01/20/2022 Planning Commission Special Agenda Packet
Special Planning Commission Agenda
January 20, 2022 6:00 P.M.
Virtual Meeting via Zoom
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Chair (Interim): 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 Stefanie Elle: stefanie.elle@cityofgilroy.org
Adilene Jezabel Moreno: adilene.moreno@cityofgilroy.org
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361.
MEETING MATERIAL IS AVILABLE ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org.
Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361, a local legislative bode is authorized to hold public meetings
remotely and to make those meetings accessible to all members of the public seeking to observe and
to address the local legislative body by remote means only via a technology solution. As such, the City
will provide various options for the public to participate in the conduct of the meeting, as indicated in
detail below on this coversheet.
In order to minimize the spread of the Covid 19 virus, the City will be offering online conferencing via
Zoom, Facebook Live, and telephone for the public to view or listen to this meeting. Written comments
can be submitted by email to Marco Romagnoli, Planning Technician, at
planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org. Please note that written comments will not be read out loud, but will
be part of the written record.
To Participate vis Zoom:
Weblink: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89092470904?pwd=UzdvcExNMGU2cERnWTFWelBJUUZZUT09
Or via Telephone: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 890 9247 0904
Passcode: 604308
To View the Meeting Live on Facebook:
Weblink: https://www.facebook.com/GilroyCityHallMeetings
Comments by the public will be taken on any agenda item before action is taken by the Planning
Commission. Persons speaking on any matter are asked to state their name and address for the
record. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time
restrictions on particular issues and for each individual speaker. A minimum of 12 copies of materials
should be provided to the Clerk for distribution to the Commission and Staff. Public comments are
limited to no more than 3-minutes, at the Chair’s discretion.
Comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at
planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to the City of Gilroy, Community Development
Department at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the
Planning Division by 1 p.m. on the day of a Planning Commission me eting will be distributed to the
City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packe t
located in he lobby of Planning Division at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any
correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1 p.m.
deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon as practicable.
In compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), 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 City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0491. A sound enhancement
system is available in the City Council Chambers.
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.
Persons who wish to speak on matters set for Public Hearing will be heard when the presiding officer
calls for comments from those persons who are in support of or in opposition thereto. After persons
have spoken, the hearing is closed and brought to the Planning Commission level for discussion and
action. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless requested by the Planning
Commission.
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 with the agenda packet in the lobby of
Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials are
also available with the agenda packet 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 ag enda. 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 Commission action is
requested, the Planning Commission may place the matter on a future age nda. Comments
on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at
planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to Community Development Department at City
Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the Planning Division
by 1:00pm on the day of a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning
Commission prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda
packet located in the lobby of Planning Division at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to
the meeting. Any correspondences received will be incorporated into the meeting record.
Items received after 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon
as practicable. 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. 12/2/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
V. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 395 Lewis Street 4-lot Subdivision, Tentative Map (TM 20-01, 20010014) and
Architectural and Site Review (AS 20-02, 20010012)
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 has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning
Commission:
a) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of a Tentative Map
to subdivide the property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) into
four parcels (File Number TM 20-01); and
b) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of an Architectural
and Site Review Permit to allow construction of four (4) two -story single-
family homes on property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062)
following approval of Tentative Map file number TM 20-01 to subdivide the
property into four (4) single family parcels (File Number AS 20-02).
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2022 Planning Commission Task Force/Committee Assignments
1. Staff Report: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Review Planning Commission committee assignments and make adjustments as
necessary.
VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
A. Housing Policies Update
1. Staff Report: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner
2. Public Comment
3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications
4. Possible Action:
Informational presentation. No further action is required.
B. Current Project Log
IX. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
X. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS
XI. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT
XII. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
XIII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of February 3, 2022 at 6:00 P.M.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
of
DECEMBER 2, 2021
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Fischer called the meeting to order at 6:30.
Chair Fischer led the pledge of alliance.
II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL
Planning Technician Romagnoli posted tonight's agenda on Wednesday, November 24,
2021 at 3:51pm.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Stefanie Elle Planning Commissioner Present
Manny Bhandal Planning Commissioner Excused
John Doyle Planning Commissioner Present
Joan Lewis Planning Commissioner Present
Andrew Ridley Planning Commissioner Late
Tom Fischer Chair Present
Adilene Jezabel Moreno Planning Commissioner Present
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments for items not on the agenda.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
1. November 4, 2021 - Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Staff has analyzed the proposed project and recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve
Tentative Map TM 21-05, subject to certain findings and conditions.
1. Staff Report: Melissa Durkin, Planner II
2. Public Comment
3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications
4. Possible Action:
The applicant requested a continuance of the TM 21-05 public hearing to the February
3, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.
Possible action:
1) Motion was made by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Elle to
continue tentative map TM 21-05 to the February 3, 2022 Planning Commission
meeting.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1
Yes: Lewis, Doyle, Jezabel Moreno, Ridley, Elle, Fischer
4.1
Packet Pg. 5 Communication: 12/2/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA)
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Bhandal
B. Staff has analyzed the proposed project and recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve
Tentative Map TM 20-05, subject to certain findings and conditions.
1. Staff Report: Melissa Durkin, Planner II
2. Public Comment
3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications
4. Possible Action:
The applicant requested a continuance of the TM 20-05 public hearing to the February
3, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.
Possible action:
1) Motion was made by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Elle to
continue tentative map TM 21-05 to the February 3, 2022 Planning Commission
meeting.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1
Yes: Lewis, Doyle, Jezabel Moreno, Ridley, Elle, Fischer
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Bhandal
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission amend the bylaws to change the
start time of Planning Commission meetings from 6:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and to not
take up agenda items after 10:30 p.m. unless requested by a majority of the
Commission.
1. Staff Report: Karen Garner, Community Development Director
2. Public Comment
3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications
4. Possible Action:
Community Development Director Garner presented the staff report.
Chair Fischer opened public comment. No comments.
Chair Fischer closed public comment.
Disclosure of ex-parte communication: None.
4.1
Packet Pg. 6 Communication: 12/2/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA)
Possible action:
1) Motion was made by Commissioner Doyle, seconded by Commissioner Jezabel
Moreno to amend the bylaws to change the start time of Planning Commission meetings
from 6:30pm to 6:00pm and to not take up agenda items after 10:30pm unless
requested by a majority of the Commission.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1
Yes: Lewis, Doyle, Jezabel Moreno, Ridley, Elle, Fischer
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Bhandal
VII. NEW BUSINESS
There is no new business.
VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
A. Planning - Current Project Log - 11/24/2021
IX. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS
Commissioner John Doyle - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
No report.
Commissioner Joan Lewis - Street Naming Committee
No report.
Commissioner Adilene Jezabel Moreno - Historic Heritage Committee
The Historic Heritage Committee met on November 17, 2021. The Historic Heritage
Committee discussed the Historic Ordinance Update.
Commissioner Andrew Ridley - Gilroy Downtown Business Association
No report. Commissioner Ridley asked to be replaced as a planning commissioner
representative to the Gilroy Downtown Business Association due to lack of availability.
X. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT
Community Development Director Garner reported on the upcoming appointments of new
planning commissioners and expired terms.
Director Garner reported on potential changes to the structure of city commissions,
committees, and boards that are being discussed by the City Council.
Director Garner acknowledged Chair Fischer's final meeting on the Planning Commission
and recognized his history of service on various city boards and commissions.
4.1
Packet Pg. 7 Communication: 12/2/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA)
Director Garner notified the Commission that she will email the status of two projects as
requested by Chair Fischer.
XI. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
No report.
XII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of December 3, 2021 at 6:30 P.M.
Chair Fischer adjourned the meeting at 6:48pm to the January 6, 2021 Regular Planning Commission
meeting at 6:00pm.
Marco Romagnoli, Planning Technician
4.1
Packet Pg. 8 Communication: 12/2/2021 Planning Commission 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: January 20, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: 395 Lewis Street 4-lot Subdivision, Tentative Map (TM 20-01,
20010014) and Architectural and Site Review (AS 20-02,
20010012)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the
Planning Commission:
a) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of a Tentative
Map to subdivide the property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841 -
03-062) into four parcels (File Number TM 20-01); and
b) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Coun cil approval of an
Architectural and Site Review Permit to allow construction of four (4)
two-story single-family homes on property located at 395 Lewis Street
(APN: 841-03-062) following approval of Tentative Map file number TM
20-01 to subdivide the property into four (4) single family parcels (File
Number AS 20-02).
BACKGROUND:
Project Description: The proposed project requires approval of a tentative (parcel)
map and an architectural and site review permit. The proposed parcel map would
subdivide an existing vacant 1.05-acre (45,816 square feet) lot into four (4) single-family
residential lots (Attachment 1). As illustrated in the architectural plans (Attachment 2),
each new lot would be developed with a two-story single-family home and three of the
lots would each be developed with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Lots 1, 2,
and 3 would each be 8,363 square feet in area, while Lot 4 would be 12,155 square feet
in area. The project would install frontage improvements (e.g., sidewalk, curb, and
gutter) and dedicate street right-of-way to widen Chestnut Street by approximately 21.5
6.A
Packet Pg. 9
2
feet. The net project site area, after deducting the right of way dedication, totals 37,245
square feet.
The project site is bounded by Lewis Street to the south, Chestnut Street to the east,
and Upper Miller Slough to the west. The project site is surrounded by residential uses.
San Ysidro City Park is located approximately 700 feet east of the project site.
LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project Site Vacant Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family
North Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R3 Medium Density
South Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family
East Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family
and R2 Two-Family
West Single-Family Home Low Density Residential R1 Single-Family
Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the environmental checklist prepared for this
project (on file with the Community Development Department), the project has be en
deemed statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines
section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or Zoning). The
project has also been deemed categorically exempt, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15315 (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions).
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project requires tentative map approval by the City Council upon
recommendation of the Planning Commission and Architectural and Site Review Permit
approval by the community development director or designee. Staff is recommending
that both entitlements be processed concurrently by the Planning Commission and the
City Council since the Architectural and Site Review Permit approval is contingent on
approval of the tentative (parcel) map.
General Plan Consistency: The 2040 General Plan land use designation of the site is
Low Density Residential. The project would result in a residential density of
approximately four (4) dwelling units per acre (du/a), consistent with the allowed density
of 3-8 du/a. The proposed 4-lot subdivision, site layout, and architectural design is
consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
General Plan Goal / Policy Consistency Analysis
6.A
Packet Pg. 10
3
Goal LU 1 Protect and enhance Gilroy’s
quality of life and unique identity while
continuing to grow and change.
The project would develop an
underutilized property with residential
uses that have been designed with
architectural features that will enhance
the residential neighborhood.
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
The proposed infill project will be
compatible with the surrounding
residential uses. The site plan has
been designed to comply with the
required 35-foot riparian setback from
the Upper Miller Slough’s top of bank,
a category 2 stream.
Goal LU 3 Provide a variety of housing
types that offer choices for Gilroy
residents and create complete, livable
neighborhoods
The four single-family homes and three
accessory dwelling units will provide a
variety of housing types on a site that
is currently undeveloped.
LU 3.1 Existing Neighborhoods:
Maintain and enhance the quality of
existing residential neighborhoods,
ensuring adequate public facilities such
as parks, schools, streets, water supply,
and drainage
As provided in the environmental
review checklist for the project, the site
will be served by adequate public
facilities such as parks, schools,
streets, and water supply. The project
drainage plan has been prepared in
accordance with City requirements.
LU 3.4 Compatible Lotting Pattern: For
infill projects where there is an
established pattern of lot sizes abutting a
project site, new development should
reflect the existing lotting pattern,
particularly the lot width of parcels
directly across an existing street.
The lotting pattern is consistent with
residential properties to the south,
east, and west. The site to the north is
currently underutilized. The proposed
residences would be centrally located
within the newly created parcels and
face Chestnut Street. The residences
would have front yard setbacks of at
least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at
least 35 feet, and side yard setbacks of
at least 6 feet.
Habitat Plan compliance: Pursuant to the Habitat Agency Geobrowser, the site is
urbanized and not located within a special fee zone area. Therefore, only standard
habitat agency fees (nitrogen deposition) would be applied. As discussed in the
attached Biological Resources Report and CEQA checklist, the proposed project is
adjacent to the Miller Slough, an ephemeral stream. Although the project is not located
within any special Habitat Plan permit area, the Plan does recommend a 35-foot
6.A
Packet Pg. 11
4
setback from the top of bank of riparian corridors. The proposed project meets the
recommended setback of 35 feet from the Miller Slough’s top of bank, exceeding the
City of Gilroy’s Stream Protection Policy that requires a 20-foot setback from the top of
bank for residential development.
Tentative Map Review: Pursuant to Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 21.41 (Action on
tentative map), the planning commission shall after considering all reports,
recommendations, comments and opinions, transmit its recommendation for approval or
conditional approval, to the city council within sixty (60) days from the date of its
decision. The tentative map may be denied only if the property as proposed to be
developed would conflict with the City code, statute, law or other valid regulation, or if
the land is subject to severe flood hazard or severe inundation. A final map is not
required for a parcel map under Section 66426 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Tentative Map Analysis: The project has been reviewed by all City departments and
applicable agencies. Based on this review, conditions of approval have been prepared
in conformance with the requirements of City Code. Residential subdivisions must
comply with Chapter 21, Subdivisions and Land Development. The property is not
subject to severe flood hazard or severe inundation and the project is consistent with
City Code as follows:
1. Flood Zone: The project site is located in an area designated as Flood Zone X,
which is not a 100-year flood zone or considered a special hazard flood zone per
the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps (FEMA 2009).
2. Density: The project would result in a residential density of approximately four (4)
dwelling units per acre (du/a), consistent with the General Plan allowed density of
3-8 du/a.
3. Lot Sizes: Lots 1, 2, and 3 would each be 8,363 square feet in area, while Lot 4
would be 12,155 square feet in area, consistent with minimum 6,660 square foot
lot size for the R1 district.
4. Site Layout: The proposed single-family residences would be centrally located
within the newly created parcels and face Chestnut Street. The residences would
be consistent with setbacks for the R1 zoning district with front yard setbacks of at
least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at least 35 feet, and side yard setbacks of at
least 6 feet. The site plan has been designed to comply with the required 35 -foot
riparian setback from the Upper Miller Slough’s top of bank, a category 2 stream.
5. Access and Parking. Each parcel would be accessed via new driveways off
Chestnut Street. Each residence includes an attached two -car garage.
6. Street Frontage: Each lot would provide a minimum 40 feet of street frontage on
Chestnut Street.
7. Utilities: The project would connect to the existing City of Gilroy water and sewer
mains east of the site within Chestnut Street. The residences would also connect
6.A
Packet Pg. 12
5
to existing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas main and electrical pole south of the
site on Lewis Street.
8. Grading. The project proposes 299 cubic yards (cy) of fill and 75 cy of cut, for a
net fill (import) of 224 cy earth material.
9. Stormwater Management. The project would create 24,284 square feet of
impervious surfaces (approximately 53 percent of the site). Individual lots would be
improved with bioretention areas to treat stormwater runoff prior to flowing to an
underground storage to be detained and released into the public system.
10. Tree Removal and Landscaping. The project site consists of two protected trees,
one of which would be preserved. The requested tree removal of one (1) coast live
oak tree is consistent with the City’s Code allowance for such removal. The project
proposes to plant 24 new trees along the perimeter of the site. Landscaping also
includes the planting of various shrubs, groundcover, and grass. Irrigation for
landscaping will be required to comply with the City’s water efficient irrigation
standards.
Tentative Map Findings: Pursuant to staff’s analysis, the following findings can be
made in support of a Planning Commission recommendation of approval of the
requested Parcel Map (TM 20-01), as conditioned in the attached resolution.
a) The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of
the City's General Plan.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's
Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act.
c) Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed to serve the proposed
project are in proximity to the site.
d) There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project which is
statutorily and categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183 and section 15315.
Architectural and Site Review: Pursuant to GCC Section 30.50.41(a) (Architectural
and Site Review Permits), the community development director or designee shall review
and may issue architectural and site approval for development of four (4) or more
single-family residential parcels which have been created from the same parcel map.
Architectural and Site Permit Analysis: Lots 1, 2, and 3 would each include
construction of a 3,193 square-foot single-family home with attached garage and a 631
square-foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Lot 4 would be developed with a
3,410 square-foot single-family home with attached garage (no ADU). The homes would
have front yard setbacks of at least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at least 35 feet, and
side yard setbacks of at least 6 feet. Residential homes on Lots 1 -3 are proposed to be
28.5 feet in height, and the Lot 4 residence is proposed to be 28 feet in height. The
application is consistent with all objective development standards for single -family
homes in the R1 single-family residential district. The City does not have objective
6.A
Packet Pg. 13
6
architectural design standards for single-family homes; however, the proposal has been
designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
Architectural and Site Permit Findings: Pursuant to staff’s analysis, the following
findings can be made in support of a Planning Commission recommendation of
approval of the requested Architectural and Site Review Permit (AS 20-02), as
conditioned in the attached resolution.
1. The proposed development is permitted and in conformance with the Gilroy Zoning
Ordinance development standards including height, setbacks, parking and
landscaping, and other adopted policies of the City of Gilroy.
2. The proposed development would be consistent with all applicable goals and
policies of the Gilroy General Plan in that the residential land use is an allowed use
in the single-family residential district.
3. The proposed development would not impair the integrity and character of the area
surrounding and in the vicinity of the subject property given that the project has
been designed to comply with all city development standards, minimizes grading
and tree impacts, and proposes a residential design that is compatible with the
neighborhood character.
4. The subject site would be served by streets and highways adequate in width and
structure to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use will generate, given that
the project will be required to dedicate street right-of-way to widen Chestnut Street
by approximately 21.5 feet..
5. The subject site would be provided with adequate sewerage, water, fire protection
and storm drainage facilities.
6. The proposed development/use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structure or to the public health,
safety or general welfare, given that the project would require a building permit and
has been designed to comply with all applicable city development standards.
Noticing: On January 6, 2022, notices of this Planning Commission meeting were
mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, and on January 7, 2022,
the project was published in the Gilroy Dispatch. In addition, the Planning Commission
public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage.
Next Steps: The recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to
City Council within 50 days. Upon City Council approval, the Engineering Department
would complete the process of signing and recording the Parcel Map.
Attachments:
1. 395 Lewis St Parcel Map 2022-01-13
2. 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01
3. vicinity map
4. TM 20-01 PC reso
5. AS 20-02 PC reso
6. 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21
7. Arborist Report 10-4-17
6.A
Packet Pg. 14
7
8. Biological Resources Report 120516
6.A
Packet Pg. 15
6.A.aPacket Pg. 16Attachment: 395 Lewis St Parcel Map 2022-01-13 [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.aPacket Pg. 17Attachment: 395 Lewis St Parcel Map 2022-01-13 [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 18Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 19Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 20Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
1"=10'-0"
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
#256
Juglans sp.
#263 Significant Tree
(Quecus agrifolia)
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Lot D
A.D.U.
Driveway Driveway
Sidewalk
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Lot CLot BLot A
Lewis StreetChestnut Street
A.D.U.A.D.U.
#254
Juglans sp.
#265
Juglans sp.
#266
Juglans sp.
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Patio Sidewalk Sidewalk
Domestic
Water Meter
Gas & Elec.
Meters
Gas & Elec.
Meters
Gas & Elec.
Meters
(E) Curb / Butter
16'-0" P.U.E.
Bark
Mulch
Gates
5 Nandina
Domestica
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Gate
1 Lagerstroemia
Tuscarora
5 Rhaphiolepis
Umbellata minor
3 Calamagrostis K.F.
5 Acer rubrum
Oct. Glory
21 Coleonema
compacta
5 Nandina
Domestica
Gates
4 Escallonia
fradesii
5 Escallonia
fradesii
5 Iceberg
Roses
11 Dietes
Bark
Mulch
9 Rhapeolepis
Umbellata minor
15 Pittosporum
Tennuifolium
8 Prunus carolina
'Bright & Tight'
6 Toyon
9 Quercus
agrifolia
10 Pittosporum
Tennuifolium
9 Toyon
10 Rhapeolepis
Umbellata minor
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Bark
Mulch
Gates
3 Escallonia
fradesii
6 Dietes
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Fence
6' High
Fence
6' High
1 Lagerstroemia
Tuscarora
Top of Bank
Top of Bank
35'-0" Side Setback
from Top of Bank 35'-0"PLANTING NOTES
1. The contractor shall locate and verify the existence of all utilities prior to starting work.
2. The plant material locations are diagrammatic and subject to change in the field as directed by the Landscape Architect.
3. All plant material shall conform to the guidelines established by the current American Standard of Nursery Stock, published by The American Association of Nurserymen.
4. The plant count is for contractor's convenience. In case of discrepancy, the plan shall govern.
5. All trees to be staked plumb unless otherwise noted.
6. All planted areas shall be free from rocks and debris greater than 2" in diameter.
7. Prior to the planting of any materials, compacted soils shall be transformed to a friable condition. On engineered slopes, only amended planting holes need meet this requirement;
8. Soil amendments shall be incorporated according to recommendations of the soil report and what is appropriate for the plants selected;
9. For landscape installations, compost at a rate of a minimum of four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six inches into the soil. Soils
with greater than 6% organic matter in the top 6 inches of soil are exempt from adding compost and tilling;
10. A minimum three inch (3″) layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding
applications where mulch is contraindicated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, up to 5 % of the landscape area may be left without mulch. Designated insect habitat
must be included in the landscape design plan as such;
11. Stabilizing mulching products shall be used on slopes that meet current engineering standards;
12. The mulching portion of the seed/mulch slurry in hydro-seeded applications shall meet the mulching requirement;
13. Organic mulch materials made from recycled or post-consumer shall take precedence over inorganic materials or virgin forest products unless the recycled post-consumer organic
products are not locally available. Organic mulches are not required where prohibited by local Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines or other applicable local ordinances.
Karen Aitken & Associates -2021 These drawings are instruments of service, issued for a one-time single use by the owner. The entire contents of these drawings is copyright Karen Aitken & Associates. Landscape Architect retains all rights and title. No part may be reproduced in any fashion or medium without the express written approval of the landscape architect. The proper electronic transfer of data shall be the user’s responsibility
without liability to the landscape architect. Owner shall assume responsibility for compliance with all easements, setback requirements and property lines. Owner shall acquire all necessary permits required to perform work shown on plans. Base information has been provided by the owner. Karen Aitken & Associates assumes no liability for the accuracy of said property line boundaries, fence lines or property corners.
REVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LEWIS P.U.D.
N LEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB* NOTES (E) = Existing
SCALE 1”=10’
0 10 20 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) 842-0245karen@kaa.designPLANT LEGEND
02-16-21
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
1"=10'-0"
L-2 IRRIGATION PLAN
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Garage
Porch
Lot D
A.D.U.
Driveway
Driveway
Sidewalk
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Lot CLot BLot A
Lewis StreetChestnut Street
A.D.U.
A.D.U.
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Wood Fence
6'-0" High
Patio Sidewalk Sidewalk
Domestic
Water Meter
Gas & Elec.
Meters
Gas & Elec.
Meters
(E) Curb / Butter
16'-0" P.U.E.
Bark
Mulch
Gates
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Gate
Gates
Bark
Mulch
6 Toyon
Fence
6' High
Bark
Mulch
Bark
Mulch
Gates
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Domestic
Water Meter
Fence
6' High
Fence
6' High
Top of Bank
Top of Bank
35'-0" Side Setback
from Top of Bank
IRRIGATION KEY
Main Line:SCH 40 2"
Use existing when possible
Sleeves: SCH 40 4"
Lateral Line SCh 40 1"
C
Drip Rings: Rainbird XFD on surface
dripline w/ 12" emitter spacing.
Backflow Device
3
Valve number callout and type of
irrigation
Rainbird Controller
22 station ESP-Me
Rainbird Drip Valve
XCS-100-PRF Netafim Dripline
C C C
4
1
2 Med Water Tree
Drip 81 SF
Low Water Tree
Drip 108 SF 3
4
Low Water
Drip 190 SF
1
2
3
4
Med Water
Drip 330 SF
Low Water Tree
Drip 54 SF
1
2 1
2
3Low Water Tree
Drip 135 SF
C
Med Water
Drip 353 SF Med Water Tree
Drip 54 SF
Med Water
Drip 480 SF
Med Water Tree
Drip 54 SF
Med Water
Drip 383 SF
Med Water
Drip 970 SF
IRRIGATION KEY
Main Line SCH 40 1 1/4"
Sleeves SCH 40 4" or contractor to locate and
use existing if possible
Lateral Line SCh 40 1"
Rainbird Drip Valve XCS-100-PRF
Drip Line: Netafim Techline CV LITE with 18" Emitter spacing
and 24" lateral spacing. Provide flush valves at the end of each
circuit and air relief valve at the high point of each circuit.
C Rainbird Controller 4 to 22- station ESP-Me
Rainbird Flow Sensor FS-200-P
Rainbird RSD Series Rain Shut OffR
Rainbird SMRT-Y Soil Moisture SensorMS
1300 Series Bubblers:
-1 Bubbler per 15 Gallon Tree
-2 Bubbler per 24" Box Tree
Med Water
Drip 242 SF
Low Water Tree
Drip 108 SF
Med Water
Drip 375 SF
“I have complied with the criteria of the Water Conservation in
Landscaping Ordinance and applied them accordingly for the efficient
use of water in the irrigation design plan.”
MS MS MS MS
R R R
R
Rainbird RSD
Series Rain Shut Off
Rainbird SMRT-Y Soil
Moisture Sensor
Rainbird 1300 Series
Bubbler
REVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) 842-0245aitkenassociates@gmail.com Lewis StreetLewis PUD
N LEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB
* NOTES (E) = Existing
SCALE 1”=10’
0 10 20 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD
02-16-21
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
L-3 WATER CALCSREVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) 842-0245aitkenassociates@gmail.comLewis PUDLEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD
02-16-21
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
L-4 WATER CALCSREVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) 842-0245aitkenassociates@gmail.comLewis PUDLEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD
02-16-21
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
L-5 IRRIGATION DETAILSREVISIONS BY
AITKEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8262 Rancho Real Gilroy Ca. 95020Calif. Reg.#2239 (408) 842-0245aitkenassociates@gmail.com02-16-21
Lewis PUDLEWIS P.U.D.DATE
SCALE
DRAWN
JOB 395 Lewis St. Gilroy, CAIN & AD
6.A.b
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 26Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 27Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 28Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 29Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 30Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 31Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 32Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 33Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 34Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 35Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 36Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 37Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 38Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 39Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 40Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 41Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 42Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6.A.bPacket Pg. 43Attachment: 395 Lewis St Architectural Plans 2021-03-01 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Note: Map is for reference purposes only.
City of Gilroy
3,920
City of Gilroy, GIS Services
653.3
1:NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet
326.67 Feet653.30
City of Gilroy
6.A.c
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: vicinity map (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
GILROY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 395 LEWIS
STREET (APN: 841-03-062) INTO FOUR PARCELS (FILE NUMBER TM 20-01)
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2021 an application was resubmitted by Qui T. Son, of iMark
Designs proposing subdivision of a 1.05 acre site into four lots, located at 395 Lewis Street within the
City of Gilroy R1 Single-Family Residential zoning district (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the application submittal was accepted as complete on June 25, 2021; and
WHEREAS, On November 2, 2020 the Gilroy City Council adopted the Gilroy 2040
General Plan after certifying an EIR for the plan and whereas the General Plan EIR reviewed all
of the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines
as well as all sections required to be included in an EIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, an environmental checklist was prepared for the Project
to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine
whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIR or whether any new
significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result; and
WHEREAS, the project has been deemed statutorily exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or
Zoning), and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15315 (Class 15, Minor
Land Divisions); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on January 20,
2022, 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 TM 20-01; 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:
1. The proposed Tentative Map to subdivide the 1.05 acre property into four (4) new
residential lots is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan and the residential density and uses anticipated within the General Plan
Low Density Residential land use designation.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 2
Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act given
that the size, shape and location of the property complies with all applicable codes and
ordinances.
3. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed
project are in proximity to the site.
4. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project, which
qualifies for statutory and categorical exemptions from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Gilroy hereby recommends to the City Council application TM 20-01, subject to the
Conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of January, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________________ __________________________________
Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Tom Fischer, Chairperson
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TM 20-01
PLANNING CONDITIONS
The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project
ENTITLEMENT(S).
1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for Tentative Parcel Map TM 20-01 is granted to
subdivide a 1.05-acre site into four (4) single-family residential lots, located at 395 Lewis
Street (APN: 841-03-062) within the City of Gilroy R1 Single-Family Residential zoning
district as shown on the Parcel Map prepared by Carnes and Ekparian Inc Land Surveyors
for Qui T. Son, of iMark Designs, consisting of two (2) sheets, dated January 13, 2022 and
received by the Planning Division on January 13, 2022.
Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these
conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes
made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community
Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall
conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code
requirements or policies adopted by City Council.
2. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply
with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject
to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs
associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant.
3. 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.
4. SIGNS: No signs are approved as part of this application. Prior to issuance of a sign
permit for this site, Developer shall propose well-designed, quality signs that comply with
the allowances of the City Code and are to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 4
5. SIGNAGE: All signage advertising the development project or components thereof,
including individual tenants or subdivisions, shall be installed or maintained onsite or
offsite as allowed and in conformance with an approved sign permit.
6. 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.
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.
7. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: On plans submitted for grading permit, 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.
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 Worksheet (available on the Santa Clara
Valley Habitat Agency website: https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/). A grading permit
will be issued only after approval of the Habitat Plan permit and payment of assessed fees.
The following conditions shall be met prior to the approval of the FINAL MAP or PARCEL
MAP, or other deadline as specified in the condition.
9. TENTATIVE MAP: An approved tentative parcel map, which shall expire twenty-four
(24) months from the approval date, may be extended pursuant to the provisions of the
Map Act.
The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition.
10. 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;
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 5
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;
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.”
11. 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
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 6
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.”
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.d
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 7
15. 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.”
ENGINEERING GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, utility sheets shall show appropriate
line types and labels to identify different type of utilities and pipe sizes. Clearly identify
both public and private utilities.
2. GENERAL - Improvement plans (as second sheet in plan set) shall contain Approved
Conditions of Approval.
3. GENERAL - Improvement plans shall include General Notes found in the City of Gilroy
General Guidelines. 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.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 8
4. GENERAL - Improvement plan cover sheet shall include a table summarizing all facilities
(Streets, Utilities, Landscaping, etc.), showing the ownership of all facilities, and the
maintenance responsibilities of all facilities.
5. GENERAL - The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and
local agencies as required to construct the proposed improvements. A copy of these
permits will be provided prior to building permits.
6. GENERAL – 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.
7. GENERAL - Existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded and related utility poles
removed along the property frontage.
8. GENERAL - 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.
9. GENERAL - Prior to any work within public right of way or City easement, the developer
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City.
10. GENERAL - All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City of Gilroy Municipal Code and Standard Specifications and Details, and is subject to
all laws of the City of Gilroy by reference. Street improvements and the design of all off-
site storm drainage facilities, sewer and water lines, and all street sections shall be in
accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City Master Plan for
streets, as approved by the City of Gilroy’s Public Works Director/City Engineer.
11. GENERAL - Prior to issuance of any building permits, developer shall submit for City
approval water, sewer and storm drain studies for the development. These studies shall
provide supporting hydraulic calculation for pipe sizing per City standard design guideline.
12. GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, developers engineer shall submit a
calculation for sanitary sewer and water generation per the City’s Master Plan design criteria.
13. FEE - The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Latest City impact fee schedule is available
on the City’s website. Payment of Impact Fees is required at first permit issuance. Fees
shall be based on the current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee
payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 9
14. FEE - Prior to plan approval, developer shall submit a detailed project cost estimate by the
project engineer, subject to City Engineer approval. Cost estimate shall be broken out into
on-site and off-site improvements.
15. FEE - Prior to final plan approval, Developer shall pay 100% of the plan check and
processing fees and other related fees that the property is subject to, enter into a property
improvement agreement, and provide payment and performance bonds.
16. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading activity shall address National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerns. If all or part of the construction occurs
during the rainy season, the developer shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Public
Works Director for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion control
devices and other techniques in accordance with 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 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. WDID# shall be added to the grading
plans prior to plan approval.
17. GRADING & DRAINAGE - 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 their recommendations 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.
18. GRADING & DRAINAGE - At first improvement plan submittal, the developer 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 offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount and velocity shall
not be altered by the development.
19. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading and improvement plans shall identify the
vertical elevation datum, date of survey, and surveyor.
20. GRADING & DRAINGE - Improvement and grading plans shall show existing topo and
features at least 50’ beyond the project boundary. Clearly show existing topo, label
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 10
contour elevations, drainage patterns, flow lines, slopes, and all other property
encumbrances.
21. GRADING & DRAINAGE – Geotechnical Engineer to confirm infiltration rates by
conducting Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing with appropriate safety factors of all
stormwater detention and/or retention facilities.
22. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – Prior to Parcel Map approval, developer shall execute a
property improvement agreement and post Payment and Performance bonds each for
100% of cost for improvement with the City that shall secure the construction of the
public improvements. Insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement.
23. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - The developer shall repair or replace all existing
improvements not designated for removal and all new improvements that are damaged or
removed because of developer's operations. Developer shall request a walk-through with
the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions.
24. CONSTRUCTION - All construction water from fire hydrants shall be metered and billed
at the current hydrant meter rate.
25. CONSTRUCTION - 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
schedule and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list.
26. CONSTRUCTION - Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for general
construction activity. No work shall be done on Sundays and City Holidays. The Public
Works Director will apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to
accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school
commute routes.
27. CONSTRUCTION - All work shown on the improvement plans, if applicable, shall be
inspected. Uninspected work shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the Public
Works Director.
28. CONSTRUCTION - 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 permit is required.
This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan.
29. CONSTRUCTION - It is the responsibility of the contractor to make sure that all dirt
tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and
other construction debris shall not be washed into the City’s storm drains.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 11
30. CONSTRUCTION - At least one week prior to commencement of work, the Developer
shall post at the site and mail to the Engineering Division and to owners of property 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.
31. CONSTRUCTION - 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.
32. TRANSPORTATION - Any work in the public right-of-way shall require a traffic control
plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing such plans.
Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the latest
edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Traffic Control
Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the public right of
way.
33. UTILTIES - The Developer/Contractor shall make accessible any or all City utilities as
directed by the Public Works Director.
ENGINEERING PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
34. FEE - The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. The following are approximate impact fees
based on planning phase square footage and other information for Residential Low-
Density projects. Actual fees will be based on Final Design information.
a. Street Tree = $103
b. Storm Development = $593
c. Sewer Development = $50,004
d. Water Development = $17,176
e. Traffic Impact = $49,060
f. Public Facilities = $85,272
Latest City impact fee schedule is available on the City’s website. Payment of Impact
Fees is required at first building permit issuance. Fees shall be based on the current
comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in
accordance with City policy.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 12
35. GENERAL – As part of Phase 1 of this project, a Parcel Map shall be completed to
subdivide all future lots. Said Parcel map will be presented to the City Council for review
and action. The City Council meeting will be scheduled approximately fifty (50) days
after the Parcel Map is deemed technically correct, and Subdivision Improvement Plans
with supporting documents, reports and agreements are approved by the City. Developer
shall dedicate necessary right of way and public easements for the project development.
36. GENERAL - The approved construction 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.
37. TRANSPORTATION – Applicant shall obtain a review letter from Recology confirming
serviceability and site accessibility of solid waste pickup. Contact Lisa Patton, Operations
Manager 408-846-4421. Include Recology review letter with first building permit
submittal.
38. GENERAL - A current Title Report dated within the last six months, shall be submitted
with the first submittal improvement plans. An existing site plan shall be submitted
showing all existing site conditions and title report easements. Include bearings and
distances for all Right of Way and Easements on the plans.
39. GENERAL - The Developer shall provide a “composite plan” showing Civil, Landscape,
Electrical, and Joint Trench design information (as a separate sheet titled “Composite
Plan”) to confirm that there are no conflicts.
40. GRADING & DRAINAGE - 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 developer shall add this condition to the general notes on the
grading plan.
41. GRADING & DRAINAGE – An elevation certificate per FEMA requirements must be
complete by a Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer prior to occupancy.
42. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – Prior to Parcel Map Approval, the developer shall obtain
design approval and bond for all necessary public improvements, including but not limited
to the following:
A. Pavement widening, striping, and signing along Chestnut St project frontage.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 13
B. Construction of new curb, gutter, 6’ sidewalk, driveways, and ADA curb ramp
along Chestnut St. and Lewis St. project frontage.
C. The project is making new pavement cuts which reduces the City Pavement
Condition Index. The project shall grind and pave the limits shown on sheet C2 if
the improvement plans (Part of the Architectural and Site submittal) with a
minimum 2.5” hot mix AC, and with pavement section dig-outs and repairs. Extent
of the dig-outs and repairs to be determined by the Developers Geotechnical
Engineer and City Engineer.
D. Installation of new City standard streetlights along project frontage. Final
streetlight locations shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
E. Storm drain line, laterals, and related facilities along project frontage.
F. Existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded and related utility poles
removed along the property frontage and boundary. Underground the overhead
lines that currently cross Lewis St. No new overhead utility lines or poles will be
allowed.
G. Removal of the existing underground utilities no longer being used along the
project frontage.
H. Water services and meters per City standards. Each water service shall have a
separate lateral from the main to each lot.
I. New Fire Hydrants along project frontage.
J. Sewer laterals, manholes, and related facilities. Sewer facilities cannot be aligned
through stormwater treatment facilities.
K. New trees along project frontage.
All improvements must be built to the city Engineer’s satisfaction, and accepted by the City
prior to issuance of any first certificate of occupancy for the project.
43. CONSTRUCTION - 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. Streets will be cleaned
by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, or
at least once a day.
44. CONSTRUCTION - The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to
Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual. The subdivider shall require the soils
engineer to daily submit all testing and sampling and reports to the City Engineer.
45. TRANSPORTATION – At first plan submittal, developer shall submit on-site and off-site
photometric plans.
46. TRANSPORTATION - At first plan submittal developer shall model all Emergency
Vehicle circulation movements, as a separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be
prepared to the City Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn swept analysis
software, all turning and street circulation movements.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 14
47. 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.
48. UTILITIES - The following items will need to be completed prior to first building permit
submittal:
a. The Developer 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 Developer shall negotiate right-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and other
utilities subject to the review and approval by the Engineering Division and the utility
companies.
c. Will Serve Letter” from each utility company for the subdivision shall be supplied to
the City.
49. UTILITIES - 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. The Joint consultant shall provide the City a separate “project utility composite
plan” showing all Civil, Landscape, electrical, and joint trench information to confirm that
there are no conflicts with joint trench plan utilities.
50. UTILITIES – Storm, sewer, and water lines in private areas shall be privately owned and
maintained. This should be noted on the title sheet of the project improvement plan.
51. UTILITIES - Prior to any construction of the dry utilities in the field, the following will
need to be supplied to the City:
a. A professional engineer signed original electrical plan.
b. A letter from the design Electrical or Civil Engineer that states the electrical plan
conforms to City codes and Standards, and to the approved improvement plans.
52. UTILITIES - Sanitary sewer laterals located in driveways shall have traffic rated boxes
and lids.
53. UTILITIES - The Developer 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
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 15
perform to the standards established by the City. Developer shall coordinate with Fire
Department for the Fire Hydrant test.
54. UTILITIES - 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.
55. WATER QUALITY - Proposed development shall comply with state mandated regional
permits for both pre-construction and post-construction stormwater quality requirements per
chapter 27D of the Gilroy Municipal Code, and is subject to, but not limited to, the following:
a. At first improvement plan submittal, project 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. 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. Provide a separate hatch or shading for
landscaping/pervious areas on-site including those areas that are not bioretention
areas. This stormwater control plan report format does not replace or is not in lieu of
any stormwater control plan sheet in improvement plans.
b. The stormwater control plan shall include a signed Performance Requirement
Certifications specified in the Stormwater Guidance Manual.
c. At developer’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 included with the submittal for City evaluation.
d. Prior to plan approval, the Developer of the site shall enter into a formal written
Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City, including
Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
i. The City shall record this agreement against the property or properties
involved and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by
the stormwater management treatment BMPs. The City-standard Stormwater
BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public
Works Engineering.
ii. This Agreement shall require that the BMPs not be modified and BMP
maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility from its
original design unless approved by the City prior to the commencement of the
proposed modification or maintenance activity.
iii. 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.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 16
iv. 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.
v. Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in
accordance with City-approved plans.
vi. 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.
e. Stormwater BMP Operations and Maintenance Agreement shall include inspections to
be required for this project and shall adhere to the following:
i. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for having all stormwater
management facilities inspected for condition and function by a certified third
party QSP or QSD.
ii. 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.
f. 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.
g. Before commencing any grading or construction activities, the developer 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.
56. WATER QUALITY - 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.
57. WATER QUALITY - The developer shall secure a QSD or QSP to maintain all erosion
control and BMP measures during construction. The developers QSD or QSP shall provide
the City weekly inspection reports.
58. WATER QUALITY – Sequence of construction for all Post Construction Required facilities
(PCR’s) / stormwater facilities (bioswales, detention/retention basins, drain rock, etc.) shall be
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 17
done as a final phase of construction to prevent silting of facilities and reduce the intended use
of the facilities. 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.
59. LANDSCAPING - Landscaping plans shall not conflict with the stormwater management
water treatment plan.
60. MASTER PLANS - Confirm the project is in compliance with the City Master Plans.
Studies shall identify the development's effect on the City's present Master Plans and the
impact of this development to surrounding utility lines. If the results of the study indicate
that this development contributes to the over-capacity of the trunk line, developer will be
required to mitigate the impact by remove and replace or upsizing of the existing utilities.
61. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Until such time as all improvements required are fully
completed and accepted by City, Developer will be responsible for the care maintenance
of and any damage to such 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 Developer.
62. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Certification of grades and compaction is required prior to
Building Permit final. This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and
Drainage Plan.
63. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Prior to building occupancy, provide and obtain approval for
all of the items identified in the Public Works Department “Development Project
Closeout” list.
64. All project frontage improvements including pavement widening, grind and pave, curb &
gutter, sidewalk, driveways, ADA ramp, utilities, stormwater management facilities,
landscaping, etc. along Chestnut St and Lewis St shall be constructed in Phase 1 of this
project.
65. All stormwater facilities along Chestnut St located within the PSE shall be maintained by
the property owner. The City and property owner shall enter into a maintenance agreement
prior to Parcel map approval.
66. All stormwater facilities for future lots shall be owned and maintained by the property
owner.
67. No private signage, poles, utilities, etc. allowed in PSE/PUE.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-__
Page 18
68. Construct new City standard storm drain drop inlet located near the north property
boundary.
69. Stormwater treatment shall occur behind the back of proposed sidewalk.
6.A.d
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: TM 20-01 PC reso [Revision 2] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
GILROY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 395 LEWIS STREET (APN: 841-03-062)
FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FILE NUMBER TM 20-01 TO
SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO FOUR (4) SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS
(FILE NUMBER AS 20-02)
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2021 an application was resubmitted by Qui T. Son, of iMark
Designs proposing the development of four (4) single-family homes following the subdivision of a
1.05 acre site into four single-family lots, on property located at 395 Lewis Street within the City of
Gilroy R1 Single-Family Residential zoning district (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the application submittal was accepted as complete on June 25, 2021; and
WHEREAS, On November 2, 2020 the Gilroy City Council adopted the Gilroy 2040
General Plan after certifying an EIR for the plan and whereas the General Plan EIR reviewed all
of the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines
as well as all sections required to be included in an EIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, an environmental checklist was prepared for the Project
to evaluate the impact categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine
whether the project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIR or whether any new
significant impacts peculiar to the project or project site would result; and
WHEREAS, the project has been deemed statutorily exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Projects Consistent with General Plan, Community Plan or
Zoning), and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15315 (Class 15, Minor
Land Divisions); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on January 20,
2022, 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 TM 20-01; 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:
A. The proposed development is permitted and in conformance with the Gilroy Zoning
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 2
Ordinance development standards including height, setbacks, parking and landscaping,
and other adopted policies of the City of Gilroy.
B. The proposed development would be consistent with all applicable goals and policies of
the Gilroy General Plan in that the residential land use is an allowed use in the single-
family residential district.
C. The proposed development would not impair the integrity and character of the area
surrounding and in the vicinity of the subject property given that the project has been
designed to comply with all city development standards, minimizes grading and tree
impacts, and proposes a residential design that is compatible with the neighborhood
character.
D. The subject site would be served by streets and highways adequate in width and structure
to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use will generate, given that the project will
be required to dedicate street right-of-way to widen Chestnut Street by approximately
21.5 feet.
E. The subject site would be provided with adequate sewerage, water, fire protection and
storm drainage facilities.
F. The proposed development/use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to
the adjacent uses, buildings or structure or to the public health, safety or general welfare,
given that the project would require a building permit and has been designed to comply
with all applicable city development standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Gilroy hereby recommends to the City Council the approval of AS 20-02, subject to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AS 20-02
PLANNING CONDITIONS
The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project
ENTITLEMENT(S).
1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for Architectural and Site Review Permit AS
20-02 is granted to allow construction of four (4) two-story single-family homes on
property located at 395 Lewis Street (APN: 841-03-062) to be subdivided into four (4)
single family parcels (file number TM 20-01) within the City of Gilroy R1 Single-
Family Residential zoning district as shown on the project plans prepared by Qui T.
Son, of iMark Designs, consisting of 26 sheets, dated as received by the Planning
Division on March 1, 2021.
Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these
conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes
made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 3
Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall
conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code
requirements or policies adopted by City Council.
2. PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval is one year from the date
of recordation of the Final Map for TM 20-01. Building permits must be obtained for the
project within one (1) year from that date. Otherwise this approval shall expire unless a
timely extension has been obtained. Upon application, an extension of time may be
granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Should Developer intend to
request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning
Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely
requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code.
3. RELATED ENTITLEMENTS: This permit is subject to the conditions of approval of
Tentative Map application TM 20-01. If the tentative map is not approved and executed or
if the tentative map expires, this approval shall be null and void.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply
with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject
to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs
associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant.
5. 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.
6. SIGNAGE: All signage advertising the development project or components thereof,
including individual tenants or subdivisions, shall be installed or maintained onsite or
offsite as allowed and in conformance with an approved sign permit.
7. 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.
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.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 4
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENTS: Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to
initiating any new construction or modifications authorized under this approval, including
but not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas, model home
sales offices, advertising signs of any kind, exterior and interior modifications. Developer
shall pay all requisite fees in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or issuance, as
applicable.
12. HABITAT PLAN FEES: 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 Worksheet (available on the Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Agency website: https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/). A grading permit will be issued
only after approval of the application and payment of assessed fees.
Developer shall present to the Community Development Director or designee, a receipt
issued by Santa Clara County for full payment of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan fees
for associated with the proposed development.
13. PAYMENT OF FEES: Developer shall pay all required development impact fees prior to
issuance of permits. This includes required park in lieu fees, school fees, traffic impact
fees, etc.
14. GARAGE DOORS: Developer shall provide automatic garage door openers for all
garages. All garage entries shall be equipped with a sectional roll-up garage door.
15. FENCES AND WALLS: All fencing and walls are to be shown on construction drawings
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 5
submitted for building permit review and shall not exceed six (6) feet in height, measured
from adjacent grade to the top of the fence or wall. The design and location must comply
with all setback requirements.
16. REFUSE STORAGE: Developer shall show on construction documents a minimum 9-
foot by 3-foot level concrete pad for storage of three refuse containers in the side yard area
or other location approved by the Community Development Director or designee that is
out of view from the street. The storage location shall not be within the garage. Developer
shall also provide for a paved path from the storage location to the pick-up area (typically
the street) that does not require entering the garage. All gates or doors along the path shall
be constructed with a minimum clear space of 36-inches to allow passage of the
containers.
17. RAIN GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS: Developer shall install all roof and building
rain gutters and downspouts, vents, and flashing to integrate as closely as possible with
building design elements, including matching the color of the adjacent surface.
18. 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).
19. INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES: Developer shall not include any invasive plant species,
such as those listed by the California Invasive Plant Council.
20. 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.
21. 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).
22. PRECONSTRUCTION NESTING BIRD SURVEY: To the extent practicable,
vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1
through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or
vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys will
be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active
nests as follows: “The Developer shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified
biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500’ for active nests –
with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds – if construction (including site
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 6
preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August
31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the
project applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no-
disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation
with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100’ for perching birds and
300’ for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist
determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases
for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will
be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.”
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.
23. 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.
24. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION: Prior to issuance of certificate
of occupancy or building permit final sign-off, Developer shall complete installation of all
landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 7
“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;
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.”
29. 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
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 8
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.”
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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,
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 9
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.”
33. 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.
34. ADDITIONS, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND PATIO COVERS: Building
additions and patio covers shall conform to the zoning district or PUD approval, as
applicable.
35. GARAGE USE: Garages shall be used for resident parking only. Storage is permitted so
long as it does not prevent use of garage for required vehicle parking. The use and
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 10
availability of garage spaces for parking shall be specified in the project CC&R’s.
36. 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.
FIRE PREVENTION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The submitted plans shall reference the 2019 California Codes (e.g. Building, Fire,
Residential, etc.).
2. Detached Second Units (ADU’s) shall have a path of travel (min 36” wide) to the street and
shall be provided a separate address number. The ADU shall have an address number that is
visible from the street.
3. All residential structures shall be provided with residential fire sprinklers (NFPA13D)
including garages. City standards include:
a. A 1-inch meter and 1.5-inch laterals shall be provided to each structure.
b. System to comply with NFPA 13D (2016) subject to inspection by the City.
c. Riser shall be installed in the garage or approved exterior cabinet.
d. If the water supply to the home is not at the garage, water supply from point of
entry to the riser shall be approved by Gilroy Fire Prevention.
e. All enclosed garages shall be provided with sprinkler protection.
f. At least 1 sprinkler of each type shall be present in the spare head box at final.
g. An exterior bell/horn shall be installed on the bedroom side of the home. The
water-flow switch shall be wired to smoke alarms for interior notification.
h. Each attic access shall be protected by a pilot head. The pilot head piping
(CPVC) shall be provided with adequate insulation.
i. Sprinkler coverage shall be provided underneath stairwells when used as storage,
closets or bathrooms (even if less than 55 sq ft). Concealed spaces used for
storage in attics or crawl spaces that exceed 55 sq ft in area and 6 ft in height,
shall be provided with sprinkler coverage.
j. A fire flow test shall be obtained from the Deputy Fire Marshal and included in
the sprinkler system design calculations. Call 408-846-0451 to schedule a fire
hydrant test ($300.00 fee).
4. Chimneys shall have spark arrestors installed. No permanent outdoor, wood-fired
fireplaces/pits are allowed. Trees and tree branches shall not be within 10 ft of a chimney.
5. Landscaping in the open space areas shall be maintained so as not to become a fire
hazard. Portions of these parcels may extend into the watercourse located on the West
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 11
side of the property. All dead and dry vegetation to be removed by May 15th each year
and to be maintained until November.
6. Egress Windows shall be provided on all sleeping rooms. A room that does not have a
clearly defined use as a kitchen, closet, dining room, living/family room or study shall be
considered a bedroom. Studies/libraries with closets shall be treated as bedrooms.
Storage rooms that are provided with windows, and electrical outlets and are greater than
50 square feet may also be considered bedrooms if attached to a dwelling unit.
ENGINEERING GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, utility sheets shall show appropriate
line types and labels to identify different type of utilities and pipe sizes. Clearly identify
both public and private utilities.
2. GENERAL - Improvement plans (as second sheet in plan set) shall contain Approved
Conditions of Approval.
3. GENERAL - Improvement plans shall include General Notes found in the City of Gilroy
General Guidelines. 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.
4. GENERAL - Improvement plan cover sheet shall include a table summarizing all
facilities (Streets, Utilities, Landscaping, etc.), showing the ownership of all facilities,
and the maintenance responsibilities of all facilities.
5. GENERAL - The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and
local agencies as required to construct the proposed improvements. A copy of these
permits will be provided prior to building permits.
6. GENERAL – 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.
7. GENERAL - Existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded and related utility poles
removed along the property frontage.
8. GENERAL - 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.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 12
9. GENERAL - Prior to any work within public right of way or City easement, the
developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City.
10. GENERAL - All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City of Gilroy Municipal Code and Standard Specifications and Details, and is subject to
all laws of the City of Gilroy by reference. Street improvements and the design of all off-
site storm drainage facilities, sewer and water lines, and all street sections shall be in
accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City Master Plan for
streets, as approved by the City of Gilroy’s Public Works Director/City Engineer.
11. GENERAL - Prior to issuance of any building permits, developer shall submit for City
approval water, sewer and storm drain studies for the development. These studies shall
provide supporting hydraulic calculation for pipe sizing per City standard design guideline.
12. GENERAL - At first improvement plan submittal, developers engineer shall submit a
calculation for sanitary sewer and water generation per the City’s Master Plan design criteria.
13. FEE - The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Latest City impact fee schedule is available
on the City’s website. Payment of Impact Fees is required at first permit issuance. Fees
shall be based on the current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee
payment, consistent with and in accordance with City policy.
14. FEE - Prior to plan approval, developer shall submit a detailed project cost estimate by
the project engineer, subject to City Engineer approval. Cost estimate shall be broken out
into on-site and off-site improvements.
15. FEE - Prior to final plan approval, Developer shall pay 100% of the plan check and
processing fees and other related fees that the property is subject to, enter into a property
improvement agreement, and provide payment and performance bonds.
16. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading activity shall address National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerns. If all or part of the construction
occurs during the rainy season, the developer shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the
Public Works Director for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion
control devices and other techniques in accordance with 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 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)
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 13
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. WDID# shall be added to
the grading plans prior to plan approval.
17. GRADING & DRAINAGE - 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 their recommendations 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.
18. GRADING & DRAINAGE - At first improvement plan submittal, the developer 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 offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary areas, drainage amount and velocity shall
not be altered by the development.
19. GRADING & DRAINAGE - All grading and improvement plans shall identify the
vertical elevation datum, date of survey, and surveyor.
20. GRADING & DRAINGE - Improvement and grading plans shall show existing topo and
features at least 50’ beyond the project boundary. Clearly show existing topo, label
contour elevations, drainage patterns, flow lines, slopes, and all other property
encumbrances.
21. GRADING & DRAINAGE – Geotechnical Engineer to confirm infiltration rates by
conducting Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing with appropriate safety factors of all
stormwater detention and/or retention facilities.
22. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – Prior to Parcel Map approval, developer shall execute a
property improvement agreement and post Payment and Performance bonds each for
100% of cost for improvement with the City that shall secure the construction of the
public improvements. Insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement.
23. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - The developer shall repair or replace all existing
improvements not designated for removal and all new improvements that are damaged or
removed because of developer's operations. Developer shall request a walk-through with
the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 14
24. CONSTRUCTION - All construction water from fire hydrants shall be metered and
billed at the current hydrant meter rate.
25. CONSTRUCTION - 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
schedule and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list.
26. CONSTRUCTION - Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for general
construction activity. No work shall be done on Sundays and City Holidays. The Public
Works Director will apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to
accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school
commute routes.
27. CONSTRUCTION - All work shown on the improvement plans, if applicable, shall be
inspected. Uninspected work shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the Public
Works Director.
28. CONSTRUCTION - 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 permit is required.
This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan.
29. CONSTRUCTION - It is the responsibility of the contractor to make sure that all dirt
tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete
and other construction debris shall not be washed into the City’s storm drains.
30. CONSTRUCTION - At least one week prior to commencement of work, the Developer
shall post at the site and mail to the Engineering Division and to owners of property
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.
31. CONSTRUCTION - 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.
32. TRANSPORTATION - Any work in the public right-of-way shall require a traffic
control plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing
such plans. Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 15
the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The
Traffic Control Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within
the public right of way.
33. UTILTIES - The Developer/Contractor shall make accessible any or all City utilities as
directed by the Public Works Director.
ENGINEERING PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
34. FEE - The project is subject to the City’s Street Tree, Storm, Sewer, Water, Traffic, and
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. The following are approximate impact fees
based on planning phase square footage and other information for Residential Low-
Density projects. Actual fees will be based on Final Design information.
a. Street Tree = $103
b. Storm Development = $593
c. Sewer Development = $50,004
d. Water Development = $17,176
e. Traffic Impact = $49,060
f. Public Facilities = $85,272
Latest City impact fee schedule is available on the City’s website. Payment of Impact
Fees is required at first building permit issuance. Fees shall be based on the current
comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of fee payment, consistent with and in
accordance with City policy.
35. GENERAL – As part of Phase 1 of this project, a Parcel Map shall be completed to
subdivide all future lots. Said Parcel map will be presented to the City Council for review
and action. The City Council meeting will be scheduled approximately fifty (50) days
after the Parcel Map is deemed technically correct, and Subdivision Improvement Plans
with supporting documents, reports and agreements are approved by the City. Developer
shall dedicate necessary right of way and public easements for the project development.
36. GENERAL - The approved construction 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.
37. TRANSPORTATION – Applicant shall obtain a review letter from Recology confirming
serviceability and site accessibility of solid waste pickup. Contact Lisa Patton, Operations
Manager 408-846-4421. Include Recology review letter with first building permit
submittal.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 16
38. GENERAL - A current Title Report dated within the last six months, shall be submitted
with the first submittal improvement plans. An existing site plan shall be submitted
showing all existing site conditions and title report easements. Include bearings and
distances for all Right of Way and Easements on the plans.
39. GENERAL - The Developer shall provide a “composite plan” showing Civil, Landscape,
Electrical, and Joint Trench design information (as a separate sheet titled “Composite
Plan”) to confirm that there are no conflicts.
40. GRADING & DRAINAGE - 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 developer shall add this condition to the general notes on the
grading plan.
41. GRADING & DRAINAGE – An elevation certificate per FEMA requirements must be
complete by a Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer prior to occupancy.
42. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – Prior to Parcel Map Approval, the developer shall obtain
design approval and bond for all necessary public improvements, including but not
limited to the following:
A. Pavement widening, striping, and signing along Chestnut St project frontage.
B. Construction of new curb, gutter, 6’ sidewalk, driveways, and ADA curb ramp
along Chestnut St. and Lewis St. project frontage.
C. The project is making new pavement cuts which reduces the City Pavement
Condition Index. The project shall grind and pave the limits shown on sheet C2 if
the improvement plans (Part of the Architectural and Site submittal) with a
minimum 2.5” hot mix AC, and with pavement section dig-outs and repairs.
Extent of the dig-outs and repairs to be determined by the Developers
Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer.
D. Installation of new City standard streetlights along project frontage. Final
streetlight locations shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
E. Storm drain line, laterals, and related facilities along project frontage.
F. Existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded and related utility poles
removed along the property frontage and boundary. Underground the overhead
lines that currently cross Lewis St. No new overhead utility lines or poles will be
allowed.
G. Removal of the existing underground utilities no longer being used along the
project frontage.
H. Water services and meters per City standards. Each water service shall have a
separate lateral from the main to each lot.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 17
I. New Fire Hydrants along project frontage.
J. Sewer laterals, manholes, and related facilities. Sewer facilities cannot be aligned
through stormwater treatment facilities.
K. New trees along project frontage.
All improvements must be built to the city Engineer’s satisfaction, and accepted by the City
prior to issuance of any first certificate of occupancy for the project.
43. CONSTRUCTION - 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. Streets will be cleaned
by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, or
at least once a day.
44. CONSTRUCTION - The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to
Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual. The subdivider shall require the soils
engineer to daily submit all testing and sampling and reports to the City Engineer.
45. TRANSPORTATION – At first plan submittal, developer shall submit on-site and off-
site photometric plans.
46. TRANSPORTATION - At first plan submittal developer shall model all Emergency
Vehicle circulation movements, as a separate plan sheet. The circulation plan shall be
prepared to the City Engineer’s satisfaction, and modeled with AutoTurn swept analysis
software, all turning and street circulation movements.
47. 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.
48. UTILITIES - The following items will need to be completed prior to first building permit
submittal:
a. The Developer 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 Developer shall negotiate right-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and other
utilities subject to the review and approval by the Engineering Division and the
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 18
utility companies.
c. Will Serve Letter” from each utility company for the subdivision shall be supplied to
the City.
49. UTILITIES - 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. The Joint consultant shall provide the City a separate “project utility composite
plan” showing all Civil, Landscape, electrical, and joint trench information to confirm
that there are no conflicts with joint trench plan utilities.
50. UTILITIES – Storm, sewer, and water lines in private areas shall be privately owned and
maintained. This should be noted on the title sheet of the project improvement plan.
51. UTILITIES - Prior to any construction of the dry utilities in the field, the following will
need to be supplied to the City:
a. A professional engineer signed original electrical plan.
b. A letter from the design Electrical or Civil Engineer that states the electrical plan
conforms to City codes and Standards, and to the approved improvement plans.
52. UTILITIES - Sanitary sewer laterals located in driveways shall have traffic rated boxes
and lids.
53. UTILITIES - The Developer 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.
54. UTILITIES - 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.
55. WATER QUALITY - Proposed development shall comply with state mandated regional
permits for both pre-construction and post-construction stormwater quality requirements per
chapter 27D of the Gilroy Municipal Code, and is subject to, but not limited to, the
following:
a. At first improvement plan submittal, project 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. Report shall also include
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 19
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. Provide a separate hatch or shading for
landscaping/pervious areas on-site including those areas that are not bioretention
areas. This stormwater control plan report format does not replace or is not in lieu of
any stormwater control plan sheet in improvement plans.
b. The stormwater control plan shall include a signed Performance Requirement
Certifications specified in the Stormwater Guidance Manual.
c. At developer’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 included with the submittal for City evaluation.
d. Prior to plan approval, the Developer of the site shall enter into a formal written
Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City, including
Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
i. The City shall record this agreement against the property or properties
involved and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by
the stormwater management treatment BMPs. The City-standard Stormwater
BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public
Works Engineering.
ii. This Agreement shall require that the BMPs not be modified and BMP
maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility from its
original design unless approved by the City prior to the commencement of
the proposed modification or maintenance activity.
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
v. Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in
accordance with City-approved plans.
vi. 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.
e. Stormwater BMP Operations and Maintenance Agreement shall include inspections
to be required for this project and shall adhere to the following:
i. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for having all stormwater
management facilities inspected for condition and function by a certified
third party QSP or QSD.
ii. 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
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 20
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.
f. 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.
g. Before commencing any grading or construction activities, the developer 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.
56. WATER QUALITY - 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.
57. WATER QUALITY - The developer shall secure a QSD or QSP to maintain all erosion
control and BMP measures during construction. The developers QSD or QSP shall provide
the City weekly inspection reports.
58. WATER QUALITY – Sequence of construction for all Post Construction Required facilities
(PCR’s) / stormwater facilities (bioswales, detention/retention basins, drain rock, etc.) shall
be done as a final phase of construction to prevent silting of facilities and reduce the intended
use of the facilities. 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.
59. LANDSCAPING - Landscaping plans shall not conflict with the stormwater management
water treatment plan.
60. MASTER PLANS - Confirm the project is in compliance with the City Master Plans.
Studies shall identify the development's effect on the City's present Master Plans and the
impact of this development to surrounding utility lines. If the results of the study indicate
that this development contributes to the over-capacity of the trunk line, developer will be
required to mitigate the impact by remove and replace or upsizing of the existing utilities.
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 21
61. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Until such time as all improvements required are fully
completed and accepted by City, Developer will be responsible for the care maintenance
of and any damage to such 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 Developer.
62. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Certification of grades and compaction is required prior to
Building Permit final. This statement must be added as a general note to the Grading and
Drainage Plan.
63. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE – Prior to building occupancy, provide and obtain approval
for all of the items identified in the Public Works Department “Development Project
Closeout” list.
64. All project frontage improvements including pavement widening, grind and pave, curb &
gutter, sidewalk, driveways, ADA ramp, utilities, stormwater management facilities,
landscaping, etc. along Chestnut St and Lewis St shall be constructed in Phase 1 of this
project.
65. All stormwater facilities along Chestnut St located within the PSE shall be maintained by
the property owner. The City and property owner shall enter into a maintenance
agreement prior to Parcel map approval.
66. All stormwater facilities for future lots shall be owned and maintained by the property
owner.
67. No private signage, poles, utilities, etc. allowed in PSE/PUE.
68. Construct new City standard storm drain drop inlet located near the north property
boundary.
69. Stormwater treatment shall occur behind the back of proposed sidewalk.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of January, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Resolution No. 2022-XX
Page 22
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________________ __________________________________
Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Tom Fischer, Chairperson
6.A.e
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: AS 20-02 PC reso [Revision 1] (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -1- November 2021
City of Gilroy
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
FOR DETERMINATION OF CEQA EXEMPTION
I. BACKGROUND
1. Application No: #20010012: AS 20-02 (Architectural and Site Review) and TM 20-01
(Vesting Tract Map)
2. Project Title: 395 Lewis Street Project
3. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Gilroy Planning Division, Community Development Department
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
4. Contact Person and Contact Information:
Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner
(408) 846-0253; Cindy.McCormick@ci.gilroy.ca.us
5. Project Location: 395 Lewis Street (APN 395-03-062) in the eastern portion of the City
of Gilroy; see Figure 1.
6. Project Applicant / Sponsor Name and Address:
Mark Design Group
1659 Scott Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95050
7. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (3-8 du/acre)
8. Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (R1)
9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board: Review Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
filed by applicant
10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21080.31? No
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Uses and Site Plan. The proposed project consists of a parcel map to subdivide an
existing vacant 1.05-acre (45,816 square foot) lot into four single-family residential lots. Each
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -2- November 2021
new lot would be developed with a two-story single-family home. Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be
8,363 square feet in area each, and each lot would include construction of a 3,193 square-
foot single-family home with attached garage and a 631 square-foot detached accessory
dwelling unit (ADU); see Figure 2. Lot 4, which would be 12,155 square feet in area, would be
developed with a 3,410 square-foot single-family residence with attached garage and no ADU.
The project would result in a residential density of approximately four (4) dwelling units per
acre (du/a). The project would install frontage improvements (i.e. sidewalk, curb, and gutter)
and would be required to make a right-of-way street dedication to widen Chestnut Street by
approximately 21.5 feet. The project would also be required to file a resolution of an existing
access easement to the property, which runs immediately north of the subject property. A
construction and maintenance easement would also be filed along the southern portion of
the property. The net project site area, after deducting the right of way dedication, totals
37,245 square feet.
Site Layout and Architecture. The proposed single-family residences would be centrally
located within the newly created parcels and face Chestnut Street. The residences would have
front yard setbacks of at least 26 feet, rear yard setbacks of at least 35 feet, and side yard
setbacks of at least 6 feet. The south-western portion of the project site is bordered by the
Upper Miller Slough, which is considered a Category 2 stream by the City and requires a 35-
foot riparian setback from the slough’s top of bank. The project is designed to comply with
this requirement as shown on the site plan. Residences on Lots 1-3 are proposed to be 28.5
feet in height, and the Lot 4 residence is proposed to be 28 feet in height. The residences are
proposed to have a stucco finish and concrete barrel-tiled roofs.
Grading. The project site would be graded prior to construction. Grading would involve a total
fill of 299 cubic yards (cy) of earth material and cut of 75 cy of earth material, for a net fill
(import) of 224 cy.
Utilities and Stormwater Management. The project would connect to the existing City of
Gilroy water and sewer mains east of the site within Chestnut Street. The residences would
also connect to existing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas main and electrical pole south of the
site on Lewis Street. The project would create 24,284 square feet of impervious surfaces
(approximately 53 percent of the site). Individual lots would be improved with bioretention
areas to treat stormwater runoff prior to flowing to an underground storage to be detained
and released into the public system.
Access and Parking. Each parcel would be accessed via new driveways off Chestnut Street.
Each residence includes an attached two-car garage. Parking and access for the newly
subdivided lots would be subject to the City’s zoning regulations.
Landscaping. The project proposes to plant 24 new trees along the perimeter of the site,
including 2 crape myrtles, 5 red maples, 8 laurel cherries, and 9 coast live oaks. Landscaping
also includes the planting of various shrubs, groundcover, and grass. Each new lot would have
landscaped backyards that would comply with riparian setback requirements to the adjacent
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -3- November 2021
Upper Miller Slough. Irrigation for landscaping will be required to comply with the City’s water
efficient irrigation standards.
Entitlements. The project will require the following entitlement approvals from the City of
Gilroy: (1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Article III of Chapter 21 of the Gilroy City
Code to subdivide the project site into four parcels, (2) Architectural Site Review pursuant to
Article L of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City Code to approve the site layout, building architecture
and materials, and (3) building permits.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The approximately 1.05-acre site is a rectangular parcel located at 395 Lewis Street, east of
Monterey Street and approximately 0.23 miles west of the Highway 101 within the City of
Gilroy, as shown on Figure 1. The project site is bounded by Lewis Street to the south,
Chestnut Street to the east, and Upper Miller Slough to the west. The project’s surrounding
area is characterized by residential uses; the project is surrounded by single-family residences
to the north, south, east, and west. San Ysidro City Park is located approximately 700 feet
east of the project site.
The project site is a vacant undeveloped parcel with grass and former orchard trees and two
(2) coast live oak trees. The project site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from
approximately 198 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northeast portion of the property
to approximately 189 MSL along the southwest portion of the property within Upper Miller
Slough (H.T. Harvey Associates 2016). The site was previously occupied by a single-family
house that was demolished without record.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -4- November 2021
FIGURE 1 : Project Location
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -5- November 2021
FIGURE 2: Project Site Plan
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -6- November 2021
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. Introduction and Background
In analyzing a proposed project, the City may consider whether existing environmental
documents already provide an adequate analysis of potential environmental impacts. An
earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program environmental impact
report (EIR), or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions, if it can be
determined that one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063(c)(3)(D)). If an earlier analysis is
used, the Initial Study checklist discussion should identify: a) the earlier analyses and state
where they are available for review; b) identify which effects were adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and c) describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CEQA also allows a lead agency to avoid repeating analyses that were already provided in a
certified General Plan EIR for a development project that is consistent with the General Plan.
Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and its parallel CEQA Guidelines provision, section
15183, provide for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the General
Plan for which an EIR was certified. Pursuant to section 21083.3(b), if a development project
is consistent with the general plan for which an environmental impact report was certified,
the application of CEQA shall be limited to effects on the environment which are “peculiar to
the parcel or to the project” and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior
environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more
significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. Subsection (d) further
indicates that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered “peculiar
to the parcel or to the project,” “if uniformly applied development policies or standards” have
been previously adopted by the city or county, with a finding based upon substantial
evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that
environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information
shows that the policies or standards would not substantially mitigate the environmental
effect. Under these provisions of CEQA, a project that is consistent with a General Plan that
was adopted pursuant to a certified EIR, could be potentially partially or wholly exempt from
further CEQA analyses.
Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance related to Public
Resources Code section 21083. Specifically, a project may be exempt from review under CEQA
the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis, that:
(1) The project is consistent with the development density established by existing
zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified;
(2) There are no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site;
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -7- November 2021
(3) There are no project specific impacts which the General Plan EIR failed to analyze
as significant effects;
(4) There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the
General Plan EIR failed to evaluate; and
(5) There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than
anticipated by the General Plan EIR.
Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (c) further provides that “if an impact is not peculiar to
the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can
be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or
standards,…, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis
of that impact.” “[D]evelopment policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire
city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is
located…such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community
plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning
ordinance.” (Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (f).)
B. Use of Earlier Analyses
On November 2, 2020 the Gilroy City Council adopted the Gilroy 2040 General Plan after
certifying an EIR for the plan. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes the Draft EIR volume
(June 2020) and the Final EIR volume (September 2020). The General Plan EIR reviewed all of
the topics included on the Appendix G environmental checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines
as well as all sections required to be included in an EIR.
The General Plan EIR is a “program” EIR prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15168, which reviewed environmental impacts associated with future development and
buildout within the City’s planning area that would be accommodated by the General Plan. A
program EIR can be used for subsequent projects implemented within the scope of the
program/plan. Typically, site-specific or new significant impacts that weren’t addressed in the
program EIR would be evaluated in an Initial Study, leading to preparation of a Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or EIR. Mitigation measures adopted for the
General Plan also would be a part of future development projects, as relevant, and
supplemented, as may be necessary, with any site-specific mitigation measures identified in
the project-specific environmental review process.
As indicated above, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, certain (or potentially
all) aspects of a development project that are consistent with a General Plan for which an EIR
was certified may be exempt from additional CEQA analyses (i.e., negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or EIR) of issues that were adequately covered in the General
Plan EIR. The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the City’s 2040 General Plan
with an allowed density of 3-8 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned Single-Family
Residential District (R1). The proposed residential subdivision is consistent with the General
Plan land use designation and density.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -8- November 2021
While the 2040 General Plan EIR considered the impacts of development on vacant or
underutilized parcels in the City as a whole, specific future development of the project site
was not noted or specifically evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR, and there were no site-
specific impacts identified for the project site. However, as part of the overall estimated
buildout, the EIR considered construction of new residential units in the City with an
estimated buildout of 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi-
family) throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The EIR also projects an
estimated 21,434 new jobs within the City by 2040.
Approximately 396 residential units have been constructed or approved throughout the City
between 2019 (“baseline” General Plan EIR year) and 2020. Although the City has not yet
counted new residential units in 2021, it can be reasonably concluded that the four proposed
residential units and three ADUs would be within the residential buildout estimate of 6,477
new dwelling units considered in the city-wide General Plan EIR impact analyses.
C. Environmental Checklist Review
The purpose of the checklist presented on the following pages is to evaluate the impact
categories covered in the City’s certified General Plan EIR to determine whether the project’s
impacts have been adequately analyzed in the EIR or whether any new significant impacts
peculiar to the project or project site would result. Where an impact resulting from the
project was adequately analyzed previously, the review provides a cross-reference to the
pages in the General Plan EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the
environmental issue listed under each topic. The checklist also identifies whether the project
involves new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the
General Plan EIR or new significant impacts not peculiar to the site or project. As indicated
above, an impact would not be considered “peculiar” to the site or project if uniformly applied
development policies or standards will substantially mitigate an environmental effect.
Therefore, the following review includes mitigation measures identified in the General Plan
EIR that would be applicable to the site or project and/or relevant applicable development
policies or standards that will be applied to the project.
The checklist follows the questions included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
However, the City of Gilroy has adopted significance thresholds that were adopted pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7. The City’s CEQA thresholds are generally of similar
nature and scope as those listed in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, but also include other
thresholds specific to City conditions. The corresponding City thresholds are referenced in
parentheses for each checklist question consistent with the labeling in the adopted
thresholds (City of Gilroy May 2004), and the adopted thresholds also are addressed in the
narrative explanations. The 2040 General Plan EIR is on file at the City’s Planning Division of
its Community Development Department, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California from 8:00
AM to 5:00 PM, Monday Friday. The adopted thresholds and the 2040 General Plan
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -9- November 2021
documents are available for review on the City of Gilroy’s Planning Division’s website,
respectively, at:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/3092/Thresholds-of-
Significance?bidId= and http://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2040-General-Plan.
D. Conclusion
Based on the following review, it has been determined that the City’s General Plan 2040 EIR
has adequately addressed the following issues, and no further environmental review is
required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3: air quality (sensitive receptors);
energy consumption; geology and soils (fault rupture, paleontological resources); greenhouse
gas emissions; hazardous materials use; hydrology/water quality (groundwater, flood
hazards); land use, noise (noise increases, vibration); population and housing; public services;
recreation; transportation (conflict with plans, exceed vehicle miles traveled [VMT]
threshold); utilities; and cumulative impacts.
The following site-specific impacts have been analyzed and determined to be less than
significant and/or less than significant with General Plan policies, zoning regulations and/or
development standards that are uniformly applied to development projects throughout the
City: aesthetics (scenic resources, visual character and light and glare); air quality (conflicts
with Clean Air Plan, emissions); biological resources (sensitive habitat, nesting birds, tree
removal); cultural and tribal cultural resources (archaeological resources); geology and soils
(seismic-geologic hazards, erosion, expansive soils); and hydrology/water quality (water
quality, stormwater drainage). Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15183, no further environmental analysis is required.
No impacts peculiar to the project or the project site have been identified related to
aesthetics (scenic views), agricultural and forest resources, air quality (odors), biological
resources (special status species, conflicts with plans), cultural resources (historical
resources), geology and soils (use of septic systems), hazards/hazardous materials (location
on hazardous materials site, airport hazards, emergency access, wildland fire hazard),
hydrology-water quality (conflict with plans), mineral resources, noise (airport noise),
transportation (hazardous design, emergency access), and wildfire.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -10- November 2021
E. Checklist and Discussion
1. AESTHETICS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? (City Threshold 1a)
DEIR pp. 3-10 to
3-19 No No None
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway? (City Thresholds 1b-d)
DEIR pp. 3-10,
3-19 to 3-23 No No None
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
(City Thresholds 1e, g)
DEIR pp. 3-10,
3-23 to 3-28,
3-29 to 3-30
No No
R1 Single-Family
Residential
District Site and
Building
requirements;
Architectural
and Site Review
per City Code
sections 30.5.30
and 30.50.40
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area? (City Threshold 1f)
DEIR pp. 3-10,
to 3-28 to 3-29 No No
City Code
section 30.50.44
Standard
Condition of
Approval
regarding offsite
lighting
(a) Scenic Views. The General Plan EIR analyzes programmatic CEQA impacts per the City’s adopted
CEQA Thresholds of Significance (Gilroy 2004). Theses thresholds focus on the visual character within
the Hecker Pass Specific Plan and hillside areas within the City. The General Plan indicates that
prominent scenic resources and views include farmland, surrounding hillsides, and areas viewed from
Hecker Pass Highway and Uvas Park Drive (City of Gilroy 2020c). The General Plan EIR also indicates
that other panoramic views of aesthetic value consist of a “tapestry” of agricultural lands interwoven
by riparian areas, accompanied by the hillside backdrop to the east and west that frame the City (City
of Gilroy 2020a). The EIR analysis concluded that most of the future development accommodated by
the General Plan would not change the availability or value of views to the City’s scenic hillsides or
open space. Implementation of the General Plan’s goals, policies, and programs, including compliance
with design review procedures, would reduce potential aesthetic impacts to hillsides or scenic views
as a result of new development to less than significant.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -11- November 2021
The project site is located in a developed residential neighborhood of the City of Gilroy and is not
within the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area or in a hillside area. The proposed project would not result
in an adverse effect on a scenic view as none have been identified, mapped or observed that include
the project site. The project proposes two-story residences in a zoning district with established
development standards that safeguard scenic resources and that have been considered in the
General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic views that are
peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the 2040
General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State
CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Scenic Resources. The General Plan EIR specifies impact thresholds for scenic resources if there
are impacts along Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa Boulevard, and Pacheco Pass Highway as well
as to farmland and surrounding hills viewed from Highway 101. Scenic resources identified in the
General Plan EIR include riparian resources and farmland, and the panoramic views afforded of
hillsides and open space along State Route 152 west of Santa Teresa Boulevard. There are no
designated state scenic highways or roads within the City. The General Plan supports the designation
of Hecker Pass Highway (State Route 152) as an official State Scenic Highway; however, designation
has not yet occurred.
The project site is not located near a state scenic highway, Hecker Pass Highway, Santa Teresa
Boulevard, or Pacheco Pass Highway. Although the project site is within the vicinity of Highway 101,
the project is not sited on a hillside and does not contain farmlands that would be visible from
Highway 101. There are no structures on the project site that would be considered scenic resources.
The proposed project also provides the required riparian setback, consistent with General Plan
policies to protect riparian features.
The project site currently contains 25 trees of various species and health, mostly planted and former
orchard trees. The project would remove 20 trees and retain five trees along the western portion of
the site of which 13 are considered to be in declining condition with severe structural defects (HT
Harvey 2017). The trees do not represent a significant visual element of the surrounding area, and
removal would not substantially alter the visual character of the area. While any tree may possess
aesthetic qualities, the trees that would be removed are not unusual for the species nor are they
visually distinctive or prominent from a wide area. Therefore, tree removal would not substantially
impact the site’s scenic attributes.
The General Plan EIR concluded that, with implementation of General Plan policies and actions, future
development accommodated by the Plan would not result in significant impacts to scenic resources.
The General Plan seeks to preserve natural features that visually define areas and provide scenic
benefits and allow residents to enjoy views of hills, creeks, and habitats. Despite the fact that two of
the trees proposed to be removed are considered significant as defined by the City of Gilroy’s Zoning
Ordinance, the trees proposed for removal are not visible from a wide-ranging area, are not visually
prominent or distinctive, and are not considered scenic resources. Moreover, the project landscaping
plan, which is required to comply with the City of Gilroy zoning regulations on tree removal, includes
planting approximately 24 new trees in addition to the existing trees that would be retained.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic resources that would be
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -12- November 2021
peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan
EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
(c) Effects on Visual Character. The project area is located approximately is in an area that is
characterized primarily by single-family residential development. Building heights and architectural
styles are varied and include one- to two-story residences of varied size, style and age.
The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that most of the future development accommodated by the
General Plan would not substantially degrade the visual character of surrounding areas with
implementation of General Plan policies and actions to follow design guidelines and continued
application of design review as part of Architectural Site Review entitlement approvals. The 2040
General Plan EIR focuses on scenic impacts within gateways to the City which are defined as north
and south Monterey Street, State Route 152/Hecker Pass Highway, State Route 152/Pacheco Pass
Highway, north and south Santa Teresa Boulevard, and at the U.S. Highway 101 interchanges at
Masten, Buena Vista, Leavesley, and Tenth. The project is not located within these gateway areas.
The City of Gilroy is an “urbanized area” under the definition of the term in CEQA Guidelines section
15387. Therefore, per the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist question), the City
need not specifically consider existing visual character or the quality of the existing views and the
project’s potential effect on them. The standard of review is whether a project would conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Future residences constructed on
the project site as facilitated by the proposed subdivision would be subject to the same City land use
and zoning regulations as the surrounding R1 district residential development, including regulations
for setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc. The EIR also provides a City CEQA threshold of
significance regarding fence and wall height. The project would represent no impact related to the
City’s threshold regarding wall heights because it does not propose a fence or wall that exceeds seven
feet in height. As a result, the project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality.
The project is subject to Architectural Site Review pursuant to Municipal Code Section 30.50.40,
which considers the character and integrity of a neighborhood and use of land in harmony with the
surrounding environment. Architectural Site Review would be considered application of uniformly
applied development standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in aesthetic
impacts peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe impacts than evaluated in the
2040 General Plan EIR and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or area,
and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines
section 15183.
(d) Light and Glare. The project would not result in introduction of a major new source of light or
glare, although there would be introduction of windows and typical exterior building lighting. This
type of lighting would be similar to existing sources of light surrounding the project site and would
be oriented so as to not create off-site light.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -13- November 2021
The General Plan EIR concluded that new infill development accommodated by the plan could result
in potential sources of light and glare, but would not result in significant impact. Exterior lighting
would be included as part of the development, but would be typical of residential lighting, and would
not result in nighttime illumination levels beyond the property line. Additionally, section 30.50.44(c)
of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits unobstructed beam or outwardly directed lighting onto any
residential use or public right-of-way; the code section also states that lighting should only be
directed at its intended area an off-site glare fully controlled. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in a significant impact related to creation of a new source of substantial light or glare or
result in off-site impacts.
The City’s Municipal Code requires a standard condition of approval requires all exterior lighting not
be directed outward from the project site to avoid glare and illumination of adjacent properties. An
approved Architectural and Site Review Permit, including findings pursuant to Gilroy City Code
Section 30.5.30 and inclusion of a standard condition of approval regarding exterior lighting pursuant
to City Code Section 30.50.44, would be considered application of uniformly applied development
standards. Thus, there would be no light and glare impacts peculiar to the project or the site with
uniformly applied development standards imposed as part of the design review process, and no
further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section
15183.
2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES1
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? (City
Threshold 2a)
DEIR pp. 3-32 to
3-35, 3-42 to 3-
47
No No None
1In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement Methodology provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -14- November 2021
2. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES1
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (City Threshold 2b)
DEIR pp. 3-33,
3-37, 3-43, 3-47 No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
DEIR pp. 3-34 No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
DEIR pp. 3-34,
3-41, 3-101 No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? (City
Threshold 2c)
DEIR pp. 3-33,
3-41 to 3-47 No No None
The project site is located within the developed residential area of the City of Gilroy. The project site
does not contain prime farmland or other agricultural lands as mapped on the State Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (Figure 3.2-1 of the DEIR, City of Gilroy 2020a). The site is not
designated for agricultural uses in the City’s General Plan and is not located adjacent to agricultural
lands. The project site is not zoned Timberland Preserve and does not subject to a Williamson Act
Contract.
While the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to agriculture due to conversion of agricultural
lands as a result of future development accommodated by the plan would be significant and
unavoidable, even with mitigation, the proposed project would not result in conversion of
agricultural or forest lands, as these resources are not present on or adjacent to the project site. The
General Plan EIR identified oak and riparian woodlands as potential forest resources. However,
neither of these woodland habitat types have been identified on the project site (H.T. Harvey
Associates 2016), and therefore, would not be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in impacts on agriculture and forest resources that would be
peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the 2040 General
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -15- November 2021
Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
3. AIR QUALITY 2
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (City Threshold 3a)
DEIR pp. 3-71 to
3-85
FEIR p. 3-3
No No AQ-1 and AQ-2
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard? (City Thresholds 3b-c)
DEIR pp. 3-86 to
3-97
No No None
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
(City Threshold 3d)
DEIR pp. 3-97 to
3-103
FEIR pp. 3-3 to
3-4
No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people? (City Threshold 3e)
DEIR pp. 3-106 No No None
(a) Conflict with Air Quality Management Plan. The project is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The air district is the agency responsible for assuring
state and federal air quality standards are attained and maintained in the air basin. The BAAQMD is
charged with regulatory authority of stationary air emission sources, monitoring air quality, providing
guidelines for air quality impacts pursuant to CEQA, and preparing air quality management plans.
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (“2017 Clean Air Plan”),
which updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan, pursuant to the requirements of the California Health and
Safety Code. The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides an integrated, multi-pollutant control strategy to
reduce emissions of particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, ozone precursors, and greenhouse
gases. The 2017 Clean Air Plan outlines a variety of control measures, many of which relate to
industrial uses or are for regional implementation.
2Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -16- November 2021
The General Plan EIR states that the General Plan policies and programs are consistent with all 2017
Clean Air Plan control measures, except TR22: Construction, Freight and Farming. However, by
implementing a mitigation measure (AQ-1), this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level. Per the Final General Plan EIR, MM AQ-1 requires the use of low emission construction
equipment for public and private projects. The EIR concludes that implementation of the General
Plan goals and policies, in addition to two mitigation measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2 described below),
would reduce potentially significant impacts due to inconsistency with BAAQMDs 2017 Clean Air Plan
to a less-than-significant level.
BAAQMD also provides technical information about how particulate matter (PM) is emitted and
formed in the Bay Area in its 2012 Particulate Matter Plan, titled Understanding Particulate Matter:
Protecting Public Health in the San Francisco Bay Area. This plan describes progress in reducing PM
emissions and concentrations and identifies future technical work to improve the air districts
understanding of PM. The General Plan EIR states that implementation of the General Plan, and
associated buildout, would result in PM emissions during construction. To reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level, the EIR prescribes Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires the
implementation of BAAQMDs dust control measures during construction of individual projects. The
EIR subsequently concludes that, with implementation of AQ-2, implementation of the General Plan
and associated buildout, would be consistent with BAAQMDs 2012 Particulate Matter Plan.
As indicated in Section IV.B above, the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of new
residential units in the City with an estimated buildout of 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single-
family units and 3,278 multi-family) throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The
proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. With regards to potential
conflict with applicable air quality plans, the EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential
development and buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant with
mitigation measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2) that were added to the General Plan and require
implementation of construction emissions controls as part of future construction of development
projects. These measures will be included as project conditions of approval and are considered
uniformly applied development standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
impacts related to conflicts with the BAAQMD air quality plans that would be peculiar to the project
or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the General Plan EIR with uniformly applied
developed standards, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the
State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) have established ambient air quality standards that are the maximum levels of ambient
(background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety to protect public
health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), inhalable particulates (PM 10 ), fine particulates (PM 2.5 ), and lead. High O 3
levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides
(NO x ), which react under certain meteorological conditions to form O 3 . In California, sulfates, vinyl
chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants.
An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state
standards, as further discussed below.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -17- November 2021
The project site is located within the San Francisco Air Basin (“air basin”), which is under the
jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. As of 2017, the air basin is designated non-attainment for federal ozone
and PM 2.5 standards and is designated attainment or attainment/unclassified for the other federal
standards. The air basin is designated non-attainment for the state ozone, PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards.
The General Plan EIR used the BAAQMD’s methodology to assess impacts related to criteria air
pollutant emissions. For general plans, the air district does not recommend determinations based on
criteria air pollutant emission modeling, but indicates that if a plan’s increase in projected VMT or
vehicle trips (either measure may be used) is less than or equal to its projected population increase,
a plan would have a less-than-significant air quality impact. The District’s CEQA Guidelines method of
criteria air pollutant analysis for general plans is based on meeting the following two thresholds:
• Consistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures (as above); and
• A proposed plan’s projected VMT or vehicle trips (either measure may be used) increase is
less than or equal to its projected population increase.
The General Plan EIR concluded that contributions to criteria air pollutant emissions would be
significant due to an increase in VMT as a result of new development accommodated by the General
Plan. Although the Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes numerous policies that are intended to reduce
VMT, it is not possible to accurately quantify the VMT reductions that would result, and therefore,
the EIR concluded that there is no assurance that VMT could be reduced by the required 32.6 percent
that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Project construction could result in generation of dust and PM 10 emissions as a result of site
excavation and grading. According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017a), a project would
be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable impact if the project individually has a
significant air quality impact or is inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017b). The BAAQMD’s
CEQA Guidelines also indicate that if a proposed project meets the screening criteria in the District’s
Guidelines, the project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants
and/or precursors that exceed the District’s significance thresholds, and therefore, operation of a
proposed project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to air quality from criteria
air pollutant and precursor emissions. The BAAQMD’s screening level for single-family homes is 325
dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project with four proposed homes and three ADUs would be
substantially below this screening level and would be presumed to result in a less-than-significant
impact related to criteria pollutant emissions. A project could also result in a significant impact if it
would conflict with the District’s Clean Air Plan. However, because project emissions would be below
the BAAQMD impact thresholds, the project would not be required to incorporate project-specific
control measures listed in the 2017 CAP, and therefore, would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan.
Based on the BAAQMD’s adopted CEQA Guidelines and significance thresholds, the project would not
violate current air quality standards or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment. Thus, the proposed project would
not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site, or substantially more severe impacts than
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -18- November 2021
evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section
21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor is defined as any residence, including
private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as
preschools and kindergarten through grade 12 schools; daycare centers; and healthcare facilities such
as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. A sensitive receptor includes long-term care hospitals,
hospices, prisons, and dormitories or similar live-in housing (BAAQMD 2017a). The project site is
surrounded by residential sensitive receptors. The proposed residential project would not introduce
a new source of stationary emissions, and thus, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
The General Plan EIR identifies existing uses that emit toxic air contaminants. These include
generators, gasoline stations, agricultural activities, and traffic on U.S. Highway 101. The EIR states
that implementation of General Plan goals and policies in addition to compliance with federal, state,
and local regulations reduce public health risks from these known exposure sites. However, the EIR
also notes that development associated with the General Plan buildout has the potential to expose
people to toxic air contaminants when residential development is proposed within 500 feet of U.S.
highway 101 or heavy industrial areas. To mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, the EIR
prescribes mitigation measures AQ-3 through AQ-5 for projects within 500 feet of U.S. Highway 101
or heavy industrial areas. Because the project does not fall under either of these criteria, these
mitigation measures do not apply. Because the proposed project is within the overall buildout
analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts have been identified specific to the
project, no further environmental analysis regarding pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors is
required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section
15183.
(d) Odors. According to the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017a), land uses
associated with odor impacts wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities,
composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The proposed
project does not include any uses associated with odors, and would result in no impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
DEIR pp. 3-118
to 3-129, 3-138
to 3-141
No No BIO-1
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -19- November 2021
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (City Threshold 4a)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (City Threshold 4b)
DEIR pp. 3-110,
3-138 to 3-143 No No None
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (City
Threshold 4c)
DEIR pp. 3-143
to 3-146 No No
BIO-2, Gilroy
City Code
Chapter 27
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? (City Threshold 4d)
DEIR pp. 3-110,
3-138 to 3-141,
3-146 to 3-148
No No
Condition of
Approval
requiring pre-
construction
bird nesting
surveys
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? (City Threshold
4e)
DEIR pp. 3-111,
3-148 to 3-149 No No
Tree Removal
Permit and
required
replacement
trees
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (City Threshold 4f)
DEIR pp. 3-111
to 3-118, 3-149
to 3-150
No No None
(a) Special-Status Species. A Biological Resources Report was prepared for the project by H.T. Harvey
& Associates in 2016, which assessed existing biological conditions and potential impacts to biological
resources. The report identified three habitat types on the project site: developed/disturbed (0.18-
acre), ruderal woodland/grassland (0.71-acre), and ephemeral stream (0.03-acre). Based on historic
aerial photography, the report noted that the southeastern portion of the project site previously
contained a residence, gravel driveway, and several small structures.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -20- November 2021
The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to special status species as a result of future
development would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires evaluation of impacts to special-status species as part of
proposed developments. A biological resources report was prepared for the proposed project,
consistent with this policy. Based on the review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) and
site review, several special-status animal and plant species were evaluated for their potential to occur
on the project site. Reconnaissance-level biological surveys were conducted on the project site to
provide project-specific impact assessments for the development of the site. The survey determined
all of these animal species to be absent from the project site due to lack of suitable habitat or
evidence that the species does not occur in the project vicinity. The report concluded that no special-
status plant species are considered to have potential to occur on the project site, and the presence
of special-status animals is precluded by the combination of a lack of suitable habitat and the
presence of extensive development in surrounding areas. Therefore, the project would result in no
impacts to special-status plant and animal species, and because the proposed project is within the
overall buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts have been identified
specific to the project, no further environmental analysis regarding pollutant exposure to sensitive
receptors is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
(b-c) Sensitive Habitat (Miller Slough) and Wetlands. The General Plan EIR identifies sensitive natural
habitats as oak woodland, riparian and wetland habitats. The proposed project is adjacent to the
Miller Slough, which is an ephemeral stream (riparian habitat) that has characteristics used by federal
and state agencies to define their jurisdictions and would be considered a sensitive wetland habitat,
although riparian vegetation is not present (H.T. Harvey Associates 2016). This portion of the project
site is situated within the ordinary high mark boundaries of Miller Slough and would fall under United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction. The project biological resources report also
explains that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish
and Wildfire (CDFW) jurisdiction would extend from top of bank along Miller Slough, but due to the
scarcity of riparian or marsh habitat surrounding Miller Slough on the project site, these agencies’
jurisdiction would not extend farther onto the site.
The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and
implementation programs to protect sensitive habitat areas, including setbacks, and Mitigation
Measure BIO-2 that requires project-level wetland review, potentially significant impacts to sensitive
natural communities would be less than significant. The proposed project would not encroach into
potential federal or state jurisdictional wetland areas and would comply with the City of Gilroy’s
Stream Protection Policy that requires a 20-foot setback from the top of bank for residential
development. The proposed residences would be set back 35 feet from the Miller Slough’s top of
bank. Although the project is not covered by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Habitat Plan) as
explained below in Section 4(f), the plan does recommend a 35-foot setback from the top of bank of
riparian corridors. The proposed project meets this recommended setback distance, which exceeds
the City’s required setback, and therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat would be less than
significant.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -21- November 2021
The USACE and the U.S. EPA define wetlands in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 323.2 as
“areas defined as an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Although a formal wetland
delineation was not conducted on the project site, as noted above, Miller Slough is an ephemeral
stream and is the only feature on the project site that has potential wetland characteristics, but would
not be disturbed with the proposed development setbacks. The project biological resources report
evaluated potential indirect impacts to Miller Slough as summarized below.
The biological report explains that indirect impacts on Miller Slough water quality could occur from
the project if loose soil sediment is disturbed by construction or if fuel/substance leaks used by
construction equipment enter the slough. Operationally, impacts could occur from an increase of
hardscape on the site and subsequent increased stormwater flows and rates of erosion. However, as
described in detail in Sections 7(b) and 10(c), the project would be required to comply with soil
erosion and storm water management regulations that would minimize potential construction and
operational water quality impacts to Miller Slough. These regulations would require the project to
implement best management practices (BMPs) and low impact development practices that would
minimize stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration. In accordance with these
requirements, the project has proposed four new biorientation areas that would capture and filter
stormwater runoff prior to entering the slough. Because the project would comply with City
stormwater and erosion control regulations and would not encroach within 35 feet of Miller Slough,
potential water quality and habitat impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the proposed project
would not result in impacts peculiar to the project or the site, or substantially more severe impacts
than evaluated in the General Plan EIR regarding sensitive habitats and wetlands, and no further
review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(d) Wildlife Movement/Breeding. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the
2040 General Plan goals, policies and programs, as well as future environmental review of specific
development projects and compliance with the Habitat Plan, potential impacts related to wildlife
movement would be considered less than significant. The project site is designated as Urban
Development according to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and is currently surrounded by urban
development. As discussed above, through compliance with the Gilroy City Code and 35-foot setback
requirements per the Habitat Plan, potential impacts to Miller Slough would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the project biological report concludes that the project would have a less-than-
significant impact to common plant and animal communities. The report states that the project would
result in impacts to up to 0.6-acre of ruderal woodland/grassland habitat outside of the ephemeral
stream setback area. This area of the project site is flatter and largely dominated by non-native
grasses, forbs, and trees and is inhabited by urban-adapted, common, and widespread species native
to the San Francisco Bay Area. The report further explains that the project site supports only a small
proportion of the regional populations of these common animal and plant species and therefore
would have limited impacts on the abundance and assemblage of these species (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 2016).
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -22- November 2021
However, trees on and adjacent to the project site have the potential to provide nesting habitat for
migratory birds which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Tree removal during
the breeding season (generally March 1 to August 1) has the potential to destroy bird nests, eggs or
chicks if any are present during the removal. The biological report recommends implementation of a
pre-construction nesting survey that would ensure no nests would be disturbed. Inclusion of a
standard condition of approval to require a pre-construction bird nesting survey, prior to any
construction during breeding season, would be considered application of uniformly applied
development standards. As indicated in the City’s standard conditions of approval, the nesting survey
would be conducted no more than seven days before the start of construction activities; if an active
nest is found sufficiently close to disturbed work areas, a construction-free buffer zone would be
established around the nest to ensure no nests would be disturbed.
Potential project impacts to nesting birds would be considered less than significant with application
of uniformly applied development standards (condition of approval to conduct pre-construction
nesting survey). Thus, as explained above, the project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of native resident migratory fish or wildlife species, established wildlife corridors, or
wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the
project or the site, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Section 21083.3 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183.
(e) Conflicts with Local Plans. The project site currently contains 25 trees of various health and
species. The project would remove 20 trees and retain five trees along the western portion of the
site. The project Arborist Report details existing tree conditions and species on site. A total of five
existing trees would be retained with the project. The project would result in removal of 20 on-site
trees, most of which are orchard trees. Of the 20 trees to be removed, 13 are considered to be in
declining condition with severe structural defects (HT Harvey 2017).
The project would result in the removal of two mature coast live oaks (both greater than 20 inches in
diameter), which are native to Gilroy. According to the City of Gilroy Code (Section 30.38) both coast
live oak trees would qualify as protected trees. The biological report clarifies that all trees on the
project site are common and do not provide specialized, sensitive, or biologically important habitat.
Removal of any protected tree is subject to the approval of the Planning Division Manager, consistent
with City Code Section 30.38.270, including required replacement trees. The project proposes to
replant 24 new trees to replace the two protected tress that would be removed. Trees to remain
would be protected by implementing protection measures prescribed by the project-specific arborist
report, consistent with City Code 30.38.40 General landscape standards. For these reasons, the
project would comply with City of Gilroy protected tree provisions.
The General Plan EIR concluded that development accommodated by the General Plan could result
in the removal of protected trees; however, with implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and
programs, as well as compliance with local regulations and plans, impacts would be less than
significant. Removal of protected trees that is consistent with City regulations and requirements
would not be considered a significant impact of the project or an impact peculiar to the project. The
proposed project includes an arborist report and tree removal is consistent with the City’s Code
requirements. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -23- November 2021
conflicts with local ordinances or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of
uniformly applied development standards set forth in the protected tree removal regulations, and no
further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(f) Conflicts with Habitat Conservation and Natural Community Conservation Plans. As discussed in
the biological report, the project is not subject to specific regulations by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Plan. The General Plan EIR indicates that the project site is within a “Developed” area within the
Habitat Plan Land Cover Map in the Habitat Plan. The project would therefore not be subject to
project-specific Habitat Plan permits or fees, as mentioned in the General Plan EIR. There are no other
habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans that cover the project or project
vicinity. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related to conflicts
with habitat conservation plans, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3
and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
2040 General
Plan EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as pursuant to Section
15064.5? (City Threshold 5a)
DEIR pp. 3-153,
3-169 to 3-171,
and FEIR pp. 3-5
FEIR pp. 3-5 to
3-6
No No None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5? (City Threshold 5b)
DEIR pp. 3-153,
3-171 to 3-173,
and FEIR pp. 2-
9, 3-6
FEIR pp. 2-9 to
2-10, 3-5 to 3-6
No No
Standard
Planning
Condition of
Approval for
unanticipated
discovery of
archaeological
resource
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (City Threshold 5c)
DEIR pp. 3-153,
3-174 to 3-175,
and FEIR pp. 2-
9, 3-6
No No
Standard
Planning
Condition of
Approval for
unanticipated
discovery of
archaeological
resource
(a) Historical Resources. The project site currently is undeveloped and has no structures or elements
with historic value. The General Plan EIR concluded that programmatic development and buildout
would result in a less-than-significant impact to historical resources with the implementation of
general plan policies and Mitigation Measure CR-1. This mitigation measure states that historic and
culturally significant buildings should be preserved, that the City should maintain and update an
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -24- November 2021
inventory of historically and culturally significant buildings, and that prior to any demolition of
historically significant buildings, an EIR should prepared. As mentioned above, the project site does
not contain buildings or structures that could be considered historical resources. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in impacts on historical resources, and no further review is
necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b-c) Archaeological Resources and Disturbance of Human Remains. According to maps developed for
the City’s 2040 General Plan and included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in a low
sensitivity zone for historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources.
The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan would
result in construction that could result in impacts to buried archaeological resources. However,
implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions and compliance with local and
state regulations would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The General Plan EIR
prescribes Mitigation Measure CR-2, which requires a project-level archaeological survey if a project
is located on a site in a moderate to high archaeological sensitivity zone as identified on Figure 3.5-1
of the General Plan EIR. The project site is not located in an archaeologically sensitive area per that
figure, and thus preparation of an archaeological investigation was not required, and this mitigation
measure is not applicable. For these reasons, the project would not result in archaeological impacts
peculiar to the site or project.
Furthermore, If human remains are discovered during construction, all construction and excavation
activity would be required to cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code.
If the remains are of Native American descent, a series of actions would be triggered to identify and
appropriately treat the remains, including the notification to the County Coroner of the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which in turn would inform a most likely descendent
pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, according to the General Plan
Final EIR, the City has a standard condition of approval related to potential discovery of unidentified
archaeological or historical resources during construction that would be considered application of
uniformly applied development standards. Discovery of unidentified (e.g., buried) cultural resources
during construction would subject to this standard condition of approval which would require all work
to be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) of the find; the City shall be notified and professional
archaeologist retained to evaluate and prescribe measures to protect the find.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to archaeological resources
not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site, and
the City’s standard condition of approval would be included for the project related to discovery of
resources during construction, which is considered application of a uniformly applied development
standard. Thus, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -25- November 2021
6. ENERGY
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
DEIR pp. 3-459
to 3-462, 4-13 No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
DEIR pp. 3-459,
3-461 to 3-462 No No None
(a) Energy Use. According to the General Plan EIR, the three primary sources of long-term energy
consumption from new development and operations within the City would be fuel use in vehicles and
use of natural gas and electricity. In addition, there would be consumption of nonrenewable energy
resources during construction, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil, natural gas, and
gasoline) for automobiles and construction equipment, and other resources including, but not limited
to, sand, gravel, asphalt, and metals.
The project would result in an increase in vehicle trip generation (as described in Section 17,
Transportation) and, hence, a net increase in petroleum use associated with vehicle use would occur
with project operation. However, as discussed in Section 17, the addition of four single-family
residences and three ADUs would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the
General Plan EIR and the proposed project would not result in a more severe significant impact
related to VMT than otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR. The project site also is in proximity
to bike lanes, multi-use paths, and a City-sponsored bike share program.
Operation of the project would also involve consumption of electricity and natural gas; however, an
increase in the consumption of these resources associated with project operation would not
represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. The project would be subject to
approval of building permits that meet the California Building Code as well as compliance with City
requirements for water conservation fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping.
These measures are consistent with those recommended for residential uses in the City’s General
Plan related to building and energy efficiency and water conservation.
The General Plan EIR reviewed energy use associated with development and buildout accommodated
by the General Plan. The EIR concluded that overall, the future consumption of electrical and natural
gas resources would not represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources given the
implementation of policies that address energy conservation measures. It is expected that
nonrenewable energy resources would be used efficiently during future project construction given
state of California requirements for energy-efficient equipment. Therefore, the amount and rate of
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -26- November 2021
consumption of such resources during construction and maintenance activities would not result in
the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources. The proposed project, which is
within the projected buildout of the General Plan EIR, would not result in impacts that would be
peculiar to the project or the site or substantially more severe than evaluated in the 2040 General
Plan EIR related to inefficient or wasteful use of energy. Therefore, no further review is necessary
pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Conflicts with Plans. The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be no impact due to
conflicts with state or local energy plans because the General Plan buildout would comply with
applicable State regulations and legislation and implementation of the General Plan goals, policies,
and programs would ensure the no conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy
efficiency. The proposed project falls within the buildout projection of the General Plan EIR and would
not result in conflicts with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The proposed project features and design elements are consistent the City’s General Plan provisions
related to energy efficiency. Therefore, no further review is necessary.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (City
Threshold 6a-1)
DEIR pp. 3-177
to 3-179, 3-193
to 3-194
No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(City Threshold 6a-2)
DEIR pp. 3-195
to 3-196 No No
California
Building Code
Seismic Design
Criteria
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? (City
Threshold 6a-3)
DEIR pp. 3-182
to 3-185, 3-197
to 3-200
No No None
iv) Landslides? (City Threshold 6a-4) DEIR pp. 3-189,
3-200 to 3-202 No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? (City Threshold 6b)
DEIR pp. 3-202
to 3-205 No No Gilroy City Code
Chapter 6
regarding
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -27- November 2021
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
grading and
erosion control
plans
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(City Threshold 6c)
DEIR pp. 3-205
to 3-207 No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating direct or indirect substantial
risks to life or property? (City
Threshold 6d)
DEIR pp. 3-207
to 3-209 No No
California
Building Code
Requirements
for Geotechnical
Reports
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
DEIR pp. 3-150
to 3-151 No No
(a-i) Fault Rupture. The General Plan EIR concluded that new development could introduce additional
population that could be exposed to risks or harm and property damage resulting from surface fault
rupture along the Carnadero Fault (which is the only fault zone area within the City’s Urban Growth
Boundary). Although the United States Geological Survey has not identified this fault as active, Santa
Clara County has mapped a Fault Rupture Zone along that fault (Santa Clara County 2021). The
proposed project is approximately 2.2 miles east of the nearest mapped rupture zone area. The
project site is also not delineated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zoning map area per the
California Department of Conservation. Therefore, the project site is not located within known fault
rupture zones, and impacts related to fault rupture are not expected.
(a-ii) Seismic Hazards. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California, and the
project could be subject to seismic shaking during an earthquake on regional faults. The General Plan
EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and programs, the risk of human
harm or property damage resulting from exposure to seismic ground shaking would be less than
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -28- November 2021
significant. In particular, Policy PH 2.5 requires geologic hazards reports for all new development
applications to assess potential geologic hazards and to determine if these hazards can be adequately
mitigated. In addition, adherence to existing regulations and standards, including preparation of
geotechnical investigations and adherence to the California Building Code and various policies and
actions established in the General Plan, harm to people and structures from adverse seismic events
would be minimized (Gilroy 2020a). The requirement to prepare a project design-level geotechnical
investigation and implement the recommendations would be considered application of a uniformly
applied development standard. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant
impacts related to seismic and geologic hazards not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or
impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly applied development
standards for required geological and geotechnical investigations and implementation of
recommendations contained in these reports. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA
section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(a-iii, -iv, c) Liquefaction, Landslides, and Unstable Soils. According to maps developed as part of the
General Plan EIR, certain areas of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary include expansive soils and areas
vulnerable to liquefaction and soil settlement. Development within these areas could potentially
result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. However, the General
Plan EIR provides goals, policies and programs that protect life and minimize property damage from
development on unstable soils or geologic units. The EIR concludes that implementation of these
General Plan goals, policies, and programs would reduce potential significant impacts related to
unstable soils to a less-than-significant level.
The General Plan EIR provides a map that delineates high/very high liquefaction zones for which
specific General Plan goals and policies would apply. These areas are present along Uvas Creek from
Hecker Pass Highway to the southeast toward State Highway 101 as well as certain areas east of State
Highway 101. However, the project site is not located within these liquefaction hazard zones (Gilroy
2020a). In addition, a project-level geotechnical investigation was performed by Silicon Valley Soil
Engineering (2016), which concludes that there are no liquefiable soils underlying the project site.
The report, which recorded field soil conditions and conducted a laboratory investigation,
determined that the site with its underlying soils is suitable for the proposed residential development
(Silicon Valley Soil Engineering 2016). For these reasons, the project site is not in an area susceptible
to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or subsidence and related impacts. Additionally, the project site is
relatively flat and is not located in an area subject to slope instability or within a landslide hazard
zone according to a map developed as part of the General Plan EIR. For these reasons, the project
site is not in an area susceptible to landslides and related impacts. Thus, the proposed project would
not result in new significant impacts related to seismic and geologic hazards not otherwise addressed
in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or the site with the application of uniformly
applied development standards that require project geotechnical investigations and implementation
of recommendations contained in these reports. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA
section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Erosion. The project site is generally flat, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion.
Potential for erosion would be highest during ground-disturbing activities including grading and
trenching for foundations, driveways, and utilities. According to Soils Map (Figure 3.2-3) of the
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -29- November 2021
General Plan EIR, the project site contains Zomora clay loam soils with 0 to 2 percent slopes. Per the
General Plan EIR, this soil type has slight erosion hazard potential (Gilroy 2020a).
The General Plan EIR concluded that the majority of future construction in the Urban Growth
Boundary would likely occur on relatively flat slopes where the soil erosion potential ranges from
none to slight, and therefore, impacts from soil erosion in these areas of the Urban Growth Boundary
will likely be limited. The proposed project is located in the Urban Growth Boundary and also has a
low erosion potential. The proposed project plans include erosion and sediment control measures to
be implemented during completion of site improvements. Implementation of project erosion control
plans and erosion control standards and requirements set forth in the Gilroy City Code Chapter 6
would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard. Thus, the project
would not result in new significant erosion impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR
or impacts peculiar to the project or site with the application of uniformly applied development
standards. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
(d) Expansive Soils. Expansive soils contain large amounts of clays that expand when wetted and
contract when dried. According to the project’s geotechnical investigation, soils at the project site
consist of a mixture of stiff sandy and silty clays and gravel. The geotechnical investigation
determined that soils on the site have a low to moderate expansion potential for expansion (Silicon
Valley Soil Engineering 2016) and concluded that the site is suitable for development with
implementation of recommendations in the report. Implementation of recommendations set forth
in the project geotechnical report is required by the California Building Code and City regulations and
policies, which would ensure that potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than
significant.
The General Plan EIR concluded that future development accommodated by the Plan could be
exposed to expansive soils, which would be addressed through compliance with state and local
regulations, including the California Building Code requirements, which would ensure that buildings
are designed to prevent structural damages based on project-specific geotechnical investigations.
The requirement to prepare a project geotechnical investigation and implement the
recommendations would be considered application of a uniformly applied development standard,
and a project geotechnical report has been prepared. Thus, with implementation of the foregoing
uniformly applied development standards and regulations that require preparation of geotechnical
report and implementation of recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigation, the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan
EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3
and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e) Use of Septic Systems. The project would be connected to City sanitary sewers and would not use
septic systems.
(f) Paleontological Resources. The General Plan EIR indicates that in the Santa Clara Valley,
Pleistocene-age (1.8 million to about 10,000 years ago) sediments and rocks have potential to contain
paleontological resources such as fossils. However, the EIR also describes that much of these
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -30- November 2021
sediments and rocks are covered by relatively younger (within the last 10,000 years) Holocene-age
sediments. According to the EIR, no paleontological resources have been discovered in Gilroy, likely
due to the presence of these relatively recent Holocene deposits (Gilroy 2020a). The General Plan EIR
did not identify impacts related to paleontological resources.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
2040 General
Plan EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
DEIR pp. 3-229
to 3-240
FEIR pp. 3-7 to
3-8
No No
Mitigation
Measures GHG-
1 and GHG-2
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
DEIR pp. 3-241
to 3-249 No No None
(a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of
climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. Climate
change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the
composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in
global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in
the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere,
which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the
atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human
activities. Climate change models predict changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, water
availability, and rising sea levels, and these altered conditions can have impacts on natural and human
systems in California that can affect the City of Gilroy’s temperature, water supply and quality, health
and safety, flood risk, fire risk, and economic growth and stability (City of Gilroy, 2020a).
The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and
nitrous oxide. The State of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which
seeks to reduce GHG emissions generated by California. The Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 and
AB 32 (Health & Safety Code, § 38501 et seq.) both seek to achieve 1990 emissions levels by the year
2020. Executive Order S-3-05 further requires that California’s GHG emissions be 80 percent below
1990 levels by the year 2050. AB 32 defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -31- November 2021
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing AB 32. In accordance
with provisions of AB 32, CARB conducts an annual statewide GHG Emission Inventory that provides
estimates of the amount of GHGs emitted to the atmosphere by human activities within California.
In accordance with requirements of AB 32, CARB adopted an Initial Scoping Plan in 2008 and is
required to update the scoping plan at least every five years. The First Update to the Scoping Plan,
approved in 2014, established a 2030 emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The current
(2017) Scoping Plan identifies a balanced mix of strategies to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit.
The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan would have a significant
and unavoidable GHG impact for the interim period until the City adopts and implements a qualified
GHG reduction plan. Upon adoption of a qualified GHG reduction plan, GHG emissions would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2
would ensure that a qualified GHG reduction plan is prepared in a timely manner. However, even
with the implementation of mitigation measures, the EIR indicated that implementation of the
General Plan would incrementally contribute to cumulative global warming effects. The City’s 2040
General Plan states that the City shall adopt and implement a qualified GHG reduction plan within
three years of the adoption of the 2040 General Plan. The EIR concludes that impact prior to adoption
of the GHG reduction plan would be significant and unavoidable; however, this significant impact is
considered interim because after the GHG reduction plan is adopted, impact accommodated by the
General Plan buildout would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes goals and policies that would provide GHG emissions reduction
benefit. Consumption of electrical energy, either directly or indirectly, and consumption of fossil fuel
in vehicles are the anticipated primary sources of GHG emissions in Gilroy. Policies are focused on
reducing emissions from these sources. The General Plan policies and programs are primarily
organized by the GHG source sectors from which GHG reductions would be realized.
The General Plan EIR estimated the 2040 threshold of significance for GHG emissions is 1.93 MT CO 2 e
per capita. The net GHG emissions in 2040 are equal to total annual 2040 buildout GHG emissions
(Table 3.7-7, City of Gilroy 2020a) less legislative and regulatory emissions reductions or 204,738.10
MT CO 2 e. According to General Plan EIR, population would increase by 19,756 at buildout. The 2040
buildout rate of GHG emission is 204,738.10 MT CO 2 e/19,756 population, or 10.36 MT CO 2 e per
capita. Therefore, GHG emissions at buildout would exceed the 2040 threshold of significance,
resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of the proposed Gilroy 2040 General Plan policies
and actions, including the GHG Reduction Plan, as well as planned implementation of statewide
actions, would further reduce emissions.
The proposed project would result in an increase of four single-family residential units with three
ADUs within the City. This level of development would be within the overall amount of residential
and commercial development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and within remaining potential
development as described. The project would be subject to approval of building permits that meet
the California Building Code as well as compliance with City requirements for water conservation
fixtures and features, including drought-resistant landscaping. These measures are consistent with
those recommended for residential uses in the General Plan related to building and energy efficiency
and water conservation. Thus, the project would not conflict with provisions of the General Plan.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -32- November 2021
Since the project size (and resulting GHG emissions) is within the total amount of potential residential
development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in new significant impacts
or impacts peculiar to the project or site or substantially more severe than impacts analyzed in the
General Plan EIR. Furthermore, the project falls below the BAAQMD’s screening level of 56 single-
family residential units for potential significant GHG emissions impacts (BAAQMD 2017). Thus, no
further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15193.
(b) Conflicts with Applicable Plans. The General Plan did not identify conflicts with state plans, but as
discussed above, the EIR indicated that Plan buildout would conflict with the applicable GHG
reduction plan/policy/regulation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact for the interim
period until the City adopts and implements a qualified GHG reduction plan. Upon adoption of a
qualified GHG reduction plan, the potential, significant impacts due to conflicts with the applicable
GHG reduction plan/policy/regulation would be less than significant. Since the project size (and
resulting GHG emissions) is within the total amount of potential residential development analyzed in
the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in new significant impacts or impacts peculiar to
the project or site or substantially more severe than impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus,
no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and
State CEQA Guidelines section 15193.
9. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials? (City
Threshold 7a)
DEIR pp. 3-264
to 3-267 No No None
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment? (City Threshold 7b)
DEIR pp. 3-264
to 3-267 No No None
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
¼ miles of an existing or proposed
school? (City Threshold 7c)
DEIR pp. 3-268
to 3-269 No No None
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
DEIR pp. 3-269
to 3-270 No No None
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -33- November 2021
9. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (City
Threshold 7d)
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (City
Threshold 7e)
DEIR pp. 3-270
to 3-271 No No None
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires? (City Threshold 7f)
DEIR pp. 3-271
to 3-274 No No None
(a-b) Use or Release of Hazardous Materials. The proposed project consists of residential land uses,
which would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes, and
would not result in the creation of a public health hazard.
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of Gilroy 2040 General Plan goals and policies
and continued compliance with regulatory requirements of hazardous material management and
treatment would minimize risks to people and environmental resources. The EIR concluded that
additional risks from General Plan buildout, due to the increase use, storage, transport, and disposal
of hazardous materials would pose a less-than-significant impact because of the foregoing reasons.
New development accommodated by the General Plan that utilizes hazardous materials or generates
hazardous waste would be regulated pursuant to federal, state, and local laws to ensure proper
transportation, handling, and disposal. Because the proposed residential project is a type of
development analyzed under General Plan EIR buildout, the proposed project would not result in new
significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site.
No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines
section 15183.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -34- November 2021
(c-d) Exposure to Hazardous Materials. A search of Cortese List data resources, including databases
managed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor) and the State Water Resources
Control Board (GeoTracker), was conducted. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
The General Plan EIR concluded that new development accommodated by the General Plan could
result in exposure to hazardous materials due to proximity to contaminated sites. Potential sources
for accidental release of hazardous materials include commercial and industrial businesses with
aboveground or underground storage tanks or other containers for storing fuel, solvents, or other
industrial-use chemicals. However, the EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan
policies and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, potential impacts would be less
than significant. While the subject property is located approximately 0.23 miles south of South Valley
Middle School, the proposed project would not result in exposure to hazardous materials and would
not result in stationary emissions. For these reasons, the project would not result in significant
impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further
review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e) Airport Safety. The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or air strip and
would not be subjected to potential aircraft hazards.
(f) Emergency Response. Existing access to the project site is provided from Chestnut Street.
Subdivision of the project site would result in four new driveway access points off Chestnut Street.
The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access
to the site. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
emergency response or evaluation plan, and would not result in an impact. The General Plan EIR also
concluded that future development associated with the buildout of the 2040 Gilroy General Plan
would increase population but would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the
adopted local and regional emergency response plans and evacuation plans. Therefore, the project
would not result in significant impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site, and no further review
is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(g) Wildland Fire Hazards. The project is located within an urbanized area within the City of Gilroy.
The closest high fire hazard area is approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site according
to the Fire Hazards Severity Zones maps published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE 2007). The General Plan EIR also concluded that impacts related to increased
risk involving wildland fires would be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan
goals, policies, and programs, although the western hillside areas of the City pose a high fire hazard
for the residents in that location. The project site is not located within hillside locations. For these
reasons, and because the project is within the buildout estimations of the General Plan EIR, the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan
EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3
and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -35- November 2021
10. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality? (City
Thresholds 8a, 8f)
DEIR pp. 3-292
to 3-300 No No
Gilroy City Code
Chapter 27
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin? (City Threshold 8b)
DEIR pp. 3-312
to 3-313, 3-317
FEIR 3-10 to 3-
12
No No None
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
DEIR pp. 3-292
to 3-300 No No
Gilroy City Code
Chapter 27
regarding water
quality and
erosion control
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; (City
Threshold 8c)
DEIR pp. 3-292
to 3-295 No No See above
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site; (City Threshold 8d)
DEIR pp. 3-295
to 3-297 No No See above
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; (City Threshold 8e) or
DEIR pp. 3-295
to 3-297 No No See above
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
(City Threshold 8g-h)
DEIR pp. 3-297
to 3-300 No No None
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
DEIR pp. 3-297
to 3-300 No No None
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
DEIR pp. 3-312
to 3-313, 3-317
FEIR 3-12
No No None
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -36- November 2021
(a) Water Quality/Discharges. The project would not involve any discharges that would violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Within urbanized areas such as the City, pollutants frequently associated with stormwater include
sediment, nutrients, oil and grease, heavy metals, and litter. The primary sources of stormwater
pollution consist of contaminants such as oil, grease, pesticides, fertilizer, solid waste and sediment
that are deposited on impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots, and driveways (Gilroy 2020a).
Urban runoff and other “non-point source” discharges are regulated by the 1972 Federal Clean Water
Act (CWA), through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
that has been implemented in two phases through the California Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCB). Phase I regulations, effective since 1990, require NPDES permits for storm water
discharges for certain specific industrial facilities and construction activities, and for municipalities
with a population size greater than 100,000. Phase II regulations expand the NPDES program to
include all municipalities with urbanized areas and municipalities with a population size greater than
10,000 and a population density greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. Phase II regulations also
expand the NPDES program to include construction sites of one to five acres. Non-point source
pollutants also are regulated by Gilroy City Code Chapters 27C and 27D, which outlines the City’s
regulations for implementing storm water quality management strategies consistent with NPDES
requirements. The General Plan EIR indicates that the Revised Regional Storm Water Management
Plan described previously outlines all of the measures that must be implemented by the City and by
future development to comply with the NPDES water quality protection requirements. Standard
conditions of permit approval include requirements that discharged water meet State Water
Resources Control Board and/or Central Coast water board standards.
The City has also developed a Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) to fulfill the requirements of the
Phase II NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4) (General Permit) and to reduce the volume of pollutants discharged in urban
runoff. In compliance with the Phase II regulations, the City’s comprehensive SWMP is designed to
reduce the discharge of pollutants to protect water quality.
Construction activity on project sites that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage
under the State’s General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes
clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction
General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list BMPs that the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff
and the placement of those BMPs. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and SWPPP must be prepared prior to
commencement of construction. Proposed grading and development on the project site would
disturb more than 1 acre and, thus, the project would be subject to the Construction General Permit
and preparation of a SWPPP.
The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to
City regulations to protect water quality, impacts to water quality resulting from future development,
including potential erosion and stormwater runoff, would be less than significant. The application of
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -37- November 2021
uniformly applied standards and regulations contained in Gilroy’s City Code regarding
implementation of stormwater BMPs, grading requirements and implementation of erosion control
plans (Chapter 27) would be required, as would preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during
construction, which would mitigate potential storm runoff water quality impacts as well as potential
erosion and water quality impacts during excavation and construction as discussed above.
The project site is greater than one acre in size, and grading and subdivision improvements would be
subject to preparation of a SWPPP. Compliance with regulations contained in the City’s Code
regarding implementation of stormwater BMPs, grading requirements and implementation of
erosion control plans and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during construction, would
mitigate potential storm runoff water quality and erosion impacts during excavation and construction
as discussed above and would be considered application of uniformly applied development
standards. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts not
otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the project would not result in water quality impacts
peculiar to the site or project with application of uniformly applied development standards. No
further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section
15183.
(b) Groundwater. The project site is located within a developed urban area. As discussed in the
Utilities and Service Systems Section 19(b), the project would be adequately served by the City’s
existing public water system that obtains potable water supplies from groundwater sources.
Domestic water supply in Gilroy is provided through groundwater extraction from nine wells. The City
of Gilroy is in the Llagas Subbasin of the Gilroy-Hollister Groundwater Basin. The General Plan EIR
reported that the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) has not identified the subbasin as in
overdraft or projected to be in overdraft according to the Valley Water 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan. However, DWR has ranked the Llagas Sub-basin as a high priority basin under the
Sustainable Groundwater Act of 2014 noting that nitrate has impacted a significant number of private
domestic wells due to historic and ongoing agricultural activities and septic systems.
The General Plan EIR indicates that while new development would increase water demand,
groundwater supplies are projected to exceed demand in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry
years through 2040. The EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would not substantially
deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Because
the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in
the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in the
General Plan EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public
services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section
15183.
(c[i-iii]) Drainage. The project site is located within a developed urban area. The project would create
24,284 square feet of impervious surfaces (approximately 53 percent of the site). Individual lots
would be improved with bioretention areas to treat stormwater runoff prior to flowing to an
underground storage to be detained and released into the City’s storm drainage system.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -38- November 2021
The General Plan EIR concluded that potential drainage impacts related to increased stormwater
runoff would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and
programs in addition to project-specific compliance with the City’s Storm Water Master Plan and
Stormwater Management Guidance Manual. Compliance with these applicable plans and standards
would assure that existing and future storm water facilities have sufficient capacity to collect and
convey storm water, even during flooding events. The General Plan EIR also explains that future
development would be required to comply with the Gilroy City Code requirements and Water Board
detention standards in combination with applicable Valley Water requirements for development
adjacent to Valley Water facilities, which would mitigate increases in impervious surfaces that could
lead to flooding or exceed the capacity of storm water facilities. This compliance would ensure that
storm water facilities downstream of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary would have capacity to
transport storm water runoff from the proposed project during 100-year storm events.
The project would not significantly alter existing drainage patterns. The project drainage plan has
been prepared in accordance with City requirements. In addition, uniformly applied development
standards included as project conditions of approval require preparation of a Storm Water
Management Plan (SWMP) 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, and
shall be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual (latest edition).
The standard condition of approval requires that existing offsite drainage patterns, i.e., tributary
areas, drainage amount and velocity not be altered by the development. Thus, the project would also
be consistent with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (CCRWQCB) post-
construction requirements. As a result of these site design and engineering features and compliance
with regional and local stormwater regulations, the proposed project would not result in significant
drainage impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project
with implementation of uniformly applied development standards related to stormwater
management. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the
State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c [iv], d) Flood Hazard Areas and Risk of Release of Pollutants. According to the Flood Risk Areas map
included in the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone (Gilroy
2020a). The project site is located in an area designated as Flood Zone X, which is not a 100-year flood
zone or considered a special hazard flood zone per the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps (FEMA
2009). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows in a 100-year flood zone. The
project site is located approximately 5 miles southwest of Coyote Lake, the nearest major body of
water, and therefore, impacts associated with seiches would not occur. Based on the distance of the
project site from the Pacific Ocean (approximately 17 miles) and the elevation of the site, coastal
hazards such as a tsunami, extreme high tides, and sea level rise would not affect the project site.
The risk of release of pollutants due to these natural phenomena is very low.
The General Plan EIR concludes that, through the implementation of General Plan policies related to
flood control and adherence to other City plans and regulations, future development would not result
in substantial risk of exposure of structures or people to flood hazards and impacts would be less
than significant. The General Plan EIR also concluded that the overall risk of dam failure from the
Uvas Dam, Chesbro Dam, or Anderson Dam is low. Therefore, risks to future development within the
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -39- November 2021
proposed Urban Growth Boundary would likewise be low, and the impact would be less than
significant. The proposed project would not result in significant flood hazards not otherwise
addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the site or project. For these reasons, no further
review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e) Conflict with Plans. The project site is not located adjacent to a water course or water body and
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. The project site
is within the Llagas groundwater subbasin which is covered by the Valley Water Groundwater
Management Plan adopted in 2016. The groundwater management plan includes groundwater
supply management programs aimed to replenish the area’s groundwater basins, sustain
groundwater supplies, help mitigate groundwater overdraft, and sustain storage reserves for dry
period. As discussed in Utilities and Service Systems Section 19(b), the project would connect to the
City’s public water system which relies on groundwater as a primary source of water. The Valley
Water Groundwater Management Plan recognizes that the City of Gilroy is responsible for
maintaining its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to evaluate and manage its water supply.
The General Plan EIR concludes that development associated with the General Plan may result in an
increase in water demand within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, but not beyond that identified
in the UWMP. The EIR also concludes that the buildout of the General Plan would not substantially
deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with existing water quality control and sustainable groundwater management
plans, and no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
11. LAND USE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? (City Threshold 9a) FEIR pp 2-42 No No None
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental
effect? (City Thresholds 9b)
None No No None
(a) Physically Divide an Established Community. The project site is located within a developed
residential area of the City and the project would not physically divide an established community.
The Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes an urban growth boundary within which the project site is
located. Because the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential
development analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the project would not result in more severe impacts
than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -40- November 2021
regarding these public services pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Conflict with Policies and Regulations. The project site is designated Low Density Residential in
the City’s 2040 General Plan with an allowed density of 3-8 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned
Single-Family Residential (R1). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation. According to the General Plan, this designation “is applied to areas of predominantly
single family detached dwellings, with typical lot sizes ranging from 5,000 square feet to 7,000 square
feet. Appropriate residential uses include single family detached homes and secondary (“accessory”)
dwelling units that comply with City standards” (Gilroy 2020c). The project site is located within the
single-family residential district per Chapter 30 of Gilroy City Code. Article V of this Chapter provides
permitted uses, site and building requirements, maximum density, and site design requirements
within the district.
The proposed use is consistent with General Plan and zoning district land use designations as
discussed in section IV.B and C (Environmental Checklist). Based on the analyses contained in this
Environmental Checklist and a review of the City’s 2040 General Plan, the proposed project would
not result in a conflict with any policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and
the project would not result in land use impacts peculiar to the site. No further review is necessary
pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? (City
Thresholds 10a)
DEIR pp. 3-320
to 3-322 No No None
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
DEIR pp. 3-320
to 3-322 No No None
a-b) Loss of Mineral Resources. The General Plan EIR describes two mineral resource areas within the
greater Gilroy and southern Santa Clara County areas. The Verne D. Freeman Sr. quarry is located
outside of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary in unincorporated Santa Clara County and resources
along Uvas Creek are no longer available for extraction due to the provisions and implementation of
the Hecker Pass Specific Plan (Gilroy 2020a). Therefore, the EIR concluded that General Plan buildout
would have no impact on known mineral resources. The proposed project, which is captured in the
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -41- November 2021
General Plan buildout and City’s Urban Growth Boundary, would have no impact to mineral
resources. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
13. NOISE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies? (City
Thresholds 11a, 11c)
DEIR pp. 3-336
to 3-345 No No
General Plan
Policies PH 6.10,
PH 6.11, and PH
6.12
Article XVI of
the Gilroy City
Code
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise
levels? (City Thresholds 11b)
DEIR pp. 3-346 No No None
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Not Applicable No No None
(a) Noise Increases. The 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies and actions that set forth measures
to avoid and minimize adverse impacts regarding exposure to noise. In particular, Goal PH 6 aims to
protect residents from exposure to excessive noise through responsive land use planning, especially
regarding noise-sensitive land uses such as schools, hospitals, and housing for seniors. Policy PH 6.1
establishes a physical development pattern that promotes residential neighborhoods and
development and park areas within the quietest areas of the community. The proposed project and
site would align with this policy. Policy 6.2 requires a review of development proposals to assure
consistency with noise standards by using the noise contour maps established in the EIR and requires
additional noise studies needed for proposed development. Policy 6.7 requires new residential
development to comply with the City’s noise standards.
The project site is located in a relatively quiet residential neighborhood, and the primary noise source
within the project area is traffic noise along Monterey Road that is west of the project site. According
to maps prepared for the General Plan EIR, the project site is located outside of the 65 - 70-dBA noise
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -42- November 2021
contour for both existing and future (i.e., 2040) conditions (Gilroy 2020a). The General Plan indicates
that exterior noise levels to 60-dBA are generally acceptable sound levels for residential properties.
The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of Plan policies and actions, as well
as future project-level noise assessments, exposure to noise would be considered less than
significant. Given that the project would be subject to potential future exterior noise levels of less
than 60 dBA, no impacts related to exposure to noise levels that exceed local or state standards would
occur.
The proposed project would result in new residential development within an area that is a developed
residential area. Residential uses would not typically be associated with substantial permanent
increases in ambient noise levels. Therefore, the project would not result in significant permanent
noise increases not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR.
There would be a temporary increase in existing noise levels during grading and construction of the
project. Noise impacts resulting from construction would depend on the noise generated by various
pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the
distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors, as well as existing
ambient noise levels. Noise generated during construction would vary throughout the construction
period and on any given day, depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of
equipment used at the construction site. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading
of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. Sensitive noise
receptors are located at the residences adjacent to the project site. However, as explained in the
General Plan EIR, construction sound levels would be intermittent and varied through a single day as
well as the duration of project construction.
As mentioned above, the 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies and actions that set forth
measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts of increased noise resulting from construction or
operation of development projects (PH 6.10, PH 6.11, PH 6.12). The General Plan EIR concluded that
with implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to City regulations, noise impacts from
future development would be less than significant. Furthermore, Article XVI of the Gilroy City Code
limits the hours of construction and maintenance activities to the less sensitive hours of the day
(7:00am to 7:00pm Monday through Friday and 9:00am to 7:00 pm on Saturdays). These policies and
regulations are intended to prevent increases in ambient noise levels and would be considered
uniformly applied regulations to which the proposed project would be subject to compliance. The
proposed project would not result in significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan
EIR or peculiar to the project or site regarding permanent or temporary increases in noise. No further
review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Vibration. The proposed residential use would not result in generation of or exposure to vibration
as there are no known sources of vibration. There would be no construction methods or equipment
used that would generate excessive vibration. The General Plan EIR indicates that General Plan Policy
PH 6.12 requires a vibration impact assessment for proposed development projects in which heavy-
duty construction equipment would be used (e.g. pile driving, bulldozing) within 200 feet of an
existing structure or sensitive receptor. Policy PH 6.13 requires proposed residential and commercial
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -43- November 2021
projects located within 200 feet of existing major freeways and railroad lines to conduct a ground
vibration and vibration noise evaluation consistent with City-approved methodologies. Neither of
these situations are applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in
significant impacts not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site
regarding permanent or temporary increases in noise. No further review is necessary pursuant to
CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(e-f) Airport Noise. The project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip.
14. POPULATION
AND HOUSING Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (City Threshold 12a)
DEIR pp. 2-12 to
2-15 Not Applicable Not Applicable None
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (City
Threshold 12b)
DEIR pp. 4.2-14
to 4.2-15 Not Applicable Not Applicable None
(a) Inducement of Substantial Population Growth. The 2040 General Plan EIR estimated population
and housing increases that could result from potential development and buildout; the EIR estimated
an additional 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi-family)
throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The EIR also projects an estimated 21,434 new
jobs by 2040. The EIR evaluated growth-inducing impacts of the General Plan, and indicated that
growth associated with the 2040 Gilroy General Plan would not occur beyond the existing Urban
Growth Boundary and that the Urban Service Area Boundary and the Urban Growth Boundary would
serve as the primary growth management policy mechanism in the 2040 General Plan.
The City had a population of 55,928 people as of January 1, 2019 as reported in the General Plan EIR
(Gilroy 2020a). The City’s population as of January 1, 2021 was 56,599 (California Department of
Finance 2021). The project would include construction of up to four new dwelling units with three
ADUs. The proposed residential units are within the total remaining unbuilt residential development
analyzed in the General Plan EIR; see discussion in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist). Based on
the City’s existing average household size of 3.27, the proposed project would result in a maximum
population increase of approximately 23 people, resulting in a total City population of 56,622
residents when added to the City’s existing population. This is within the General Plan’s population
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -44- November 2021
forecast of 75,684 for the for the year 2040. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially
induce unplanned population growth. Since the potential population growth resulting from the
proposed project would fall within the total level of development analyzed in the General Plan EIR
and is consistent with current regional forecasts, the project would not result in new significant
impacts or impacts peculiar to the project or site. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is
required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section
15183.
(b) Displacement of Existing Housing or People. No housing units exist on the project site. Therefore,
the project would not result in displacement of housing or residents. No further review is necessary
pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (City Threshold
13a)
DEIR pp. 3-361
to 3-364
FEIR pp. 3-13
No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
Police protection? (City Threshold
13b)
DEIR pp. 3-355
to 3-556
FEIR pp. 3-13
No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
Schools? (City Threshold 13c) DEIR pp. 3-366
to 3-370 No No
Payment of
School Impact
Fees
Parks? (City Threshold 13d) DEIR pp. 3-379
to 3-387 No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
Other public facilities? (City
Threshold 13e) Not Applicable No No None
Fire Protection, Police Protection, and School Facilities. As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental
Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered the construction of approximately 6,477 new
residential units within the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a), and the proposed project is within
the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the project’s proposed maximum of four
residential units with three ADUs would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in
the General Plan EIR. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and buildout
accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for fire protection and school
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -45- November 2021
enrollments, and there would be no impact on police protection. Specifically, the EIR concluded that
the current size of the City’s police station is adequately sized to accommodate the increase in staff
required from anticipated population increases under the General Plan buildout. Thus, construction
of any new police facilities would not be warranted with General Plan buildout. The General Plan EIR
also indicates that a fourth fire station may be required to serve development under the General Plan
for which site-specific impacts would be evaluated after the site is selected. The EIR concluded that
impacts related to fire protection and new facilities would be less than significant as fire facilities are
permitted in most city zones. Additionally, General Plan Policy PFS 1.11 explains that applicants for
new development are required to pay Development Impact Fees for public facilities (including fire
protection services). The Gilroy Unified School District collects Level I fees in accordance with the school
district’s Developer Fee Justification Study (Gilroy Unified School District 2020). Future anticipated
development under the buildout of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan would be responsible for the payment
of the fees. The required fees for fire protection, police protection, and school facilities would be
considered an application of uniformly applied development standards.
Because the proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development
analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in more severe impacts than analyzed in the
General Plan EIR, no further environmental analysis is required regarding these public services
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
Parks and Recreation. See Section 16 below regarding impacts to parks and recreational facilities.
16. RECREATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated? (City Threshold 13d)
DEIR pp. 3-379
to 3-387 No No
Payment of
Development
Impact Fees
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities?
DEIR pp. 3-379
to 3-387 No No None
(a) Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities. The City has responsibility for management,
maintenance and operation of over 299 acres of parks and open space lands and oversees
development of new parks and improvements within City-owned parks, open space, and community
facilities (Gilroy 2020a). In the project area, the San Ysidro Park provides neighborhood park
amenities to local residents including sports courts, hiking, jogging path, turf area, picnic tables,
grilling areas, and public restrooms.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -46- November 2021
As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered
construction of approximately 6,477 new residential units within the City by the year 2040, and the
proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the proposed
project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The
EIR analyses states that the City does not meet its goal for parklands of 5.0 acres per 1,000 and that
the City would need a total of 367 additional acres of developed parkland to accommodate the total
population anticipated under the City’s 2040 General Plan buildout conditions. However, as the EIR
concludes, implementation of 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions that set forth measures
to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on park and recreational facilities, as well as compliance with
local regulations, would ensure that impacts to parks and recreational facilities resulting from
buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant.
General Plan Policy PFS 1.11 explains that applicants for new development are required to pay
Development Impact Fees for public facilities (including parks). The required fees for park expansion
and improvements would be considered an application of uniformly applied development standards.
The EIR also concludes that planning and prioritization, as required by General Plan policies, would
help to ensure that existing facilities would not be substantially impacted either physically or
environmentally by anticipated population growth and buildout under the proposed Gilroy 2040
General Plan. Thus, the proposed project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees and
would not result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in
the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to
CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) New Recreational Facilities. The proposed project does not include public recreational facilities or
specifically require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. However, as indicated
above, the City’s General Plan provides programs and policies that call for the expansion and
improvement of existing City parks and recreational spaces to accommodate future buildout. The EIR
concludes that potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities with growth accommodated by
the General Plan would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities not otherwise addressed in the General Plan
EIR or peculiar to the project or site. No further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3
and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (City
Threshold 14f)
DEIR pp. 3-389
to 3-399, 3-408
to 3-411, 3-421
to 3-435
No No None
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -47- November 2021
17. TRANSPORTATION
Where Impact
is Addressed in
General Plan
2030 EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
DEIR pp. 3-389,
3-411 to 3-421 No No None
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (for
example, sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(for example, farm equipment)? (City
Threshold 14c)
No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? (City Threshold 14d)
DEIR pp. 3-270
to 3-271 No No None
(a) Conflict with Circulation Plan, Policy, or Ordinance. The Gilroy 2040 General Plan Policy M 1.7
requires the reduction of VMT 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
with this policy, average VMT projections for the City of Gilroy would be reduced by the
implementation of measures that reduce the total number of miles traveled, or trips, per person,
including changes to the City’s travel demand management program, expanded transit, and
multimodal transportation system improvements, such as: signal timing changes, signal
synchronization, adaptive traffic signal systems, bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure
improvements, and streetscape projects to enhance the pedestrian environment. The General Plan
EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not result in conflicts with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The General Plan EIR also identified intersection improvements.
The proposed project would provide onsite sidewalks, and the project site is located in proximity to
existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Both Lewis Street and Chestnut Street are connected
to the area’s pedestrian sidewalk network. Forest Street, which is approximately 250 feet west of the
project site, is developed with a Class II bike lane, and the Valley Transportation Authority has two
bus stops on Monterey Road, approximately 0.25-mile from the project site. The project would not
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. Because
the proposed project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General
Plan EIR, the project would not result in a more severe significant impact related to conflicts with
transportation plans or ordinances than otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR and would not
result in an impact peculiar to the project or site. Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant
to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines. Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines at the end of
2018 added a new question of whether or not a project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -48- November 2021
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). This is a new section that codifies the switch from level
of service (LOS) to VMT as the metric for transportation analysis pursuant to state legislation adopted
in 2013. In September 2013 Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 which made significant changes
to how transportation impacts are to be assessed under CEQA. SB 743 directs the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a new metric to replace LOS as a measure of impact
significance and suggests vehicle miles travelled as that metric. According to the legislation, upon
certification of the guidelines, automobile delay, as described solely by LOS shall not be considered a
significant impact (Section 21009(a)(2)). SB 743 also creates a new CEQA exemption for certain
projects that are consistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy.
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) indicates that development projects that exceed an applicable
VMT threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half
mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor
should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease
VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less-than-
significant transportation impact.
The City’s General Plan EIR indicates that the City of Gilroy CEQA thresholds of significance no longer
apply as SB 743 requirements replaced those thresholds with VMT requirements. The VMT analysis
in the General Plan EIR considers OPR’s recommended 15 percent below baseline conditions as the
threshold to identify potential VMT impacts. The City’s Draft VMT Guidelines have established an
impact threshold of 15 percent below the 2017 baseline citywide average daily residential VMT of
16.46 VMT per capita and average daily employment VMT of 20.14 VMT per job. Therefore, the
impact of growth on transportation would be considered significant if it results in VMT per capita or
per job that is greater than either or both average daily 13.99 VMT per capita and average daily 17.12
VMT per job.
The results of the VMT evaluation indicate that the Gilroy 2040 General Plan would result in a
decrease in average daily residential VMT (-1.84 VMT per capita) and an increase in average daily
employment VMT (+1.80 VMT per job) compared to the 2017 baseline citywide average VMT. Both
the residential VMT and employment VMT projections under the Gilroy 2040 General Plan conditions
would be above the threshold established by the City, resulting in a significant impact. The EIR
includes a mitigation measure for the City to update its Transportation Demand Management
Program (Gilroy City Code Chapter 25B) and that implementation of this measure in addition to
implementation of Gilroy 2040 General Plan goals, policies and programs would reduce VMT. The
Gilroy 2040 General Plan Policy M 1.7 requires the reduction of VMT 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 with this policy, average VMT
projections for the City of Gilroy would be reduced by the implementation of measures that
reduce the total number of miles traveled, or trips, per person. However, the EIR concluded that there
is no guarantee that these measures would reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant
level. Therefore, the impact of VMT resulting from implementation of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan
would be significant and unavoidable.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -49- November 2021
As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered
construction of approximately 6,477 new residential units within the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy
2020a), and the proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units. Thus, the
proposed project would be within the overall amount of development evaluated in the General Plan
EIR, and the proposed project would not result in a more severe significant impact related to VMT
than otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or an impact peculiar to the project or site.
Therefore, no further review is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.
(c, d) Design-Safety and Emergency Access. The project would be designed in accordance with City
requirements, and there are no access designs that would substantially increase hazards. The project
would be designed in accordance with City police and fire department requirements and would
provide for adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not result in increased hazards
related to project design and would not provide inadequate emergency access.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Where Impact
is Addressed in
2040 General
Plan EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
FEIR pp 2-8 to
2-10 Not Applicable Not Applicable None
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
FEIR pp 2-8 to
2-10 Not Applicable Not Applicable
Standard
Planning
Condition of
Approval for
unanticipated
discovery of
archaeological
resource
State Assembly Bill 52, effective July 1, 2015, recognizes that California Native American prehistoric,
historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions,
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -50- November 2021
heritages, and identities. The law establishes a new category of resources in the California
Environmental Quality Act called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in
addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. Public
Resources Code section 21074 defines a “tribal cultural resource” as either:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources.
(b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.
(a-b) Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation. The California Public Resources Code section
21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.” The Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native
American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of a proposed project. No such request has been made to the City of Gilroy, and thus
notification and consultation are not required. The General Plan EIR did not identify any tribal cultural
resources within the City.
As discussed in Section 5 of this Environmental Checklist, the project site is not located within an area
identified as being sensitive for archaeological resources (City of Gilroy 2020a). Standard planning
conditions of approval also apply to the project that require a procedure to follow in the event that
unknown archaeological and/or tribal cultural materials are unearthed during construction. Thus, the
project would not result in an impact on tribal cultural resources.
19. UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment
facilities, or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or which could cause
significant environmental effects?
DEIR pp. 3-442
to 3-443, 3-446
to 3-449, 3-453
No No None
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
DEIR pp. 3-312
to 3-319 No No None
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -51- November 2021
19. UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years? (City Thresholds
15b and 15d)
FEIR pp. 3-14
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments? (City Thresholds 15b
and 15e)
DEIR pp. 3-446
to 3-449
FEIR pp. 3-14
No No None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals? (City
Threshold 15f)
DEIR pp. 3-453
to 3-456 No No None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
DEIR pp. 3-453
to 3-456 No No None
(a) Relocation or Construction of Utilities. The proposed project would be served by existing utilities,
and the General Plan EIR concluded that no new or expanded water, wastewater or storm drainage
facilities would be needed to serve development resulting from implementation of the General Plan.
The City’s wastewater treatment facility would be adequate to handle growth and development
accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or construction of facilities to
serve future growth; see subsection (c) below. Because the size of the proposed project would fall
within the total amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR the proposed
project would not result in more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The project
would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(b) Water Supply. The project site is located within the service area of the City of Gilroy Department
of Public Works. The City’s water is supplied from local groundwater sources. The proposed
residences would be individually connected to an existing water main within Chestnut Street,
immediately north of the project site.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -52- November 2021
The City’s General Plan EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of impacts of groundwater demand
within the City’s service area, including potential buildout accommodated by the General Plan. The
General Plan EIR predicted that water supplies would be adequate in normal years to serve estimated
growth within the City of Gilroy water service area. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to
the City’s groundwater supply would be less than significant because the water demand associated
with the General Plan buildout would not surpass groundwater demand estimates within the City’s
2015 Urban Water Management Plan which is described in greater detail below. Measures are
identified in General Plan policies and actions to further conserve water, reduce demand, and support
recycling of water.
In addition to the City’s 2040 General Plan, the City prepared and adopted its 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP projects the City’s total reliable water supply for normal
years at approximately 16,840 million gallons or 51,679 acre-feet per year. As shown in Tables 7-2, 7-
3, and 7-4 of the UWMP, water supply is projected to exceed demand in normal, single dry year, and
multiple dry years through 2040. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2040
General Plan may increase water demand for new and existing development within the Urban Growth
Boundary, but not beyond the demand identified in the UWMP. To calculate the City’s water demand
through the UWMP planning horizon of 2040, the City’s 2020 urban water use target of 133 gallons
per capita per day was applied to the projected population set forth in the 2016 Draft General Plan
Update of 95,105. The revised Urban Growth Boundary in the General Plan Update reduced the
projected 2040 population of approximately 75,684. With a per capita multiplier of 133 gallons per
capita per day, the projected demand in 2040 would be approximately 10.1 million gallons per day
or approximately 3,687 million gallons per year (11,425 acre-feet per year). Therefore, any increase
in water demand resulting from buildout of the 2040 General Plan would be less than that identified
in the UWMP.
The proposed project size would fall within the total amount of potential development analyzed in
the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts related
to availability of water supplies not otherwise addressed in the General Plan EIR or peculiar to the
project or site with implementation of uniformly applied development standards. No further review
is necessary pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15183
(c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The project would be served by existing wastewater treatment
utilities; the proposed residences would connect to an existing sewer main within Chestnut Street,
immediately north of the project site. Collected sewer flows generated by the City are generally
conveyed south and to the east to the South County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is
owned and operated by the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA).
The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of wastewater management goals and policies
regarding ongoing maintenance, treatment, and water conservation would reduce the impact of the
General Plan’s project buildout. However, the EIR states that these goals and policies would not avoid
the need for new or expanded wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Future development
consistent with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan buildout estimations could result in an increase in the
demand for wastewater services that could potentially exceed the capacity of the existing and
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -53- November 2021
planned sanitary sewer system and treatment plan. Potential construction of new wastewater
infrastructure could result in significant environmental impacts. However, the EIR concluded that
expected construction and operation of new sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment facilities
would have similar impacts as other types of new development within the City. Site-specific
environmental impacts would be required to be analyzed once project development plans are
proposed for these facilities. General Plan policies and mitigation measures would serve to avoid or
reduce potential impacts from any proposed sewer system and wastewater treatment facilities. The
General Plan EIR also reports that implementation of the General Plan would require new or
expanded wastewater facilities, but not beyond those identified in the City of Gilroy Sewer System
Master Plan as a result of the 2016 Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. Therefore, the EIR concluded
that the impacts associated with the provision of wastewater service would be less than significant.
The proposed project is within the total and remaining unbuilt residential units within the General
Plan buildout projections. The EIR analyses concluded that impacts of potential development and
buildout accommodated by the General Plan would be less than significant for wastewater
treatment, even considering the potential for future sanitary system and wastewater system
development. Because the size of the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts
or more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts peculiar to the project or
site., no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21083.3.
(d-e) Solid Waste Disposal. The project would be served by existing utilities, including solid waste
disposal services. The General Plan EIR concluded that the City’s landfill would be adequate to handle
growth and development accommodated by the General Plan and would not require expansion or
construction of facilities to serve future growth. As indicated in Section IV.B (Environmental
Checklist), the City’s General Plan EIR considered construction of new residential units in the City with
an estimated buildout of 6,477 new residential units (3,199 single-family units and 3,278 multi-family)
throughout the City by the year 2040 (Gilroy 2020a). The proposed project is within the total and
remaining unbuilt residential units. The size of the proposed project would fall within the total
amount of potential development analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the project would comply
with local, state, and federal solid waste reduction statues and regulations. The project would also
be required to comply with city and county waste reduction programs and policies aimed to reduce
the volume of solid waste entering landfills. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result
in new significant impacts or more severe impacts than evaluated in the General Plan EIR or impacts
peculiar to the project or site. No further environmental analysis is required regarding solid waste
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -54- November 2021
20. WILDFIRE
Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation?
DEIR pp. 3-271 No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Not Evaluated Not Applicable Not Applicable None
(a) Emergency Plans. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (CAL FIRE 2007). See also Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Section 9(f).
(b-d) Wildfire Impacts and Exposure. The 2019 CEQA Guidelines amendment added a question
regarding wildfire impacts and exposure. The General Plan EIR notes that the western hillside area is
the only area of the City subject to potentially high fire hazards. The project site is not located in or
near the western hillside area or a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones; see also Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 9(g). The site is flat and surrounding
by development in an urban setting. Therefore, no impacts related to wildfire would occur.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -55- November 2021
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANCE Where Impact
is Addressed in
the 2040
General Plan
EIR
Does Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Impacts
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
Relevant
General Plan
Mitigation
Measures or
Other Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Standards Would the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
DEIR pp. 3-138
to 3-149, 3-153,
3-169 to 3-171
to 3-175, FEIR
pp. 3-5 to 3-6
No No
GP Action
NRC2.2.1 &
Project
Assessment
Protocols for
Special Status
Species; GP EIR
Mitigation 4.9-1
and Municipal
Code section
24.12.430
b) Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
DEIR pp 4-2 to
4-11 No No None
c) Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DEIR pp. 3-193
to 3-202, 3-264
to 3-274, 3-336
to 3-346
No No None
(a) Quality of the Environment. The project would not degrade the quality of the environment or
otherwise affect fish and wildlife habitat with implementation of uniformly applied development
standards as discussed in Section 4 (Biological Resources) of this Environmental Checklist review. As
discussed in Section 5 (Cultural Resources), the project would have no significant effect on cultural
resources with implementation of uniformly applied development standards, regulations, and
policies, and would not result in elimination of important examples of a major period of California
history or prehistory.
(b) Cumulative Impacts. Chapter 4.0 of the General Plan EIR describes potential cumulative impacts
to each impact area and provides analysis and a determination as to whether the proposed General
Plan’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable. This chapter of the EIR concludes that
there would be cumulatively considerable impacts related to agricultural resources and
transportation (related to VMT). The EIR also notes that potential impacts to air quality, GHG
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -56- November 2021
emissions and noise are inherently considered in a cumulative context and therefore cumulative
analysis is covered in their respective topic sections.
As discussed in Section 2 (Agricultural Resources) of this Environmental Checklist review, the
proposed project would not result in conversion of agricultural or forest lands, as these resources are
not present on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not contribute to
potential cumulative impacts to agricultural resources identified in the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan concluded that VMT resulting from General Plan buildout would be cumulatively
considerable. Because the proposed project is within the amount of development considered in the
General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially
more severe impacts than analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, no further review is necessary
pursuant to CEQA section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
(c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. No environmental effects have been identified that
would have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.
V. REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May
2017. Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.
BAAQMD. 2017b. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 2017. Accessed August 10,
2021. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-
plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder (online
tool). 2018. Accessed July 30, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp.
California Department of Finance. May 2021. “E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates,
1/1/2021.” Accessed August 30,
2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in SRA Map. November 2007. Accessed August 9,
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -57- November 2021
2021. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-
building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor Data Management
System. Accessed August 12, 2021. https://dtsc.ca.gov/your-envirostor/.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. GeoTracker Data Management System.
Accessed August 12, 2021. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
City of Gilroy. 2040 General Plan and EIR. 2020:
a. June 2020. Gilroy 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH#
2015082014. Dated June 22, 2020.
b. September 2020. Gilroy 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH#
2015082014. Dated September 24, 2020.
c. November 2020. City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan. Adopted November 2, 2020. Available
online at https://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2040-General-Plan.
City of Gilroy.
- City Code (various chapters as referenced in text). Available online
at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/.
- Urban Water Management Plan. 2015. Accessed August 10, 2021. Available online
at: http://www.ci.gilroy.ca.us/265/Water-Management-Plan.
- May 2004. Thresholds of Significance, Final. Adopted May 3, 2004. Prepared by EMC Planning
Group, Inc.
- 2004a. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. Accessed August 10,
2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5253/Park-and-Recreation-
Systems-Master-Plan---June-2002.
- 2004b. Sewer System Master Plan. 2004. Accessed August 10,
2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5254/Sanitary-Sewer-Master-
Plan---May-2004.
- 2004c. Water System Master Plan. 2004. Accessed August 10,
2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5257/Water-System-Master-
Plan---May-2004.
- 2003. Fire Department Memorandum. Accessed August 10,
2021. https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/5258/Gilroy-Fire-Master-Plan-
Update---September-2003.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (online
tool). Accessed August 12, 2021. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
Gilroy Unified School District. 2020. Developer Fee Justification Study Gilroy Unified School District.
Accessed August 19, 2021. https://www.gilroyunified.org/fs/resource-
manager/view/3cc6733f-ec1d-427c-95f4-5185d0ee2a9c.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Project
Environmental Review -58- November 2021
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2016. Biological Resources Report for 395 Lewis Street Property.
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2017. Arborist Report for 395 Lewis Redevelopment Project.
Mark Design Group. 2018. Nguyen’s Land Development (project plan set).
Mark Design Group. Response to City of Gilroy Staff Comments dated July 15, 2020.
Santa Clara County. 2021. Maps and GIS Data – GIS Mapping
Portal. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html.
Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. 2018. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residential
Development 395 Lewis Street.
Preparation: Dudek in association with the City of Gilroy Planning Division of the Community
Development Department.
6.A.f
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 395 Lewis CEQA Checklist 11-30-21 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Redevelopment Project
Gilroy, California
ARBORIST REPORT
Project #3940-02
Prepared for:
Hung Q. Nguyen
Prepared by:
H. T. Harvey & Associates
Matt Pollock, ISA-Certified Arborist WE-11610A
October 4, 2017
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report i H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 2.0 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Section 3.0 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Site History and General Condition ..................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 4
3.3 Tree Condition ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.5 Significant Trees ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.6 Invasive Trees .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Section 4.0 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Tables
Table 1. Tree Health and Structural Condition Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................... 2
Table 2. Tree Condition Summary ................................................................................................................................... 4
Figures
Figure 1. Locations of Existing Trees .............................................................................................................................. 5
Appendices
Appendix A. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ............................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B. Certification of Performance ............................................................................................................. B-1
Appendix C. Tree Assessment .................................................................................................................................. C-1
Appendix D. Photo Documentation ....................................................................................................................... D-1
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report 1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Section 1.0 Introduction
H. T. Harvey & Associates has prepared this arborist report for the proposed redevelopment project located at
395 Lewis Street in Gilroy, California. Previously, H. T. Harvey & Associates prepared a biological resources
report for the project, assessing the existing biological conditions on the site and describing the potential for
the proposed development to result in impacts on sensitive biological resources. Subsequently, the City of
Gilroy requested the completion of a standard arborist report for the site as part of the development application
process. This report provides an inventory of each tree on the project site, including physical location, diameter
at breast height (DBH), height, and species; a figure showing the location of each surveyed tree; and an
assessment of each tree’s health and structural condition.
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report 2 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Section 2.0 Methods
This report is based on observations made during a site visit conducted on September 26, 2017 by H. T. Harvey
& Associates arborist Matt Pollock, an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (WE-
11610A). All trees with a DBH greater than 4 inches were included in the inventory. Tasks conducted during
the site visit consisted of the following:
identifying each tree to species (scientific name and common name);
tagging each tree with an identifying number (sequential numbering assigned to the project);
recording the approximate location of each tree;
measuring tree trunk diameter at 54 inches above finish grade (DBH);
evaluating tree condition (i.e., tree health and tree structure) using a scale of 0 to 5 as shown in Table
1; and
taking a representative photograph of each tree.
Tree assessments were based on ground-level visual observations and physical measurements. Field data
collection was conducted using a diameter tape to measure DBH. Tree height was measured with a hypsometer,
using the 3-point method. A Trimble Geo 7X GPS with laser offset capability was used to determine and record
the location of each tree. Evaluations of tree health considered crown indicators such as vigor, density, leaf
size, quality, and stem shoot extensions. Evaluations of tree structure condition considered root
condition/formation, trunk condition, and branch assembly and arrangement.
An advanced assessment to quantify interior wood structure, root condition, and upper canopy condition was
not performed as part of this assessment. Therefore, tasks performed did not include an excavation of the root
zones of the trees, drilling for decay detection, collecting soil samples for laboratory testing, sending animal or
vegetative material for laboratory testing, climbing the trees for an aerial inspection, a tree risk assessment, or a
valuation (see Appendix A: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and Appendix B: Certification of
Performance). These tasks are not typically included in a standard arborist report.
Table 1. Tree Health and Structural Condition Evaluation Criteria
Condition
Rating Tree Health Tree Structure
5 A healthy, vigorous tree with a well-
balanced crown. No apparent pest
problems or signs and symptoms of disease.
Normal to exceeding shoot length on new
growth. Leaf size and color normal.
Exceptional life expectancy for the species.
Root plate undisturbed and clear of any
obstructions. Root flare has normal
development. Trunk is sound and solid. No
visible trunk defects or cavities. Branch
spacing / structure and attachments are free
of any defects.
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Condition
Rating Tree Health Tree Structure
4 Tree with slight decline in vigor. Imperfect
canopy density in few parts of the tree, 10%
or less, lacking natural symmetry. Less than
half normal growth rate and minor
deficiency in leaf development. Few pest
issues or damage, controllable. Normal
branch and stem development with healthy
growth. Small amount of twig dieback.
Typical life expectancy for the species.
Root plate appears normal; only minor
damage may be found. Possible signs of root
dysfunction around trunk flare. Minor trunk
defects from previous injury, with good closure;
less than 25% of bark section missing. Good
branch habit, minor dieback with some signs
of previous pruning. Co-dominant stem
formation may be present. Minor corrections
required.
3 Tree with moderate vigor. Crown decline
and dieback up to 30% of the canopy.
Overall poor symmetry. Leaf color somewhat
chlorotic with smaller leaves. Shoot
extensions indicate some stunting and
stressed growing conditions. Obvious signs of
pest problems contributing to lesser
condition. Some decay areas found in main
stem and branches. Below average life
expectancy.
Root plate reveals previous damage or
disturbance and dysfunctional roots may be
visible around main stem. Evidence of trunk
damage or cavities with decay or defects
present. Less than 30% of bark sections missing
on trunk. Co-dominant stems are present.
Branching habit and attachments indicate
poor pruning or damage, which requires
moderate corrections.
2 Tree in decline. Epicormic growth. Lacking
full crown, more than 50% decline and
dieback, especially affecting larger
branches. Stunting obvious with little
evidence of growth on smaller stems. Leaf
size and color reveal overall stress in the
plant. Insect or disease infestation may be
severe. Overmature. Life expectancy is low.
Root plate disturbance and defects indicate
major damage with girdling roots around the
trunk flare. Trunk reveals more than 50% of bark
section missing. Branch structure has poor
attachments, with several structurally
important dead or broken branches. Canopy
reveals signs of severe damage or topping,
with major corrective actions required.
Extensive decay or hollow.
1 Tree in severe decline. Crown has very little
vigor and/or has a disease or insect problem
that is ultimately fatal and, if not corrected,
may threaten other nearby trees.
Root plate has major structural problems that
present an unacceptable risk. Tree is in severe
decline, with dieback of scaffold branches
and/or trunk.
0 Dead Dead
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report 4 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Section 3.0 Results
3.1 Site History and General Condition
The site appears to be located on an historic orchard, containing several species of fruit and nut -bearing trees.
An assessment of historic imagery revealed a single-family home located in the northeast portion of the property
from at least August 1998 through April 2016. There were no fixed structures on the property at the time of
this assessment, but the site contained considerable amounts of construction debris, including wood, concrete,
and soil mounds. The open areas appeared to have been recently mowed.
3.2 Summary of Findings
Twenty-five trees were identified on the property (Figure 1). Descriptions of each tree are included in Appendix
C (Tree Assessment), including DBH, height, and tree condition score. Table 2 provides a summary of the 25
trees, representing seven species, that were assessed. Of the 25 trees located on the property, only two met the
City of Gilroy’s criteria for significant trees (see Section 3.4 below). The most common trees on the site were
English walnut (Juglans regia) grafted on northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) stock. The majority of
trees on the property were in poor condition, and all of the walnut and almond (Prunus dulcis) trees exhibited
decay in their trunks and dieback in their canopies.
3.3 Tree Condition
The majority of trees were in poor condition (61%) as shown in Table 2. The condition ratings below are based
on both the tree health and structural ratings from Appendix C. The condition of the trees was rated as follows:
Good if their combined rating was 60% or greater;
Fair if their combined rating was between 40% and 60%; or
Poor if their combined rating was less than 40%.
Table 2. Tree Condition Summary Tree Condition
Common Name Scientific Name Poor Fair Good Total Trees
Eriobotrya japonica loquat - - 1 1
Ficus carica common fig 1 - - 1
Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 8 1 2 11
Lagerstroemia indica crape myrtle - - 1 1
Prunus dulcis domestic almond 6 2 - 8
Pyrus calleryana Callery pear - 1 - 1
Quercus agrifolia coast live oak - - 2 2
Total 15 4 6 25
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
260
267
266
265
264
256
257
255
254
253
258
259
262
261263
268 269
270
272
273
274
275 276
277
278
84103062
Figure 1. Locations of Existing Trees
October 2017N:\Projects3900\3940-01\02\Reports\Fig 1 Locations of Existing Trees.mxd395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA – Arborist Report (3940-02)
Legend
Surveyed Trees
!(Significant Trees
!(Other Trees
Parcel Boundary
40 0 4020
Feet±
L e w is S tre e tCh
e
s
t
n
u
t St
r
e
e
t
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report 6 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
3.5 Significant Trees
The City of Gilroy provides special provisions for significant trees in its Consolidated Landscaping Policy
(Section 6.0), which defines significant trees as:
existing native trees (naturally occurring in species in Gilroy) six inches (6 inches) or more in diameter,
at a point 4.5 feet above the ground, or
important to the historical or visual aspect of Gilroy (the hillside tree stands).
Based on this definition, two significant trees were identified on the site. Both of these trees (#263 & #272)
were coast live oaks in good condition (see Appendix C: Tree Assessment).
3.6 Invasive Trees
Only one of the seven species of trees occurring on the site is listed as invasive by the California Invasive Plant
Council (Cal-IPC). Common fig (Ficus carica) is listed as moderately invasive (Cal-IPC 2017). There is one
common fig on the site (#273), which is in severe decline but is still producing fruit.
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report 7 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Section 4.0 References
[Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2017. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Accessed
online at http://cal-ipc.org/paf/ [October 2017].
City of Gilroy. 1999. City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy. Amended October 18, 1999.
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report A-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 3, 2017
Appendix A. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any
property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in
character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible
ownership and competent management.
2. Property lines were not clearly surveyed or marked in the field by the owner, consultant attempted to
provide as accurate of boundary for the inventory as possible using the limited data available.
3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data have been verified insofar as
possible; however, the consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information
provided by others.
4. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless
subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as
described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by
any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent
of the consultant.
7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone,
including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without
the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant particularly as to value conclusions, identity
of the consultant, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation
conferred upon the consultant as stated in her qualifications.
8. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is
in no way contingent upon the reporting of specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a
subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
9. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily
to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys.
10. Unless expressed otherwise: a) information contained in this report covers only those items that were
examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection and b) the inspection is limited
to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no
warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in
question may not arise in the future.
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report B-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Appendix B. Certification of Performance
I, Matt Pollock, certify that:
I have personally inspected the trees and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings
accurately. The extent of the evaluation is stated in the attached report and the terms of the assignment.
I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report
and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific
procedures and facts.
My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to
commonly accepted arboricultural practices.
No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report.
Compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause
of the client or any other party nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results,
or the occurrence of any subsequent events.
Matt Pollock
ISA-Certified Arborist WE-11610A
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report C-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Appendix C. Tree Assessment
Tree
Tag
Scientific name Common name DBH Height
(ft)
Health Structure Significant
Tree per
City of
Gilroy
Criteria?
253 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 8, 7, 4 18 2 1 -
254 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 7, 6, 5, 4, 4 16 2 1 -
255 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 7, 5, 3, 3, 2 20 3 3 -
256 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 6, 6, 6, 4 17 3 2 -
257 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 8, 6, 6, 6, 5, 4 27 2 2 -
258 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 8 17 1 1 -
259 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4 27 4 3 -
260 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 8, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4 23 2 3 -
261 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 7, 7, 6 25 2 2 -
262 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 8 16 2 1 -
263 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 18, 17, 14, 9 31 4 3 Yes
264 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 7, 7 14 1 2 -
265 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 9 11 1 1 -
266 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 8 14 2 1 -
267 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 8 12 1 1 -
268 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 8, 8, 8 20 2 2 -
269 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 7, 7, 6, 5 20 3 2 -
270 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 6, 6, 6, 6, 4 20 2 2 -
272 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 7, 7, 6 25 5 3 Yes
273 Ficus carica common fig 9, 8 11 1 1 -
274 Pyrus calleryana Callery pear 13 23 5 3 -
275 Lagerstroemia indica crape myrtle 4 15 5 5 -
276 Eriobotrya japonica loquat 8 21 4 5 -
277 Juglans sp. common walnut (graft) 21 24 2 4 -
278 Prunus dulcis domestic almond 8, 8 21 2 3 -
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Appendix D. Photo Documentation
Photo 1. Tree #253
Photo 2. Tree #254
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 3. Tree #255
Photo 4. Tree #256
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-3 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 5. Tree #257
Photo 6. Tree #258
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-4 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 7. Tree #259
Photo 8. Tree #260
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-5 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 9. Tree #261
Photo 10. Tree #262
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-6 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 11. Tree #263
Photo 12. Tree #264
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-7 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 13. Tree #265
Photo 14. Tree #266
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-8 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 15. Tree #267
Photo 16. Tree #268
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-9 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 17. Tree #269
Photo 18. Tree #270
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-10 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 19. Tree #272
Photo 20. Tree #273
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-11 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 21. Tree #274
Photo 22. Tree #275
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-12 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 23. Tree #276
Photo 24. Tree #277
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
395 Lewis Street Gilroy, CA
Arborist Report D-13 H. T. Harvey & Associates
October 4, 2017
Photo 25. Tree #278
6.A.g
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Arborist Report 10-4-17 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210
December 5, 2016
Hung Q. Nguyen
395 Lewis Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Subject: Biological Resource Report for the 395 Lewis Street Property (HTH 3940-01)
Dear Mr. Nguyen:
Per your request, this biological resources report provides H. T. Harvey & Associates’ assessment of existing
biological conditions on the proposed redevelopment project site at 395 Lewis Street in Gilroy, California, and
describes the potential for the proposed development to result in impacts on sensitive biological resources. In
addition, this report discusses applicable regulatory or permitting requirements related to biological resources
and the implications of these requirements for future use of the site.
Project Location
The approximately 0.92-acre project site is located at 395 Lewis Street in Gilroy, California (Figure 1). It is
bounded by Lewis Street to the south, Chestnut Street to the east, and Miller Slough to the west. The
surrounding areas to the north, south, east, and west are occupied by residential development. San Ysidro City
Park is located approximately 700 feet east of the project site.
Methods
Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed relevant background information
concerning threatened, endangered, or other special-status species that could occur in the project region,
including information from the following sources:
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and its associated species accounts (CNDDB 2016)
Species list information for the vicinity from the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS
2016)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
(CNPS 2016)
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
0.5 0 0.50.25
Miles
N:\Projects3900\3940-01\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 1 Vicinity Map.mxd mlagardeFigure 1. Vicinity MapBiological Resources Report for the 395 Lewis Street Development Project (3940-01)
December 2016
PacificOcean
MONTEREY
SANTA CLARA
ALAMEDA
SAN BENITO
STANISLAUS
SAN JOAQUIN
CONTRA COSTA
SANTA CRUZ
SAN MATEO
MERCED
MARIN
SAN FRANCISCO
Salinas
Oakland
San Jose
Stockton
Hollister
Santa Cruz
San Rafael
Redwood City
San Francisco
Detail
California
0 20
Miles
Project Vicinity
Project Location
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
3
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Relevant scientific literature, technical databases, and resource agency reports
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (ICF International 2012)
A search of CNDDB Rarefind published accounts (CNDDB 2016) was conducted for special-status plant and
animal species occurring in the Gilroy, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle within which the project site is located, as well as the eight surrounding quadrangles (Morgan Hill,
Mount Sizer, Mississippi Creek, Gilroy Hot Springs, San Felipe, Chittenden, Watsonville East, and Mount Madonna). In
addition, for plants, the ecologists reviewed the CNPS (2016) online Inventory of Rare Plants for information
regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants designated as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A,
1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 that occur in any of the nine USGS quadrangles listed above. The CNPS plant list for Santa
Clara County was also reviewed to identify any potentially occurring CRPR 4 species because CNPS does not
maintain quadrangle-level records for these species.
Reconnaissance-level surveys of the project site were conducted by Gregory Sproull, M.S., and Matthew
Timmer, M.S., on October 19, 2016. The purpose of these surveys was to provide a project-specific impact
assessment for the development of the site. Specifically, the survey was conducted to (1) assess existing biotic
habitats and plant and animal communities on the project site, (2) assess the site for its potential to support
special-status species and their habitats, and (3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats (such as waters of the
U.S./state), although a formal wetland delineation was not conducted. During the reconnaissance survey, M.
Timmer also conducted a focused survey for evidence of previous raptor nesting activity (i.e., large stick nests)
and bat roosting habitat on the project site and under the adjacent Lewis Street bridge.
Existing Biological Conditions
The project site experiences a Mediterranean climate, characterized by dry, hot summers and wet, mild winters
with the majority of annual precipitation falling between the months of October and April. The site is nearly
level, with elevations ranging from approximately 189 to 198 feet (Google Earth 2016). It is underlain by one
soil type, Zamora clay loam (0 to 2 percent slopes; well drained). This soil type includes clay, sandy, and silty
loams that occur in alluvial fans. Zamora clay loam ranges from non-saline to very slightly saline and is
considered prime farmland if irrigated (NRCS 2016). Soil types determine habitat suitability for many rare plant
species and some sensitive habitats; however, soils on the project site are common alluvial materials and do not
provide the specialized substrates, such as strongly alkaline clay soils, typically associated with sensitive plants
and habitats in the project region.
General Habitat Conditions
The ecologists identified three habitat/land/use types on the project site during the reconnaissance survey:
developed/disturbed, ruderal woodland/grassland, and ephemeral stream (Figure 2). Each habitat has been
affected to varying degrees by past disturbance. Based on a review of historical aerial photos (Google Earth
2016), between August 1998 and approximately March 2015, the southeastern portion of the project site
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Lew is StChes
t
nut
S
tMMiillll
ee
rr
SS
ll
oo
uu
g
g
hh
50 0 5025
Feet
N:\Projects3900\3940-01\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 2 Habitat Map.mxd mlagardeFigure 2. Habitat Types on the Project Site
December 2016Biological Resources Report for the 395 Lewis Street Development Project (3940-01)
Legend
Project Site
20-ft Slope Stability Protection Area (0.11 ac)
Habitat Type
Developed/Disturbed (0.18 ac)
Ephemeral Stream (0.03 ac)
Ruderal Woodland/Grassland (0.71 ac)
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
5
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
contained a residence, a gravel driveway, and several small structures. As of April 2016, all structures, including
the residence, had been removed from the site.
The majority of the project site is
composed of ruderal woodland/
grassland habitat that includes a tree
layer dominated by non-native
hybridized black walnut (Juglans
californica), coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), and stonefruit (Prunus sp.)
trees. The ground layer consists of a
dense, but low, mix of recently
mowed non-native annual grasses,
including foxtail chess (Bromus
madritensis), soft brome (Bromus
hordeaceus), and ripgut brome (Bromus
diandrus), as well as non-native forbs
such as prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola),
field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),
Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), mallow (Malva sp.), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) (Photo 1).
Trees range in height from 15 to 60 feet and the canopy is generally open. Based on the predominantly weedy,
non-native nature of the vegetation and the disturbed soil conditions, the habitat quality in the ruderal
woodland/grassland habitat is considered poor.
The developed/disturbed habitat on
the project site is composed of a
gravel road that parallels Chestnut
Street, a gravel driveway, and the
footprint of the former residence.
This land-use type is mostly devoid of
vegetation and has been highly altered
by human activity (Photo 2). Small
patches of recently mowed non-native
annual grasses, such as barley
(Hordeum sp.), soft brome, and wild
oats (Avena fatua), as well as trace
quantities of pearly everlasting
(Anaphalis margaritacea), spurge
(Euphorbia sp.), and mallow are
present. In addition, several planted
Figure 1. Ruderal woodland/grassland habitat
Photo 2. Developed/disturbed habitat with bare ground and
gravel road
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
6
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
street trees and native forbs, including common juniper (Juniperus communis), lily (Lilium sp.), and black sage
(Salvia mellifera) line the southeastern portion of the gravel road. At the time of the survey, significant amounts
of trash were strewn throughout this habitat.
Ephemeral stream habitat is composed of a small portion of Miller Slough located in the southwestern corner
of the project site (Photo 3). The ephemeral stream was dry at the time of the October 19, 2016 survey, though
signs of seasonal flows were evident. Due to our observations being concentrated at the beginning of the wet
season, additional observation of this channel’s conditions (e.g., toward the end of a season of average or above-
average rainfall) would be necessary to determine whether the stream has at least a seasonal connection to
groundwater and would therefore be considered intermittent (having some groundwater connection and
generally flowing for longer periods) rather than ephemeral (lacking a groundwater connection and flowing
only for brief periods following rain events.
Thick patches of weedy herbaceous
vegetation, such as black mustard
(Brassica nigra), Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon), wild radish
(Raphanus sativus), canarygrass
(Phalaris sp.), and curly dock (Rumex
crispus), grew amid a dense layer of
non-native annual grasses, including
wild oats, ripgut brome, and soft
brome, in the bed and along the
inward banks of Miller Slough. The
portion of Miller Slough within the
project site is approximately 20 feet
wide with relatively steep banks,
particularly on the east side of the
slough where banks were 8 feet high
(compared to 4 feet high on the
west). Significant debris and refuse were scattered throughout the ephemeral stream habitat, and no substantial
wetland or riparian vegetation was present.
Wildlife Use
The wildlife species found in the ruderal woodland/grassland habitat on the project site are common,
widespread species associated with human-altered habitats. The ruderal grassland attracts reptiles such as
western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and southern alligator lizards (Elgaria multicarinata) that feed on
invertebrates found within and beneath debris in the vegetation. Bird species observed foraging in this habitat
include the northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus). During the spring and summer
Figure 3. Looking north along Miller Slough in the southwestern
corner of the project site
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
7
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
breeding season, some of these resident bird species are likely to build nests and raise young in the trees on the
site. Small mammals such as the California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), broad-footed mole (Scapanus latimanus),
and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) may also nest and forage in this habitat.
The gravel and sparsely vegetated areas that comprise the developed/disturbed portion of the project site do
not provide high-quality wildlife habitat. However, a variety of species may move back and forth across this
area in route to other habitats, and reptiles such as the western fence lizard and gopher snake (Pituophis
melanoleucus) may bask on the gravel road.
The ephemeral nature of Miller Slough on the project site precludes the presence of fish and aquatic wildlife
species, and amphibians do not breed or occur frequently or in large numbers in this reach of the stream owing
to the brief duration in which water is present and the absence of pools. Wildlife using adjacent habitats are
expected to forage and take shelter in the vegetation within this channel and may use it as a travel corridor.
Special-Status Plant and Animal Species
As described under “Methods,” information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status
species that could occur on the project site was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey
& Associates ecologists. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each
special-status species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on
the site. Figures 3 and 4 are maps of the CNDDB’s special-status plant and animal species records in the general
vicinity of the project site, defined for the purposes of this report as the area within a 5-mile radius. These
generalized maps are valuable on a historical basis, but do not necessarily represent current conditions.
Nevertheless, these maps show areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously.
Special-Status Plants
A list of 76 special-status plants with some potential for occurrence in at least one of the nine USGS 7.5-minute
quadrangles containing or surrounding the project site was compiled using CNPS lists (CNPS 2016) and
CNDDB records (CNDDB 2016). These species were evaluated for their potential to occur on the project site.
Analysis of the documented habitat requirements and occurrence records associated with all of the species
considered allowed us to reject 75 of these species as not having a reasonable potential to occur on the project
site. For each of these 75 species, this determination was based on one or more of the following reasons: (1)
absence of suitable habitats from the project site; (2) the site’s lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic
requirements, such as serpentine soils; and (3) the elevation range of the species is outside the elevation of the
project site.
Based on known occurrences and habitat requirements, one species, Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina, CRPR
1B.1) was determined to have some potential to occur on the project site. Thus, further analysis was warranted
for this species and it is discussed in more detail below.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
Sycamore Alluvial WoodlandSycamore Alluvial WoodlandSycamore Alluvial WoodlandSycamore Alluvial WoodlandSycamore Alluvial WoodlandSycamore Alluvial Woodland
Sycamore Alluvial WoodlandSycamore Alluvial Woodland
Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita
Hoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celery
woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads
saline cloversaline clover
Congdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant
smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia
Loma Prieta hoitaLoma Prieta hoita
Monterey spineflowerMonterey spineflower
Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongueSanta Cruz Mountains beardtongue
woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads
Hoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celery
Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita
Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita
most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower
Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya
pink creamsacspink creamsacs
Hoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celery
woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads
woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads
smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia
arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow
most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower
prostrate vernal pool navarretiaprostrate vernal pool navarretia
saline cloversaline clover
smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia
smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia
smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia
Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita
Hoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celery
San Joaquin spearscaleSan Joaquin spearscale
most beautiful jewelflowermost beautiful jewelflower
smooth lessingiasmooth lessingia
smooth lessingiasmooth lessingiasmooth lessingiasmooth lessingia
Santa Clara Valley dudleyaSanta Clara Valley dudleya
Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita
Figure 3. CNDDB Plant RecordsBiological Resources Report for the 395 Lewis Street Development Project (3940-01)
December 2016
1.1 0 1.10.55
Miles
N:\Projects3900\3940-01\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 3 CNDDB Plant.mxdLegend
Specific Location
General Area
Approximate Location
Project Location
Plants
General Area
Terrestrial Communities
5-mile Radius
CNDDB Records
Background: Esri Street Base Map
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
pallid batpallid bathoary bathoary bat
hoary bathoary bat
Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly
Crotch bumble beeCrotch bumble bee
California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
least Bell's vireoleast Bell's vireo
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
steelhead - south-central California coast DPSsteelhead - south-central California coast DPS
foothill yellow-legged frogfoothill yellow-legged frog
Opler's longhorn mothOpler's longhorn moth
white-tailed kitewhite-tailed kiteAmerican badgerAmerican badger
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
burrowing owlburrowing owl
Townsend's big-eared batTownsend's big-eared bat
California giant salamanderCalifornia giant salamander
least Bell's vireoleast Bell's vireo
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
burrowing owlburrowing owl
burrowing owlburrowing owl
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
burrowing owlburrowing owl
burrowing owlburrowing owl
burrowing owlburrowing owl
steelhead - south-central California coast DPSsteelhead - south-central California coast DPS
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
western pond turtlewestern pond turtle
tricolored blackbirdtricolored blackbird
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLFCRLFCRLFCRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS CTSCTS CTSCTS
CTSCTS CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
CTSCTS
Figure 4. CNDDB Animal RecordsBiological Resources Report for the 395 Lewis Street Development Project (3940-01)
December 2016
1.1 0 1.10.55
Miles
N:\Projects3900\3940-01\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 4 CNDDB Animal.mxdLegend
Project Location
5-mile Radius
CNDDB Records
Specific Location
General Area
Approximate Location
Wildlife
Background: Esri Street Base Map
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
10
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CRPR:
1B.1. Loma Prieta hoita is a perennial herb in the legume family (Fabaceae) that is endemic to California. It has
a variable blooming period extending from May through October. Loma Prieta hoita occurs in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and riparian woodland habitats, and is generally found on mesic, serpentine substrates
(Baldwin et al. 2012, CNDDB 2016, CNPS 2016).
A small population of Loma Prieta hoita was recorded in the project vicinity in 1918 but it is listed by the
CNDDB as “possibly extirpated” (Figure 3) (CNDDB 2016). The location of the 1918 occurrence is not
precisely known, but it was in the vicinity of the project site. This area has been significantly altered and
developed over the past century. Current habitat types and edaphic conditions on the project site do not
correspond to those that are required for establishment of Loma Prieta hoita. No associate species that
commonly occur with Loma Prieta hoita were observed at the site. Thus, there is no reasonable expectation
that the species would occur on this site despite the prior mapping, and Loma Prieta hoita was determined to
be absent from the project site.
Special-Status Animals
Based on the review of CNDDB (2016) records (Figure 4) and other data sources, as well as H. T. Harvey &
Associates’ extensive experience with other projects in the region, several special-status animal species were
assumed to occur in the project region, and were evaluated for their potential to occur on the project site. All
of these species were determined to be absent from the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat or evidence
that the species does not occur in the project vicinity. Species considered for occurrence but rejected, as well
as the reasons for their rejection, include the following:
The project site lacks aquatic habitat suitable for special-status species such as the Central California Coast
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), federally listed as threatened. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur
on the project site or close enough to the project site to be affected by project activities.
The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), federally listed as threatened and a California species of
concern, is known to occur in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2016). However, the project site lacks aquatic
breeding habitat for this species because Miller Slough does not retain water for a period sufficient to
support successful breeding. In addition, the site lacks high quality upland habitat due to the lack of
California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows and/or debris offering suitable upland refugia.
Thus, for California red-legged frogs to be present on the project site, potential breeding habitat must be
present within the known dispersal distance (2.0 miles) for this species, and there must be no barriers to
dispersal between the breeding habitat and the project site.
No known California red-legged frog records are present within 2.0 miles of the project site. The closest
record is from Llagas Creek 3.2 miles to the north (CNDDB 2016). In addition, an analysis of aerial
photographs revealed no potentially suitable California red-legged frog breeding habitat within 2.0 miles of
the project site. Further, the site is completely surrounded by dense residential development, an impediment
to movement of the red-legged frog. Thus, due to the lack of suitable breeding habitat on the project site
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
11
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
and within 2.0 miles of the site, the distance from the project site to the nearest known occurrence, and the
separation of the site from the nearest known occurrence by extensive development, California red-legged
frogs are not expected to occur on the project site.
The California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), federally and state listed as threatened, is known
to occur in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2016). However, the project site lacks suitable aquatic breeding
habitat and high-quality upland habitat for this species for reasons similar to those described above for the
California red-legged frog. Thus, for California tiger salamanders to be present on the project site, potential
breeding ponds must be close enough (i.e., within 1.3 miles) for individuals to disperse between these ponds
and the project site.
No California tiger salamander records occur within 1.3 miles of the project site. The closest record is from
a pond 2.0 miles to the southwest (CNDDB 2016). In addition, an analysis of aerial photographs revealed
no potentially suitable California tiger salamander breeding habitat within 1.3 miles of the project site.
Further, as described for the California red-legged frog above, the site is completely surrounded by dense
residential development. Thus, due to the lack of suitable breeding habitat on the project site and within
1.3 miles of the site, the distance from the project site to the nearest known occurrence, and the separation
of the site from the nearest known occurrence by extensive development, California tiger salamanders are
not expected to occur on the project site.
The western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a California species of special concern, was observed in 1992
in Uvas Creek, approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the project site (CNDDB 2016). However, the project
site lacks long-lived aquatic habitat and, as described above for the California red-legged frog, is separated
from the nearest suitable aquatic habitat by residential development and roadways, which serve as barriers
to dispersal. Therefore, the western pond turtle is not expected to occur on the project site.
The project site lacks appropriate open habitat (and connectivity to open habitat) for use by the American
badger (Taxidea taxus), a California species of special concern. In addition, the project site is surrounded by
residential development. Thus, this species is not expected to occur on the project site.
The project site lacks suitable open habitat for foraging, nesting, or wintering by the burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia), a California species of special concern, and no burrows large enough for owl occupation were
observed on the project site during the reconnaissance survey. Thus, burrowing owls are not expected to
occur on the project site.
The least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), federally and state listed as endangered, historically occurred along
the southern edge of Santa Clara County. The most recent least Bell’s vireo record from the project vicinity
is from 2001, when Bell’s vireos were observed in riparian vegetation along Llagas Creek, approximately
1.75 miles southeast of the project site. However, suitable breeding habitat (vertically complex, dense
riparian vegetation) is not present on or adjacent to the project site, and the least Bell’s vireo is not expected
to occur on the project site.
The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened,
historically occurred in the project region. However, no records of the San Joaquin kit fox have been
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
12
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
reported from the project vicinity (CNDDB 2016). In addition, open grassland habitat suitable for use by
San Joaquin kit foxes for foraging and denning is not present on the project site. Therefore, this species is
not expected to occur on the project site.
The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), both California
species of special concern, historically occurred in the project region. Unlike other bat species that seek
refuge in crevices, the Townsend’s big-eared bat normally roosts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the
top of a natural cavity, or in the top corners of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this species is
easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). Pallid bats prefer rocky outcrops, caves, and cliffs for foraging
and roosting and are sensitive to disturbance of their roosting sites. A focused survey for suitable bat habitat
on the project site did not detect any natural features suitable for roosting Townsend’s big-eared bats or
pallid bats. Further, an inspection of the adjacent Lewis Street bridge did not identify any day-roosting
habitat for bats. Therefore, Townsend’s big-eared bats and pallid bats are not expected to occur on the
project site.
Sensitive and Regulated Habitats
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities,
such as wetlands, meadows, and riparian forest and scrub, as “threatened” or “very threatened.” These
communities are tracked in the CNDDB. Impacts on CDFW sensitive plant communities, or on any sensitive
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, must be considered and evaluated under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats also
are afforded protection under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and generally are subject to
regulation, protection, or consideration by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or USFWS.
Waters of the U.S./State
The Clean Water Act (CWA) functions to maintain and restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity
of Waters of the United States, which include, but are not limited to, tributaries to traditionally navigable waters
currently or historically used for interstate or foreign commerce, and adjacent wetlands. Historically, in nontidal
waters, USACE jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high-water mark, which is defined in Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 328.3. The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency define wetlands in
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 323.2 as “areas defined as an area that is inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The boundaries of
wetlands that fall under USACE jurisdiction are delineated using an approach that relies on identification of
three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology indicators.
Construction and development activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The
placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. Section 404 of the
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
13
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
CWA authorizes the USACE to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States; where the material has the effect of either replacing any portion of waters of the United States with dry
land, or changing the bottom elevation of these features. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of
state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. The State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), together with the RWQCBs, implement water quality certification in California.
The SWRCB works in coordination with the nine RWQCBs to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water
quality. Each RWQCB makes decisions related to water quality for its region, and may approve, with or without
conditions, or deny projects that could affect waters of the State. Their authority comes from the CWA and
the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act broadly
defines waters of the State as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries
of the state.” Because Porter-Cologne applies to any water, whereas the CWA applies only to certain waters,
California’s jurisdictional reach overlaps and may exceed the boundaries of Waters of the U.S. For example,
Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ states that “shallow” waters of the State include headwaters,
wetlands, and riparian areas. Moreover, the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB’s Assistant Executive Director
has stated that, in practice, the RWQCBs claim jurisdiction over riparian areas. Where riparian habitat is not
present, such as may be the case at headwaters, jurisdiction is taken to the top of bank.
The California Fish and Game Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on, many of the
state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. The CDFW exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers,
lakes, and streams according to provisions of Sections 1601–1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The Fish and
Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for the fill or removal of material within the
bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation.
The ephemeral stream habitat observed on the project site possesses the field characteristics used by federal
and state agencies in defining their jurisdictions (i.e., waters of the U.S., defined under the Clean Water Act, or
waters of the state, defined under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and California State Fish and
Game Code). The section of the project site situated within the ordinary high mark boundaries of Miller Slough
would fall under USACE jurisdiction. RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction would extend from top of bank to top
of bank along Miller Slough, but due to the paucity of riparian or marsh habitat surrounding Miller Slough on
the project site, these agencies’ jurisdiction would not extend farther onto the site.
City of Gilroy Stream Protection Policy
The City of Gilroy’s Stream Protection Policy is described in the City’s municipal code (Chapter 27A: Water
Resources Protection—Guidelines and Standards; Article II. Stream Protection) (City of Gilroy 2007). Article
II, 27A.5 Building and site requirements states that invasive species are not allowed within 150 feet from top
of bank of riparian corridors, and any development within 50 feet from top of bank will be subject to review
for applicability of the “Guidelines for Standards for Land Use Near Streams” ratified by the Water Resource
Protection Collaborative. (2007-11, § 4-16-07). Bright colors and glare-producing building finishes are to be
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
14
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
avoided on structures that face the stream or riparian areas. Nighttime lighting facing the stream or riparian
areas should be avoided as well. New development of hardscape and structures must not extend into the slope
stability protection area. The slope stability protection area, as defined in the City’s municipal code (City of
Gilroy 2007), is the greater of a 2:1 slope stability protection using a hypothetical 2:1 horizontal-to-vertical line
projected from the toe of bank to a point where it intersects the adjacent ground, or 20 feet from top of bank
or the property line, whichever is greater. The protection area should enable construction access and access
around the structure(s). For banks of large or deeply incised streams, or those with highly erodible banks, the
city engineer may increase the protection area in order to protect water quality, the riparian corridor, and other
resources (City of Gilroy 2007). Privately owned buildings may not overhang or encroach beyond or within the
top of bank. Project activities must not reduce the active channel or active floodplains’ conveyance area o r
redirect flow to the detriment of another bank. Moreover, structures must be designed to convey 100 -year
design flow. Erosion and sediment control measures must be implemented if project activities occur on slopes
greater than five percent. Grading adjacent to a stream must provide for buffer areas and vegetated swales
between the stream and graded area, and all grading must address site drainage (City of Gilroy 2007). The
proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the City of Gilroy’s Stream Protection Policy as
described above. Figure 2 depicts the location of the 20-foot slope stability protection area on the site.
CDFW Sensitive Habitats
To identify other potentially occurring natural communities of special concern, a CNDDB (2016) search within
the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain or surround the project site was performed. The CNDDB
identified two sensitive habitats as occurring within this search area: serpentine bunchgrass and sycamore
alluvial woodland. However, based on historical imagery, the entire project site has been developed since at
least 1998 (Google Earth 2016). Moreover, neither of the sensitive habitat types have been recorded in the
Gilroy, California quadrangle, where the project site is located, and no sensitive habitats were observed during
the October 2016 survey. Thus, none of the sensitive habitats tracked by the CNDDB occur on the project
site.
CDFW maintains a list of vegetation alliances and associations in California (California Department of Fish
and Game 2010). This list includes global (G) and state (S) rarity ranks for associations and alliances. Alliances
and associations currently ranked as S1–S3 are considered highly imperiled. On the project site, all habitats are
altered to some degree and consist of denuded or gravel substrates generally devoid of vegetation, or ruderal
areas that are disturbed. Therefore, no sensitive alliances or associations as defined by CDFW are present on
the project site.
Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation
Overview
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating the impacts of projects on biological
resources and determining which impacts would be significant. CEQA defines “significant effect on the
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
15
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the
proposed project.” According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project’s effects on biological
resources are deemed significant where the project would do one or more of the following:
A. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
B. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels
C. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or
D. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
In addition to the Section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the
significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on
the level of the impact. For biological resources, the checklist prompts analysis of whether the project would:
E. have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
F. have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;
G. have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act;
H. interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites;
I. conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance; and/or
J. conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Key Assumptions
The following impact analysis was made assuming the complete buildout of upland habitats on the project site.
However, because fill of Miller Slough within the project site is against City policies for stream and slope stability
protection, it was assumed that no impacts would occur below the top of bank, or within 20 feet of top of
bank, of Miller Slough (Figure 2). We assume that Miller Slough will be clearly shown on all project plansets as
an avoided area and that fencing or flagging will be used to visually sequester the stream from inadvertent
encroachment during construction activities.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
16
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
It is also our understanding that development of the project site would not be considered a covered activity
according to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan; therefore, we have assumed that conservation measures
required by the Valley Habitat Plan would not necessarily be applied to the project (unless they are required as
CEQA mitigation measures).
No Impact
Impacts on Special-Status Plants and Animals. As described above, no special-status plant species are
considered to have potential to occur on the project site, and the presence of special-status animals is precluded
by the combination of a lack of suitable habitat and the presence of extensive development in surrounding
areas. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on special-status plants or animals.
Impacts from Encroachment on Stream Corridor. As discussed above, the City’s policies for a project in
this location require a 20-foot slope stability setback area for certain types of development such as hardscape
and new structures. We have assumed that all development related to the project will occur outside this 20-foot
setback from top of bank of Miller Slough. Although it is our understanding that the project is not considered
a covered project according to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the Habitat Plan’s analysis of stream setbacks
(ICF International 2012) is relevant to all streams in the Gilroy vicinity. In general, H. T. Harvey & Associates
agrees with the Habitat Plan’s assessment of minimum setbacks from Category 2 or ephemeral streams, which
concludes that the minimum setback to protect biological resources is 35 feet from top of bank or edge of
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, and is based on analyses by Corley et al. (1999) for sediment and
nutrient input reduction. In other words, in the absence of factors that suggest that a larger or smaller setback
is appropriate, the necessary setback for this project site would be 35 feet.
However, Miller Slough in the vicinity of the project site, including both banks upstream and downstream of
the project site as well as along the bank opposite the project site, is currently heavily impacted by human
activity, primarily residential development, that encroaches well within 35 feet of the top of bank. In addition,
the Lewis Street bridge over Miller Slough is located on the southern boundary of the project site, which
precludes any natural habitat connectivity between the site and higher-quality habitat downstream. Further,
Miller Slough in the project area provides relatively low quality, seasonal aquatic habitat with no associated
riparian vegetation and is not expected to support any special-status species or truly aquatic species such as fish.
Because the project must comply with post-construction water quality measures that will require treatment of
run-off from the project site, implementation of a 20-foot setback will be necessary. However, we cannot make
the case that, biologically, a greater setback between future development and Miller Slough is necessary.
Therefore, maintenance of a setback that is no greater than 20 feet is not expected to have significant effects
on biological resources within Miller Slough. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
17
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Less-Than-Significant Impacts
Impacts on Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Animal Communities. Proposed project
activities would result in impacts on up to 0.6 acre of ruderal woodland/grassland habitat outside the 20-foot
slope stability setback. As described above, this habitat is largely dominated by non-native grasses, forbs, and
trees. Species that occur in this habitat on the project site are urban-adapted, common, and widespread in the
San Francisco Bay Area. Because the project site supports only a very small proportion of the regional
populations of common plant and animal species, the proposed project would have very limited impacts on the
regional abundance and assemblage of these species. As a result, potential project impacts on common plant
and animal communities do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect and would be
considered less than significant under CEQA.
Impacts on Water Quality. Impacts on water quality in Miller Slough could occur from the project if loose
sediment from soils disturbed by construction, materials such as concrete used in construction, or leaks of fuel
or other substances used by construction equipment were allowed to enter the channel. Following construction,
an increase of hardscape on the site could contribute to increased flow volumes and velocities that may lead to
increased sedimentation or erosion of the channel, and potentially have deleterious effects on sensitive habitats
within the channel adjacent to the project site or downstream. Within the City of Gilroy, projects must also
comply with the Storm Water Management Plan Section V: Post Construction Storm Water Ordinance (City of Gilroy et
al. 2010). These policies require that all projects implement the long-term operation and maintenance of
structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) and incorporate Low Impact Development
practices that will prevent stormwater runoff pollution, promote infiltration, and hold/slow down the volume
of water coming from a site. In order to meet these permit and policy requirements, projects must incorporate
measures that will maintain and protect water quality in the future, such as green roofs, impervious surfaces,
tree planters, grassy swales, bioretention and/or detention basins.
Because the project will comply with the City of Gilroy’s Revised Regional Storm Water Management Plan ordinances,
BMPs will be incorporated to protect water quality during and after project activities. Additionally, observance
of the 20-foot stream slope stability setback will further protect water quality from issues such as possible bank
collapse, erosion of project elements into the active stream course, or similar issues. Therefore, neither
construction nor post-construction activities would result in significant detrimental water quality effects on
biological/regulated resources, and no mitigation is necessary.
Impacts Found to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Impacts on Significant Trees. In the absence of mitigation measures, project activities may result in
permanent impacts on trees, including two mature coast live oaks (both greater than 20 inches in diameter),
which are native to Gilroy. According to the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy, Section 6.0, both
coast live oak trees would qualify as significant trees (City of Gilroy 1999). All trees on the project site are
common and do not provide specialized, sensitive, or biologically important habitat. Nevertheless, removal or
impacts on these trees would be contrary to the provisions of the City’s policy and would be considered
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
18
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
potentially significant under CEQA Significance Criterion I. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Certified Consulting Arborist. Per the requirements of the Consolidated
Landscaping Policy, the project applicant will hire a certified consulting arborist for the duration of the project.
The arborist will prepare a report that identifies the avoidance and minimization measures determined to be
necessary to protect significant trees during project construction and ensure impacts on significant trees are less
than significant. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the establishment of tree protection zones,
restricted construction activity within tree protection zones, and the posting of appropriate signage on the fence
demarcating the limits of tree protection zones). All arborist recommendations will be listed on the final
landscape plans, and the consulting arborist will sign the Final Landscape Plan certifying that the plan is
consistent with the recommendations made in the arborist’s report.
Impacts of Weed Establishment and Spread. Several non-native invasive species (e.g., yellow star thistle
and ripgut brome) occur on the project site, and are rated as high moderately invasive; thus, they can cause
substantial ecological impacts (Cal-IPC 2016). Noxious and invasive weeds pose a threat to the natural
processes of plant community succession, fire frequency, biological diversity, and species composition. Noxious
and invasive weeds can affect the persistence of some populations of special-status species by replacing the
foraging base, altering habitat structure, or excluding a species by vegetative growth. Weeds occur in all habitat
types and can be difficult to eradicate. Many produce seeds that germinate readily following disturbance.
Further, disturbed areas are highly susceptible to colonization by non-native, invasive species that occur locally,
or whose propagules are brought in by personnel, vehicles, and other equipment.
While the proposed project is unlikely to introduce new weeds, several non-native, invasive species occur on
the project site. Ground disturbing activities within existing weed stands during construction could result in the
unintentional introduction of these weed species into adjacent sensitive habitats such as Miller Slough, and the
subsequent spread of weeds into downstream riparian habitats. The spread of such weeds to sensitive habitat
types would degrade these habitats, possibly reducing their ability to provide habitat values to common and
sensitive species that utilize them, and would be considered potentially significant under CEQA Significance
Criterion F. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Implement BMPs. The project proponent will implement the following BMPs
related to weeds:
During construction all heavy equipment will be washed, or the tires and undercarriages cleaned with
compressed air, before entering or leaving the project site
Disturbed areas will be seeded with an erosion control seed mix as soon as is appropriate after activities
are complete. The erosion control seed mix will be applied to exposed soils down to the ordinary high
water mark of Miller Slough.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
19
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Potential Regulatory Considerations
As described above, habitat subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW is present on the
project site below the top of bank of Miller Slough. However, assuming that the proposed project does not
impact Miller Slough below the top of bank, there will be no impacts to areas within these agencies’ jurisdictions,
and no regulatory agency permits would be expected to be required for the proposed project.
Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to
Biological Resources on the Project Site
Nesting Birds
Construction disturbance during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31, for most bird
species in Santa Clara County) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the
destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. This type of impact
would not be significant under CEQA for the species that might nest on the project site, because these species
are locally and regionally abundant and the potential impact would be minimal (i.e., the project is expected to
affect only one or two individual pairs of common bird species, which would not be a significant impact on
regional populations). Nevertheless, implementation of the following measures is recommended to ensure that
project activities comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code.
Measure 1. Conduct Preconstruction/Predisturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule
construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds will
be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project
implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than seven days before the start of construction
activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will look for nests in all trees and other potential nesting habitats
(e.g., shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is
found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the
extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and
100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA or California Fish and
Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation.
Measure 2. Inhibit Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the avian
breeding season, all potential nesting substrates (bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled
to be removed should be removed in advance of construction, and before the start of the breeding season (i.e.,
before February 1) if feasible. This will assist in preventing birds from building nests on the project site, and
thereby prevent potential project delays that may be triggered by the presence of active nests.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
20
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have. Thank you very much for contacting H.
T. Harvey & Associates regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Ginger M. Bolen, Ph.D.
Associate Wildlife Biologist/Project Manager
References
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The
Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. September.
Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento.
[Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2016. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database.
<http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/>. Accessed October 28, 2016.
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2016. Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of
California. Version 8-02. <http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html>.
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2016. Results of electronic records search. Rarefind 5.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.
City of Gilroy. 1999. Consolidated Landscaping Policy. Originally adopted 1988.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3066
City of Gilroy. 2007. Gilroy City Code, California. August 1, 2016. Originally adopted 1960. Code Publishing
Company. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/
City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, and County of Santa Clara. 2010. Revised Regional Storm Water
Management Plan. http://www.cityofgilroy.org/documentcenter/view/1095
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
21
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Corley, C. J., G. W. Frasier, M. J. Trlica, F. M. Smith, and E. M. Taylor. 1999. Technical Note: Nitrogen and
Phosphorus in Runoff from two Montane Riparian Communities. Journal of Range Management
52:600-605.
Google Earth. 2016. Aerial imagery of Lewis Street between Forrest Street and Chestnut Street, Gilroy,
California. April 5, 2016. https://www.google.com/earth/. Accessed on October 28, 2016.
ICF International. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Santa Clara County, California. Prepared for the
County of Santa Clara, City of San José, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
[NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2016. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov>. Accessed October 28, 2016.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Species list generated for the 395 Lewis Street Project.
Information for Planning and Conservation. <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>. Accessed November
2016.
6.A.h
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Biological Resources Report 120516 (3613 : 395 Lewis Street Subdivision)
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: January 20, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Zinnia Navarro, Office Assistant
SUBJECT: 2022 Planning Commission Task Force/Committee Assignments
RECOMMENDATION:
Review Planning Commission committee assignments and make adjustments as
necessary.
Background:
The Planning Commission is requested to review the Planning Commission
assignments to various task forces and committees, and make adjustments as
necessary.
Each year, the Planning Commission has an opportunity to review their assignments to
various task force and committees. The annual review is an opportunity to change
assignments and update the list, as appropriate. Presently, the assignments are as
follow:
Task Force/Committee Commissioner
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Doyle
Gilroy Downtown Business Association Ridley
Historic Heritage Committee Jezabel Moreno
South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee Bhandal
Street Naming Lewis
7.A
Packet Pg. 189
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: January 20, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cindy McCormick, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Housing Policies Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Informational presentation. No further action is required.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with an update on
three housing topics: Housing Element update, potential affordable housing policy, and
adopted objective design standards for multi-family projects and for Senate Bill 9
projects. This report and the attachments have been provided as an informational item,
and no further action is needed at this time. Staff will be at the meeting to answer any
questions the Commission may have. Questions may also be sent to staff ahead of the
meeting to allow for additional research as needed.
2023-2031 Housing Element: On June 21, 2021, staff provided the City Council with
an update on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023 -2031 planning cycle
and discussed next steps regarding the City’s Housing Element update. The attached
staff report provides a general overview of the components of a Housing Element and
notable housing element law changes that apply to the 2023 -2031 update. Please note
that the tentative timeline provided in the attached report was delayed in terms of the
initial study sessions with the Council and Commission, which are likely to occur in
Spring 2022.
On October 18, 2021, the City Council approved a contract with Michael Baker
International (MBI) to prepare the 2023-2031 Housing Element. MBI’s experience in
Southern California with the 6th cycle update process will be invaluable, given extensive
requirements related to community engagement, affirmatively furthering fair housing
laws, and increased scrutiny of the sites inventory. MBI also prepared the City’s 2020-
2025 Consolidated Plan in 2020 and understands what has and hasn’t worked in Gilroy
in terms of resident and stakeholder participation.
8.A
Packet Pg. 190
2
MBI is currently working on a Community and Stakeholder Outreach & Engagement
Strategy and outreach materials with a potential study session scheduled with the
Council and Planning Commission in spring 2022. The Commission will be informed
once a specific date has been confirmed for the study session. Community engagement
will occur throughout 2022. Staff also anticipates bringing draft policies to the Council
and Planning Commission in late summer 2022.
Affordable Housing Policy: On October 25, 2021, the City Council had a preliminary
discussion on potential housing policy options for Gilroy. No decisions were made at the
meeting; however the Council did direct staff to conduct further analysis on the potential
policies presented to the Council, including an inclusionary housing policy option (e.g.,
similar to our Neighborhood District requirements) and an affordable housing incentives
policy (e.g., density bonus incentives beyond state law; incentivize micro units, ADUs,
and missing middle housing). The attached staff report provides background information
on the City’s existing housing policies and a brief discussion of each policy option.
Additional information will be provided during the Spring and Summer 2022 study
sessions. An Affordable Housing Policy could be adopted as part of the City’s 2023 -
2031 Housing Element Update, which involves extensive community outreach.
Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Objective Design Standards: On September 16, 2021,
the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of draft Objective
Design Standards for mixed-use residential and multi-family residential projects. On
October 18, 2021, the City Council adopted th e linked Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and
Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy. Objective design standards
are required standards that 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. The attached City
Council staff report includes additional information that may be of interest to the
Commission.
Senate Bill 9 Objective Design Standards: On December 13, 2021, the City Council
adopted the linked SB9 2-Unit Objective Design Standards Policy and SB9 Lot
Split Objective Design Standards Policy. Subject to certain requirements, SB9
allows ministerial (staff level building permit) approval of a proposed housing
development containing no more than 2 residential units (e.g., duplex) in single -
family residential zones or a subdivision of one (1) single-family residential lot
into two (2) lots. The policies took effect on January 1, 2022. Staff is already
receiving inquiries regarding SB9 and has created a webpage on the City’s
website for further information: https://www.cityofgilroy.org/930/Senate-Bill-9-
SB9. The attached City Council staff report includes additional information on
SB9 that may be of interest to the Commission.
CONCLUSION: For additional information, please review the links and attachments to
this staff report. This report, links, and the attachments have been provided as an
informational item, and no further action is needed at this time.
8.A
Packet Pg. 191
3
Attachments:
1. 06-21-21 HE Intro Final CC report
2. 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report
3. 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report
4. 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report
5. 12-13-21 SB9 ODS Final CC report
8.A
Packet Pg. 192
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Report on Housing Element Workplan and Status of Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Distribution
Meeting Date: June 21, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Karen Garner
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive report and provide staff direction regarding Council expectations for the
2023-2031 Housing Element.
2. Direct staff on whether to appeal the ABAG RHNA distribution (equity adjustment) for
the City of Gilroy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this staff report is to provide the Council with an update on the City’s
draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 planning cycle, recently
approved by ABAG, and to discuss next steps regarding an update to the City’s
Housing Element.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 06-21-21 HE Intro Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION UPDATE
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) overview: Since 1969, the State of
California has required that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing
needs of everyone in our communities. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
process is used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability of those
homes, each city and county must plan for in its Housing Element. Cities do not need to
ensure these homes are built, but do need to minimize go vernmental constraints, and
put the proper zoning in place, so the private sector can build the housing.
In consultation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined that the Bay
Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units from 2023 to 2031. On May 20, 2021, the
ABAG Executive Board approved the Final RHNA Methodology and Draft RHNA
Allocations. Gilroy’s draft allocation for the 2023-2031 planning cycle is 1,773 housing
units, including 669 very low-income units, 385 low-income units, 200 moderate income
units, and 519 above-moderate income units. Notably, while the overall number of units
has increased, as it has for all cities across the state, the City of Gilroy received a
higher percentage of very low- and low-income units, under an “equity adjustment”
factor. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, the City may file an appeal to
modify Gilroy’s allocation.
The deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2021. Staff is seeking direction
from the Council on whether to appeal. However, appeals are historically unsuccessful,
and the City’s total RHNA is in proportion to its share of the region’s total households, a
key factor in the equity adjustment methodology. Therefore, staff is recommending that
the City Council not appeal Gilroy’s RHNA distribution.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
The Housing Element is part of Gilroy’s General Plan and identifies policies and
programs to meet the housing needs of the city’s current and future residents. State law
(Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8) requires that every city and county in
California adopt a Housing Element, approximately every eight years. In addition, HCD
reviews and certifies Housing Elements to ensure they meet all requirements of the law.
Gilroy’s 2015-2023 Housing Element was certified by HCD in December 2014. The
2023 – 2031 Housing Element must be certified by HCD no later than January 2023.
The update process will include multiple community outreach meetin gs and at least two
public hearings with the Planning Commission and the City Council (Draft and Final
documents).
Housing Element Overview: The Housing Element will include the following:
1. Housing Needs Assessment: Analyze Gilroy’s demographic and housing
trends and conditions.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 06-21-21 HE Intro Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
2. Constraints Analysis: Analyze and address existing and potential governmental
and nongovernmental constraints to the development of housing.
3. Evaluation of Past Performance: Assess Gilroy’s progress in implementing the
policies and programs from the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element.
4. Housing Sites Inventory: Identify housing sites available for development or
redevelopment in Gilroy, ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to address
Gilroy’s 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
5. Policies and Programs: Establish policies and programs to address Gilroy’s
identified housing needs.
6. Community Outreach and Engagement: Conduct a thorough program of
community engagement, with a particular focus on outreach to Gilroy’s
traditionally underrepresented groups, including, but not limited to groups
identified in the City’s Environmental Justice chapter of the 2040 General Plan.
Notable Housing Element Law Changes: Assembly Bill (AB) 686 was signed into law
in September 2018 and creates new requirements in Housing Element Law.
Accordingly, the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element update process is expected to be more
time intensive and rigorous than previous cycles. In addition to receiving a higher
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, as described earlier in this report, it will be harder
to identify sites that can count towards accommodating the 2023-2031 RHNA planning
cycle. New requirements mean there will be increased scrutiny on small (0.5 acre or
less), large (10 acre or more) and non-vacant/redevelopment sites. General
characteristics of suitable sites include adequate zoning, infrastructure availability, and
likelihood of being redeveloped at the necessary density. If the City cannot identify
adequate sites as defined by the State, the City will need to rezone sites accordingly.
In 2018, California adopted new requirements for jurisdictions to Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing (AFFH). Starting in January 2021, California law also requires that
Housing Elements include an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Housing Elements
must factor the AFH into the housing sites inventory and include goals, policies and/or
programs to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation and foster
inclusive communities. Changes in rules related to the sites inventory and affirmatively
furthering fair housing will also require more community outreach than in the past. In
collaboration with Santa Clara County and six other cities in the County, a draft AFH
has been prepared and is expected to be brought to the City Council for consideration
later this year.
All new legal requirements will lead to a lengthier and more costly process than in the
past. Fortunately, some of these additional costs will be absorbed through Gilroy’s
participation in the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative. Through the
Collaborative, Baird & Driskel Community Planning consultants will assist City staff in
completing portions of the sites inventory, affirmatively furthering fair housing
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 06-21-21 HE Intro Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
requirement, and community outreach. Furthermore, some of the administrative burden
of hiring a Housing Element consultant will be minimized through ABAG’s cooperative
bench, a procurement process that has already vetted qualified consultants on behalf of
bay area cities. Another benefit of this cooperative bench is the fact that several cities
across the bay area are having a difficult time finding a consultant to prepare their
Housing Element, due to the anticipated amount of work associated with new state
requirements.
The following table illustrates a rough estimate of the Housing Element update timeline.
The tentative schedule includes a study session with the City Council in September
2021 to receive direction on drafting an affordable housing ordinance and what form it
might take (e.g. provide incentives for voluntary inclusion of affordable units versus
require a minimum % of affordable units for projects that fall with a specific threshold).
The tentative schedule also includes public hearings with the Planning Commission and
the City Council to review a draft document (Spring 2022) and then adopt the final
Housing Element (Fall 2022).
Tentative Housing Element Update Timeline
Request proposals through the ABAG Cooperative Bench July 2021
Execute contract with consultant August 2021
City Council Study Session September 2021
Housing & Neighborhood Rev. Comm. Study Session October 2021
Develop and implement community engagement program July 2021 through 2022
Complete initial research/trends/past progress/constraints Summer/Fall 2021
Complete Sites Inventory Summer/Fall 2021
Draft Housing Element Programs and Policies Fall 2021
Prepare Draft Housing Element Winter 2022
Prepare CEQA analysis March 2022
Hold Commission / Council hearings (Review Draft) April-May 2022
Revise draft per Council direction May-June 2022
Preliminary State HCD review July-Aug. 2022
Revise plan per State HCD, if needed Sept-Oct. 2022
Hold Commission / Council hearings (Final Adoption) Oct-Nov 2022
Submit for State HCD certification November 2022
Complete rezoning, as necessary Early-Mid 2023
FISCAL IMPACT
The total budget required for the 2015-2023 Housing Element is significantly higher than
in previous cycles due to state legislation regarding identifying adequate sites to
accommodate RHNA, and increased community outreach associated with Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing requirements. The City has approximately $124,000 in LEAP and
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 06-21-21 HE Intro Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
REAP grant monies1 to fund the Housing Element. The FY22-23 approved budget
includes an additional $400,000 as needed depending on the level of CEQA review and
rezoning associated with the findings from the sites inventory analysis.
NEXT STEPS
In August 2021, Staff will return to the City Council for approval of the scope of work,
budget, and associated consultant contract to update the City’s Housing Element.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In addition to advertising this agenda item on the City’s website, staff has created a
dedicated webpage for the Housing Element Update. The webpage includes a link to
sign up for email updates.
1 Grant funds for the Housing Element update include approximately $71,000 in Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
funding and approximately $53,000 in Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) funding.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 06-21-21 HE Intro Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: 2023-2031 Housing Element Award of Contract
Meeting Date: October 18, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
Award a Contract to Michael Baker and Associates in the amount of $306,155 for
preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and authorize the City Administrator to
execute the contract and associated documents.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2021, City staff provided the Council with an update on the City’s draft
Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 planning cycle and discussed
next steps regarding an update to the City’s Housing Element. At that time, staff noted
that new legal requirements will lead to a lengthier and more costly process than in the
past. Staff also noted that several cities across the bay area are having a difficult time
finding a consultant to prepare their Housing Element, due to the anticipated amount of
work associated with new state requirements.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
On August 26, 2021, City staff released a request for proposals (RFP) to prepare the
2023-2031 Housing Element. In addition to advertising the RFP on the City’s Bid
Posting webpage, staff sent the RFP to nine (9) consultants, including six (6) from the
City’s on-call planning services consultant list1 and three (3) from the ABAG cooperative
procurement bench2. The City received two (2) proposals as briefly described herein.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of the preferred consultant’s
proposed scope of work and budget, and to recommend the City Council authorize the
City Administrator to execute a contract with Michael Baker International for preparation
of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
ANALYSIS
The Request for Proposals (RFP) identified the City’s desire to retain the services of an
experienced consultant team to prepare a new Housing Element for the 2023-2031
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning period, related rezoning (optional
task if necessary), and environmental review (the level of CEQA analysis needed would
be determined following completion of the Sites Inventory analysis).
Project Proposals: The City received two (2) proposals. Both proposals were from
consultants from the City’s On-Call Consultant Selection List1 and who were vetted by
ABAG through the Cooperative Procurement Bench. EMC Planning group has
approximately 30 years of experience with the City of Gilroy, including for example
preparation of the Environmental Impa ct Report for the 2040 General Plan. Michael
Baker International has approximately 10 years of experience working with the City of
Gilroy, including preparation of the City of Gilroy 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan.
Proposal Evaluation: In accordance with the RFP and the City’s standard evaluation
and scoring criteria, proposals were evaluated based on the consultant’s understanding
of the scope of services; qualifications and experience; references; overall quality of the
response to the RFP; and cost proposal. The proposals were reviewed and scored
separately by the Community Development Director (Karen Garner) and the project
planner (Cindy McCormick). The strengths and weaknesses of each consultant tea m
were discussed, and the individual scores were averaged to determine the preferred
consultant team. The total average score and budget for each consultant is provided in
the table below.
1 On February 22, 2021, the City Council approved the On-Call Consultant Selection List for Planning
Services, Environmental Reviews and Historical Evaluations (21-RFQ-CDD-330).
2 Bench Consultants were screened by ABAG/MTC for minimum qualifications including, but not limited to
Housing Element preparation, experience developing plans, policies, and programs related to housing
production and resident protections, hourly rates, and quality of reference checks.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
Rank Consultant Name Total
Score
Total Base
Budget
Budget with
all options
1
Michael Baker International (MBI)
Base Budget: $224,855
Rezoning Option: $12,150
MND/EIR Addendum: $30,000
Market Scenario Test Option: $7,130
Study Session Option: $7,020
Contingency: $25,000
97
$224,855
$306,155
including all
options
2
EMC Planning Group
Base Budget: $335,453 (301,247)3
Rezoning Option: $10,475
Initial Study/ND: $39,850
Potential Hazards Update: $27,500
Spanish Translation: $17,732
90
$335,453
(301,247)3
$431,010
(396,804)3
including all
options
Staff recommends awarding the contract to Michael Baker International (MBI), for the
following reasons:
1. Although both consultants have completed Housing Elements for the 5 th cycle,
only MBI has completed preparation of Housing Elements for the 6th cycle,
pending HCD approval4. Additionally, MBI’s subconsultant has prepared
approximately 15 Housing Elements for the 6th cycle. Experience with the 6th
cycle update process will be invaluable, given extensive requirements related to
community engagement, affirmatively furthering fair housing laws, and increased
scrutiny of the sites inventory.
2. MBI’s experience preparing the City’s 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan in 2020 can
be used as a starting point for discussion on potential Housing Element
programs. Community engagement from that effort also brings lessons learned
on what has and hasn’t worked in Gilroy in terms of resident and stakeholder
participation.
3. MBI’s proposal includes a dedicated Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH) chapter. In their experience working on the 6th cycle update for other
cities, MBI understands HCD’s expectations regarding the new and extensive
AFFH requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
3 EMC offered to reduce their sub-consultant budget by $34,206, given staff’s concerns about
subconsultant overhead costs.
4 Housing Elements for the County of San Diego, City of Redlands, City of Lakewood, City of Escondido,
and San Juan Capistrano have been completed and are pending HCD review and approval.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
4. MBI’s proposal reflects their intent to ensure that the eight Guiding Principles
described in the 2040 General Plan are used “as a road map to incorporate the
spirit of the first seven Principles into the eighth — Support Housing Options”,
illustrating their understanding that economic growth, fiscal strength, and public
safety, etc. are also an important component of Gilroy’s vision for the future.
5. MBI’s proposal includes an in-house team of experienced “housing planners”, as
illustrated in their key team member summary, without a heavy reliance on
subconsultants that drive up the budget with additional overhead costs.
6. MBI provided the lowest bid and the greatest flexibility and options for how the
budget can be utilized (e.g., consolidating one or more of the HNRC, Planning
Commission, and/or City Council meetings5 to avoid unnecessary repetition).
MBI’s cost proposal also included a 10% contingency.
Proposed Scope of Work
Task 1 – Project Management and Coordination: At the project kickoff meeting, the
MBI project team and City staff will review and refine the scope of work and discuss
expectations and assumptions. MBI and City staff will also review the project schedule
and list of critical tasks needed to proceed toward adoption by the January 31, 2023
statutory deadline. MBI will work with staff to integrate tasks, as feasible, to potentially
reduce the overall project timeline and provide a buffer for unexpected delays.
NOTE: Staff will share Council feedback received during the October 2 5th study session
introducing potential concepts for an affordable housing policy. This early feedback will
serve as a starting point for task 2 (community engagement) and task 3 (research and
analysis / goals, policies, and quantified objectives). Council’s initial feedback can also
be used to structure the content of the recommended study session described in th e
“optional scope components” section of this staff report.
Task 2 – Community Outreach and Engagement: This task includes the community
and stakeholder outreach and engagement strategy; outreach materials, translation,
interpretation; and community outreach/engagement meetings and activities.
Task 3 – Research and Analysis: This task includes evaluation of 2015-2023 Housing
Element goas and accomplishments; housing needs assessment; Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); housing resources and sites inventory; housing
constraints; and the Housing Plan (goals, policies, and quantified objectives). An
administrative draft report and findings will be prepared by the consultant for staff
review, prior to preparation of the draft Housing Element.
Task 4 – Draft and Final Housing Element documents: This task includes
preparation of the Draft Housing Element; Public Hearing presentations of the Draft
5 The cost proposal assumes “virtual” consultant presentations at study sessions and public hearings,
however the budget can be adjusted to accommodate in-person attendance, as desired by the Council.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
Housing Element to the HNRC, Planning Commission and City Council; review of public
comments, preparation of responses and revisions; coordination with HCD during their
60-day review; and preparation of a Final Draft to address HCD’s initial comments.
Task 5 – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): It is not yet known whether
the City has adequate sites to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA; however the recent adoption
of the 2040 General Plan (GP) may provide adequate capacity to avoid rezoning to
meet the City’s RHNA. Therefore, it is possible the Housing Element could be adopted
with preparation of an Addendum or a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration (M/ND). If
rezoning is necessary, or other findings in the Initial Study are deemed significant and
unavoidable, a more robust environmental document would be required.
The recommended budget amount ($306,155) includ es up to $30,000 (above the
baseline budget) for preparation of an MND or an Addendum to the 2040 GP EIR. If
required, an Amendment to the 2040 GP EIR would likely range closer to $150,000.
However, if a full EIR is required (unlikely), the additional fee would likely range from
$150,000 to $250,000. Staff should have a relatively firm idea of the level of CEQA
analysis needed at the beginning of the 2022 calendar year. Staff will return to the
Council should it be determined that a more robust CEQA analysis and corresponding
budget adjustment is needed.
Task 6 – Housing Element Adoption and Certification: This task includes
presentation of the Final Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element at public hearings
before the HNRC, Planning Commission, and City Council. After Council adoption, the
Housing Element update must be submitted to HCD for its final review. MBI will serve
as the City’s liaison with HCD and will assist the City in achieving certification of the
Housing Element. Any additional unanticipated changes required by HCD would be
charged as a time and materials budget.
Optional Scope Components: MBI included four optional budget items, totaling
$56,3006, that staff has included in the recommended budget of $306,155. If any of
these optional budget items are deemed unnecessary, the unspent budget could be
allocated towards other tasks including in-person meetings (see assumptions below),
additional outreach, or other tasks agreed to by the City and the consultant.
• Virtual Study Session: MBI recommends a single or joint study session before
the HNRC, Planning Commission, and/or City Council early in the process to seek
input on specific key issues and opportunities, and key components of the Housing
Element Update. A key objective is to review, prioritize, and strategize the specific
accomplishments, timelines, and resources for the programs/goals. Budget: $7,020
• CEQA MND/EIR Addendum: As provided in the CEQA discussion, it is anticipated
that the Housing Element could be adopted with preparation of a Negative
Declaration (M/ND) or an Addendum to the 2040 GP EIR. Budget: $30,000
6 The budget includes a time and materials estimate.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
• Market Scenario Test: Given increased HCD scrutiny on the housing sites
inventory, this option is intended to provide a rationale to justify the redevelopment
of certain non-vacant, commercial or mixed-use sites. A proforma analysis(es)
could be used to test the viability of different development scenarios including
housing types and densities. Budget: $7,130.
• Rezoning: If it is determined that existing sites cannot meet the City’s RHNA,
rezoning to higher densities would likely be required. MBI will work with staff to
identify suitable sites and rezoning scenarios, including zoning options,
assumptions and development trends, the likelihood of development, and projected
yields ability to meet the RHNA. Budget: $12,150.
Contingency. The budget includes an approximate 10% contingency to account for
unforeseen circumstances or miscellaneous change orders. These funds can only be
used with prior City authorization and would be billed on a time and materials basis.
Assumptions and Exclusions: Major assumptions include the following:
• Rezoning and CEQA analyses beyond the respective $12,150 and $30,000
allocation would require a budget adjustment to be approved by the City Council.
• Consultant attendance at meetings and hearings will be virtual unless the budget is
adjusted to accommodate in-person meetings on a time, travel, and materials
basis. The Council could increase the budget to accommodate in-person meetings.
Otherwise, Staff would work with the consultant to stay within the budget through
cost savings in other areas (e.g., consolidating HNRC, Planning Commission, and
City Council in-person meetings).
• Additional assumptions and exclusions are included on page A-12 and A-13 of the
MBI proposal.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, award a Contract to Michael Baker
International in the amount of $306,155 for preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing
Element and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated
documents.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Award the contract to EMC Planning Group. Staff does not recommend this option
primarily because EMC has not prepared a housing Element for the 6th RHNA
cycle which has significantly different legal requirements than the 5th cycle.
2) Reject all proposals. Staff does not recommend this option as this would delay the
start of the Housing Element which is anticipated to take longer to prepare than
previous cycles due to additional requirements related to community en gagement,
affirmatively furthering fair housing, and the sites inventory.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
FISCAL IMPACT
The total budget required for the 2015-2023 Housing Element is significantly higher than
in previous cycles due to state legislation regarding identifying adequate si tes to
accommodate RHNA, and increased community outreach associated with Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing requirements.
The total recommended contract amount is $306,155. The City has $103,603 in LEAP
and REAP grant monies7 to fund the Housing Element, leaving a $202,552 balance.
The FY22-23 approved budget for Community Development includes adequate funding
in Contractual Services to cover the balance.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Council’s approval, the contract will be executed, and Staff will work with the
consultant to refine the scope of work (e.g. virtual versus in-person meetings) and
project schedule.
Attachments:
1. MICHAEL BAKER_No. 22-RFP-CDD-464_proposal
2. EMC Planning Group_22-RFP-CDD-464__proposal
3. MBI Agreement for Housing Element Services 10.11.21
4. Exhibit B - Scope of Work
5. Exhibit C - Milestone Schedule
6. Exhibit D - Budget
7 Grant funds for the Housing Element update include $71,000 in Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) funding and
$36,203 in Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) funding.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 10-18-21 HE Contract Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Affordable Housing Policy
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide feedback/direction to City staff.
POLICY DISCUSSION
On February 20, 2021, the City Council held its annual goal-setting workshop to review
goals for Fiscal Year 2022 and Fiscal Year 2023 and provide direction to staff in the
development of their upcoming two-year workplan. On March 29, 2021, the Council
included a goal to “Ensure Availability of Safe, Affordable Housing for all Gilroy
Residents” as part of the FY22-23 workplan. The Council also included the development
of an “Inclusionary Housing/Affordable Housing Incentive (in-lieu fee) Policy” as a core
activity within the Community Development Department’s FY22-23 workplan.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
An Affordable Housing policy could take the form of an Inclusionary Housing policy, an
Affordable Housing Incentives policy, or a combination of both. An Inclusionary policy
would require all residential developments over a certain size to restrict a certain
number of units as affordable, while an Affordable Housing Incentives policy would take
a “carrot versus stick” approach to meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) and other affordable housing goals by incentivizing and reducing
barriers to build affordable housing.
The purpose of this study session is to present the Council with a menu of housing
policy options for discussion and direction on which options are preferred by the Council
for further analysis. Staff will then review Council’s preferred option(s) with the City’s
Housing Element consultant as a starting point for drafting the goals, policies, and
quantified objectives section of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
BACKGROUND
The following background information on the City’s existing housing policies and
regional housing needs may be helpful when considering housing policy options for
Gilroy.
2015-2023 Housing Element: The current Housing Element has a number of goals that
can help guide the Council’s policy direction. It should be noted that the City’s Housing
Element consultant will be reviewing all of the 2015-2023 goals as part of the research
and analysis component of the Housing Element update. Although the 2007 -2014
Housing Element included an action item (Action 4-2.8) to consider adoption of
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requiring a 20 percent affordable housing requirement
for all new residential developments of ten (10) or more units, the City did not pursue
the Inclusionary Ordinance during the 2007-2014 planning period and did not carry
forward that action item to the 2015-2023 planning period. However, the 2015-2023
Housing Element did include policies to incentivize affordable housing and incentivize
other types of housing such as micro units. Staff has highlighted some of these policies
here:
Policy H-1.G (Study Micro-Units): The City shall conduct a study of the appropriateness
of “micro-units” in Gilroy and the existing barriers in the Zoning Ordinance to the
provision of micro-units. Based on the findings of the study, the City will make a
determination of the appropriateness of micro-units in Gilroy and, if determined
appropriate, identify methods for eliminating barriers, and establish appropriate
development standards.
Policy H-2.A (Develop Affordable Housing Incentives): The City shall review and revise,
as appropriate, current incentives and regulatory concessions available to developers
for the development of affordable housing throughout the city, and especially within the
Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan area and Neighborhood District. Incentives and
regulatory concessions may include, but are not limited to parking reductions, and
reduced setbacks.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
Policy H-2.G (Development of Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households): The
City shall review and incorporate appropriate regulatory incentives, financial incentives,
and other policies that encourage the development of housing units for extremely low-
income households. The City shall encourage and support the development of housing
for extremely low income households within future affordable housing projects through
various strategies and programs that may include: assistance with entitlement
processing; and modifying development standards and granting concessions and
incentives for projects that provide housing for lower income families.
2015-2023 RHNA: The City has met its low-income and above-moderate income RHNA
targets but remains deficient in the very-low and moderate-income categories. Gilroy’s
success in meeting and exceeding the low-income category is due to the federal Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program that has been used by developers of
affordable housing in Gilroy.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2015 – 2023)
Income Level Unit
Allocation
2015 – 2019
Units
2020
Units
Total Units
Permitted
Units Remaining
Very Low
(31 – 50% AMI)
236 63 76 139 97 VL
Low
(51 – 80% AMI)
160 487 80 567 0 Low
Moderate
(81 – 120% AMI)
217 24 15 39 178 Mod
Above Moderate
(Above 120% AMI)
475 1,124 172 1,196 0
Total Units: 1,088 1,698 243 1,941 275 Remaining
as of 12-31-2020
2023-2031 RHNA: The City’s draft RHNA for the 2023-2031 planning cycle is 1,773
units, including 669 very-low income units (38%), 375 low income units (22%), 200
moderate income units (11%), and 519 above-moderate income units (29%). If the City
adopts an affordable housing incentives policy, it could aim to require or incentivize
units in the very-low income category, given the City’s large allocation and past difficulty
in obtaining this category of units. If the City adopts an inclusionary housing policy, the
income categories and minimum percentages could generally match the 2023-2031
RHNA income categories (e.g., at least 38% of the affordable rental units shall be in the
very-low income category), however, as previously noted, whereas federal tax incentive
programs encourage construction of low-income housing, no programs currently exist
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
for very low income. Thus, financing of such units is more challenging and often
requires other forms of creative financing or subsidies.
Neighborhood District (ND) Policy: The purpose of the Neighborhood District (ND)
land use designation is to encourage compact, complete, neighborhood-style
development. The ND land use designation is generally applied to vacant land that is
currently outside the City’s Urban Service Area but within the City’s Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) area. The UGB area applies to land within the Planning
Boundary/Sphere-of-Influence that is intended for urbanization at some point in the
future.
Prior to approval of annexation and other land use entitlements, a Specific Plan must be
prepared for the entire Neighborhood District area. The Specific Plan is implemented by
the Neighborhood District Zoning District and the Neighborhood District policy, which
provide further guidance on topics including phasing of development, location and mix
of uses, site and architectural design, affordable housing, circulation, and open space.
Each Neighborhood District (ND) development is required to construct a minimum of
fifteen percent (15%) of its units at affordable prices. Affordable housing units are
integrated throughout the Master Plan or Specific Plan area, rather than clustered in
affordable housing pockets. Although the RDO process (described next) is no longer in
effect, the ND policy was structured to provide “a higher number of points” to projects
with a “higher percentages of affordable units”. The ND policy also allows the potential
for a “reduction in City development standards (e.g. zero-lot line developments,
clustered housing on smaller lots, and smaller unit sizes).” The Glen Loma Specific Plan
area is a successful example of how the ND policy has resulted in affordable housing
units in Gilroy. Other areas with the ND designation include the Wren/Hewell area at
the north end of town, currently under review by LAFCO, and an area at the south end
of Gilroy near the Sports Park. These sites are shown on the Gilroy 2040 Land Use
Map.
Residential Development Ordinance (RDO): The City’s RDO policy is no longer in
effect due to state legislation (e.g., SB330), however there are components of the policy
that could be carried forward to a new affordable housing policy. The RDO policy was
set up very similar to what an Inclusionary policy might look like. For example, it
included resale controls to ensure that the dwelling units remain affordable to very low,
low, and moderate-income households. Rental price controls would be restricted for a
minimum of 55 years while ownership units would remain affordable for a minimum of
30 years. The RDO policy also specified the minimum percent in each affordability
category (e.g., no more than 30% of the affordable units can be in the 100%-120% AMI
category1).
1 Note; The RDO categories were not structured in the same manner as RHNA (e.g., 100-120% versus
80-120%)
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
Density Bonus Ordinance: Government Code sections 65915 through 65918, known
as the density bonus law, were enacted to encourage developers to build affordable
housing by requiring local governments to provide meaningful incentives in exchange
for those affordable units. The required incentives include both a density bonus and
exceptions from City development standards. To qualify for these incentives a
developer must commit to make available a certain percentage of the units affordable to
moderate, low, or very low-income persons. The amount of the density bonus is based
on the level of affordability provided, using a sliding scale provided by density bonus
law. In addition, exceptions from one or more of the City’s development standards are
based on the percentage of affordable units provided. The City implements the density
bonus state law through Section 30.46.40 of the Gilroy City Code which simply
references Government Code Section 65915 et seq.
ANALYSIS
Inclusionary Policy Option
An Inclusionary policy would require all residential developments over a certain size to
restrict a certain number of units as affordable and would be in line with what many
other jurisdictions throughout California have implemented to help achieve RHNA goals.
The 2007-2014 Housing Element suggested that 20% of all units in a 10+ unit
development be affordable; however as provided in the attached spreadsheet, a 15%
requirement is most common in Santa Clara County with triggering thresholds ranging
from one (1) to 10-unit developments. A 15% requirement would also be consistent with
the City’s existing Neighborhood District policy. The 15% requirement is commonly used
in part due to an inclusionary housing policy established by the City of San Jose in
2013. The City of San Jose conducted an economic feasibility study when developing
the program and determined that a 15% affordability requirement would be
economically feasible for developers. There are many variables considered as part of
economic feasibility including land costs and expected sales prices and rental rates,
some of which are likely very different for Gilroy as compared to San Jose. Council may
consider conducting an economic feasibility study before determining a specific
percentage of affordable units and would be strongly recommended should Council
wish to consider an affordability requirement above 15%.
As provided in the background, an Inclusionary policy would allow the City to control
how long the units would remain affordable and what percentage of the units would be
required in each income category. The Inclusionary polices could be applied city -wide or
they could be applied to certain areas (as done for the neighborhood dist rict zone) or
certain types of projects (e.g., Planned Unit Developments). Given that developers are
typically seeking exceptions to City Code (e.g., reduced setbacks, reduced minimum lot
sizes), applying inclusionary requirements to PUD projects would help ensure that the
City is realizing a benefit when granting PUD exceptions. For example, an Inclusionary
policy could require that all proposed PUDs with 10 or more units provide at least 15%
of those units as affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income persons, where the
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
minimum number of affordable units is rounded up. Alternatively, the City could
incentivize affordable units in PUDs by offering a suite of development standard
exceptions that are tied to the number of affordable units offered (see Incentives
discussion).
Most jurisdictions offer developers one or more alternative ways to satisfy their
inclusionary housing requirements. The most common alternative is to pay a fee in lieu
of constructing units on-site. In lieu-fees2 may be combined with housing trust funds and
other funding sources to help finance the construction of affordable housing off site or
subsidize units to increase the level of affordability. However, cities often set fees well
below the actual cost of building on-site units, which makes in-lieu fees more attractive
to developers and less likely to result in a substantive quantity of affordable units. For
this reason, some cities intentionally set the fee at a level that is intended to discourage
the use of the fee option.
Additionally, the Council may decide to only allow in-lieu fees under certain
circumstances. For example, as provided in the attached spreadsheet of Inclusionary
policies in Santa Clara County, some cities only allow in-lieu fees in projects with 6 or
fewer units/acre, while other cities require Council approval for in-lieu fees for projects
over a certain unit threshold. It is recommended that a housing in-lieu fee study be
conducted if the Council wants to consider in-lieu fees under certain circumstances.
Staff can provide the Council with an estimate of what an in-lieu fee study would cost at
the next housing element study session.
While Inclusionary policies are a common tool cities use to meet their RHNA targets,
they may have unintended consequences su ch as lower quality materials in the
construction of units, fewer amenities or higher prices of market-rate units as means to
off-set reduced income potential of affordable units.
Incentives Policy Options
An Affordable Housing Incentives policy would take a “carrot versus stick” approach to
meeting the City’s RHNA. A Housing Incentives policy could target specific housing
types such as micro-units, accessory dwelling units, or missing-middle housing
(duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes), or it could target specific needs such as extremely low-
income households, large households, and senior households. The City could also
incentivize developments within specific areas such as the Downtown Specific Plan
area or the mixed-use zoning district along First Street.
Bonus Concessions beyond state law: Although the Density Bonus state law allows
concessions for construction of affordable units, the City could create a menu of
additional concession items that a developer could choose from depending on the level
2 In-lieu fees are different than linkage or impact fees, which are structured to require
fees instead of constructing onsite inclusionary units.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
of affordability provided (e.g., extremely low-income units). This type of program could
be applied City wide or only to certain areas or certain types of development such as
PUDs where the developer is asking for exceptions to the City’s development
standards. Additional thought and analysis would be needed on the types of
concessions that would be feasible and acceptable in Gilroy. For example, while parking
exceptions may be appropriate near high quality transit stations such as BART and
Light Rail, they may not work as well in a suburban city like Gilroy where residents are
more likely to drive to large employment centers in more urbanized bay area cities.
Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units: The Santa Clara County Collaborative has
received preliminary agreement from HCD to allow cities to count ADUs towards RHNA
as follows: 30% above moderate income, 30% moderate income, 30% low -income, and
10% very-low income. Previously the city was counting all ADUs under the moderate -
income category. ADUs therefore represent a great option for meeting Gilroy’s RHNA in
both the current RHNA planning cycle3 and the upcoming 2023-2031 planning cycle.
One way to incentivize ADUs is to provide residents with a jump-start on designing their
ADU. Some cities have partnered with local architectural and engineering firms on
developing stock ADU plans that could be purchased by a homeowner for a reduced
price with options to customize for a higher price. If this housing incentive option is
desired by the Council, staff can begin reaching out to local architects and engineers for
interest and feedback.
Incentivize Micro-units: As provided in the background discussion, the current housing
element provides that the City should consider the potential for micro-units in Gilroy,
identify methods for eliminating barriers, and establish development standards for
micro-units, if such housing is determined to be appropriate for the City. For example,
the City could look at the appropriateness of allowing micro-units in the City’s high-
density residential districts and the mixed-use district along the First Street corridor.
Micro-units are currently undefined in the City Code and may have widely varying
definitions depending on the cities in which they are built. For example, a micro -unit in
San Francisco may be much smaller than a micro-unit in Gilroy. Micro-units could be
thought of as a tiny house or a small studio space with a private bathroom and a small
kitchenette. Alternatively, it could be located in a building with a communal kitchen
space for multiple micro-units. The City does not have minimum floor area standards, so
micro-units are not prohibited by the code; however, there are no incentives for a
developer to propose micro-units in Gilroy. Micro-units could help the City meet its
RHNA because theoretically a developer would build more small units and fewer larger
units on a property so long as the unit count meets the density allowance.
Incentivize Missing Middle Housing: Missing middle housing generally includes
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage courts which are generally more affordable
(by design) since the units tend to be smaller and higher in density than single -family
3 Staff has also been notified that the City can retroactively count ADUs to these expanded categories for
the entire 2015-2023 RHNA cycle.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
dwellings. Cottage Courts are undefined in the City Code but could be described as a
group of small, 1-to-2 story detached structures arranged around a shared court visible
from the street, and accessible to the front entrance of each dwelling unit. The Santa
Clara County Collaborative is working with HCD to determine if cities can count smaller
units such as duplexes towards moderate and lower-income RHNA units (as being done
with ADUs). Missing middle housing units are generally held under one ownership4 and
therefore typically provide rental housing with the owner living off -site or on-site in one
of the units. These types of units could potentially be used for senior group housing or
to accommodate multi-generational households.
Missing middle housing typologies are taking the forefront in housing legislation like SB
9 and planning efforts such as ABAG’s Missing Middle Working Group where incentives
and development standards for missing middle housing are being explored. The City’s
General Plan/Objective Design Standards consultant is also currently drafting a white
paper on the potential for missing middle housing in Gilroy as part of the SB2 funding
grant. If this housing incentive option is desired by the Council, staff will return to the
Council with further analysis on where missing middle housing would be appropriate
and what types of incentives or development standards would be needed to
accommodate missing middle housing (e.g., setbacks and height requirements). For
example, the City could amend the City Code to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes to
be approved ministerially so long as the project complies with objective design
standards. Currently, the city requires an Architectural and Site Review Permit for
residential developments having two (2) or more total units on a single parcel 5.
Incentives are a great way to encourage a specified type of housing, however they may
not result in long-term affordability since they generally lack restrictive covenants that
maintain their affordability over an extended period of time.
Community Outreach: Community outreach will be an important component of
developing an Affordable Housing policy to ensure that the City is meeting the needs of
existing residents. Policies to encourage or require affordable housing will be discussed
with residents, service providers, and development stakeholders to ensure a broad
perspective from the community is considered. Any affordable housing policy will also
be reviewed by the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee and the
Planning Commission at meetings that are open to the public. An extensive community
engagement program will be developed as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element
update.
Anti-displacement Standards: The Council may want to also consider anti-
displacement standards to protect city residents, regardless of the type of policy
adopted. While cities and counties are expected to remove governmental constraints to
increase housing production, there may be unintended consequences, including
4 Cottage courts would likely be a for-sale product type but could be rented out.
5 ADUs are an exception to this requirement.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
displacement of low-income residents when neighborhoods are redeveloped.
Gentrification can occur where land is less expensive and older, lower-density or under-
utilized housing stock is redeveloped into a new, higher-density housing project that
brings wealthier wage earners willing to pay higher housing costs and rents. However,
there are a variety of tools available to revitalize neighborhoods without also gentrifying
them. Additional detail can be provided at a future council meeting, but the most
prevalent types of anti-displacement tools are rent control, just-cause eviction
ordinances, relocation agreements, and tenant option to purchase agreements.
Further Analysis: The information provided in this report is intended as a broad
overview of a complex and multi-faceted issue. An effective affordable housing policy
that meets the needs of Gilroy will require further research, data analysis, outreach, and
input from the community. This includes census and demographic data, economic data
and analysis of state housing laws. With the many new and modified state housing
laws, such as those related to density bonus, ADUs or more recently SB 9 that can
allow a lot split or additional units on a single-family lot, an analysis of each of these is
necessary to anticipate how they support affordable housing in Gilroy and how they can
work in tandem with local policies to maximize opportunities. As data and information is
gathered and analyzed, it will help point towards affordable housing policies that will
best serve the needs of the Gilroy community.
Council Direction:
To help provide direction to staff at this early stage, staff recommends that council
provide feedback on the outcomes they would like to achieve with an affordable housing
policy and any aspects that are particularly important for consideration. For example,
some outcomes for an affordable housing policy might be;
• Meet RHNA goals set by the state.
• Identify and incentivize developers, nonprofits or other partners who can provide
or assist in providing affordable housing.
• Provide a wide variety of affordable housing types that are integrated throughout
the city.
Inclusionary Policy Option: If the Council desires an Inclusionary policy, staff
recommends that it be modeled after the City’s Neighborhood District policy and former
RDO policy. Staff will return to the Council with further analysis on the different
components of an Inclusionary policy and make recommendations such as minimum
size threshold (e.g., developments with 10 or more units), percent set aside (e.g. 15%),
affordable category set aside (e.g., match 2023-2031 categories), and in-lieu fees
including circumstances where an in-lieu fee is not recommended (e.g., developments
with 7 or more dwelling units). Council may also provide direction to staff on an in-lieu
fee study (recommended if in-lieu fees will be considered) and an economic feasibility
study (to support percent set aside).
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
The Council may find the attached spreadsheet of Inclusionary policies in Santa Clara
County cities to be helpful for providing direction.
Incentives Policy Option: If the Council would like to explore incentivizing housing
through one of the suggested options or another type of incentive proposed by the
Council, staff will return to the Council with further analysis. If this option is selected,
staff requests that the Council provide direction on which incentives should be further
analyzed:
• Bonus Concessions beyond state law
• Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units
• Incentivize Micro-units
• Incentivize Missing Middle Housing
• Other Incentives
Hybrid Option: At the Council’s direction, staff can return to the Council with further
analysis on both an Inclusionary policy and an Incentives policy that includes one or
more incentives selected by the Council.
NEXT STEPS
As provided in the October 18, 2021 staff report for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
contract, Staff will share Council feedback received during the October 25th study
session with the City’s Housing Consultant. Council’s feedback on potential concepts for
an affordable housing policy will serve as a starting point for task 2 (community
engagement) and task 3 (research and analysis / goals, policies, and quantified
objectives). It is also anticipated that further discussion and refinement of the potential
housing policy options will be discussed during the recommended study session to
occur early in the Housing Element update process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The study session was advertised on the City’s Housing Element update webpage and
through the City’s social media outlets including Friday’s email express newsletter.
Attachments:
1. Santa Clara County Inclusionary Policies
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 10-25-21 Housing Policy options Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential
Objective Design Standards City Policy
Meeting Date: October 18, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
Promote Economic
Development
Activities
☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-
Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy for all mixed -use residential and
multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy, as amended by the Planning
Commission.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to state law, the City cannot deny a housing development project based on
subjective reasoning. Therefore, the City has drafted an objective design standards
policy that would apply to all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential
developments in Gilroy. The objective design standards have been drafted to help
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
ensure that housing development 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 providing clear and consistent standards that help
increase consistency in decision making and minimize delays in the planning
entitlement process.
POLICY DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)1, the City cannot disapprove, reduce
the density of, or make infeasible (e.g., through conditions of approval), 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 certain 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 objective standards 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.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy was awarded $160,000 in grant funding2 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.
1 Government Code Section 65589.5
2 California Senate Bill 2 (SB2), the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
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
to the City Council for final approval, following review and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission.
On September 2, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered
the staff report and written public testimony related to the Gilroy Mixed -Use Residential
and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy. The Commission
continued the item to allow staff to return to the Commission with recommended edits to
the draft policy in response to public comments. On September 16, 2021, the Planning
Commission reviewed and accepted staff’s recommended edits in response to public
comments and further recommended that the City Council adopt a resolut ion adopting
the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design
Standards Policy for all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development
projects in Gilroy, as amended by the Planning Commission.
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 t hat
the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is
not subject to CEQA.
ANALYSIS
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. In addition to
complying with state law, there are several benefits to developing and implementing
objective design standards. These benefits are discussed below:
Increase consistent decision making: Objective design standards help increase
consistency in decision making. With no interpretation or personal preference,
developers will receive consistent direction from project to project and year to year,
even when there is staff turnover.
Minimize applicant delays: 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.
Better utilize staff resources: Just as important as minimizing costly delays to
developers, 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
accommodating other customer’s needs.
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
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 (e.g.,
paint colors). Another goal was to develop standards that would minimize the potential
for the type of bad design and safety issues 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
• 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
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
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
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, corner
treatments, building and roofline
articulation, and minor and
major massing breaks
depending on building length.
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
historic, small-town character; provides
and maintains safe, livable, and
affordable neighborhoods; and creates
beautiful places.
The objective design standards
implements this goal by
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.
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
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.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Request that staff and the consultant modify the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential
and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy with specific
direction on what modifications are needed.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The City of Gilroy was awarded $160,000 in grant funding3 to create objective design
standards for mixed-use and multi-family residential projects in Gilroy. The work
associated with creating the objective design standards policy was fully funded by the
grant; therefore, no additional funding is needed.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to state law, the City has drafted the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-
Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy for all mixed-use residential and
multi-family residential development projects 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. O ther
notable benefits include providing clear and consistent standards that help increase
consistency in decision making and minimize delays in the planning entitlement
process.
NEXT STEPS
If any modifications are proposed, staff and the consultant will amend the draft objective
design standards based on a consensus of the City Council. Following the City
Council’s adoption of the Policy, staff will post the Policy on the City’s website, advertise
the Policy through the City’s social media, and email a copy of the Policy to the
Planning Department’s list of interested stakeholders.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
3 California Senate Bill 2 (SB2), the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
Notice of the public meeting to consider the draft objective design standards was
published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 8th. The City Council public hearing packets
are available through the City's upcoming meetings webpage. The draft objective design
standards and the date of the City Council meeting was also posted to the dedicated
Objective Design Standards webpage.
Attachments:
1. Public Comment Matrix_09-10-21
2. CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy_10-08-21
3. Comprehensive Draft ODS_10-8-21
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 10-18-21 ODS - Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Gilroy Senate Bill 9 Objective Design Standards Policy
Meeting Date: December 13, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
a) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy
SB9 2-Unit Residential Objective Design Standards Policy; and
b) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy
SB9 Residential Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to Senate Bill 9 (SB9), the City shall ministerially approve certain lot splits and
housing developments containing two residential units (e.g., duplex) within a single-
family residential zone, subject to certain requirements described in the law. Local
jurisdictions are permitted to require such developments to comply with adopted
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: 12-13-21 SB9 ODS Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
objective design standards so long as the regulations do not preclude the minimum
allowances per state law. Staff has drafted applicable objective development and design
standards that should be adopted by the Council prior to the law taking effect on
January 1, 2022. The Policy documents can and likely will be modified as needed to
meet the City’s development expectations and to comply with state law which is subject
to additional interpretation.
POLICY DISCUSSION
California Senate Bill 9 (SB9) was signed into law by Governor Newsom on September
16, 2021 and takes effect January 1, 2022. SB9 requires ministerial (staff level building
permit) approval of a proposed housing development containing no more than two
residential units (e.g., duplex) within a single-family residential zone, subject to certain
requirements. The legislation also requires ministerial approval of certain lot splits to
allow property owners to construct up to two units each on the newly created lots. Under
SB9, the City is permitted, but not required, to adopt an ordinance that is not
inconsistent with the new State law. Staff may recommend a future ordinance, but at
this time staff is recommending adoption of an objective design standards policy.
BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2021, the City Council adopted the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and
Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy. The attached draft policy
for 2-unit residential projects largely mirrors that policy but more directly addresses the
smaller scale of residential duplex design. Separately, the attached draft policy for SB9
lot splits highlights requirements of the law and provides additional objective standards
applicable to lot splits, consistent with existing City of Gilroy subdivision standards and
best practices.
Environmental Assessment: The proposed project is exempt from review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65852.21(j) and Section 66411.7(n) relating to implementation of Senate Bi ll
No. 9 and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Commo n Sense
Exemption) and Section 15308 (Regulatory Actions for the Protection of the
Environment) in that: (1) the adoption of objective design standards does not change
applicable zoning and is necessary to implement state law, (2) it can be seen with
certainty that the adoption of the standard will not have a significant environmental
effect, (3) the standards are to protect aesthetic impacts on the physical environment,
and (4) none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2
applies.
ANALYSIS
Currently, the R1 single-family residential zoning district allows one (1) single-family
home, one (1) accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and one (1) junior ADU for a total of thre e
(3) dwelling units. The R1 district currently also allows duplexes when located on a
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: 12-13-21 SB9 ODS Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
corner lot with a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet and where the duplex would not
increase the overall density on the lot beyond 7.25 dwelling units per net acre.
Potential SB9 Development Scenarios: SB9 removes the City’s discretion regarding
duplex development limitations, effectively permitting two (2) units (attached or
detached) on an R1 Single-family residential designated lot in Gilroy, subject to certain
limitations (e.g., not on historic properties or in very high fire sev erity zones). The Santa
Clara County Collaborative is working with their legal counsel and seeking guidance
from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to clarify
the total number of units that would be allowed on a site since the SB9 legislation is not
explicitly clear on how SB9 intersects with state ADU law. However, many cities in
Santa Clara County believe the following scenarios represent what could be allowed on
a single-family property with or without a lot split under SB9.
SB9 Project with Lot Split
Unlike SB9 projects without a lot split (discussed next), SB9 allows, but does not
require, the City to permit ADUs/JADUs in addition to the four (4) SB9 units (two units
for each lot) that would be allowed when a property owner splits one single-family lot
into two developable lots. The City’s current ADU regulations permit a property owner to
construct a duplex and two (2) detached accessory dwelling units for a total of four (4)
dwelling units on “duplex or multifamily zoned and developed properties”. The City may
want to amend Gilroy City Code Section 30.54.50 (Duplex ADU Standards) to clarify
that the provision only applies to “R-2” and multi-family zoned properties (R3 and R4) to
minimize any interpretation that the provision would apply to an R-1 property that is
“developed” with a duplex.
SB9 Lot Split Scenario:
Lot 1
(1) Duplex or (2) detached Primary Dwelling Units
Lot 2
(1) Duplex or (2) detached Primary Dwelling Units
(4) Total Dwelling Units
SB9 Project 2-unit / Duplex Provisions (NO Lot Split)
While the lot split provisions of SB9 (Gov. Code § 66411.7) clearly allow local agencies
to limit total development to two (2) units per new lot, including p rimary dwelling units,
ADUs, and JADUs, the same language is not present in the two-unit (duplex)
development section. As such, most cities have interpreted the law to allow up to four
(4) units on a single-family property.
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: 12-13-21 SB9 ODS Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
NO lot split, 2-Unit/Duplex Scenario:
(1) Duplex or (2) detached Primary Dwelling Units
(1) Accessory Dwelling Unit (attached or detached)
(1) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
(4) Total Housing Units (subject to verification by HCD)
Potential Effect of SB9: A property owner can already develop a single-family property
with up to three (3) units including one (1) single-family home, one (1) accessory
dwelling unit (ADU), and one (1) junior ADU. SB9 effectively permits one (1) additional
dwelling unit. However, while Gilroy has approximately 9,125 R1 single-family
residential lots that would be subject to SB9, UC Berkley's Terner Center has published
a report that states that “relatively few new single-family parcels are expected to
become financially feasible for added units as a direct consequence of this bill”1. The
report states that local market prices, development costs, and physical constraints such
as small lot sizes can limit the number of new homes built under SB9.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could modify the draft policies.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
This staff report and the attached draft policies were drafted by City staff. Other than
attorney fees, no additional funding is needed at this time.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to state law, the City has drafted the Gilroy Duplex Objective Design
Standards Policy and the Gilroy SB9 Parcel Map Lot Split Policy. Given state
requirements for ministerial approval of lot splits and duplex units in single-family
neighborhoods, it is critical to adopt objective development and design standards th at
help ensure that such projects conform to the City’s minimum expe ctations. Explicit
development standards also have the benefit of increasing consistency in decision
making; minimizing applicant delays; better utilizing limited staff resources; and
promoting good design principles that help ensure that Gilroy is an attractive place to
live and visit.
NEXT STEPS
1 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: 12-13-21 SB9 ODS Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
Following the City Council’s adoption of the two policies, staff will post the policies and
Frequently Asked Questions on the City’s website.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notice of the public meeting to consider the draft objective design standards was
published in the Gilroy Dispatch on December 3 rd. The City Council public hearing
packets are available through the City's upcoming meetings webpage.
Attachments:
1. CC Resolution - 2-Unit Objective Design Standards Policy_12-13-21
2. CC Resolution - Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy_12-13-21
3. 2-Unit Residential Objective Design Standards Policy
4. Residential Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy
5. SB8-9-10 Article
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: 12-13-21 SB9 ODS Final CC report (3614 : Housing Policies Update)
Planning Current Project Log 1
City of Gilroy Planning Division - PROPOSED
Dated:1/12/2022
App Type Legend: MA Mills Act Request
A Annexation MM Minor Modification
AS Architectural and Site Review SP Sign Permit
CUP Conditional Use Permit TM Tentative Map
DA Development Agreement TUP Temporary Use Permit
DTSUP Downtown Special Use Permit TR Tree Removal Permit
DUP Downtown Use Permit USA Urban Service Area
GPA General Plan Amendment V Variance
HP Habitat Permit VMD Minor Deviation
M Miscellaneous&PreApplication Z Zoning Amendment
DATE FILED PROJECT #LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION
xx/xx/xxxx DO NOT USE - INSERT NEW LINE BELOW
12/29/2021 AS 21-26 (21120033)850 Holloway Road New 7,137 GSF Packaged Snack Food Warehouse
12/8/2021 AS 21-24 (21120011)Holloway Road New 25,345 SF industrial building
11/30/2021 AS 21-23 (21110042)210 Las Animas
New 7,949 SF industrial, building: approximately 4,975 SF for
endeavour storage offices and wholesale and approximately
3,000 SF for future tenant
11/23/2021 CUP 21-03 6945 Monterey Road #B1 CUP for offsite alcohol sales for Milos market
11/12/2021 AS 21-22 (21110023)8971 Tea Tree Way Hillside single family residence (SFR)
10/21/2021 AS 21-21 (21100031)7251 Camino Arroyo New wireless cellular antenna faciliy on an existing PGE tower
10/13/2021 AS 21-20 (21100021)
Cameron Boulevard and Venture
Way
Two alternative designs for Business Park industrial buildings
on 20 acre site.
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_12.29.2021PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_12.29.2021
8.B
Packet Pg. 227 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Current Project Log 2
10/5/2021 M 21-25 (21100010)108 Chickadee Lane
DRG for mixed-use development with 2,942 GSF of retail and
12 apartment units
9/13/2021 TM 21-05 (21090019)
Club Drive, north of Santa
Teresa Drive
Tentative Map for GLR Palomino II subdivision to create four
single-family lots
9/1/2021
TM 21-04 (21090001); Z 21-05
(21090002); AS 21-17
(21090003); HP 21-12
(21080029)Royal Way
Tentative Map, Zone Change, PUD Architectural & Site
Review, and Habitat Plan Permit for a 45-unit townhouse
project
8/31/2021 AS 21-16 (21080028)8815 Forest Street
Ice cream storage and distribution faciliity consisting of cold
storage, office area annd docking area
8/30/2021 HP 21-12 (21080029)
Club Drive, north of Santa
Teresa Drive
Habitat Plan Permit for the McCutchin Creek, Palomino I and II,
and future Glen Loma Ranch area
7/30/2021 USA 21-01 (21070038)South Gilroy, see APNs USA Amendment (south Gilroy)
7/29/2021 AS 21-13, TM 21-02 6970 Camino Arroyo Five lot development in Gilroy Crossings PUD Phase 2 for
7/22/2021
TM 21-03 (21070015);
Z 21-04 (21070017);
AS 21-14 (21070018)305 Gurries Drive Construct four new two-story townhouses
7/8/2021 MM 21-07 (21060028)2140 Hollyhock LN Riparian setback encroachment CEQA
7/8/2021
CUP 21-02 (21050024)/ AS 21-
10 (21050022)8605 Murray Ave.
Request to establish a dog boarding facility and caretaker unit
in the Murray-Las Animas overlay district.
6/23/2021 M 21-15 (21060025)No Address Holloway Rd. DRG pre-application to develop vacant industrial lot
6/16/2021 AS 21-12 (21060013)7231 Eagle Ridge Dr
One-story single family residence with basement; includes
5,975 GSF of living space & 2,315 GSF of garage space.
4/21/2021 AS 21-06 (21040021)2031 Portmarnock Way New 3,649 sf single family residence in the hillside
1/1/2021 GP 22-01 Citywide Housing Element 2023-2031
1/1/2021 M 20-05 Citywide SB 330 Compliance Checklist
1/1/2021 M 21-03 Citywide 2021 Gen Plan and Housing Progress Report (Due 4-1-22)
1/1/2021 M 21-06 Citywide Parklet policy
G:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Applications\_APPLICATION LOGS\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_12.29.2021PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_12.29.2021
8.B
Packet Pg. 228 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Current Project Log 3
11/16/2020 AS20-23; M 20-12 (20070016)8000 Camino Arroyo Data Center
10/23/2020 AS 20-21 (20100021), CUP 20-Camino Arroyo Distribution facility project proposing development of 59-acres
9/29/2020 AS 20-18 (20100002)
GLR Specific Plan; Northeast of
Santa Teresa & West of Miller
Architectural & Site review for the 40-unit multi-family Malvasia
neighborhood
9/29/2020 AS 20-19 (20100003)
GLR Specific Plan; Northeast of
Santa Teresa & West of Miller
Architectural & Site review for the 34-unit multi-family Rocky
Knoll neighborhood.
9/29/2020
TM 20-05 (20090053) / AS 20-
18 (20100002) / AS 20-19
(20100003)
GLR Specific Plan; Northeast of
Santa Teresa & West of Miller
Tentative Map for Glen Loma Ranch 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.
3/1/2020 M 19-23 Citywide Mills Act Program - Ordinance, site visits, annual reports
01/21/20
AS 20-02 (20010012)
TM 20-01 (20010014) 395 Lewis Street Proposed four lot subdivision and residences
09/24/19 M 19-10 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan
Traffic study for Tenth Street Bridge Construction/Modification
to consider elimination of bridge requirement
08/02/18 M 18-18 (#18080001)Citywide Special Events Permit/Temporary Use Permit Policy
06/27/18 M 21-10 Citywide Historical Resource Inventory (additions, removals)
05/04/18
AS 18-09 (18050017)
Z 18-04 (18050018)Automall Pkwy. Zoning Amendment - Sign Ordinance -Electronic Billboard
09/04/16 Z 17-02 (#17030053)North of Santa Teresa Blvd Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan update
08/25/16 AS 16-33 (#16080044)W. Luchessa and Miller Ave.New Glen Loma Ranch Fire Station
12/02/15
GPA 15-02 (#15120002),
Z 15-12 (#15120004)Downtown
High Speed Rail Station Area Plan - Reactivation of project
Contract w HSRA expirs 12/21
9/28/2015
Z 15-03 (includes Z 20-02
(20060030), Z 15-16 Citywide
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update & Admin Draft
Zoning Map (Concurrent w GP 2040 GPA 13-02 Project),
G:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Applications\_APPLICATION LOGS\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_12.29.2021PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_12.29.2021
8.B
Packet Pg. 229 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Current Project Log 4
11/26/12
A 12-01 (#12110049)
Z 12-09 (#12110052)Vickery & Kern Avenues Annexation of 5.46 acres and prezone to Neighborhood District
7/17/12
USA 14-02 (#14070058),
USA 12-01 (#12070023)Vickery & Kern Avenues
Urban Service Area amendment to incorporate of 55.66+/-
acres into Gilroy’s Urban Service Area (USA)
G:\COMDEV\PLANNING\Applications\_APPLICATION LOGS\PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_12.29.2021PLANNING CURRENT PROJECT LOG_12.29.2021
8.B
Packet Pg. 230 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 5
City of Gilroy Planning Division - APPROVED PROJECTS
Dated:1/12/2022
APPROVED PROJECT #LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION
12/22/2021 AS 21-25 (21120023)NE corner of 7th and Eigleberry
New 138-stall surface parking lot (municipal parking)
and removal of existing demonstration garden
11/3/2021 AS 21-18 (21090018)7511 Carmel St.Addition to an Historic site
11/1/2021 TUP 21-06 (21090048)7300 Monterey Road Camino Coffee Temporary Use Permit (See AS 19-16)
10/6/2021 TUP 21-08 (21090059)1505 Hurka Way TUP for GLR Model Home
10/4/2021
AS 20-14 (20070017), TM 20-
03 (20070020), Z 20-04
(20070021)
450 9th Street, at the northeast
corner of Tenth and Chestnut
Streets
Chestnut Center carwash, three drive through
restaurants, convenience store, gas station and 100+
room hotel on 6.9 acres
10/1/2021 TUP 21-07 (21090058)6361 Paysar Lane TUP for GLR Model Home
9/21/2021 AS 21-11 (21060004)2354 Banyan Ct New Hillside residence
9/17/2021
AS 20-20 (20090052) / TM
20-06 (20090050) / Z 20-
06(20090049)9130 & 9160 Kern Avenue
Cottages at Kern 29-lot residential planned unit
subdivision on 3.61 acres by DR Horton
8/27/2021
AS 21-15 (See also AS 18-
03 (#18010024), Z 18-01,
TM 18-01)Hecker Pass and Autumn Way
Hoey North 72 unit residential planned development on
22.44 acres site on the north side of Hecker Pass
Highway
Description: This log contains major planning projects approved but not implemented (e.g., pending issuance of building permits,
construction or occupancy). This information is maintained for tracking, CEQA and traffic modeling. Most planning approvals initially are
valid for 1 year (2 years for subdivisions), and shall expire if not implemented or granted an extension. Contact the planning division at
PlanningDivision@CityofGilroy.org or call (408) 8 46-0440 if you have any questions regarding this information. NOTE: Gilroy City Council
extended projects set to expire during the COVID SIP period to May 31, 2021 and the state further granted an 18-month extension for
residential projects in effect prior to March 4, 2020 and set to expire prior to December 31, 2021 (Government Code, Section 65914.5).
Thus, all residential project approvals due to expire May 31, 2021 were extended to November 30, 2022.
8.B
Packet Pg. 231 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 6
8/19/2021 AS 21-09 7811 Miller Ave Backyard Cabana
6/23/2021 AS 21-04 (321030026)9145 Tea Tree Wy New 5,931sf single family residence in the hillside
6/21/2021 TM 20-08 6605 Chestnut
Subdviding one 9-acre lot into three 3-acre commercial
lots
5/24/2021 AS 20-15 (20090030)5935 & 5975 Rossi
New Industrial building to expand existing Silva
Sausage operation.
5/24/2021 AS 21-08 (21040057)2030 Portmarnock Way New 4,398 sf single family residence in the hillside
5/22/2021 VMD 21-01 (21040031)565 Rossi Court New metal picket fence with gate
4/14/2021 AS 21-05 (21040017)2331 Hoya Lane
New 3,785 sf single family residence in the hillside.
Permit 21100011 submitted 10/4/21
4/8/2021 AS 20-17 (20090039)305 Gurries Gurries two new duet units and two ADU's
3/17/2021 AS 21-03 8340 Wintergreen Court Construction of new 3,830 sf single family residence
3/12/2021
AS 20-10 (20060031) / Z 20-
03 (20060030)1520 Hecker Pass Highway
Jemcor Developmetn 100 affordable units SW corner
Hecker Pass @ S. Teresa
3/9/2021 TUP 21-03 KB Home TUP for Malvasia Model Home Complex
3/9/2021 TUP 21-04 KB Home TUP for Nebbiolo Model Home Complex
3/9/2021 TUP 21-05 KB Home TUP for Town Center Model Home Complex
2/2/2021 AS 21-01 (#21020005)8805 Forest
New 11,868 sf Industrial Shell Building in the industrial
M1-MA Overlay
1/5/2021 ZC 21-01 (2101001 6700 Bram Lane Replace 6 antennas and add 3
12/21/2020 A/S 20-24 (20110003)
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
12/3/2020 TM 20-02, HP 21-01 301 & 303 E Tenth St
Lot Split 303 E Tenth for O'Reilly Building, new 7ksf
autoparts store (See also AS 19-14)
9/21/2020 AS 20-16 (20090034)7121 Monterey
New Canopy, repainting of primary building, and re-
striping of parking lot.-Mariscos Permit 21010058.
Extension to 9/3/21
07/29/20
AS 19-17 TM 19-01 (See
Also Z 19-03)95 Farrell Avenue
Subdividing single 43,592 SF lot into 4 single family
lots. 3 will be 6,694 SF parcels and one will be a 15,710
flag parcel.
8.B
Packet Pg. 232 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 7
07/17/20 AS 20-04 (20020013)7533, 7530, 7539 Monterey
Retro-fitting of historic URM building. Proposal for
mixed-use building with (3) restaurants and (3)
residential units. Extension request anticipated July
2021
5/18/2020 AS 20-07 (20050016) 6805Silacci Way
New Office / Warehouse buildings. Reference M 20-01
for DRG pre-application file.
2/18/2020 AS 20-05 (20020025)2202 Columbine
New 5,574 square foot home with a 720 square foot
attached garage.
1/17/20 AS 20-01 6585 Eagle Ridge Court
Construct a new 5 bed, 5.5 bath, 2 story, 4312 sq. ft.
single family residence, with attached 3 car accessory
garage.
12/31/19 AS 19-27 (19120038)7880 Monterey
Demolition of Fosters and the construction of a new
dentist office in the downtown expansion district.- SEE
MM 21-06 (21060007) Amended Approval
12/11/19 AS 19-26 (19120012)1870 Carob Court
New 4,862 sq. ft. hillside residence with 1,349 sq. ft.
lower level garage.
11/27/19 AS 19-23 (19110032)7797 Monterey
Architectural remodel for a beer garden and brew house
in a historic home.
11/27/19 CUP 19-01 (19110033)7797 Monterey
Conditional Use Permit for a beer garden and brew
house in a historic home.
10/16/19 AS 19-22 Foxglove Court Single-family hillside home
10/15/19 AS 19-21 7648 Monterey Re-roofing and rollup door replacement at boxing gym
09/04/19 AS 19-16 (19090002)7300 Monterey
Convert gas station to 40 seat coffee shop (indoor and
outdoor seating area)
06/28/19
AS 19-14 (19060034)
VMD 19-01 E 10th Street
O'Reilly Auto Parts 7,000 sf store with reduced street
sideyard setback along Chestnut Street. (See Also TM
20-02, HP 21-01)
06/24/19 MM 19-08 (#19060027)Obata Way
Extension of approval AS17-23 (expires 7/20/20) - New
warehouse for steel construction company
05/06/19 M 18-29 Monterey Road Sports Complex Phase 3
04/02/19 AS 19-09 (19040007)2281 Banyan Court Single Family Hillside Home
8.B
Packet Pg. 233 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 8
03/20/19 AS 19-07 (1903038)7888 Monterey
Mixed use 3-story bld. 2 commercial "live/work" units +
10 residential units, ground level parking
03/13/19 AS 19-06 (19030026)1975 Saffron Court Single Family Hillside Home
03/05/19 AS 19-05 (190030013)Winter Green Court Single Family Hillside Home
1/7/2019
AS 16-19 (#16080053)
Z 17-03 (#16080006)8955 Monterey
78-unit apartment complex with 9 lower income units
and 4,600 sf commercial space
11/21/18 AS 18-34 (#18110037)9025 Mimosa Court Single Family Hillside Home
11/05/18 TM 16-02 (#16050031)Thomas Lane TM for subdividing 14 single-family residential lots.
10/19/18 AS 18-29 (#18100050)Banyon Street
Single Family Hillside Home. Permit 19030021
submitted.
10/09/18
AS 18-26 (18100023)
CUP 18-05 (#18100024)Monterey
Building and site improvements for Sumano's
commercial bakery
09/20/18 AS 18-22 (#18090026)Foxglove Court Single-Family Hillside Home
09/14/18 AS 18-21 (#18090018)Wild Iris Drive
Single-Family Hillside Home (Building Permit
#19010165). Grading only issued 19100040
09/06/18 AS 18-20 (#18090005)
Southeast corner of Santa Teresa
Blvd and 1st St Architectural modification for 202 townhome units
08/27/18 AS 18-19 (#18080070)1st Street
New 4,016 s.f. commercial building with drive-through
BP 19050180 - BP 19090134 90 day extension
requested (7/2021)
8/26/2018 TM 18-01 and AS 18-03 Hecker Pass/Autumn Drive
Hecker Pass North Cluster - approval expires Nov 2022
per CC extensions.
06/18/18 AS 13-35 & TM 13-11 Santa Teresa Blvd and First St
202 Unit Townhouse Development - Time Extension No
2 (CC Reso 2018-21)
06/11/18 TM 18-02 (#18060015)
North of Santa Teresa, east of
Syrah Dr, and west of Miller Ave.
Subdivision of three Glen Loma Ranch neighborhoods;
Nebbiolo – 103 residential lots, Malvasia – 46 compact
residential lots and The Glen – 23 residential lots.
8.B
Packet Pg. 234 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 9
01/25/18 TM 13-03 (#13040049)
SW of Santa Teresa, S of
Ballybunion/S.Teresa
TM 13-03 Time Extension for Kroeger Subdivision: Six
SFR lots, three open space parcels, and a private street
12/14/17 AS 17-37 (#17120021)
Glen Loma Ranch Town Center
BMR Site BMR Apartments Affordable housing policy exception
10/25/17 AS 17-34 2282 Gunnera Single-Family Hillside Home - Expires 11/30/22
01/26/17 AS 17-02 (#17010029)2475 Hecker Pass Commercial and residential mixed use in HPSD
12/21/16 TM 16-01 Glen Loma Ranch Subdivision for 59 SFR Lots (McCutchin and Palomino)
08/09/16 AS 16-29 8745 Wild Iris Drive New Hillside residence
1/12/2016 AS 14-39 (#14100010)1645 Anson
Subdivision for 6 single-family homes and an 8,600 SF
common open space area - 2 homes remain active
applied status; Permits 16010039, 16030202
8.B
Packet Pg. 235 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 10
City of Gilroy Planning Division - UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Dated:1/12/2022
ISSUED PROJECT #LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION
2/4/2021
AS 20-09 (20050041) /
CUP 20-01 (20050042)8900 Murray
Murray self storage facility expansion with addition of
new two-story building.
01/06/21
AS 19-12 (19050022)
HP 17-02 (#17070020)
First Street and Kern
Avenue
Jemcor Development four-story 120-unit apartment on
3.4 acre R-4 zoned lot. Permits Issued
11/20/20 AS 19-04 (19030004)7851 Eigleberry Street Adolfo second dwelling; Bldg Permit #19040112
6/25/20 AS 15-37 (#15100042)7320, 7330, 7340 Monterey
Renovation of a downtown URM building. Approved
5/26/17
04/03/20 AS 20-03 (20010033)1505 Welburn Avenue Residential hillside home second floor addition
3/15/2020 AS 20-06 (20030015)Monterey
Vines and Pints building façade modifications in DHD
district.
10/17/19 AS 15-34 (#15100018)360-380 Obata Way
Two industrial lots -- construction storage yards.
Grading permit 18030094 issued 10/17/19
10/04/19 AS 19-20 165 Martin Street Historic Restoration of Single Family Home
09/24/19 AS 19-18 1500 Southside DR
SCRWA Maintenance Facility Upgrades, no expansion
of use
Description: Major planning projects permitted for construction (e.g., building permits issued and pending construction or
occupancy). This information is maintained for tracking, CEQA and traffic modeling. Most planning approvals initially are valid for 1
year (2 years for subdivisions), and shall expire if not implemented or granted an extension. Contact the planning division at
PlanningDivision@CityofGilroy.org or call (408) 8 46-0440 if you have any questions regarding this information.
8.B
Packet Pg. 236 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 11
08/05/19 AS 19-15 9005 Mimosa Court
New single story 3,145 square foot hillside home with
709 square foot garage.
06/27/19 AS 19-13 (19060033)1905 Saffron Court
New swimming pool and retaining walls Hillside zone.
Permti issued P19050179
06/07/19
MM 19-17
(BP#19010082)8797 Monterey
Alpine Landscapes relocation from Murray Ave area to
existing vacant commercial/light industrial building and
site.
04/19/19 AS 19-11 (19040026)8350 Winter Green Court Single Family Hillside Home
04/05/19 AS 19-10 (#19040011)6455 Automall Pkwy.
Filtrexx new 3,250 sq. ft. freestanding metal canopy.
Building Permit #19080090
12/19/18 AS 18-35 (18120021)660 Birdsong Street Addition of 963 sq.ft to existing residence in an R1 PUD
11/07/18 AS 18-32 (#18110014)8950 Mimosa Court Single Family Hillside Home
10/16/18 AS 18-27 (#18100043)Forest Street
New 11,796 Sq.Ft Industrial Building (Building Permit
#19100106)
10/08/18
AS 18-25 (#18100020)
and TM 16-03
(#16080041)Miller Ave. & Santa Teresa
Blanc and Noir (formerly the Grove) neighborhood in
Glen Loma Ranch: 113 single-famiy dwelling units
09/11/18 M 18-25 (#18090009)Citywide Land Management System (LMS) Acquisition
08/16/18 AS 18-16 (#18080044)Syrah Court
Burgundy (Formerly Home Ranch) Neighborhood in
Glen Loma Ranch: 52 single-family detached homes
08/16/18 AS 18-17 (#18080045)
S of Solorsano Middle
School; E of Santa Teresa
Margaux (Formerly Montonico) Neighborhood in Glen
Loma Ranch: 84 single-family detached homes
08/09/18 AS 18-14 (#18080026)Merlot Drive
Provence (Formerly Wild Chestnut) Neighborhood in
Glen Loma Ranch: 43 single-family detached homes
8.B
Packet Pg. 237 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 12
05/04/18 AS 18-10 (#18050024)1981 Lavender Way New 3,715 sq. ft. Single-Family Hillside Home
03/14/18 AS 17-19 (#17040037)8735 Wild Iris Drive
Single-Family Hillside Home. P18030015 Issued
10/11/18
03/07/18 AS 17-18 Gurries New 2,846 sf duplex on R3 zone parcel
02/01/18 AS 18-05 (#18020002)
E of Miller btwn Santa
Teresa & Luchessa
Glen Loma Ranch private park with trail, dog park, and
other amentities.
01/17/18 AS 18-04 8955 Mimosa Ct.New 4,418 sf Hillside home.
12/15/17 AS 17-37 (#17120021)Santa Teresa Blvd New 158-unit apartment project in Glen Loma Ranch
10/25/17 DUP 17-03 (#17100049)7373 Monterey Lonely Oak Brewery. P18040068
10/13/17 AS 16-30 7430 Sunningdale Way Hillside residence
04/03/17 AS 17-16 (#17040001)Hollyhock Lane Single-Family Hillside Home. Building Permit 18040102
03/30/17 AS 17-15 (#17030085)6545 Eagle Ridge
Proposed single-family hillside residential
development on 16-lot subdivision in Eagle Ridge;
Permit 18110019, 26, 27 and 29 issued for retaining
wall, temporary power and fire sprinkler
03/21/17 AS 17-13 (#17030062)1820 Carob Court
Single-Family Hillside Home. Permits18040085 &
19030092 issued for ADU
03/09/17 AS 17-11 2185 Hollyhock New 4,878 sf Hillside residence
03/07/17 AS 17-09 9010 Tea Tree Way New 4,000 sf Hillside residence
02/07/17 AS 17-05 2242 Columbine New 5,027sf Hillside Residence
8.B
Packet Pg. 238 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Approved Project Log 13
02/06/17 AS 17-04 205 Mayock Road
Addition of 10,000 sf to industrial building. Building
Permit 17080178
10/25/16 AS 16-47 (#16100026)Wild Iris Drive Single Family Hillside Home. Permit 18030127
09/04/16
AS 17-12 (#17030051)
TM 17-01 (#17030052)North of Santa Teresa Blvd
Tentative Maps for Glen Loma Ranch Town Center
Multi-Family Area 125-unit townhomes
8.B
Packet Pg. 239 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Completed Development Log 14
City of Gilroy Planning Division - COMPLETED/EXPIRED
Dated:1/12/2022
FINISHED PROJECT #LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION
11/29/21 M 21-27 (21100026)700 W 6th Street
DRG for 19 single family residences and a new cul-de-
sac
10/25/21 TUP 21-10 (21100039)500 Automall Drive Tesla Temporary office trailer for use during construction
10/12/2021 TUP 21-09 7151 Camino Arroyo Lowe's TUP for Christmas Trees
7/15/2021 M 21-14 (21060010)7760 Monterey Road DRG Preapp for four story mixed use building
07/01/21 AS 16-25 (#16060050)Silacci Way
New 91,045 SF for contractor truck parking and
equipment yard. Build Permit 19020025 applied 2/5/19 -
EXPIRED IN PLAN CHECK 7/1/2021
07/01/21 AS 14-38 Eagle Ridge
Hillside residence (Bldg Permit 17050137) - EXPIRED IN
PLAN CHECK 7/1/2021
05/13/21
CUP 21-01 (also TUP 21-
01)681 Leavesly Outlets Farmers Market @ Outlets parking lot
4/21/2021
AS 21-07 (21040029) -
Withrdrawn 7273 Eigleberry
Multi-family four new units attached to existing house.
Withdrawn. Pursuing ADUs Only
03/05/21 AS 15-38 2241 Columbine Hillside residence
01/13/21 AS 16-39 1980 Lavender Way Hillside residence
01/07/21 M 21-01 (21010002 3050 Hecker Pass Gilroy Garlic Festival Special Event for 2021
07/29/20
AS 17-25 (#17070046)
Z18-05 (18080018)
1405 1st Street and Kelton
Avenue
New 12,000 sf commercial center in C3 PUD.
P18120128,29,30 etc
Description: This list covers activities and development that have been completed within the past two years (e.g., built, expired or
completed). Projects will be removed once they are and accounted for in the City Traffic Model (i.e. occupied or expired for at least 1
year). Contact staff at PlanningDivision@CityofGilroy.org or call (408) 846-0440 if you have any questions regarding this information.
8.B
Packet Pg. 240 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)
Planning Completed Development Log 15
6/29/2020 AS 20-11 (20060035)Monterey Alpine Landscaping Remodel of Existing Site
05/14/20 AS 18-18 (#18080051)255 Mayock Road
New 16,340 s.f industrial warehouse building-
APPROVAL EXPIRED 5-14-20
5/1/2020 M 20-19 Citywide Outdoor Dining Registrations (ongoing)
11/27/19 AS 19-24 (19110035)10 West 7th Street
Remodel of an existing commercial building, EXPIRED
10/9/21
11/05/19 AS 16-26 2261 Mantelli Drive Hillside residence with an ADU
12/19/18 AS 17-35 (#17100050)Strawberry Lane
Hillside Home (Bldg Permit #19060072) - EXPIRED IN
PLAN CHECK
7/1/2021 TM 21-01 405 Las Animas Ave.Two lot split of a 2.54 acre lot
10/29/21 M 21-28( 21100030)710 Renz Lane DRG Pre-application review for a new hotel building
8.B
Packet Pg. 241 Communication: Current Project Log (INFORMATIONAL ITEMS)