (PUBLIC WORKS) 75. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS, BONDS, AND INSURANCE – The applicant must obtain an encroachment permit, posting the required bonds and insurance, and provide a one (1) year warranty for all work to be done in the City's right-of-way or City easement. This encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a foundation building permit and prior to any work being done in the City's right-of-way. All existing public utilities shall be protected in place and if necessary relocated as approved by the City Engineer. No permanent structures are permitted within the City right-of-way, or within any City easement unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared for all work in the public right-of-way by a licensed civil engineer, whose signed engineer’s stamp shall appear on the plans. Prior to issuance of the encroachment permit, the applicant shall submit any applicable pedestrian or traffic control plans for any lane or sidewalk closures. The traffic control plan shall comply with the State of California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and standard construction practices. Construction plans for improvements in the right-of-way shall be submitted to the City Engineer at 30%, 60%, and 90% design for review. All design assumptions and criteria shall be submitted with each phase of design submittal. Project specifications shall be included for review with the 90% design review. Final construction plans and specifications shall be approved by the City Engineer, and released for construction, prior to the issuance of the encroachment permit. The applicant is required to confirm the location of existing utility lines along the project frontage by potholing. Prior to any potholing, applicant shall submit a pothole plan for City review and approval. Applicant shall provide the pothole result to the City Engineer prior to final design. Right-of-way improvements shall include, at a minimum, the following items: (PUBLIC WORKS) a. STREET WIDENING - The applicant shall either widen 10th Street along the entire project frontage or execute the funding agreement as identified above. The applicant shall install new street section, curb, gutter, and sidewalk and relocate affected utilities as directed by the City Engineer. All work shall be shown on the required improvement plans. b. STREET TREES - The applicant shall plant street trees along the project frontage consistent with the approved entitlement documents, and to match the City of Gilroy’s Street Tree Plan in effect at the time of construction. The street 6.A.y Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) tree plans shall be per City Standard Drawings, and are to include City Standard tree grates if trees are installed within sidewalk. c. TREE GRATES – The applicant shall install City Standard Tree Grates as specified in the approved plans. Tree grates shall be 4’x6’, model OT-T24 by Urban Accessories, and shall be black power coated. The tree grates shall be shown on the improvement plans to be located at the back of curb to the approval of the City Engineer, and shall be installed with the street trees prior to the first occupancy. d. STREET MARKINGS - The applicant shall install necessary street markings of a material and design approved by the City Engineer, and replace any that are damaged during construction. These include but are not limited to all pavement markings, painted curbs and handicap markings. All permanent pavement markings shall be thermoplastic and comply with Caltrans Standards. Color and location of painted curbs shall be shown on the plans, and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. Any existing painted curb or pavement markings no longer required shall be removed by grinding if thermoplastic, or sand blasting if in paint. e. SIDEWALK - The applicant shall construct a 10-foot wide City standards sidewalk along the entire project frontage. Sidewalk replacement shall be constructed per the City Standard Drawings. f. CURB RAMP(S) - The applicant shall construct one curb ramp in accordance with the latest Caltrans State Standard Drawing at the corner of Chestnut/9th Street. The actual ramp "Case" shall be identified on the plans and shall be to the approval of the City Engineer. g. CURB AND GUTTER - The applicant shall replace to existing City standards all curb and gutter surrounding the project site. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per the City Standard Drawing STR-12. The applicant shall also construct new curb as necessary to maintain full function of the intersection at the Northeast curb return and curb ramps of the 10th St and Chestnut intersection to align with widened 10th St. These improvements shall not be “interim” but shall be permanent improvements as part of Phase 1 of the project. h. DRIVEWAY APPROACH(ES) - The applicant shall install City Standard Commercial driveway approaches along 9th Street, 10th Street, and Chestnut Street as shown on the approved plans. The new commercial driveway approach shall be constructed per the City Standard Drawing. i. DRIVEWAY REMOVAL - The applicant is to remove the existing driveway approaches on 9th Street, 10th Street, and Chestnut Street as shown on the approved A&S application plans, and replace them with sidewalk, curb and gutter per the City Standard Drawing. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) j. SEWER LATERAL - The applicant shall install as a minimum a six (6) inch City Standard sewer lateral connection from the property line to the sewer main located in the street right-of-way. The installation shall be done in accordance with the City Standard Drawing SWR-6 including a 6" property line clean-out. k. STORM WATER CATCH BASINS - The applicant shall install standard storm water catch basins per approved plans and in accordance with the City Standard Drawing. l. SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN(S) - The applicant shall install standard sidewalk underdrains in accordance with the City Standard Drawing STR-19. m. STREET LIGHT(S) - The applicant shall provide and install standard aluminum electrolier street lights per City Standard Drawing EL-1 to EL-5 as shown on the plans. The applicant is responsible for all PG&E service fees and hook-up charges. Any new service point connection required to power the new lights shall be shown on the construction drawings along with the conduit, pull boxes and other items necessary to install the street lights. An Isometric lighting level needs to be provided by the designer/contractor. A separate light study may be required by the City Engineer. The new street light shall has 32’ mounting height per Standard Drawing EL-3, with mounting arm length per Standard Drawing EL-4, the Fixture shall be Leotek GC1 or GC2 series in an approved configuration per detail EL-2 or approved equal. The arm shall be installed at the location as shown on the approved plans. n. SIGNAL EQUIPMENT – The applicant shall relocate/replace the signal equipment, including the mast arm lights, boxes, cabinets, conduit, etc. due to the widening of 10th Street should the applicant decide to construct the widening improvements in lieu of executing the funding agreement indicated above. o. FIRE HYDRANTS – The applicant shall install new fire hydrants along the project frontage. Fire Hydrant laterals along project frontage shall contain no bends without approval of the City Engineer. Spacing of hydrants shall meet City and Fire Marshall requirements. The applicant shall perform Fire Hydrant test to confirm water system will adequately serve the development, and will modify any part of the systems that does not perform to the standards established by the City. Developer shall coordinate with Fire Department for the Fire Hydrant test. p. FIRE SERVICES – Each lot shall have a separate fire water service and double check detector assembly per City Standards. q. STREET PAVING – The applicant shall grind and overlay the entire width of both 9th Street (Lip of Gutter to Lip of Gutter), and 10th Street (Lip of Gutter to median) along project frontage with a minimum 2.5” hot mix AC, and with 6.A.y Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) pavement section dig-outs and repairs. Extend of the dig-outs and repairs to be determined by the Developers Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer. 76. UTILITIES – All new services to the development shall be "underground service" designed and installed in accordance with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, AT&T (phone) Company and local cable company regulations. Transformers and switch gear cabinets shall be placed underground unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Underground utility plans must be submitted to the City prior to installation. (PUBLIC WORKS) 77. STREET CUT MORATORIUM – If the project is making new pavement cuts on streets that the City has recently resurfaced, including Chestnut, the project shall Grind and pave the entire width of that street (Lip of Gutter to Lip of Gutter) along project frontage with a minimum 2.5” hot mix AC, and with pavement section dig-outs and repairs. Extend of the dig-outs and repairs to be determined by the Developers Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 78. EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING STANDARDS – The applicant shall submit a photometric plan for on-site lighting showing lighting levels to Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Standards. The plan shall comply with the requirement of an average of 1 foot-candle with a 4:1 minimum to average ratio and a minimum lighting of 0.3 foot-candle. This lighting standard is applicable to all publicly-accessibly parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and publicly-accessible grounds contiguous to all buildings. Private, interior courtyards not accessible to the public are not required to meet this standard. The lighting system shall be so designed as to limit light spill beyond property lines and to shield the light source from view from off site. The photometric plan shall be approved by the City Engineer or their designee and shall be addressed on the construction plans submitted for any demolition permit, building permit, or grading permit and shall be satisfied prior to issuance of whichever permit is issued first. Any subsequent building permits that include any site lighting shall also meet these requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS) 79. STREET LIGHTING STANDARDS – The applicant shall submit plans for street/sidewalk showing lighting levels to Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Standards. The plan shall comply with lighting requirements as follows: a. Arterial Streets – 1.0 fc with minimum lighting of 0.5 fc b. Collector/Local Streets – 0.6 fc average with a 0.3 fc minimum c. High Volume Intersections – 1.0 fc with a 4:1 minimum to average ratio and a minimum lighting of 0.5 fc d. Low Volume Intersections – 0.6 fc with a 4:1 minimum to average ratio and a minimum lighting of 0.3 fc. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan identifying how these lighting levels are 6.A.y Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) being met given the site geometrics, using the City Standard street lights, and a Type III lighting distribution. The width of the street shall and lighting levels shall determine the lighting spacing. Street lights and pull boxes shall be installed in the planter strip if one is present, or behind the back of walk where feasible so as to maintain sidewalk clear of obstructions to the approval of the City Engineer. The photometric plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 80. FLOOR DRAINS – All floor drains shall be plumbed to connect to the sanitary sewer system, and shall not be connected to stormwater collection system. The plumbing connections shall be shown on the plans to the approval of the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 81. STORM DRAIN INLETS AND WATERWAYS – Per the City’s Clean Water Program’s requirements, the applicant shall mark with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay,” or equivalent, using methods approved by the City standards on all storm inlets surrounding and within the project parcel. Furthermore, storm drains shall be designed to serve exclusively stormwater. Dual-purpose storm drains that switch to sanitary sewer are not permitted in the City of Gilroy. (PUBLIC WORKS) 82. SEPARATE WATER METERS SERVICES – When a development includes multiple uses (mixed use or other), within one area designated as restaurant space, there shall be a separate water service, meter and backflow preventer for the commercial space and a separate water meter and backflow preventer for the other development use(s). This will facilitate the accurate assessment of the Sewer Service Charge, which is based on water use and customer class. (PUBLIC WORKS) 83. FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT CLEANING –The applicant of any food service facilities must agree to have any sink or other floor mat, container, and equipment cleaning area, connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. The cleaning area shall be indoors or in a roofed outdoor area; either areas being plumbed to the sanitary sewer. Per Gilroy Municipal Code Section 27C.8 Prohibition of Discharges from Industrial or Commercial Activity outdoor cleaning areas shall be designed to prevent stormwater run-on from entering the sanitary sewer and to prevent stormwater run-off from carrying pollutants to the site storm drains. Signs shall be posted indicating that all food service equipment washing activities shall be conducted in this area. Regular maintenance and cleaning of the grease interceptor is required. (PUBLIC WORKS) 84. LOADING DOCKS – Per Gilroy Municipal Code Section 27C.8 Prohibition of Discharges from Industrial or Commercial Activity, the applicant shall cover loading docks to minimize run-on to and run-off from the loading area. Roof downspouts shall be positioned to direct stormwater away from the loading area. Water from covered loading dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer to the approval of the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 6.A.y Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 85. GARBAGE/RECYCLE STORAGE AND SERVICE – The applicant shall provide an adequate area for the purposes of storing garbage and recycling collection containers for scheduled servicing by the franchise solid waste collection service. If required, the containers may be placed on the street within the loading zone for a maximum of two hours; one hour prior to the scheduled servicing time, and must be removed from the street within one hour after the service. The containers shall be placed at the service location allowing enough room for the truck to safely approach the containers. The collection containers shall be brought to the service area on the day of service and returned to the storage enclosure by the property owner. The containers are not to be in public view or in the public right-of-way prior to, or beyond the scheduled service times. A letter shall be provided, to the approval of the City Engineer, from the City’s franchise solid waste collection service provider (Recology) confirming serviceability and site accessibility of the solid waste pickup as designed and shown on the project plans. Contact Recology at 408-842-3358. (PUBLIC WORKS) 86. FUEL DISPENSING AREAS – Per Gilroy Municipal Code Section 27C.8 Prohibition of Discharges from Industrial or Commercial Activity, the applicant shall install impermeable surfaces that are graded at the minimum slope necessary to prevent ponding and separated from the rest of the site by a grade break that prevents run-on of stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. A canopy that extends a minimum of ten feet in each direction from each pump shall cover fueling area. The canopy shall not drain onto the fueling area. (PUBLIC WORKS) 87. CLEAN, INSPECT AND REPAIR SANITARY SEWER – The applicant is required to evaluate the conditions of the existing Sewer Lines along the project frontage by videotaping and providing the result to the City Engineer. The applicant shall clean and inspect (via remote TV camera) the mainline sewer from the manhole upstream to the manhole downstream of the project lateral connection, or the sewer lateral the project is connecting to if not connecting directly to the sewer main. The video inspection shall be done by a professional sanitary sewer video inspection company, to City Standards, and be completed prior to building permit issuance. The video of the inspection shall be reviewed with the Department of Public Works and any cracked or broken areas of the line along the project frontage shall be repaired by the applicant at his expense. If the integrity of existing utilities found to be compromised, applicant will be required to repair, or remove and replace if necessary, to the approval of the City Engineer. The required repairs (spray foam-RazoRooter or flushing, or removal of roots, or replacement), as determined by the City Engineer, shall appear on the improvement plans submitted by the applicant for permit plan check. All necessary repairs to the sewer shall be completed and approved prior to connection of the project lateral to the City sewer system. (PUBLIC WORKS) 88. CLEAN, INSPECT AND REPAIR STORM LINE – The applicant is required to evaluate the conditions of the existing Storm Lines along the project frontage by videotaping and providing the result to the City Engineer. The applicant shall clean and inspect (via remote TV camera) the storm line from the manhole upstream to the manhole downstream of the project area. The video inspection shall be done by a professional 6.A.y Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) video inspection company, to City standards, and be completed prior to building permit issuance. The video of the inspection shall be reviewed with the Department of Public Works and any cracked or broken areas of the line along the project frontage shall be repaired by the applicant at his expense. If the integrity of existing utilities found to be compromised, applicant will be required to repair, or remove and replace if necessary, to the approval of the City Engineer. The required repairs, as determined by the City Engineer, shall appear on the improvement plans submitted by the applicant for permit plan check. All necessary repairs to the storm line shall be completed and approved prior to connection from the project site. (PUBLIC WORKS) 89. UNDERGROUND FRONTAGE UTILITY LINES – The applicant must underground all overhead utilities, and remove all related utility poles, along the project frontage from utility pole to utility pole. The applicant shall be responsible for the coordination with all utility companies existing on the poles and coordinate for their undergrounding or relocation as necessary so that the project frontage is free from utilities to the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall submit plans for this undergrounding work with the civil plans submitted with the first building permit. Permitting for this undergrounding work shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 90. OVERHEAD UTILITY CLEARANCE – For projects that have overhead utility lines on- site that travel over new buildings, the applicant shall obtain a letter from the utility company indicating that there is adequate overhead clearance from the utility to the proposed building. The letter shall be submitted with the first set of improvement plans submitted. The plans shall show the existing utility pole, any necessary proposed pole protection (including overhead clearance warning identification), and shall be confirmed satisfactory with the utility company. The letter shall be to the approval of the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 91. DRAINAGE – Drainage designed into landscaping with the purpose of reducing volume or improving quality of runoff from the site shall be implemented according to the requirements of the Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Low Impact Development & Post Construction Requirements (June 2015) and shall also be, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Where necessary, sidewalk drains per the City Standard Drawing shall be provided to direct the water under the sidewalk and through the curb. No increase to the peak discharge shall be permitted downstream. In addition, discharge must conform to any non-point source permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Drainage improvements made on-site shall conform to standard engineering practices and shall not allow any site drainage to impact adjacent properties. All drainage capacity calculations shall be performed by a licensed Civil Engineer, whose signed engineer’s stamp shall appear on the calculations sheets, and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval with the project civil plans. For projects that include permanent structural controls for water quality protection, the O&M (operation and maintenance) procedures for such control features shall be submitted in a site-specific Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) which shall be reviewed and approved prior to occupancy. A formal O&M Agreement shall 6.A.y Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) specify the owner’s responsibility to ensure their ongoing effective operation and maintenance. Such O&M responsibility requirements shall be recorded on the property deed. If the project is proposing to connect to an existing storm drain system within or downstream from the site, the design engineer shall provide calculations with the final design plans to demonstrate that the downstream drainage system has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional site flows being added to the system for the design storm per City Standards. The calculations shall be to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 92. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT – At Developer’s sole expense, Developer shall submit results from a third-party review of the project’s stormwater design. The results shall confirm that the project is complying with requirements set in the City of Gilroy Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Low Impact Development and Post- Construction Requirements. (PUBLIC WORKS) 93. SITE LANDSCAPING COORDINATION – The site landscaping needs to be coordinated between the stormwater treatment area and the overall site landscaping plan area. The landscaping within the stormwater treatment area will not count towards the site landscaping requirement. Stormwater treatment areas should be identified on the site first, and then site landscaping to make sure the correct plant material is identified for each area. Some site landscaping plant material may not be suitable in stormwater treatment areas due to the nature of the facility. Sewer facilities cannot be aligned through stormwater treatment facilities. It is the applicant’s responsibility to coordinate the civil stormwater treatment facilities and the plans from the project landscaper. (PUBLIC WORKS) 94. PARKING LOTS – The applicant shall submit plans for all required off-street parking lots showing proper grading, drainage, ramps profile, and parking dimensions in conformance with City parking standards. The plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first City permits. (PUBLIC WORKS) 95. BICYCLE PARKING – The applicant shall provide both long-term bicycle lockers and short-term bicycle racks on-site, as shown on the approved site plan, to the approval of the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 96. OFF-HOURS MATERIAL DELIVERY – The applicant shall coordinate with the future site operators so that all site delivery of materials and goods are delivered off-hours and on-site. This will allow the on-site customer parking for the development site to be utilized during business hours, and not be impacted by the staging of delivery vehicles. The applicant shall provide a written plan, to ensure that this condition is satisfied, prior to occupancy of the first site building. The plan shall be to the approval of the Director of Community Development and City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 6.A.y Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) 97. TRANSPORTATION - The Project shall comply with all the traffic mitigation measures identified in the project’s Traffic Study including: a. 10th Street Widening – widen the project’s 10th Street frontage on the north side to accommodate a second west bound left-turn lane at the intersection of 10th Street/Chestnut-Automall Parkway b. Chestnut/10th Street Westbound Left-Turn Addition – add a second westbound left-turn pocket to address queuing deficiencies c. Monterey/10th Street Westbound Turn Lane Extension – extend the existing westbound left-turn pocket an additional 30 feet to address queuing deficiencies d. Chestnut/10th Street Eastbound Turn Lane Extension – extend the existing eastbound left-turn pocket an additional 25 feet to address queuing deficiencies. This will require the partial removal of the existing landscaped center median, including two trees. These improvements shall be completed by the project prior to first project building occupancy, per the approved project traffic study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, dated August 6, 2020, unless the funding agreement referenced above is executed by the developer to the approval of the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 98. PHASE I WORK REQUIREMENTS – The applicant shall construct the following improvements during Phase I of the project: a. All utility work in the public right of way and public easement that is required to service the development shall be constructed in Phase 1 of this project. b. All project frontage improvements along 9th Street, 10th Street, and Chestnut Street shall be constructed in Phase 1 of this project. c. On-site backbone street/drive aisle, utilities, landscaping, stormwater treatment and management, lighting, signing, striping, etc. shall be constructed in Phase 1 of the project. d. New landscaping along 10th street (between the existing curb/gutter to the new 10’ sidewalk) shall be constructed in Phase 1 of this project. This landscaped area (knows as “temporary landscaping”) shall be in place until a future 10th Street widening project (by others) is completed. This temporary landscape area shall be maintained by the HOA until the future 10th widening project replaces said landscape area with pavement. The City and Developer shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement. (PUBLIC WORKS) 99. ADDRESS PLAN – The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department a final address plan. The plan shall be substantially in conformance with the address plan approved with the Arch & Site application. Said submittal shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the submittal of plans for any demolition permit, building permit, or site development permit and shall be satisfied prior to issuance of whichever permit is issued first. (PUBLIC WORKS) 100. PERMITS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES – The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and local agencies as required to construct the proposed improvements. The applicant is hereby informed that permits may be 6.A.y Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) required by one (1) or more of the following: Army Corps of Engineers, UPRR, Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara County Roads and Airports, Santa Clara Valley Water District or Habitat Permit. If project is within jurisdiction of any of these agencies, verification of permit or waiver of permit must be given to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any required City permits. If the City is required to be a party to the permit application and a fee is required, the applicant shall reimburse the City for its cost. A copy of these permits shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 101. CALTRANS PERMIT – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit evidence to the Public Works Department of approval by the State of California for the performance of any work within the State right-of-way. If the City is required to be a party to the permit application and a fee is required, the applicant shall reimburse the City for its cost. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Caltrans permit office as soon as possible to learn what is required to obtain Caltrans approval and issuance of a State Encroachment Permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 102. STREET TREE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE – The applicant shall pay a fee to prove funding towards additional tree planting in the City. The fee is based on the amount of added hardscape the project is adding. The estimated impact fee, based on the approved plans, is $656.00. This fee is only an estimate. The actual impact fee will be calculated based on building permit plans submitted, and the fees approved by the City Council in place at the time of the building permit submittal. The fee shall be collected by the Public Works Department and paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 103. STORM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE – The applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the project's share of storm drainage flowing off-site, and shall be used to enhance the City’s storm drainage system based on the recommendations of the adopted Storm Drainage Master Plan. The estimated impact fee, based on the approved plans, is $10,767.00. This fee is only an estimate. The actual impact fee will be calculated based on building permit plans submitted, and the fees approved by the City Council in place at the time of the building permit submittal. The fee shall be collected by the Public Works Department and paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 104. SANITARY SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE – The applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the project’s share of the increase amount of sewage generated by the project, which shall be used to enhance the City’s sewer system based on the adopted Sewer Master Plan. The estimated impact fee, based on the approved plans, is $83,619. This fee is only an estimate. The actual impact fee will be calculated based on building permit plans submitted, and the fees approved by the City Council in place at the time of the building permit submittal. The fee shall be collected by the Public Works Department and paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. At first improvement plan submittal, applicant’s engineer shall submit a calculation for sanitary 6.A.y Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) sewer and water generation per the City’s Master Plan design criteria. The fee shall be collected by the Public Works Department and paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 105. WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE – The applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the project's share of impact to the City’s water system, and the water needs of the development. The fee shall be used to fund improvements identified in the City’s Water Master Plan. The estimated impact fee, based on the approved plans, is $37,938. This fee is only an estimate. The actual impact fee will be calculated based on building permit plans submitted, and the fees approved by the City Council in place at the time of the building permit submittal. At first improvement plan submittal, applicant’s engineer shall submit a calculation for water generation per the City’s Master Plan design criteria. The fee shall be collected by the Public Works Department and paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 106. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FEE – The applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the project's share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the City of Gilroy. The funds shall be used to fund improvements identified in the City Traffic Circulation Master Plan. The estimated impact fee, based on the approved plans, is $1,548,381. This fee is only an estimate. The actual impact fee will be calculated based on building permit plans submitted, and the fees approved by the City Council in place at the time of the building permit submittal. The fee shall be collected by the Public Works Department and paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 107. PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE – The applicant shall pay a fee proportional to the project’s share of the increase to the use of City Public facilities. The estimated impact fee, based on the approved plans, is $295,550. This fee is only an estimate. The actual impact fee will be calculated based on building permit plans submitted, and the fees approved by the City Council in place at the time of the building permit submittal. The fee shall be collected by the Public Works Department and paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 108. CONSTRUCTION NOTICING – At least one week prior to commencement of any on or off-site work, the applicant shall post at the site, and to property owners within (300') three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the project site a notice that construction work will commence on or around the stated date. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for dust, noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. Noticing shall be in both English and Spanish. The notice shall be submitted for review to the approval of the City Engineer two weeks prior to the issuance of the building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 6.A.y Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) The following conditions shall be met prior to the approval of the FINAL MAP or PARCEL MAP, or if another deadline is specified in a condition, at that time 109. UTILITY DEDICATIONS – The applicant or owner shall dedicate all necessary private utility easements needed for the development in Phase 1 of the project. (PUBLIC WORKS) 110. DRIVEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT – The applicant or owner shall dedicate reciprocal driveway ingress and egress easements, as delineated on the approved plans. Said easements shall be approved by both affected property owners. The easements shall be approved by the City Engineer, recorded with the County Recorder’s Office, and a recorded copy of the document returned to the City prior to the release of the first building permit. The easement may also be designated on any associated parcel or subdivision map. (PUBLIC WORKS) 111. SUBDIVISION (FINAL) TRACT MAP – The applicant shall have a subdivision map, prepared by a person authorized to practice land surveying in California, delineating all parcels created or deleted and all changes in lot lines in conformance with the Gilroy Municipal Code. The Final Subdivision Map shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded by the County Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance of the first building permit. A map guarantee shall be submitted to the City, by the applicant’s title company, prior to release of the map to the title company for recordation. Prior to the City’s release of the parcel map to the title company, the applicant may, at the discretion of the City Engineer, be required to submit to the City an electronic copy of the map in the AutoCAD Version being used by the City at the time of recordation. It is the applicant's responsibility to check with their title company and the County Recorder’s Office to determine the time necessary to have the map recorded after City approval. The Subdivision (Final) Tract Map shall be presented to the City Council for review and action. The City Council meeting will be scheduled approximately fifty (50) days after the Subdivision (Final) Tract Map is deemed technically correct, and Improvement Plans with supporting documents, reports and agreements are approved by the City. Executed Subdivision (Final) Tract Map shall be returned to the City Public Works Department if Subdivision (Final) Map has not been filed in the County Recorder’s Office within ninety (90) days from the date of City Council’s approval. (PUBLIC WORKS) 112. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (PIA) – The applicant shall enter into a public improvement agreement with the City per Gov. Code Section 66462(a), and shall arrange to provide Payment and Performance bonds each for 100% of the cost of public infrastructure improvements to be constructed in the public right-of-way. These improvements shall include, but not be limited to, roadway construction, sidewalk, curb and gutter, water lines, storm lines, sewer lines, street lights, and signal equipment. City Standard insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement. The agreement will be forwarded to the City Council for approval with project (parcel or 6.A.y Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) final) map. The PIA shall be approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of the project building permit. (PUBLIC WORKS) 113. MONUMENTS – The applicant shall arrange for the engineer to have all monuments set per the recorded final map. A certificate letter by the Surveyor or Engineer will be provided to the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) The following conditions shall be met prior to RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL INSPECTION, or ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, whichever occurs first, or if another deadline is specified in a condition, at that time. 114. ELEVATION CERTIFICATE – (specifically for projects in the flood zone) An elevation certificate per FEMA requirements must be complete by a Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer. The elevation certificate shall be submitted, to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the first building occupancy. (PUBLIC WORKS) 115. RECORD DRAWINGS – The applicant shall submit one full set of original record drawings and construction specifications for all off-site improvements to the Department of Public Works. All underground facilities shall be shown on the record drawings as constructed in the field. The applicant shall also provide the City with an electronic copy of the record drawings in the AutoCAD Version being used by the City at the time of completion of the work. The applicant shall also submit an AutoCAD drawing file of all consultants composite basemap linework showing all public improvements and utility layouts. This condition shall be met prior to the release of utilities, final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. (PUBLIC WORKS) 116. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT – The applicant shall execute a Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement with the City Engineer as specified in Chapter 7.39.210-230 of the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance. The agreement shall outline the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for the permanent storm water treatment facilities. The City-Standard Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public Works Engineering. The agreement shall include the following: a. This Agreement shall also provide that in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public health or safety, the city shall have the authority to perform maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the owner. b. All on-site stormwater management facilities shall be operated and maintained in good condition and promptly repaired/replaced by the property owner(s) or other legal entity approved by the City. c. Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in accordance with City-approved plans. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) d. The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance schedule for the life of any stormwater management facility and shall describe the maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and who shall perform the maintenance. This maintenance schedule shall be included with the approved Stormwater Runoff Management Plan. This agreement shall be executed prior to the first occupancy of the building. (PUBLIC WORKS) 117. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES INSPECTION – The Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement work shall require inspections be performed which shall adhere to the following: a. To comply with the State Stormwater requirements and the NPDES permit, the applicant shall secure a QSD or QSP to maintain all erosion control and BMP measures during construction. The applicant’s QSD or QSP shall provide the City weekly inspection reports to the approval of the City Engineer. b. Stormwater facility inspections shall be done at least twice per year, once in Fall by October 1st, in preparation for the wet season, and once in Winter by March 15th. Written records shall be kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following information: 1. Site address; 2. Date and time of inspection; 3. Name of the person conducting the inspection; 4. List of stormwater facilities inspected; 5. Condition of each stormwater facility inspected; 6. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and 7. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection. c. Upon completion of each inspection, an inspection report shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering no later than October 1st for the Fall report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report. d. Before commencing any grading or construction activities, the applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and provide evidence of filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board. e. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and implement such measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop order. f. Sequence of construction for all stormwater facilities (bioswales, detention/ retention basins, drain rock, etc.) shall be done toward final phases of project to prevent silting of facilities and reduce the intended use of the facilities. g. Prior to final inspection, all stormwater facilities will be tested by a certified QSP or QSD to meet the minimum design infiltration rate. All tests shall be made at on 20 ft x 20ft grid pattern over the surface of the completed stormwater facility unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. h. All soil and infiltration properties for all stormwater facilities shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Percolation tests (using Double Ring Infiltrometer 6.A.y Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Testing with appropriate safety factors) at horizontal and vertical (at the depth of the stormwater facility) shall be conducted for each stormwater facility. A 50% safety factor shall be applied to the calculated percolation test and shall be used as the basis for design (the design percolation rate). The geotechnical report shall include a section designated for stormwater design, including percolation results and design parameters. (PUBLIC WORKS) 118. REGIONAL BOARD STORMWATER REVIEW – This project may be subject to an audit by the Central Coast Regional Board. City may be required to provide the project stormwater design and storm water management plan for Regional Board review and comment. Prior to building permit issuance, the project shall receive approval or acknowledgment by the Regional Board. The project may need to provide the Regional Board any and all necessary documents (including reports, technical data, plans, etc.) for the Regional Board approval. (PUBLIC WORKS) The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or if another deadline is specified in a condition, at that time 119. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES – The City shall be notified at least ten (10) working days prior to the start of any construction work, and at that time the contractor shall provide a project construction and phasing schedule, and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list. The schedule shall be in Microsoft Project, or an approved equal, and shall identify the scheduled critical path for the installation of improvements to the approval of the City Engineer. The schedule shall be updated weekly. The approved construction and phasing schedule shall be shared with Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) to avoid traffic impacts to surrounding school functions. An approved construction information handout(s) shall also be provided to GUSD to share with school parents. (PUBLIC WORKS) a. All work shown on the improvement plans shall be inspected to the approval of the City Engineer as applicable. Uninspected work shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. b. Construction activities related to the issuance of any Public Works permit shall be restricted to the weekday between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for general construction activities. No work shall be done on Sundays and on City Holidays unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Please note that no work shall be allowed to take place within the City right-of-way after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. In addition, no work being done under the issuance of a Public Works encroachment permit may be performed on the weekend unless prior approvals have been granted by Public Works. The City Engineer may apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school commute routes. Signs outlining the project construction times shall be posted at 6.A.y Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) conspicuous locations on site where it is visible to the public. The signs shall be per the City Standard Drawing for posting construction hours. The sign shall be kept free of graffiti at all times. Contact the Public Works Department to obtain sample City Standard sign outlining hours of operation. c. The allowed hours of Public Works construction activities may be waived or modified through an exemption, for limited periods, if the City Engineer finds that the following criteria are met: i. Permitting extended hours of construction will decrease the total time needed to complete the project thus mitigating the total amount of noise associated with the project as a whole; or, ii. Permitting extended hours of construction are required to accommodate design or engineering requirements, such as a large concrete pour. Such a need would be determined by the project's design engineer and require approval of the City Engineer. iii. An emergency situation exists where the construction work is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition resulting in obvious and eminent peril to public health and safety. If such a condition exists, the City may waive any of the remaining requirements outlined below. iv. The exemption will not conflict with any other condition of approval required by the City to mitigate significant impacts. v. The contractor or owner of the property will notify residential and commercial occupants of property adjacent to the construction site of the hours of construction activity which may impact the area. This notification must be provided three days prior to the start of the extended construction activity. vi. The approved hours of construction activity will be posted at the construction site in a place and manner that can be easily viewed by any interested member of the public. vii. The City Engineer may revoke the exemption at any time if the contractor or owner of the property fails to abide by the conditions of exemption or if it is determined that the peace, comfort and tranquility of the occupants of adjacent residential or commercial properties are impaired because of the location and nature of the construction. The waiver application must be submitted to the Public Works Construction Inspector ten (10) working days prior to the requested date of waiver. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) d. The following provision to control traffic congestion, noise, and dust shall be followed during site excavation, grading and construction: i. All construction vehicles should be properly maintained and equipped with exhaust mufflers that meet State standards. ii. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. iii. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the City, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. iv. Watering on public streets, and wash down of dirt and debris into storm drain systems will not be allowed. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Construction Inspector, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. Recycled water shall be used for construction watering to manage dust control where possible, as determined by the City Engineer. Recycled water shall be billed at the municipal industrial rate based on the current Santa Clara Valley Water District’s municipal industrial rate. Where recycled water is not available potable water shall be used. All potable construction water from fire hydrants shall be metered and billed at the current portable fire hydrant meter rate. v. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Construction Inspector. vi. Construction grading activity shall be discontinued in wind conditions that in the opinion of the Public Works Construction Inspector cause excessive neighborhood dust problems. vii. Site dirt shall not be tracked into the public right-of-way, and shall be cleaned immediately if done, or the project may risk being shut down. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris shall not be washed into the City’s storm drains. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) viii. Construction activities shall be scheduled so that paving and foundation placement begin immediately upon completion of grading operation. ix. All aggregate materials transported to and from the site shall be covered in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code during transit to and from the site. x. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit any applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, for any lane or sidewalk closures. The traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing such plans. The Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed engineer in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and standard construction practices. The Traffic Control Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the public right-of-way. xi. During construction, the applicant shall make accessible any or all City utilities as directed by the City Engineer. xii. The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual. The applicant shall require the soils engineer submit to daily testing and sampling reports to the City Engineer. 120. PROJECT CLOSE-OUT – Prior to City acceptance of all tract subdivision and property improvement agreements, the applicant shall comply with all City construction close- out procedures to the approval of the City Engineer. Refer to the City’s website for a copy of these procedure. Prior to final inspections, all pertinent conditions of approval and all improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City Engineer. A letter indicating that all project conditions have been met shall be submitted prior to the first occupancy. All public improvements, including the complete installation of all improvements relative to streets, fencing, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water system, underground utilities, etc., shall be completed and attested to by the City Engineer before approval of occupancy of any unit. Where facilities of other agencies are involved, such installation shall be verified as having been completed and accepted by those agencies. In addition, the applicant shall submit a detailed project cost estimate of all public improvements constructed on-site and within the public right- of-way. The cost estimate shall be prepared by the project engineer, and be to the approval of the City Engineer. The cost estimate shall be broken out into on-site and off-site improvements based on the format provided by the City. Until such time as all improvements required are fully completed and accepted by City, the applicant shall be responsible for the care maintenance of and any damage to such 6.A.y Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) improvements. City shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening or occurring to the work or Improvements required for this project prior to the completion and acceptance of the work or Improvements. All such risks shall be the responsibility of, and are hereby assumed by the applicant. (PUBLIC WORKS) 121. MATERIAL HAULING ROUTE AND PERMIT – For material delivery vehicles equal to, or larger than two-axle, six-tire single unit truck (SU) size or larger as defined by FHWA Standards, the applicant shall submit a truck hauling route and receive a haul permit that conforms to City of Gilroy Standards to the approval of the City Engineer. Note that the City requires a Haul Permit be issued for any hauling activities. The project sponsor shall require contractors to prohibit trucks from using “compression release engine brakes” on residential streets. The haul route for this project shall be: US101 to 10th Street to Chestnut Street to Site. A letter from the applicant confirming the intention to use this hauling route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works, and approved, prior to the issuance of any City permits. All material hauling activities including but not limited to, adherence to the approved route, hours of operation, staging of materials, dust control and street maintenance shall be the responsibility of the applicant. All storage and office trailers will be kept off the public right-of-way. Tracking of dirt onto City streets and walks will not be allowed. The applicant must provide an approved method of cleaning tires and trimming loads on-site. Any job-related dirt and/or debris that impacts the public right-of-way shall be removed immediately. No wash down of dirt into storm drains will be allowed. All material hauling activities shall be done in accordance with applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris shall not be washed into the City’s storm drains. Violation of such may be cause for suspension of work. (PUBLIC WORKS) 122. CONSTRUCTION WORKER PARKING – The applicant shall provide a construction- parking plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in the neighborhood and shall include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during the various phases of construction and indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be utilized and identify any locations for off-site material deliveries. Said plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of City permits and shall be complied with at all times during construction. Failure to enforce the parking plan may result in suspension of the City permits. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the City Engineer (§15.40.070). (PUBLIC WORKS) 123. SITE WATER DISCHARGE – In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, Prohibition of Illegal Discharges (Gilroy Municipal Code Section 27C.7), the City Engineer may approve the discharge of uncontaminated pumped ground waters to the sanitary sewer only when such source is deemed unacceptable by State and Federal authorities for discharge to surface waters of the United States, whether pretreated or untreated, and for which no reasonable alternative method of disposal is 6.A.y Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) available. Following the verification of the applicable local, state and/or federal approvals, a Discharge Plan will be approved and monitored by the City Engineer. (PUBLIC WORKS) 124. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER – Per Gilroy Municipal Code Section 27C.7 Prohibition of Illegal Discharges, the applicant shall follow the specific best management practices for the installation of the Architectural Copper. For detailed information please distribute the flyer to all construction personnel involved in the fabrication and installation of the Architectural Copper that is located at:http://flowstobay.org/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/ArchitecturalcopperBMP s.pdf (PUBLIC WORKS) The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES that the use permitted by this entitlement occupies the premises 125. POST CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) – In accordance with Gilroy Municipal Code Chapter 27D Post Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention all projects that meet the criteria described in the Storm Water Guidance Manual for Low Impact Development and Post-Construction Requirements shall prepare a storm water control plan (SWCP) and shall meet the requirements of the design standards and selection of best management practices and shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee. Requirements shall include: a. Owner/occupant shall inspect private storm drain facilities at least two (2) times per year and sweep parking lots immediately prior to and once during the storm season. b. The applicant shall be charged the cost of abatement for issues associated with, but not limited to, inspection of the private storm drain facilities, emergency maintenance needed to protect public health or watercourses, and facility replacement or repair in the event that the treatment facility is no longer able to meet performance standards or has deteriorated. Any abatement activity performed on the applicant’s property by City staff will be charged to the applicant at the City’s adopted hourly rate. c. Label new and redeveloped storm drain inlets with the phrase “No Dumping – Drains to Bay” plaques to alert the public to the destination of storm water and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. Template ordering information is available at www.flowstobay.org. d. All process equipment, oils fuels, solvents, coolants, fertilizers, pesticides, and similar chemical products, as well as petroleum based wastes, tallow, and grease planned for storage outdoors shall be stored in covered containers at all times. e. All public outdoor spaces and trails shall include installation and upkeep of dog waste stations. 6.A.y Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) f. Garbage and recycling receptacles and bins shall be designed and maintained with permanent covers to prevent exposure of trash to rain. Trash enclosure drains shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system. (PUBLIC WORKS) * MITIGATION MEASURE – This measure mitigates adverse environmental effects identified in the environmental document. Monitoring procedures are contained within the condition of approval. A change in the condition may affect the validity of the current environmental document, and a new or amended environmental document may be required. (PUBLIC WORKS) 6.A.y Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att A Conditions of Approval [Revision 1] (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) City of Gilroy, California Community Development Department Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 94583 Project Name: Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Project Number: Z 20-04, AS 20-14, TM 20-03 Address/Location: 401 & 505 East Tenth Street, City of Gilroy, CA (Accessor Parcel Numbers 841-66-010, 011, 014 and 015) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires a MMRP as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) process. The results of the environmental analysis, including findings related to the proposed mitigation measures, are documented in the Final MND. CEQA requires that agencies adopting MNDs take the necessary steps to ensure that designated mitigation measures are appropriately implemented during all stages of the project including construction and throughout the project build-out. Therefore, the purpose of this MMRP is to document execution of required mitigations, identify the appropriate entity responsible for mitigation monitoring and reporting, document and establish frequency/duration of monitoring and reporting, and ultimately ensure compliance. The following MMRP matrix lists required mitigation measures, the method required for implementation, the party or permit responsible for implementing the measures, the timeframe for which the measure is relevant, and the status of compliance. In addition, the end of this document lists Conditions of Approval the project shall implement in order to comply with applicable regulations. 6.A.z Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 1 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion Air Quality MM AQ-1.1: The project shall implement the following measures during all phases of construction to control exhaust at the project site: • The project applicant shall ensure that construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet or exceed at least U.S. EPA Tier 2 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5) with CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices (VDECS), if one is available for the equipment being used. Alternatively, use of equipment with Tier 4 engine standards would also be acceptable and would not require VDECS. Submittal of a plan prepared by a qualified air quality consultant documenting that construction equipment used on-site would achieve the performance criteria identified in this measure shall be to the City. City of Gilroy Planning Division Prior to issuance of grading and building permits  ________ Biological Resources MM BIO-1.1: If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the bird nesting season (February 1 to September 15), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the bird nesting season, then the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas on and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than one week If construction cannot be scheduled to occur outside of the nesting season, or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the bird nesting season, completion of a pre- construction survey by a qualified biologist as described and submittal of a report to the City documenting the results City of Gilroy Planning Division Project Planner Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.  ________ 6.A.z Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 2 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion prior to initiation of disturbance and/or construction activities. A report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Gilroy Planning Division for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest is detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall be completed to identify and clearly delineate an appropriately sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area shall be established around an active bird nest, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest would occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. of the nesting bird survey and measures to be implemented to protect nesting birds (if determined necessary). 6.A.z Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 3 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion Cultural MM CUL-1.1: If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work on the site shall stop immediately, the Community Development Department shall be notified, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. If cultural resources are unearthed, submittal of report by qualified paleontologist of the find and treatment implemented to City of Gilroy Planning Division City of Gilroy Planning Division Project Planner During construction, as necessary. Prior to issuance of building permit for report.   ________ Greenhouse Gas MM GHG-1.1: The applicant shall mitigate the project’s GHG impact to a less than significant level as outlined below. • Threshold: The applicant shall mitigate the project’s operational GHG emissions to the target year threshold for the life of the project 1 to achieve Purchase and retire carbon offset credits consistent with the registry performance standards, carbon offset credit standards, and geographic limitations outlined in the mitigation measure. City of Gilroy Community Development Director, or his or her designee Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Prior to the operational year(s) offsets cover.   1 The life of the project is assumed to be 30 years since building systems are generally substantially upgraded by year 30 (https://www.rdh.com/blog/long- buildings-last/; https://abgrealty.com/blog/life-span-commercial-building-components/; https://www.carbonleadershipforum.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/CLF_Recommendations_BuildingComponentLifespans_07-06-2018.pdf.). California anticipates a significant increase in electric vehicles within the next 14 years (Executive Order N-79-20; https://www.experian.com/blogs/insights/2020/11/new-california-mandate-rekindles-electric-vehicle-buzz/). 6.A.z Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 4 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion the applicable year-specific quantitative threshold 2 up to the year 2030 threshold of 2.72 MT/CO2e/year/service population by purchasing and retiring carbon offset credits, based upon the amount of GHG emissions set forth in Table 4.8-1 of this Initial Study. • Demonstration of Reduction: The applicant shall demonstrate its reduction of GHG emissions through the retirement of carbon offset credits provided that the following conditions are satisfied: o Registry Performance Standards: The applicant shall provide proof to the City’s Community Development Director, or his or her designee, that the carbon offset credits were issued by a registry meeting the following requirements: Submittal of documentation of the applicable quantification protocol, all third-party confirmation or verification reports issued in connection with the carbon offset credits sufficient to monitor compliance by the project applicant with this mitigation measure. Submittal of report by a qualified air quality consultant documenting refinement or recalculation of project GHG emissions, if desired by the applicant. If report documents the project would not exceed the threshold stated, no additional mitigation is required. On a periodic basis, if desired by the applicant After the adoption of a qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy.   ________ Treating a building’s and its associated automobile GHG lifespan as 30 years appears conservative and is consistent with the methodology employed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2 The year-specific quantitative threshold in MT/CO2e/year/service population from 2023 to 2030 are as follows: 2023: 4.08 2024: 3.85 2025: 3.63 2026: 3.42 2027: 3.23 2028: 3.05 2029: 2.88 2030: 2.72 6.A.z Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 5 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion  The registry shall account for and quantify emission reductions using clear and defined standards and incorporating recognized principles of GHG emissions reduction accounting, including those set forth in the ISO 14064 and the WRI/WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting;  The registry shall use clear information sufficient for reviewers to assess credibility of GHG emission reductions underlying the carbon offset credits. Upon request by the City’s Community Development Director, or his or her designee, any governmental entity, or any stakeholder, the registry shall provide the following information within a reasonable time period in connection with any carbon offset credit retired by the applicant: (i) the applicable quantification protocol; and (ii) all third-party confirmation or verification reports issued in connection with the carbon offset credits. Such information shall be sufficient to monitor compliance by the project If the City adopts a qualified GHG reduction strategy, submittal of documentation identifying how the project is consistent with the qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy to the City and thereby eliminating the requirement to purchase GHG credits. 6.A.z Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 6 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion applicant with this mitigation measure. o Carbon Offset Credit Performance Standards: The carbon offset credits retired by the applicant for the purpose of mitigating GHG emissions shall represent GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, additional, quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable.3 To demonstrate compliance with such requirements, the developer shall provide the following to the City’s Community Development Director, or his or her designee: (i) the protocol 3 The following terms in this mitigation are defined as follows: “Additional” means GHG emission reductions or removals underlying the carbon offset credits that exceed any GHG reduction or removals otherwise required by law, regulation or legally binding mandate, and that exceed any GHG reductions or removals that would otherwise occur in a business-as-usual scenario. To be additional, the credit shall have reduced GHG emissions below the applicable common industry practice for GHG reductions as in effect at the time the credit project was initiated. “Real” means that GHG reductions or GHG enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits result from a demonstrable action or set of actions, and are quantified using appropriate, accurate, and conservative methodologies that account for all GHG emissions sources, GHG sinks, and GHG reservoirs within the boundary of the applicable credit project and account for uncertainty and the potential for activity-shifting leakage and market-shifting leakage. “Verifiable” means that the GHG reductions or GHG enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits are well documented, transparent and set forth in a document subject to objective review by an accredited verification body. “Permanent” means that GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements underlying the carbon offset credits are not reversible, or when GHG reductions and GHG removal enhancements may be reversible, that mechanisms are in place to replace any reversed GHG emission reductions and GHG removal enhancements to ensure that all credited reductions endure for at least 100 years. To ensure permanence, reductions from purchased credits must have already occurred. “Quantifiable” means the ability to accurately measure and calculate GHG reductions or GHG removal enhancements relative to a project baseline in a reliable and replicable manner for all GHG emission sources, GHG sinks, or GHG reservoirs included within the boundary of the credit project generating the carbon offset credits, while accounting for uncertainty and activity shifting leakage and market-shifting leakage. “Enforceable” means the authority for the City to hold the project accountable and to take appropriate action if the City determines that any carbon offset credits do not comply with the requirements set forth above. 6.A.z Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 7 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion used to quantify and issue such carbon offset credits, (ii) the third-party verification report(s) pursuant to which such carbon offset credits were issued, and (iii) the unique serial numbers of the carbon offset credits to be retired to ensure that the offset cannot be further used in any manner. The Project Planner shall reject any carbon offset credits that do not comply with these requirements, and where reductions are not direct reductions within a confined project boundary or provide opportunities for reversal of the avoided emissions. The Community Development Director or his or her designee shall reject any credits for a project that includes technology or GHG abatement practices that are already widely used. o Geographic Limitations: The carbon offset credits shall be from credit projects developed in the United States. Carbon offset credits resulting from international credit projects shall not be acceptable to satisfy this mitigation measure. 6.A.z Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 8 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion • Timing: The applicant shall mitigate GHG emissions resulting from project operations by purchasing and retiring offset credits prior to each year’s emissions that exceed the threshold. The applicant shall provide proof in the form of a compliance report to the City that carbon offset credits equal to the amount of project operational GHG emissions in excess of the threshold have been purchased and retired, prior to the operational year in which those emissions would occur. The applicant shall also have the right, at any time, to purchase and retire carbon offset credits for some or all of the operational emissions of the project in advance of the issuance of certificates of occupancy, temporary or permanent. A conservative estimate of the offset credits that need to be purchased by the project applicant for the lifetime of the project is 21,193 MT.4 • Enforcement: The permits relating to the project shall be conditioned on achievement of GHG mitigation milestones. The purchase and retirement of carbon offset credits required to mitigate the GHG emissions resulting from the operation of the project shall be a condition of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 4 This was estimated by: 1) calculating the amount of offset credits needed for year 2023 (680.48 MT) and assuming that amount is required for each year from 2023 to 2029 (680.48 MT x 7 years = 4,763.36 MT); 2) calculating the amount of offset credits needed for year 2030 (714.32 MT) and assuming that amount is required for each year from 2030 to 2053 (714.32 MT x 23 years = 16,429.36); and then adding the sum of the MT for those 30 years together (4,763.36 MT + 16,429.36 MT) to arrive at a conservative estimate of offset credits needing to be purchased to cover the lifetime of the project. This estimate can be adjusted, updated, and refined as appropriate per the Adjustment portion described in mitigation measure MM GHG-1.1 6.A.z Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 9 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion temporary or permanent, for the project and as an issuance for continued operation. Should the City determine that the offset credits are non- compliant with the requirements of MM GHG- 1, the City may issue a notice of non- consistency and cease permitting activities and/or stop project operations, until the City determines via an issued public notice that the offsets comply with the aforementioned standards. • Adjustment: The required amount of carbon offset credits may be adjusted to account for changes in climate science, GHG regulation, technology, and updated/refined project emissions, as follows: o The applicant may recalculate the project emissions in this Initial Study to update/refine the amount of carbon credits required to be purchased and/or demonstrate emissions achieve the year- specific threshold or an applicable quantitative threshold that may be adopted by the City or BAAQMD in the future. If the project applicant chooses to refine or recalculate project GHG emissions, the project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality/GHG professional to calculate the project’s 6.A.z Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 10 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion GHG emissions, in accordance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as they may be updated from time to time. Re-evaluation of project GHG emissions could reflect additional on-site measures incorporated into the project (such as installing solar panels, cool roofs, charging for parking, providing free transit passes, etc.) or increased operational efficiencies (e.g., the state’s increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards and renewable energy portfolio requirement). The calculation shall be summarized in a report and submitted as part of the documentation submitted to the City’s Community Development Director, or his or her designee for review and approval. OR • If the City has adopted a qualified GHG reduction strategy that covers the project, the project applicant can demonstrate that the project is consistent with the applicable mandatory measures in the GHG reduction strategy by submitting written proof documenting the project’s consistency to the 6.A.z Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 11 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion City’s Community Development Director, or his or her designee for review and approval. If the project is consistent with the applicable mandatory measures in the GHG reduction strategy, it is concluded that it would result in a less than significant GHG impact and no further mitigation is required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.1: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials, if encountered during construction activities. Appropriate soil testing, characterization, storage, transportation, and disposal procedures shall be specified in the SMP. The sampling results shall be compared to appropriate and current risk-based screening levels for the proposed use. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate remediation measures. Submittal of the SMP to SCCDEH for review and approval and submittal of the approved SMP to the City. All SMP measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans. SCCDEH and City of Gilroy Project Planner Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the approved SMP. During construction for the implementation of the SMP.   ________ 6.A.z Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 12 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT The SMP shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (or equivalent oversight agency) for review and approval. A copy of the approved SMP shall be submitted to the project planner at the City of Gilroy Planning Division prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permits. The SMP shall include, but is not limited to, the following: • A detailed discussion of the site background; • Identification of proper mitigation as needed for demolition of existing structures; • Requirements for periodic observations and field screening of exposed/ excavated soil for indications of contamination including remedial soil segregation during excavation; • Procedures for proper management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; • Procedures for proper management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/ or underground storage tanks; • Procedures to follow if evidence of any unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH), VOCs, asbestos containing materials, lead- based paint, etc.) are discovered. • A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for each contractor working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each site operation phase, including the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall outline proper 6.A.z Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 13 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Responsible for Verification Action Schedule Verification of Completion soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize work and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for each contractor working at the site shall be completed by a qualified professional that addresses the safety and health hazards of each site operation phase, including the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP shall outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize work and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction. The HSP shall be submitted to the project planner at the City of Gilroy Planning Division prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permits. Source: City of Gilroy. Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project Initial Study. June 2021 6.A.z Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 14 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT The following lists Conditions of Approval the project shall implement in order to comply with applicable regulations: Air Quality • The project shall implement the following measures during all phases of construction to control dust and exhaust at the project site: - Water active construction areas at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions. - Cover trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and/or ensure that all trucks hauling such materials maintain at least two feet of freeboard. - Remove visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. - Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). - Pave new or improved roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible. - Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. - Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. - Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. - Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. - Minimize idling times either by shutting off equipment when not in use, or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Provide clear signage for construction workers at all access points. - Maintain and property tune construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Check all equipment by a certified mechanic and record a determination of running in proper condition prior to operation. - Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. Biological Resources • Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The project is subject to applicable Habitat Plan conditions and fees (including the nitrogen deposition fee) prior to issuance of any grading permits. The project applicant is required to submit the Santa Clara Valley habitat 6.A.z Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 15 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT Plan Coverage Screening Form to City of Gilroy Planning Division for approval and payment of the nitrogen deposition fee prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Habitat Plan and supporting materials can be viewed at www.scv-habitatplan.org. Cultural Resources • If archaeological or cultural resources are discovered during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, all work shall be halted within at least 50 feet of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archeologist shall be retained (at the applicant’s expense) to evaluate the find and repot to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate protection measures (such as collection, recordation, and analysis), shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist, and implemented by the responsible party. • Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the remains or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to the Coroner’s authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to the state law, the landowner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, an asbestos survey shall be completed for existing buildings on-site prior to demolition in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines. NESHAP guidelines require the removal of potentially friable ACMs prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the ACM. • Prior to the issuance of demolition permit, a lead-based paint survey shall be completed for the existing buildings on-site in accordance with the Cal/OSHA guidelines. If lead-based paint is bonded to the building materials, the removal of lead-based paint is not required, If the lead-based paint is flaking, peeling, or blistering, it shall be removed prior demolition. In either case, applicable OSHA regulations shall be followed; these include requirements for worker training and air monitoring and dust control. Any debris containing lead shall be disposed appropriately. Noise and Vibration 6.A.z Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 16 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT • During all phases of construction, the project shall comply with General Plan Mitigation Measure 4.7-B and City Code Section 16.38 by implementing the following measures: - Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM and Saturdays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM, with no construction on Sundays and City holidays; - Equip all internal combustion engine drive equipment with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; - Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; - Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site; - Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; - Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; and - Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. • Provide all occupied areas and habitable rooms of proposed site buildings with a forced-air mechanical ventilation system to allow windows to be closed to control interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn at the occupant’s discretion. • As design of the hotel building continues, require that construction of the eastern façade make use of materials which would provide sufficient noise reduction to bring interior noise in rooms to 45 dBA Ldn or less. Preliminary calculations show that a total noise reduction of 27 to 29 dBA Ldn is needed along the eastern façade, which under conditions similar to those shown in prototype elevations, would require windows with a minimum STC rating of 32 with typical metal panel or wood siding wall construction, or a minimum STC rating of 30 with stucco wall construction. Additional noise reduction methods such as decreasing the eastern façade’s overall window to wall area ratio should also be considered. Transportation • Prior to issuance of any building permits on the proposed project, the project applicant shall make a fair-share contribution toward future improvements at the intersection of Princeville Street and Tenth Street to restore operations at the intersection to acceptable levels (LOS C). • The project applicant shall construct the following pedestrian facility improvements as part of the project construction: 6.A.z Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JUNE 2021 PAGE | 17 GILROY | CHESTNUT & TENTH STREET COMMERCIAL PROJECT - Installing ADA compliant curb ramps at the intersections of Chestnut Street/Tenth Street, US 101 Southbound Ramps/Tenth Street, Chestnut Street/Ninth Street; - Installing crosswalks at the intersection of Chestnut/Ninth Street; and - • Prior to issuance of any building permits, final project plans shall show the project would provide bicycle parking per the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines bicycle parking rates: - Hotel: One Class I bike parking space for every 30 rooms plus one Class I bike parking space for evert 30 employees. - Retail: One Class I bike parking space for every 30 employees plus one Class II (bike racks) bike parking space every 6,000 square feet of retail space. - Restaurants: One Class I bike parking space for every 30 employees plus one Class II bike parking space for every 3,000 square feet. • Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall fund or construct: - Westbound left-turn pocket extension improvements at the intersection of Monterey Road and Tenth Street; - Eastbound left-turn pocket extension improvements at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Tenth Street. • Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall dedicate three feet of additional right-of-way along the project East Tenth Street frontage and fund the improvements necessary to make the widening improvements at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Tenth Street. 6.A.z Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: AS 20-14, Att B Mitigation Program (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 E NINTH STREET, CHESTNUT STREET, 401 AND 411 E TENTH STREET/AUTOMALL PARKWAY, APN: 841-66-010, 011, 014 AND 015. FILE NUMBER TM 20-03 (20070020) WHEREAS, on July 20, 2020, on behalf and with the consent of the property owner Donald J. Triolo (Trustee for “The Triolo Revocable Living Trust” and agent for 450 East LLC), Evergreen Development Company Inc. submitted an application requesting a vesting tentative parcel map to re- subdivide 6.8 acres of property in six commercial lots, as part of a planned commercial shopping center and hotel development, for the property located at 401 and 411 East Tenth Street (aka, Automall Parkway) and 450 East Ninth Street, between Chestnut Street and Hwy 101 Offramp; and WHEREAS, the project includes concurrent applications for planned development rezoning from the C3 and CM zoning districts to a C3 PUD zoning district Z 20-04 (20070021) and architectural and site review AS 20-14 (20070017); and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2021, the application submittal was accepted as complete; and WHEREAS, an initial study/mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared and recommended for adoption as the environmental document for the project, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2021 at a duly noticed meeting the Planning Commission continued the project to September 2, 2021 and held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the project; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the Community Development Department, Planning Division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby find as follows: FINDINGS 1. The proposed vesting tentative map is consistent with the underlying General Services Commercial land use designation and the commercial planned development C3/PUD zoning district. 2. The design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the applicable general plan in that it will include all necessary roadway and frontage improvements required to comply 6.A.aa Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Reso TM 20-03 Approval (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Resolution No. 2021-XX Page 2 with the City traffic and pedestrian circulation plans, and can be adequately served by police, fire, water, sewer and drainage systems. 3. The site is physically sited for the proposed development intensity as the project has adequate roadway access and the development intensity is within the floor area ratios anticipated for commercial development of the 6.84-acre site. 4. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements would not cause any substantial environmental damage or injury to wildlife or habitat given that the project includes appropriate stormwater drainage including on-site detention, finish grade elevations of the buildings would be raised up to 1.5 feet to 173 feet elevation to comply with flood elevation minimum requirements, the site does not have any unique environmental features, and a habitat permit is required in compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan to mitigate the nitrogen deposition resulting from the increased vehicle emissions associated with development of the site. 5. The design of the subdivision or improvements will not cause serious public health problems given that the site will be designed to comply with City standards for vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, and the site does not have any hazardous materials or uses associated with the project. 6. The subdivision will not conflict with any public easements. 7. The site is not subject to unusual flooding or other hazardous conditions that would preclude development of the property as proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby recommends to the City Council approval of TM 20-03, subject to the adoption of the concurrent zoning ordinance amendment request Z 20-04 and a planned unit development plan approval AS 20-14, or any subsequent amendments. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ____ by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ __________________________________ Karen L. Garner, Secretary Thomas Fischer, Chairperson 6.A.aa Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Reso TM 20-03 Approval (3434 : Evergreen Chestnut and Tenth Commercial Center) Karen L. Garner DIRECTOR Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429 http://www.cityofgilroy.org DATE: September 2, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Objective Design Standards Policy for all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving objective design standards as a City Policy for all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the City cannot deny a housing development project based on subjective reasoning. Therefore, the City has drafted objective design standards that would apply to all mixed -use residential and multi-family residential developments in Gilroy. Such projects must comply with the City’s objective design standards or be subject to the City’s discretionary review process. The objective design standards have been drafted to help ensure that housing development projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations. BACKGROUND The City of Gilroy was awarded $160,000 in grant funding1 to create objective design standards for mixed-use and multi-family residential projects in Gilroy. Objective design standards were identified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as a Priority Policy Area for the funding. The City hired a consultant to complete this work with oversight from city staff. On May 3, 2021, an interim set of objective design standards was approved by the City Council, with an expectation that a more comprehensive set of standards would return 1 California Senate Bill 2 (SB2), the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act 6.B Packet Pg. 428 2 to the City Council for final approval, following review and a recommendation by the Planning Commission. To date, city staff have implemented the interim objective design standards on at least one preliminary application for a mixed -use development. Environmental Assessment The proposed project is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. State Law Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)2, the City cannot disapprove, reduce the density of, or make infeasible (e.g., through conditions of app roval), a housing development project that is consistent with local objective development standards. Legislative intent indicates that conditions that would give rise to a specific, adverse health or safety impact finding would occur infrequently. Furthermore, SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) amended the HAA, such that projects that have undergone a preliminary application review, shall only be subject to the objective standards in place at the time of the preliminary application review, subject to certa in exceptions. State law defines objective standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.” Examples of an objective standard in the City’s 2001 Multi-Family Residential Design Policy include: • Minimum of two different building materials shall be used on each building elevation (e.g., stone, wood, masonry, or metal). • Minimum of two colors per elevation plus a trim and roof color. Examples of subjective standards from that document include: • Architectural facades rich in detailing add to the character of the neighborhood. • All elevations of each building shall be architecturally interesting. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 2 Government Code Section 65589.5 6.B Packet Pg. 429 3 Given state limitations on the City’s discretionary review of housing development projects, it is critical to adopt objective design standards that help ensure that residential projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations. Staff has reviewed and refined the draft objective design standards prepared by the consultant and are now seeking feedback from the Planning Commission, residents, business owners, and the City’s development stakeholders. While the draft standards currently include some graphics, the consultant is seeking feedback prior to developing additional graphics that help illustrate the intent behind the standards. The reason for waiting is that the graphics comprise a significant portion of the budget and should therefore be developed after the public, Commission, and Council have provided feedback on the draft text. In addition to complying with state law, there are several benefit s to developing and implementing objective design standards. These benefits are discussed below: Promote Good Design: Community design is an important component of the General Plan. As provided in the Land Use Element, [t]asteful development projects, well- designed pedestrian spaces, beautiful landscaping, and a lack of visual clutter create an appealing community for residents and visitors. Gilroy has many areas with excellent community design characteristics, and others that need attention. Effective, enforceable, and reasonable policies must be put in place to help ensure that Gilroy is an attractive place to live and visit. A primary goal for the objective design standards was to create design standards that would promote good design principles while still allowing sufficient room for creativity, by not being overly prescriptive. Another goal was to develop standards that would minimize the potential for the type of bad design that has plagued some of the City’s larger residential developments. As provided in the intent statement preceding many of the objective design categories, the standards are intended to: • create an attractive, welcoming, safe, and active interface between private development and the public realm; • create a human-scale environment and buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; • create a sense of place with buildings that are cohesive, well-crafted, and enhance the public’s experience; • ensure that buildings include a variety of color palettes and textures with durable and attractive materials that contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development and the neighborhood; • provide pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists with safe and efficient site access and circulation; and 6.B Packet Pg. 430 4 • ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a safe environment, and enhance the pedestrian experience Minimize Applicant time: Objective design standards will provide development and design professionals with clear and concise language that help minimize delays, associated with the need to redesign a project to meet City expectations. Minimize Staff time: Just as important as minimizing costly delays to developers by creating more certainty in the design review process, objective design standards that are easy to comprehend and implement reduce the amount of time that staff must work with an applicant to design a project that meets the City’s expectations. This allows staff to approve or recommend approval of projects in a timelier manner, thereby enabling staff to have more time for other customers needing assistance. Consistency: Objective design standards also greatly increases consistency as staff provides direction to developers. With no interpretation or personal preference, developers will receive consistent guidance from project to project and year to year, even if there is staff turnover. 6.B Packet Pg. 431 5 General Plan Consistency POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS LU 3.3 Residential Building Orientation Encourage new residential development to orient buildings toward streets or public spaces to actively engage the community and provide complete neighborhoods. The objective design standards implement this policy by requiring residential entries to face the public street and non- residential units to have transparent glazing. Additional requirements for end units and corner buildings also implement this policy. LU 3.8 Multi-Family Residential Design Policy Encourage new multi-family development to incorporate distinctive site and architectural design that also respects existing and surrounding uses. The objective design standards implement this policy through requirements related to entryway design, minor and major massing breaks depending on building length, building and roofline articulation, and corner treatments. LU 4.10 Outdoor Activities Encourage outdoor cafes and other outdoor activities in appropriate commercial areas, especially Downtown, to create vibrant public spaces and maximize pedestrian activity. The objective design standards implement this policy by including an option to satisfy the requirement related to corner buildings by incorporating a publicly accessible courtyard/plaza or outdoor seating for public dining. LU 7.3 Compatibility with Adjoining Uses Encourage development and redevelopment of higher-density mixed- use development within mixed-use districts and along corridors to be compatible with adjacent land uses, particularly to residential uses through site and architectural design techniques that establish transitions between uses and minimize negative impacts. The objective design standards implement this policy by limiting height or requiring façade stepbacks, depending on the building setback from adjacent residential uses. Goal LU 8 Support growth and development that preserves and strengthens the City’s The objective design standards implements this goal by 6.B Packet Pg. 432 6 historic, small-town character; provides and maintains safe, livable, and affordable neighborhoods; and creates beautiful places. requiring: variation in the design of taller buildings; massing and roofline breaks for wider buildings; and a patio, porch, or stoop for all ground floor residential units. There are also several standards that address crime prevention through environmental design. LU 8.5 Public Art Encourage the installation of public art in conjunction with residential and non- residential development. The objective design standards implement this policy by requiring public art for residential projects with more than 20 units. LU 8.13 Limit Light Pollution Encourage measures to limit light pollution from outdoor sources, and direct outdoor lighting downward and away from sensitive receptors. The objective design standards implement this policy by requiring lighting to be recessed or hooded, downward directed, and located to illuminate only the intended area. CONCLUSION Pursuant to state law, the City has drafted objective design standards for all mixed -use residential and multi-family residential developments in Gilroy. Such standards are critical to help ensure that residential projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations. There are several benefits to the adoption of objective design standards, including but not limited to promoting good design principles that have the intent to create attractive and safe neighborhoods with human -scaled buildings that create a sense of place and are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Other notable benefits include providing clear and consistent standards that help minimize the amount of time that staff must work with an applicant to design a project that meets the City’s expectations, while subsequently minimizing delays to the applicant. NEXT STEPS Following the September 2nd Planning Commission meeting, staff and the consultant will modify the draft standards based on public feedback and a consensus of the Planning Commission. The consultant will also develop graphics to help illustrate the intent behind several of the standards. The draft objective design standards are tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on October 18th. PUBLIC NOTICING 6.B Packet Pg. 433 7 Notice of the public meeting to consider the draft objective design standards was published in the Gilroy Dispatch on August 20th. The Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's upcoming meetings webpage. The draft standards and the dates for the Planning Commission and tentative City Council meetings were also posted to the dedicated Objective Design Standards webpage. Attachments: 1. Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 2. CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy 3. CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy_amended 4. Desk Item - Objective Design Standards 6.B Packet Pg. 434 Gilroy Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Draft Comprehensive Objective Design Standards * Page 1 of 7 The intent of Objective Design Standards is to provide developers with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for mixed-use and multi-family residential project design. Objective design standards are written as requirements, rather than guidelines; therefore, all mixed-use and multi-family residential projects must comply with each standard. Importantly, objective design standards regulate site and structure design only. Projects must also comply with all applicable building permit requirements, zoning code requirements, and development standards such as height, setbacks, floor area ratio, etc. Mixed- use and multi-family residential projects that do not meet the City’s objective design standards may be approved through the City’s discretionary design review process. BUILDING ENTRIES, STAIRWELLS, AND GARAGES Intent: To create an attractive, welcoming, safe, and active interface between private development and the public realm, buildings and site design shall meet the following objective criteria: All Residential Developments • Residential entries. Residential units that are not adjacent to the street shall have front entries that are oriented to interior common areas such as paseos, courtyards, and active landscape areas. (CPTED)1 • Exterior Stairwells. Exterior stairwells shall not be oriented to the street. For safety and security, exterior stairwells shall face interior spaces, such as plazas and gathering areas, parking areas, and pedestrian pathways and shall not be separated from these areas by landscaping, fences, or walls taller than three feet. (CPTED) • Access Control. Gated, fenced, or underground parking facilities, and gated exterior stairwells shall incorporate access control technology (e.g., access card or key). (CPTED) • Security Camera System. Developments with more than 50 units shall incorporate a monitored or recorded security camera system. (CPTED) • Mixed-use Residential Developments • Commercial/Office Units. Commercial/Office unit entrances shall face the street, a parking area, or an interior common space. • Residential Units. Residential units in a mixed-use development shall be located on the upper floors of any elevation that faces a public street with residential access provided through a separate entry along each street frontage or a single entry at the corner. 1 (CPTED) indicates a standard that addresses crime prevention through environmental design. 6.B.a Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Gilroy Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Draft Comprehensive Objective Design Standards * Page 2 of 7 • Multi-family Residential Developments • Front entries. Buildings positioned along the street shall orient front entries to the street. Street facing residential units shall have covered front entries with a minimum recess or projection of 48 square feet in area. • Entryway Design. Street facing entries shall be accentuated by a minimum of one of the following: • gable roof that extends a minimum of one foot past the sides of the door jamb. • an increase in roof height of at least one foot to accentuate the entry. • wood, stone, tile, or brick accent materials covering a minimum of 30 percent of the entryway wall surface area, inclusive of windows and doors. Manufactured artificial stone products shall not be used to satisfy this requirement. • Garage Doors. For projects containing 5 or more units, garage doors shall not face a public street(s), but may be oriented toward an alley or a private street/driveway that is internal to the project. All garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of six inches from the surrounding building wall and shall include trim of at least one and a half inches in depth. FIGURE: GARAGE DOOR ORIENTATION, PROJECTS WITH 5 OR MORE UNITS 6.B.a Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Gilroy Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Draft Comprehensive Objective Design Standards * Page 3 of 7 MASSING AND ARTICULATION Intent: To create a human-scale environment and buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area, building design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Residential Adjacencies. The side and rear walls of any building within 15 feet of a required setback shall be a maximum of 15 feet higher than the directly adjacent existing residential structure. Structures that exceed this height requirement shall stepback the exterior wall plane of each additional story by a minimum of 8 feet along the entire facade. EXAMPLE FIGURE: SIDE AND REAR WALLS ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE • Major Massing Breaks. Buildings shall have major massing breaks at least every 56 feet along any street frontage or publicly visible area, by incorporating at least one of the following features. • stepping back the upper floors a minimum of 10 feet for at least 70% of the facade; • recessed or projected covered entries with a minimum area of 24 square feet; • exterior arcades or other ground floor building recessions that provide sheltered walkways within the building footprint with a minimum width of 8 feet; • ground floor courtyards within the building footprint with a minimum area of 48 square feet; or • architectural features that are at least 4 feet wide and extend the full height of the building. • Minor Massing Breaks. Buildings shall have minor massing breaks at least every 30 feet along any elevation, by incorporating at least one of the following features: • doors and windows recessed by a minimum of four inches; • variations in wall plane (projection or recess) by a minimum of two feet in depth for at least 30% of the facade; • vertical elements, such as pilasters, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the wall surface and extend the full height of the structure; or • Any of the major massing breaks noted above can be double counted as a minor massing break, so long as it is located within the 30-foot section. 6.B.a Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Gilroy Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Draft Comprehensive Objective Design Standards * Page 4 of 7 • Roofline Articulation. Rooflines shall be vertically articulated at least every 48-feet along the street frontage through one of the following techniques: • A change in wall or roof height of a minimum four feet; • A change in roof pitch or form; or • The inclusion of dormers, gables, parapets, and/or varying cornices. • Building Variation. Buildings three stories or taller and wider than 30 feet shall be designed to differentiate the ground floor, middle body, and top floor or cornice/parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another through use of one of the following techniques: • Variation in building modulation for a minimum 70% of the length of the façade, through changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of four feet; • Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum two feet in depth for a minimum 25% of the length of the façade; • Variation in façade articulation, through horizontal and/or vertical recesses or projections; (minimum four inches in depth) such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or a pattern or grouping of windows, panels, or bay windows; • Variation in fenestration, through at least two of the following: size2, proportion3 or pattern; or • Variation in façade material, through at least two of the following: size4, texture, pattern, or color. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Intent: To create a sense of place with buildings that are cohesive, well-crafted, and enhance the public’s experience, buildings shall be designed to meet the following objective criteria: • Corner Treatments. Corner buildings that are two or fewer stories in height shall include at least one of the following features within 15 feet from each edge of the building corner. Buildings that are three or more stories in height shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following features within 15 feet from each edge of the building corner: • change in primary wall material and color; • change in height of more than four feet; • change in wall plane of a minimum depth of two feet; • an entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance; • a different fenestration pattern from the primary façade; • an open space with a minimum dimension of 16 feet and minimum area of 450 square feet, which accommodates either a publicly accessible courtyard/plaza, or outdoor seating for public dining. • End Units. End units shall include the following features on their side elevations: a minimum of 15 percent fenestration area, and at least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. Example: Wrap around front porch. 2 Including: incorporating a stepback, recession, or projection with a minimum depth of four feet. 3 Including: a change in the surface area occupied by windows, doors, balconies, or trim by a minimum of 15 percent. 4 Including: a change in depth of at least four inches. 6.B.a Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Gilroy Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Draft Comprehensive Objective Design Standards * Page 5 of 7 • Balconies, Patios, and Porches. All ground floor residential units and a minimum of 51 percent of the upper floor residential units shall include a balcony, patio, porch, or stoop, and this feature shall be a minimum 48 square feet in area. Fractional calculations shall be rounded up. • Façade Transparency. At least 60 percent of the ground floor, street facing walls of non-residential units shall include transparent window or door glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from grade, providing unobstructed views into the non-residential space. Where it is infeasible to provide glazing, such as a parking garage, trash room, mechanical room, or electrical room, landscaping with a minimum dimension of 18-inches in depth and a width equivalent to 70 percent of the wall shall be provided to soften the appearance of a blank wall on the ground floor. • Windows and Doors. Windows and doors shall be trimmed or recessed by a minimum of three- and one-half inches. Trim shall be a minimum width of three- and one-half inches and shall protrude from the wall plane by a minimum of three-quarters of an inch. Foam trim molding shall only be allowed on the second story or above. COLORS AND MATERIALS Intent: To ensure that buildings include a variety of color palettes and textures with durable and attractive materials that contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development and the neighborhood, buildings shall be designed to meet the following objective criteria: • Primary Wall Finish Material. The primary wall finish material5 shall be wood, stone, brick, stucco, fiber cement or other cementitious material, or stone. T1-11 siding and all grooved or patterned wood panel or composite wood panel siding are prohibited. • Required Number of Materials. Structures shall incorporate a minimum of two building materials on each building elevation. Trim does not count as the second material. • Colors. Structures shall have a color palette that consists of at least two body colors and two accent colors (not including roof color). Projects with two or more residential structures shall include a minimum of two (2) color palettes and shall not use a single palette on more than 70 percent of the residential structures. Stone materials shall not be painted. CIRCULATION Intent: To provide pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists with safe and efficient site access and circulation, site design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Pedestrian Circulation. All structures, entries, facilities, amenities, and parking areas shall be internally connected with pedestrian pathways. Pedestrian pathways shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street frontage. Pedestrian pathways shall be separated from roads and parking areas by a physical barrier, such as a grade-separation, of six inches or more or a raised planting strip. 5 Primary wall finish material: the material covering the largest percentage of surface area of any building face or elevation. 6.B.a Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Gilroy Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Draft Comprehensive Objective Design Standards * Page 6 of 7 • Vehicular Circulation. All parking areas shall be internally connected and shall use shared driveways within the development. • Carports: Carports shall be painted with the approved color palette for the project. • Parking. Parking shall not be located between the building frontage and a public sidewalk. Uncovered parking areas shall include a landscaped break with one tree and a minimum width of five feet at intervals of a maximum of every 12 parking stalls. • Bicycle Parking. All structures with dwelling units shall provide short-term bike parking in the form of an inverted “U”. An artistic rack may be approved, subject to discretionary City approval. Bicycle parking shall not be separated from building entrances by a road, parking area, or structure. OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREAS Intent: To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a safe environment, and enhance the pedestrian experience, common area and open space design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Outdoor Space. Landscaping shall be located in all outdoor areas that are not specifically used for parking, driveways, walkways, patios, or other outdoor amenities as described below. • Paved Areas. Paved areas shall not exceed 50 percent of the required front or street side setback area. • Courtyard and Gathering Areas. Internal courtyards and common areas shall be visible from the street, parking areas, pedestrian pathways, and/or interior building entries. (CPTED) • Public Art. Developments with more than 20 units shall provide at last one public art amenity, to be approved through the City’s public art approval process. • Play Areas. Multi-family developments with more than 10 units shall provide a play area with at least two structured play modules (e.g., slide and sand box, or tunnel and climber) and a picnic table adjacent to the play area as one of the required active outdoor amenities. Senior or convalescent type housing is exempted from the play area requirement but shall provide a shaded outdoor patio area with minimum seating capacity of eight persons as one of the required active outdoor amenities. • Outdoor Amenities. Projects shall provide outdoor amenities according to the following table. Required amenity areas may be combined into a single area, if the minimum requirements for each amenity area are met within the combined area. • Passive Recreation Amenities. Passive recreation amenities include community gardens, outdoor gathering/seating area, picnic/barbeque area, pet area/dog park, or courtyard/ plaza. 6.B.a Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Gilroy Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Draft Comprehensive Objective Design Standards * Page 7 of 7 Each passive recreation area shall include a minimum seating capacity of one (1) for each 10 units and at least one of the following: trellis, fountain, gas fire pit, BBQ, or picnic table. • Active Outdoor Amenities. Active recreation amenities include playground/tot lots, sport court/field, outdoor fitness area, swimming pool, exercise structure or complex, clubhouse w/kitchen, recreation hall. Number of Units in Development Passive Recreation Amenities Active Recreation Amenities 2-10 2 with a minimum area of 200 sq. ft. total 0 11-30 2 with a minimum area of 300 sq. ft. total 1 with a minimum area of 500 sq. ft. total 31-60 2 with a minimum area of 400 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 800 sq. ft. total 61-100 2 with a minimum area of 500 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 1,200 sq. ft. total 101+ 2 with a minimum area of 600 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 2,000 sq. ft. total LIGHTING • Dusk to Dawn. All structures, entries, parking areas, refuse enclosures, active outdoor/landscape areas, and pedestrian pathways shall include dusk to dawn lighting for safety and security. (CPTED) • Design and Placement. Lighting shall be recessed or hooded, downward directed, and located to illuminate only the intended area. FENCING • Fences and Wall Materials. Chain link fences are prohibited. UTILITIES AND SERVICE AREAS • Screening. Utilities and utility vaults, and all mechanical equipment shall be screened or hidden from view from the public street. • Refuse Enclosures. Trash, recycling, organic waste, and green waste bins and dumpsters shall be consistent with fire and building codes and shall be housed in a covered refuse enclosure with a gate that screens the trash receptacles. Sizing of the enclosures shall conform to solid waste provider requirements. • Refuse Enclosure Materials and Colors. Refuse enclosures shall be constructed of the same primary wall material and color as the most adjacent building within the development. • Refuse Enclosure Access. Refuse enclosures shall have both a vehicular access gate with a concrete apron, and a pedestrian entrance. Gates shall be opaque. Access shall conform to solid waste provider requirements. 6.B.a Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Comprehensive Draft ODS_08-24-21 (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AS A CITY POLICY FOR ALL MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN GILROY WHEREAS, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need; and WHERAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66300, “Objective design standard” means a design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application; and WHERAS, the City of Gilroy was awarded up to $160,000 in state funding established by California Senate Bill 2, the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB2), for actions intended to increase housing in California including the development of objective design standards; and WHEREAS, the Objective Design Standards Policy will help ensure that mixed-use residential and multi-family residential projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations; and WHEREAS, the Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to promote good design principles that create a sense of place and attractive and safe neighborhoods with human-scaled buildings that are compatible with and enhance the City of Gilroy; and WHEREAS, the Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to increase consistency and minimize uncertainty and lengthy delays in the development review process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2021, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the written and oral public testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Objective Design Standards Policy and thereafter recommended that the City Council approve said policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 2021, at which time the City Council received and considered the Objective Design Standards Policy, took and considered the written and oral public testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Objective Design Standards Policy; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects 6.B.b Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX 2 which have the potential for causing a significant impact to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Policy implements the Gilroy 2040 General Plan and in particular: Land use Goal LU 8 to support growth and development that preserves and strengthens the City’s historic, small-town character; provides and maintains safe, livable, and affordable neighborhoods; and creates beautiful places; Land use Policy LU 3.3 (Residential Building Orientation); Land use Policy LU 3.8 (Multi-Family Residential Design Policy); Land use Policy LU 4.10 (Outdoor Activities); Land use Policy LU 7.3 (Compatibility with Adjoining Uses); Land use Policy LU 8.5 (Public Art); and Land use Policy LU 8.13 (Limit Light Pollution). WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this policy adoption is based is the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has considered the Policy in accordance with the 2040 Gilroy General Plan, State law, and other applicable standards and regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby adopt the attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2021 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ___________________________________ Marie Blankley, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 6.B.b Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING THE GILROY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS POLICYFOR ALL MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN GILROY WHEREAS, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66300, “Objective design standard” means a design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application; and WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy was awarded up to $160,000 in state funding established by California Senate Bill 2, the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB2), for actions intended to increase housing in California including the development of objective design standards; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy will help ensure that mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to promote good design principles that create a sense of place and attractive and safe neighborhoods with human-scaled buildings that are compatible with and enhance the City of Gilroy; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to increase consistency and minimize uncertainty and lengthy delays in the development review process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2021, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the written and oral public testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy and thereafter recommended that the City Council approve said policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 2021, at which time the City Council received and considered the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy, took and considered the written and oral public 6.B.c Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy_amended (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX 2 testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Objective Design Standards Policy; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy implements the Gilroy 2040 General Plan and in particular: Land use Goal LU 8 to support growth and development that preserves and strengthens the City’s historic, small-town character; provides and maintains safe, livable, and affordable neighborhoods; and creates beautiful places; Land use Policy LU 3.3 (Residential Building Orientation); Land use Policy LU 3.8 (Multi-Family Residential Design Policy); Land use Policy LU 4.10 (Outdoor Activities); Land use Policy LU 7.3 (Compatibility with Adjoining Uses); Land use Policy LU 8.5 (Public Art); and Land use Policy LU 8.13 (Limit Light Pollution); and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy adoption is based is the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has considered the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy in accordance with the 2040 Gilroy General Plan, State law, and other applicable standards and regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby adopts the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2021 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ___________________________________ Marie Blankley, Mayor 6.B.c Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy_amended (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX 3 ATTEST: ___________________________ LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 6.B.c Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy_amended (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429 cityofgilroy.org Karen Garner DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM DATE: September 2, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Desk Item for Public Hearing Item VI.B, Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Chair Fischer and Members of the Planning Commission, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy, as amended. Following review by the City Attorney, staff will be presenting modifications to the opening statements of the proposed policy and to two of the draft policies pertaining to bicycle parking and public art. These modifications are shown in track change format and have been attached to this memorandum along with a clean version (no track changes). Staff has also amended the Draft City Council Resolution to include a consistent title for the “Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy” throughout the Resolution, along with other minor edits. These edits are shown in track change format and have been attached to this memorandum along with a clean version. A clean version of the amended Resolution has also been uploaded to the City of Gilroy Meeting Calendar for the September 2, 2021 Planning Commission meet ing. Attachments: 1. Amended Draft City Council Resolution, dated 8-31-21 2. Amended Draft City Council Resolution, track changed 3. Amended Draft Objective Design Standards Policy, dated 8-31-21 4. Amended Draft Objective Design Standards Policy, track changed 6.B.d Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING THE GILROY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS POLICYFOR ALL MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN GILROY WHEREAS, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66300, “Objective design standard” means a design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application; and WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy was awarded up to $160,000 in state funding established by California Senate Bill 2, the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB2), for actions intended to increase housing in California including the development of objective design standards; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy will help ensure that mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to promote good design principles that create a sense of place and attractive and safe neighborhoods with human-scaled buildings that are compatible with and enhance the City of Gilroy; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to increase consistency and minimize uncertainty and lengthy delays in the development review process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2021, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the written and oral public testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy and thereafter recommended that the City Council approve said policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 2021, at which time the City Council received and considered the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy, took and considered the written and oral public 6.B.d Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX 2 testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Objective Design Standards Policy; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy implements the Gilroy 2040 General Plan and in particular: Land use Goal LU 8 to support growth and development that preserves and strengthens the City’s historic, small-town character; provides and maintains safe, livable, and affordable neighborhoods; and creates beautiful places; Land use Policy LU 3.3 (Residential Building Orientation); Land use Policy LU 3.8 (Multi-Family Residential Design Policy); Land use Policy LU 4.10 (Outdoor Activities); Land use Policy LU 7.3 (Compatibility with Adjoining Uses); Land use Policy LU 8.5 (Public Art); and Land use Policy LU 8.13 (Limit Light Pollution); and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy adoption is based is the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has considered the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy in accordance with the 2040 Gilroy General Plan, State law, and other applicable standards and regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby adopts the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2021 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ___________________________________ Marie Blankley, Mayor 6.B.d Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX 3 ATTEST: ___________________________ LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 6.B.d Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ESTABLISHING ADOPTING THE GILROY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AS A CITY POLICY FOR ALL MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN GILROY WHEREAS, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66300, “Objective design standard” means a design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application; and WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy was awarded up to $160,000 in state funding established by California Senate Bill 2, the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB2), for actions intended to increase housing in California including the development of objective design standards; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy will help ensure that mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to promote good design principles that create a sense of place and attractive and safe neighborhoods with human-scaled buildings that are compatible with and enhance the City of Gilroy; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is intended to increase consistency and minimize uncertainty and lengthy delays in the development review process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2021, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the written and oral public testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy and thereafter recommended that the City Council approve said policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 2021, at which time the City Council received and considered the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy, took and considered the written and oral public 6.B.d Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX 2 testimony, the staff report, and all other documentation related to the Objective Design Standards Policy; and WHEREAS, the proposed project Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy implements the Gilroy 2040 General Plan and in particular: Land use Goal LU 8 to support growth and development that preserves and strengthens the City’s historic, small-town character; provides and maintains safe, livable, and affordable neighborhoods; and creates beautiful places; Land use Policy LU 3.3 (Residential Building Orientation); Land use Policy LU 3.8 (Multi-Family Residential Design Policy); Land use Policy LU 4.10 (Outdoor Activities); Land use Policy LU 7.3 (Compatibility with Adjoining Uses); Land use Policy LU 8.5 (Public Art); and Land use Policy LU 8.13 (Limit Light Pollution). WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards pPolicy adoption is based is the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has considered the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy in accordance with the 2040 Gilroy General Plan, State law, and other applicable standards and regulations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHERRESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby adopts the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2021 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED: ___________________________________ Marie Blankley, Mayor 6.B.d Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Resolution No. 2021-XX 3 ATTEST: ___________________________ LeeAnn McPhillips, Interim City Clerk 6.B.d Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 1 of 7 The intent of Objective Design Standards is to provide developers with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for mixed-use and multi-family residential project design. Objective design standards are written as requirements, rather than guidelines; therefore, all mixed-use and multi-family residential projects applying under Housing Accountability Act (HAA) protections shall comply with each standard. Importantly, objective design standards regulate site and structure design only. Projects must also comply with all applicable building permit requirements, zoning code requirements, and development standards such as height, setbacks, floor area ratio, etc. Applicability: The Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards apply to residential projects consisting of multi-family residential units only or mixed-use buildings, as defined below. Mixed-use. A mixed-use building is a building consisting of residential uses and non-residential uses (e.g., commercial retail, retail service, office, civic, and institutional) with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, transitional housing, or supportive housing. Multi-Family. A multi-family residential building is a building containing two or more residential dwelling units, each of which is for the occupancy by one or more persons, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, multiplexes, apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. BUILDING ENTRIES, STAIRWELLS, AND GARAGES Intent: To create an attractive, welcoming, safe, and active interface between private development and the public realm, buildings and site design shall meet the following objective criteria: All Residential Developments • Residential entries. Residential units that are not adjacent to the street shall have front entries that are oriented to interior common areas such as paseos, courtyards, and active landscape areas. (CPTED)1 • Exterior Stairwells. Exterior stairwells shall not be oriented to the street. For safety and security, exterior stairwells shall face interior spaces, such as plazas and gathering areas, parking areas, and pedestrian pathways and shall not be separated from these areas by landscaping, fences, or walls taller than three feet. (CPTED) • Access Control. Gated, fenced, or underground parking facilities, and gated exterior stairwells shall incorporate access control technology (e.g., access card or key). (CPTED) • Security Camera System. Developments with more than 50 units shall incorporate a monitored or recorded security camera system. (CPTED) 1 (CPTED) indicates a standard that addresses crime prevention through environmental design. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 2 of 7 Multi-family Residential Developments • Front entries. Buildings positioned along the street shall orient front entries to the street. Street facing residential units shall have covered front entries with a minimum recess or projection of 48 square feet in area. • Entryway Design. Street facing entries shall be accentuated by a minimum of one of the following: • gable roof that extends a minimum of one foot past the sides of the door jamb. • an increase in roof height of at least one foot to accentuate the entry. • wood, stone, tile, or brick accent materials covering a minimum of 30 percent of the entryway wall surface area, inclusive of windows and doors. Manufactured artificial stone products shall not be used to satisfy this requirement. • Garage Doors. For projects containing 5 or more units, garage doors shall not face a public street(s), but may be oriented toward an alley or a private street/driveway that is internal to the project. All garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of six inches from the surrounding building wall and shall include trim of at least one and a half inches in depth. FIGURE: GARAGE DOOR ORIENTATION, PROJECTS WITH 5 OR MORE UNITS Mixed-use Residential Developments • Commercial/Office Units. Commercial/Office unit entrances shall face the street, a parking area, or an interior common space. • Residential Units. Residential units in a mixed-use development shall be located on the upper floors of any elevation that faces a public street with residential access provided through a separate entry along each street frontage or a single entry at the corner. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 3 of 7 MASSING AND ARTICULATION Intent: To create a human-scale environment and buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area, building design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Residential Adjacencies. The side and rear walls of any building within 15 feet of a required setback shall be a maximum of 15 feet higher than the directly adjacent existing residential structure. Structures that exceed this height requirement shall stepback the exterior wall plane of each additional story by a minimum of 8 feet along the entire facade. EXAMPLE FIGURE: SIDE AND REAR WALLS ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE • Major Massing Breaks. Buildings shall have major massing breaks at least every 56 feet along any street frontage or publicly visible area, by incorporating at least one of the following features. • stepping back the upper floors a minimum of 10 feet for at least 70% of the facade; • recessed or projected covered entries with a minimum area of 24 square feet; • exterior arcades or other ground floor building recessions that provide sheltered walkways within the building footprint with a minimum width of 8 feet; • ground floor courtyards within the building footprint with a minimum area of 48 square feet; or • architectural features that are at least 4 feet wide and extend the full height of the building. • Minor Massing Breaks. Buildings shall have minor massing breaks at least every 30 feet along any elevation, by incorporating at least one of the following features: • doors and windows recessed by a minimum of four inches; • variations in wall plane (projection or recess) by a minimum of two feet in depth for at least 30% of the facade; • vertical elements, such as pilasters, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the wall surface and extend the full height of the structure; or • Any of the major massing breaks noted above can be double counted as a minor massing break, so long as it is located within the 30-foot section. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 4 of 7 • Roofline Articulation. Rooflines shall be vertically articulated at least every 48-feet along the street frontage through one of the following techniques: • A change in wall or roof height of a minimum four feet; • A change in roof pitch or form; or • The inclusion of dormers, gables, parapets, and/or varying cornices. • Building Variation. Buildings three stories or taller and wider than 30 feet shall be designed to differentiate the ground floor, middle body, and top floor or cornice/parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another through use of one of the following techniques: • Variation in building modulation for a minimum 70% of the length of the façade, through changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of four feet; • Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum two feet in depth for a minimum 25% of the length of the façade; • Variation in façade articulation, through horizontal and/or vertical recesses or projections; (minimum four inches in depth) such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or a pattern or grouping of windows, panels, or bay windows; • Variation in fenestration, through at least two of the following: size2, proportion3 or pattern; or • Variation in façade material, through at least two of the following: size4, texture, pattern, or color. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Intent: To create a sense of place with buildings that are cohesive, well-crafted, and enhance the public’s experience, buildings shall be designed to meet the following objective criteria: • Corner Treatments. Corner buildings that are two or fewer stories in height shall include at least one of the following features within 15 feet from each edge of the building corner. Buildings that are three or more stories in height shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following features within 15 feet from each edge of the building corner: • change in primary wall material and color; • change in height of more than four feet; • change in wall plane of a minimum depth of two feet; • an entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance; • a different fenestration pattern from the primary façade; • an open space with a minimum dimension of 16 feet and minimum area of 450 square feet, which accommodates either a publicly accessible courtyard/plaza, or outdoor seating for public dining. • End Units. End units shall include the following features on their side elevations: a minimum of 15 percent fenestration area, and at least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. Example: Wrap around front porch. 2 Including: incorporating a stepback, recession, or projection with a minimum depth of four feet. 3 Including: a change in the surface area occupied by windows, doors, balconies, or trim by a minimum of 15 percent. 4 Including: a change in depth of at least four inches. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 5 of 7 • Balconies, Patios, and Porches. All ground floor residential units and a minimum of 51 percent of the upper floor residential units shall include a balcony, patio, porch, or stoop, and this feature shall be a minimum 48 square feet in area. Fractional calculations shall be rounded up. • Façade Transparency. At least 60 percent of the ground floor, street facing walls of non-residential units shall include transparent window or door glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from grade, providing unobstructed views into the non-residential space. Where it is infeasible to provide glazing, such as a parking garage, trash room, mechanical room, or electrical room, landscaping with a minimum dimension of 18-inches in depth and a width equivalent to 70 percent of the wall shall be provided to soften the appearance of a blank wall on the ground floor. • Windows and Doors. Windows and doors shall be trimmed or recessed by a minimum of three- and one-half inches. Trim shall be a minimum width of three- and one-half inches and shall protrude from the wall plane by a minimum of three-quarters of an inch. Foam trim molding shall only be allowed on the second story or above. COLORS AND MATERIALS Intent: To ensure that buildings include a variety of color palettes and textures with durable and attractive materials that contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development and the neighborhood, buildings shall be designed to meet the following objective criteria: • Primary Wall Finish Material. The primary wall finish material5 shall be wood, stone, brick, stucco, fiber cement or other cementitious material, or stone. T1-11 siding and all grooved or patterned wood panel or composite wood panel siding are prohibited. • Required Number of Materials. Structures shall incorporate a minimum of two building materials on each building elevation. Trim does not count as the second material. • Colors. Structures shall have a color palette that consists of at least two body colors and two accent colors (not including roof color). Projects with two or more residential structures shall include a minimum of two (2) color palettes and shall not use a single palette on more than 70 percent of the residential structures. Stone materials shall not be painted. CIRCULATION Intent: To provide pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists with safe and efficient site access and circulation, site design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Pedestrian Circulation. All structures, entries, facilities, amenities, and parking areas shall be internally connected with pedestrian pathways. Pedestrian pathways shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street frontage. Pedestrian pathways shall be separated from roads and parking areas by a physical barrier, such as a grade-separation, of six inches or more or a raised planting strip. 5 Primary wall finish material: the material covering the largest percentage of surface area of any building face or elevation. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 6 of 7 • Vehicular Circulation. All parking areas shall be internally connected and shall use shared driveways within the development. • Carports: Carports shall be painted with the approved color palette for the project. • Parking. Parking shall not be located between the building frontage and a public sidewalk. Uncovered parking areas shall include a landscaped break with one tree and a minimum width of five feet at intervals of a maximum of every 12 parking stalls. • Bicycle Parking. All structures with dwelling units shall provide short-term bike parking in the form of an inverted “U”. An artistic rack may be proposed, subject to discretionary City approval. Bicycle parking shall not be separated from building entrances by a road, parking area, or structure. OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREAS Intent: To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a safe environment, and enhance the pedestrian experience, common area and open space design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Outdoor Space. Landscaping shall be located in all outdoor areas that are not specifically used for parking, driveways, walkways, patios, or other outdoor amenities as described below. • Paved Areas. Paved areas shall not exceed 50 percent of the required front or street side setback area. • Courtyard and Gathering Areas. Internal courtyards and common areas shall be visible from the street, parking areas, pedestrian pathways, and/or interior building entries. (CPTED) • Play Areas. Multi-family developments with more than 10 units shall provide a play area with at least two structured play modules (e.g., slide and sand box, or tunnel and climber) and a picnic table adjacent to the play area as one of the required active outdoor amenities. Senior or convalescent type housing is exempted from the play area requirement but shall provide a shaded outdoor patio area with minimum seating capacity of eight persons as one of the required active outdoor amenities. • Outdoor Amenities. Projects shall provide outdoor amenities according to the following table. Required amenity areas may be combined into a single area, if the minimum requirements for each amenity area are met within the combined area. • Passive Recreation Amenities. Passive recreation amenities include community gardens, outdoor gathering/seating area, picnic/barbeque area, pet area/dog park, or courtyard/ plaza. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 7 of 7 Each passive recreation area shall include a minimum seating capacity of one (1) for each 10 units and at least one of the following: trellis, fountain, gas fire pit, BBQ, or picnic table. • Active Outdoor Amenities. Active recreation amenities include playground/tot lots, sport court/field, outdoor fitness area, swimming pool, exercise structure or complex, clubhouse w/kitchen, recreation hall. Number of Units in Development Passive Recreation Amenities Active Recreation Amenities 2-10 2 with a minimum area of 200 sq. ft. total 0 11-30 2 with a minimum area of 300 sq. ft. total 1 with a minimum area of 500 sq. ft. total 31-60 2 with a minimum area of 400 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 800 sq. ft. total 61-100 2 with a minimum area of 500 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 1,200 sq. ft. total 101+ 2 with a minimum area of 600 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 2,000 sq. ft. total LIGHTING • Dusk to Dawn. All structures, entries, parking areas, refuse enclosures, active outdoor/landscape areas, and pedestrian pathways shall include dusk to dawn lighting for safety and security. (CPTED) • Design and Placement. Lighting shall be recessed or hooded, downward directed, and located to illuminate only the intended area. FENCING • Fences and Wall Materials. Chain link fences are prohibited. UTILITIES AND SERVICE AREAS • Screening. Utilities and utility vaults, and all mechanical equipment shall be screened or hidden from view from the public street. • Refuse Enclosures. Trash, recycling, organic waste, and green waste bins and dumpsters shall be consistent with fire and building codes and shall be housed in a covered refuse enclosure with a gate that screens the trash receptacles. Sizing of the enclosures shall conform to solid waste provider requirements. • Refuse Enclosure Materials and Colors. Refuse enclosures shall be constructed of the same primary wall material and color as the most adjacent building within the development. • Refuse Enclosure Access. Refuse enclosures shall have both a vehicular access gate with a concrete apron, and a pedestrian entrance. Gates shall be opaque. Access shall conform to solid waste provider requirements. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 1 of 7 The intent of Objective Design Standards is to provide developers with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for mixed-use and multi-family residential project design. Objective design standards are written as requirements, rather than guidelines; therefore, all mixed-use and multi-family residential projects applying under Housing Accountability Act (HAA) protections shall must comply with each standard. Importantly, objective design standards regulate site and structure design only. Projects must also comply with all applicable building permit requirements, zoning code requirements, and development standards such as height, setbacks, floor area ratio, etc. Mixed-use and multi-family residential projects that do not meet the City’s objective design standards may be approved through the City’s discretionary design review process. Applicability: The Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards apply to residential projects consisting of multi-family residential units only or mixed- use buildings, as defined below. Mixed-use. A mixed-use building is a building consisting of residential uses and non-residential uses (e.g., commercial retail, retail service, office, civic, and institutional) with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, transitional housing, or supportive housing. Multi-Family. A multi-family residential building is a building containing two or more residential dwelling units, each of which is for the occupancy by one or more persons, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, multiplexes, apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. BUILDING ENTRIES, STAIRWELLS, AND GARAGES Intent: To create an attractive, welcoming, safe, and active interface between private development and the public realm, buildings and site design shall meet the following objective criteria: All Residential Developments • Residential entries. Residential units that are not adjacent to the street shall have front entries that are oriented to interior common areas such as paseos, courtyards, and active landscape areas. (CPTED)1 • Exterior Stairwells. Exterior stairwells shall not be oriented to the street. For safety and security, exterior stairwells shall face interior spaces, such as plazas and gathering areas, parking areas, and pedestrian pathways and shall not be separated from these areas by landscaping, fences, or walls taller than three feet. (CPTED) • Access Control. Gated, fenced, or underground parking facilities, and gated exterior stairwells shall incorporate access control technology (e.g., access card or key). (CPTED) • Security Camera System. Developments with more than 50 units shall incorporate a monitored or recorded security camera system. (CPTED) 1 (CPTED) indicates a standard that addresses crime prevention through environmental design. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 2 of 7 Multi-family Residential Developments • Front entries. Buildings positioned along the street shall orient front entries to the street. Street facing residential units shall have covered front entries with a minimum recess or projection of 48 square feet in area. • Entryway Design. Street facing entries shall be accentuated by a minimum of one of the following: • gable roof that extends a minimum of one foot past the sides of the door jamb. • an increase in roof height of at least one foot to accentuate the entry. • wood, stone, tile, or brick accent materials covering a minimum of 30 percent of the entryway wall surface area, inclusive of windows and doors. Manufactured artificial stone products shall not be used to satisfy this requirement. • Garage Doors. For projects containing 5 or more units, garage doors shall not face a public street(s), but may be oriented toward an alley or a private street/driveway that is internal to the project. All garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of six inches from the surrounding building wall and shall include trim of at least one and a half inches in depth. FIGURE: GARAGE DOOR ORIENTATION, PROJECTS WITH 5 OR MORE UNITS Mixed-use Residential Developments • Commercial/Office Units. Commercial/Office unit entrances shall face the street, a parking area, or an interior common space. • Residential Units. Residential units in a mixed-use development shall be located on the upper floors of any elevation that faces a public street with residential access provided through a separate entry along each street frontage or a single entry at the corner. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 3 of 7 MASSING AND ARTICULATION Intent: To create a human-scale environment and buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area, building design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Residential Adjacencies. The side and rear walls of any building within 15 feet of a required setback shall be a maximum of 15 feet higher than the directly adjacent existing residential structure. Structures that exceed this height requirement shall stepback the exterior wall plane of each additional story by a minimum of 8 feet along the entire facade. EXAMPLE FIGURE: SIDE AND REAR WALLS ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE • Major Massing Breaks. Buildings shall have major massing breaks at least every 56 feet along any street frontage or publicly visible area, by incorporating at least one of the following features. • stepping back the upper floors a minimum of 10 feet for at least 70% of the facade; • recessed or projected covered entries with a minimum area of 24 square feet; • exterior arcades or other ground floor building recessions that provide sheltered walkways within the building footprint with a minimum width of 8 feet; • ground floor courtyards within the building footprint with a minimum area of 48 square feet; or • architectural features that are at least 4 feet wide and extend the full height of the building. • Minor Massing Breaks. Buildings shall have minor massing breaks at least every 30 feet along any elevation, by incorporating at least one of the following features: • doors and windows recessed by a minimum of four inches; • variations in wall plane (projection or recess) by a minimum of two feet in depth for at least 30% of the facade; • vertical elements, such as pilasters, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the wall surface and extend the full height of the structure; or • Any of the major massing breaks noted above can be double counted as a minor massing break, so long as it is located within the 30-foot section. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 4 of 7 • Roofline Articulation. Rooflines shall be vertically articulated at least every 48-feet along the street frontage through one of the following techniques: • A change in wall or roof height of a minimum four feet; • A change in roof pitch or form; or • The inclusion of dormers, gables, parapets, and/or varying cornices. • Building Variation. Buildings three stories or taller and wider than 30 feet shall be designed to differentiate the ground floor, middle body, and top floor or cornice/parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another through use of one of the following techniques: • Variation in building modulation for a minimum 70% of the length of the façade, through changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of four feet; • Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum two feet in depth for a minimum 25% of the length of the façade; • Variation in façade articulation, through horizontal and/or vertical recesses or projections; (minimum four inches in depth) such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or a pattern or grouping of windows, panels, or bay windows; • Variation in fenestration, through at least two of the following: size2, proportion3 or pattern; or • Variation in façade material, through at least two of the following: size4, texture, pattern, or color. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Intent: To create a sense of place with buildings that are cohesive, well-crafted, and enhance the public’s experience, buildings shall be designed to meet the following objective criteria: • Corner Treatments. Corner buildings that are two or fewer stories in height shall include at least one of the following features within 15 feet from each edge of the building corner. Buildings that are three or more stories in height shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following features within 15 feet from each edge of the building corner: • change in primary wall material and color; • change in height of more than four feet; • change in wall plane of a minimum depth of two feet; • an entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance; • a different fenestration pattern from the primary façade; • an open space with a minimum dimension of 16 feet and minimum area of 450 square feet, which accommodates either a publicly accessible courtyard/plaza, or outdoor seating for public dining. • End Units. End units shall include the following features on their side elevations: a minimum of 15 percent fenestration area, and at least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. Example: Wrap around front porch. 2 Including: incorporating a stepback, recession, or projection with a minimum depth of four feet. 3 Including: a change in the surface area occupied by windows, doors, balconies, or trim by a minimum of 15 percent. 4 Including: a change in depth of at least four inches. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 5 of 7 • Balconies, Patios, and Porches. All ground floor residential units and a minimum of 51 percent of the upper floor residential units shall include a balcony, patio, porch, or stoop, and this feature shall be a minimum 48 square feet in area. Fractional calculations shall be rounded up. • Façade Transparency. At least 60 percent of the ground floor, street facing walls of non-residential units shall include transparent window or door glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from grade, providing unobstructed views into the non-residential space. Where it is infeasible to provide glazing, such as a parking garage, trash room, mechanical room, or electrical room, landscaping with a minimum dimension of 18-inches in depth and a width equivalent to 70 percent of the wall shall be provided to soften the appearance of a blank wall on the ground floor. • Windows and Doors. Windows and doors shall be trimmed or recessed by a minimum of three- and one-half inches. Trim shall be a minimum width of three- and one-half inches and shall protrude from the wall plane by a minimum of three-quarters of an inch. Foam trim molding shall only be allowed on the second story or above. COLORS AND MATERIALS Intent: To ensure that buildings include a variety of color palettes and textures with durable and attractive materials that contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development and the neighborhood, buildings shall be designed to meet the following objective criteria: • Primary Wall Finish Material. The primary wall finish material5 shall be wood, stone, brick, stucco, fiber cement or other cementitious material, or stone. T1-11 siding and all grooved or patterned wood panel or composite wood panel siding are prohibited. • Required Number of Materials. Structures shall incorporate a minimum of two building materials on each building elevation. Trim does not count as the second material. • Colors. Structures shall have a color palette that consists of at least two body colors and two accent colors (not including roof color). Projects with two or more residential structures shall include a minimum of two (2) color palettes and shall not use a single palette on more than 70 percent of the residential structures. Stone materials shall not be painted. CIRCULATION Intent: To provide pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists with safe and efficient site access and circulation, site design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Pedestrian Circulation. All structures, entries, facilities, amenities, and parking areas shall be internally connected with pedestrian pathways. Pedestrian pathways shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street frontage. Pedestrian pathways shall be separated from roads and parking areas by a physical barrier, such as a grade-separation, of six inches or more or a raised planting strip. 5 Primary wall finish material: the material covering the largest percentage of surface area of any building face or elevation. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 6 of 7 • Vehicular Circulation. All parking areas shall be internally connected and shall use shared driveways within the development. • Carports: Carports shall be painted with the approved color palette for the project. • Parking. Parking shall not be located between the building frontage and a public sidewalk. Uncovered parking areas shall include a landscaped break with one tree and a minimum width of five feet at intervals of a maximum of every 12 parking stalls. • Bicycle Parking. All structures with dwelling units shall provide short-term bike parking in the form of an inverted “U”. An artistic rack may be proposedapproved, subject to discretionary City approval. Bicycle parking shall not be separated from building entrances by a road, parking area, or structure. OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREAS Intent: To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a safe environment, and enhance the pedestrian experience, common area and open space design shall meet the following objective criteria: • Outdoor Space. Landscaping shall be located in all outdoor areas that are not specifically used for parking, driveways, walkways, patios, or other outdoor amenities as described below. • Paved Areas. Paved areas shall not exceed 50 percent of the required front or street side setback area. • Courtyard and Gathering Areas. Internal courtyards and common areas shall be visible from the street, parking areas, pedestrian pathways, and/or interior building entries. (CPTED) • Public Art. Developments with more than 20 units shall provide at last one public art amenity, to be approved through the City’s public art approval process. • Play Areas. Multi-family developments with more than 10 units shall provide a play area with at least two structured play modules (e.g., slide and sand box, or tunnel and climber) and a picnic table adjacent to the play area as one of the required active outdoor amenities. Senior or convalescent type housing is exempted from the play area requirement but shall provide a shaded outdoor patio area with minimum seating capacity of eight persons as one of the required active outdoor amenities. • Outdoor Amenities. Projects shall provide outdoor amenities according to the following table. Required amenity areas may be combined into a single area, if the minimum requirements for each amenity area are met within the combined area. • Passive Recreation Amenities. Passive recreation amenities include community gardens, outdoor gathering/seating area, picnic/barbeque area, pet area/dog park, or courtyard/ plaza. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) *Draft* Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy Page 7 of 7 Each passive recreation area shall include a minimum seating capacity of one (1) for each 10 units and at least one of the following: trellis, fountain, gas fire pit, BBQ, or picnic table. • Active Outdoor Amenities. Active recreation amenities include playground/tot lots, sport court/field, outdoor fitness area, swimming pool, exercise structure or complex, clubhouse w/kitchen, recreation hall. Number of Units in Development Passive Recreation Amenities Active Recreation Amenities 2-10 2 with a minimum area of 200 sq. ft. total 0 11-30 2 with a minimum area of 300 sq. ft. total 1 with a minimum area of 500 sq. ft. total 31-60 2 with a minimum area of 400 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 800 sq. ft. total 61-100 2 with a minimum area of 500 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 1,200 sq. ft. total 101+ 2 with a minimum area of 600 sq. ft. total 2 with a minimum area of 2,000 sq. ft. total LIGHTING • Dusk to Dawn. All structures, entries, parking areas, refuse enclosures, active outdoor/landscape areas, and pedestrian pathways shall include dusk to dawn lighting for safety and security. (CPTED) • Design and Placement. Lighting shall be recessed or hooded, downward directed, and located to illuminate only the intended area. FENCING • Fences and Wall Materials. Chain link fences are prohibited. UTILITIES AND SERVICE AREAS • Screening. Utilities and utility vaults, and all mechanical equipment shall be screened or hidden from view from the public street. • Refuse Enclosures. Trash, recycling, organic waste, and green waste bins and dumpsters shall be consistent with fire and building codes and shall be housed in a covered refuse enclosure with a gate that screens the trash receptacles. Sizing of the enclosures shall conform to solid waste provider requirements. • Refuse Enclosure Materials and Colors. Refuse enclosures shall be constructed of the same primary wall material and color as the most adjacent building within the development. • Refuse Enclosure Access. Refuse enclosures shall have both a vehicular access gate with a concrete apron, and a pedestrian entrance. Gates shall be opaque. Access shall conform to solid waste provider requirements. 6.B.d Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Desk Item - Objective Design Standards (3400 : Objective Design Standards) Planning Current Project Log 1 DATE FILED PROJECT ID APPLICANT LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT STATUS PLANNER PARCEL NUMBER(S)Residential Units (if any) City of Gilroy Planning Division Dated:8/13/2021 App Type Legend: MA Mills Act Request Staff Directory Link Planning Staff: A Annexation MM Minor Modification Cindy McCormick CM AS Architectural and Site Review SP Sign Permit Kraig Tambornini KT CUP Conditional Use Permit TM Tentative Map Melissa Durkin MAD DA Development Agreement TUP Temporary Use Permit Julie Wyrick JW DTSUP Downtown Special Use Permit TR Tree Removal Permit Miguel Contrera MC DUP Downtown Use Permit USA Urban Service Area Marco Romagnoli MR GPA General Plan Amendment V Variance Unassigned HP Habitat Permit VMD Minor Deviation M Miscellaneous&PreApplications Z Zoning Amendment DATE FILED PROJECT ID APPLICANT LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT STATUS PLANNER PARCEL NUMBER(S)# Residential Units (if any) xx/xx/xxxx DO NOT USE - INSERT NEW LINE BELOW 8/10/2021 M 21-19 (21080005)Wyatt Lucas 850 Holloway Road DRG for 5,000 GSF warehouse to be used as FritoLay product exchange center - This is in the Regency PUD Phase 2 A. Proposed MC/KT 841-70-026 7/30/2021 USA 21-01 (21070038)Kerley, et. al.South Gilroy, see APNs USA Amendment (south Gilroy)A. Proposed CM 004, -005 and 808-21-001, - 7/29/2021 AS 21-13, TM 21-02 B Desai 6970 Camino Arroyo Gilroy Crossings Phase 2 PUD Five lot commercial/industrial PUD amendment A. Proposed MC/KT 7/8/2021 CUP 21-02 (21050024)/ AS 21-10 (21050022)Donald Melancon 8605 Murray Ave. CUP and AS to develop a dog boarding facility and caretaker unit in the Murray-Las Animas overlay district. A. Proposed KT 835-01-003 Caretaker Unit 7/8/2021 M 21-17 (21070003)Amanda Musy-VerdMiller Ave @ Santa Teresa DRG for 56-lot subdivision A. Proposed KT 810-23-005 56 sfr 7/8/2021 MM 21-07 (21060028)2140 Hollyhock LN Riparian setback encroachment / CEQA A. Proposed CM 783-70-015 6/23/2021 M 21-15 (21060025)Cale Enterprises No Address Holloway Rd. DRG to develop vacant industrial lot A. Proposed CM 841-6029 6/16/2021 AS 21-12 (21060013)Chad Nguyen 7231 Eagle Ridge Dr 5,975 GSF of living space & 2,315 GSF of garage space A. Proposed MAD 810-56-015 1 sfr 6/16/2021 M 21-14 (21060010)Christina Hoang 7760 Monterey Road DRG Preapp for four story mixed use building A. Proposed CM 841-04-019; 841-04-018 6/4/2021 AS 21-11 (21060004)Amir Moeini 2354 Banyan Ct Hillside SFR A. Proposed CM 783-65-022 1 sfr 6/3/2021 M 21-13 (21050020) Will McPhee, wmcphee@ompro p.com, 310-707- 3327 625 Luchessa DRG Preapp for four new industrial buildings totaling 1.2msf A. Proposed MC 841-73-007; 841-73-008 6/1/2021 AS 21-09 Manny Macias 7811 Miller Ave Backyard Cabana A. Proposed MC 808-13-014 5/27/2021 TM 21-01 Silvia Ibarra 405 Las Animas Ave.Two lot split of a 2.54 acre lot A. Proposed CM 835-05-024 4/21/2021 AS 21-06 (21040021)Gary Gragg 2031 Portmarnock Way New 3,649 sf single family residence in the hillside A. Proposed KT 810-57-024 1 sfr 4/21/2021 AS 21-07 (21040029)Satwant Singh 7273 Eigleberry 4 new units attached to existing house A. Proposed KT 799-09-029 4 new units 4/16/2021 M 21-12 Amy Hollor 221 Yamane Pre-application (DRG) for industrial project A. Proposed MAD 835-02-057 4/14/2021 AS 21-05 (21040017)Don Reisinger 2331 Hoya Lane New 3,785 sf single family residence in the hillside A. Proposed MC 783-64-022 1 sfr 1/1/2021 GP 22-01 City Citywide Housing Element 2023-2031 A. Proposed CM City-Wide no 1/1/2021 M 20-05 City Citywide SB 330 Compliance Checklist A. Proposed CM City wide no 1/1/2021 M 21-03 City Citywide 2021 Gen Plan and Housing Progress Report (Due 4-1-22)A. Proposed CM City wide no 1/1/2021 M 21-06 City Citywide Parklet policy A. Proposed CM City wide no 11/16/2020 M 20-12 (20070016), AS20-23 Bernie Woytek 8000 Camino Arroyo Data Center A. Proposed CM 841-069-028, 841-069-039, 841-080-005 no 11/5/2020 A/S 20-24 (20110003) Wren Investors, Developer; 408- 847-3908 GLR Specific Plan; Northeast of Santa Teresa & West of Miller Architectural and Site Review for 171 lots in the Glen Loma Ranch Malvasia, Nebbiolo an The Glen neighborhodds A. Proposed MAD 808-18-003, 808-18-024, 808-18-025, 808-18-026 171 SFR lots Description: This log contains all major planning projects currently under consideration. Contact the planning division at PlanningDivision@CityofGilroy.org or call (408) 846-0440 if you have any questions regarding this information. G:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Applications\_APPLICATION LOGS\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_07302021PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_07302021 8.A Packet Pg. 468 Communication: Planning Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS) Planning Current Project Log 2 10/29/2020 HP 20-05 5747 Obata New Industrial building habitat permit.A. Proposed KT 10/23/2020 AS 20-21 (20100021), CUP 20-02 (20100022), TM 20-07 (20100023), Z 20-07 (20100024)Camino Arroyo Split parcel into three lots and develop two lots with distribution facility industrial buildings, totaling 407,580 square feet, and one 5 acre vacant commercial parcel.A. Proposed KT 841-18-082 10/23/2020 HP 20-02 8885 Forest New small Industrial building Nitrogen Only application A. Proposed KT 10/2/2020 AS 20-20 (20090052) / TM 20-06 (20090050) / Z 20-06(20090049) Chris Zaballos, 925-225-7474 9130 & 9160 Kern Avenue The Cottages at Kern. Inlcudes Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development, and Architectural & Site review for a 29-lot subdivision along Kern Avenue, near St. Clar Avenue. Reference DRG M 20-14.A. Proposed MC 790-17-002, 790-17-003 29 lots 9/29/2020 AS 20-18 (20100002) Wren Investors, Developer; 408- 847-3909 GLR Specific Plan; Northeast of Santa Teresa & West of Miller Architectural & Site review for the 40-unit multi-family Malvasia neighborhood A. Proposed MAD 808-18-003, 808-18-024, 808-18-025, 808-18-026 40 MF units 9/29/2020 AS 20-19 (20100003) Wren Investors, Developer; 408- 847-3910 GLR Specific Plan; Northeast of Santa Teresa & West of Miller Architectural & Site review for the 34-unit multi-family Rocky Knoll neighborhood.A. Proposed MAD 808-18-003, 808-18-024, 808-18-025, 808-18-026 34 MF units 9/29/2020 TM 20-05 (20090053) / AS 20-18 (20100002) / AS 20-19 (20100003) Wren Investors, Developer; 408- 847-3911 GLR Specific Plan; Northeast of Santa Teresa & West of Miller Tentative Map for GLR specific plan Canyon Creek, Rocky Knoll, and Malvasia neighorhoods. Totals 40 single-family units and 74 townhouse units. Includes Architectural & Site review for the 40-unit multi-family Malvasia neighborhood and and 34- unit multi-family Rocky Knoll neighborhood.A. Proposed MAD 808-18-003, 808-18-024, 808-18-025, 808-18-026 74, 40, 34 MF units 9/1/2020 Z 21-01 City Citywide Objective Design Standards A. Proposed CM City wide no 7/20/2020 AS 20-14 (20070017), TM 20-03 (20070020), Z 20-04 (20070021)Evergreen LLC 450 9th Street; Tenth and Chestnut commercial carwash, drive through restaurants, convenience store, gas station and hotel on 6.9 acre infil site A. Proposed KT 841-66-010, -011, -014, and -015. 5/1/2020 M 20-19 City Citywide Outdoor Dining Registrations (ongoing)A. Proposed CM City wide no 3/1/2020 M 19-23 City Citywide Mills Act Program - Ordinance, site visits, annual reports A. Proposed CM City wide no 01/21/20 AS 20-02 (20010012) TM 20-01 (20010014) Qui T Son 395 Lewis Street 4-lot subdivision (TM) with 4 new homes (AS)A. Proposed CM 841-03-062 4 SF lots 12/4/2019 M 20-17 City Citywide Create uniform Conditions of Approval for all departments A. Proposed MC 09/24/19 M 19-10 Glen Loma Group Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Traffic study - Tenth Street Bridge Construction/Modification to consider elimination of bridge requirement A. Proposed MAD 08/02/18 M 18-18 (#18080001)City Citywide Special Events Permit/Temporary Use Permit A. Proposed MAD 06/27/18 M 21-10 City Citywide Historical Resource Inventory (additions, removals)A. Proposed CM City wide no 05/04/18 AS 18-09 (18050017) Z 18-04 (18050018)Arrow Sign Co.Automall Pkwy. Zoning Amendment - Sign Ordinance -Electronic Billboard A. Proposed CM City wide no 09/04/16 Z 17-02 (#17030053) Wren Investors, Developer; 408- 847-3912 North of Santa Teresa Blvd Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan update A. Proposed MAD 09/02/16 M 16-10 (#16090007)City Tenth Street Glen Loma CEQA analysis of 10th Street bridge project - construction project A. Proposed MAD 08/25/16 AS 16-33 (#16080044)City of Gilroy W. Luchessa and Miller Ave.New Glen Loma Ranch Fire Station A. Proposed MAD 12/02/15 GPA 15-02 (#15120002), Z 15-12 (#15120004)City Downtown High Speed Rail Station Area Plan - Reactivation of project Contract w HSRA expirs 12/21 A. Proposed KT/CM 7/20/2015 AS 21-15 Hecker Pass N of Autumn Hoey North A. Proposed MAD 11/26/12 A 12-01 (#12110049) Z 12-09 (#12110052) Mark Hewell, Developer Phone: 408-483- 2400 Vickery & Kern Avenues Annexation of 5.46 acres and prezone to Neighborhood District A. Proposed CM/MD 7/17/12 USA 14-02 (#14070058), USA 12-01 (#12070023) Wren Investors, Developer; 408- 847-3900 Vickery & Kern Avenues Urban Service Area amendment to incorporate of 55.66+/- acres into Gilroy’s Urban Service Area (USA)A. Proposed CM/MD M 20-16 Citywide VMT Policy A. Proposed KT G:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Applications\_APPLICATION LOGS\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_07302021PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_07302021 8.A Packet Pg. 469 Communication: Planning Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS) Planning Current Project Log 3 TM 20-08 RJA 6605 Chestnut Subdviding one 9-acre lot into three 3-acre commercial lots A. Proposed MC 20120015 Z 15-03 (includes Z 20-02 (20060030), Z 15-16 (#15120033)Citywide Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update & Admin Draft Zoning Map (Concurrent w GP 2040 GPA 13-02 Project), including bicycle parking standards, RDO & Admin hearing process amendments A. Proposed KT City-Wide Z 20-05 (20090043)City Rescind RDO Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Rescind RDO A. Proposed MAD City-Wide G:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Applications\_APPLICATION LOGS\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_07302021PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_07302021 8.A Packet Pg. 470 Communication: Planning Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)