Loading...
Sports Park - USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR1 Y Y GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 98 -03 SUBSEQUENT FINAL EIR SCH# 1998102079 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Planning Division February 2002 GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 98 -03 SUBSEQUENT FINAL EIR SCH# 1998102079 PREPARED FOR City of Gilroy Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Contact: Cydney Casper 408.846.0440 PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 emcgroup @emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.com February 2002 1.0 Introduction The City of Gilroy, acting as lead agency, determined that the proposed addition of ' 140.21 acres to its Urban Service Area, (hereinafter "proposed project ") may result in ,i significant adverse environmental effects, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15064. Therefore the City of Gilroy determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared to evaluate the potentially —i significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. The City of Gilroy certified the Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Service Area Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 1998102079) on June 7, 1999. The certified EIR was prepared using the existing Gilroy General Plan land use designations for the project site. The City of Gilroy is in the process of adopting an updated general plan. The Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan includes changes in the land use designation for some of the parcels included in the USA amendment request. These parcels were evaluated in the certified EIR with an OPEN SPACE designation but are designated RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. The City of Gilroy applied to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) for the addition of the project site to the City's USA. Because of the probable upcoming changes to the general plan land use designations for the project site, LAFCO required further environmental analysis based on the expected new designations. The Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (Subsequent Draft EIR) was prepared, and circulated for public review on April 11, 2000. The public review period ended on Thursday, May 25, 2000. CEQA Guidelines section 15200 indicates that the purposes of the public review process include sharing expertise, disclosing agency analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns and soliciting counter proposals. The Gilroy Urban Services Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR (Subsequent Final EIR) has been prepared to address comments received during the public review period and, together with the Subsequent Draft EIR, constitutes the Gilroy Urban Services Area Amendment 98 -03 EIR. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 -1 1.0 introduction Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Supplemental Final EIR Overview The following is a brief overview of the organization of this Subsequent Final EIR. It is intended to inform the reader how this document was prepared and presented, and to identify the general contents within. Section I contains an introduction to the Subsequent Final EIR well as this overview. Section 2 contains written comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR, as well as the responses to those comments. No oral comments were submitted. Section 3 contains a revised summary of the Subsequent Draft EIR, identifying the changes in the impacts and mitigation measures resulting from comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR. Section 4 contains the revisions to the text of the Subsequent Draft EIR resulting from comments on the Subsequent Draft EIR. 1 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. 2.0 Response to Comments CEQA Guidelines section 15132(c) requires that the Subsequent Final EIR contain a list 1 of persons, organizations, _and public agencies who have commented on the Subsequent' Draft EIR. A list of the correspondence received during the public review period is presented below. CEQA Guidelines section 15132(b) and 15132(d) requires that the Final EIR contain the comments that raise significant environmental points in the review and consultation process, and written response to those comments. A copy of each correspondence received during the public review period is presented on the following pages. Numbers along the left -hand side of the letter identify each comment. A response to each comment that raises a significant environmental point is presented immediately following the letter. Where required, revisions have been made to the text of the Subsequent Draft EIR based on the responses to comments, and these are included in Section 4, Changes to the Draft EIR Text. The following correspondence was received during the 45 -day public review period, which ended on May 25, 2000. 1. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department (Roads and Airports) (May 1, 2000); 2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (May 22, 2000); Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (May 23, 2000); 4. County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (May 24, 2000); 5. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) (May 25, 2000). Table 1 summarizes the significant environmental issues raised in each letter. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -1 2:0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR TABLE 1 Response to Comments Summary by Topic Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Commenter Draft EIR Topic Roads and Airports Caltrans VTA SCVWD LAFCO No Environmental Comment 'Project Description g ' Policy Consistency g Adequacy of Mitigation X EIR Uses Aesthetics Agricultural Resources g Air Quality Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Geology Hydrology and Flooding X Noise Public Services Utilities Transportation /Circulation X X X Cumulative Impacts Alternatives Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. County of Santa Clara Roads end Airports Department Land Development Services 101 skyport Drtm San Jose,CaWomla ss O-GOz May 1, 2000 Mr. B rice P er I Community Development City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 RECEIVED MAY 3 2000 Gilroy Planning Div, Subject; USA 98- 03— Gilroy Sports Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. Slice: Your letter dated April 7, 2000 along with the Draft Environmental Report for the subject project has been reviewed. Our comments are as follows: 1. Items 2, 3, and 4 from.our previous letter dated March 8, 1999 are not addressed in this Draft EIR. 30% of the project traffic is using (Fig. 22) Santa Teresa and Thomas Road intersection, but EIR does not analyze it (Item 2). 2. Please submit Level of Service calculation using'IRAPFr13L Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject project. If you have any questions, please call me at 573 -2464. Sin ly, R c Nitescu Project Engineer RN:rtj Attachment: Letter dated 03/08/99; cc: SK, RVE, File Board of0aaeryisors: Donald P. Galva Blanca Aklarad0. Pete MCHUgh. James T. Bean, Jr, S. Joseph Simitlan Count4,xccutivc Huard wittenborg P %,V"uVj WA V[IAILlA �A4Aa Roads and Airports Department Land Development Services 101 Skypott.Drive San Jose, California 95110 March 8, 1999 Mr. Bryan Stice Engineering Division City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Subject: USA 98 -03 — Gilroy Sport Park Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Stice: Your Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February 11, 1999 for the subject project has been reviewed. We have the following comments. I- Please submit the Traffic Impact Report ('TIR) reference mentioned on Pages 2-47 and 2-48. . 2. The project needs to analyze Level of Service (LOS) at the intersections. of Thomas Road/Santa Teresa Blvd. and Miller Avenue /Santa Teresa Blvd. 3. Table 9, Page 2 -64 lists the Level of Service .(LOS) as "F" for Saturday peak for Phase V„ but on Page 2 -76 under "Significant Impact" the LOS is listed as "E ". Please let us know which one is right. 4. The LOS for Phase VI and VII is listed "F', but no analysis is performed. The delay under Phase V is 45 seconds and it is mitigated by a proposed signal. The delay for Phase VI and VII is 117 seconds. Is any mitigation proposed for these two Phases. Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gave, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall, Jr., S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Richard Wittenberg Mr. Bryan Stice Page 2 March 8, 1999 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please call me at 573 -2464 if you have any questions. Since ly Ralf a Niteseu Project Engineer RN:rtj cc: S. Kandah File 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 9 8-03 Subsequent Final EIR This side intentionally left blank. 2-6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR 2.0 Response to Comments Response to the Letter from County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department (May 1, 2000) 1. A revised traffic impact analysis (TIA), using updated traffic counts, was prepared for the proposed project by Fehr and Peers Associates in January 2002. The text and exhibits of the revised TIA are included in Appendix A. The calculation tables are available for review at the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. (Item 2 from March 8, 1999 letter) The revised TIA includes an analysis. of the intersection of Thomas Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard. The intersection operates at LOS C under existing conditions, and would continue to operate at LOS C at project build -out conditions and cumulative conditions. The geometry of the intersection of Thomas Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard has been improved, and signal lights added, with funding from the City of Gilroy and the developer of the Eagle Ridge residential development. (Item 3 from March 8, 1999 letter) There was an error in the Draft EIR prepared in February 1999. This was corrected in the Final EIR, prepared in April 1999. (Item 4 from March 8, 1999 letter) This comment was addressed in the Final EIR prepared in April 1999. Mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR for other identified impacts also mitigated the Phase VI and Phase VII impacts to a less than significant level. 2. LOS calculations were prepared using TRAFFIX modeling software. The complete TIA, including the calculation tables, has been forwarded to Roads and Airports, and is also available for review at the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POBOX2300 Fz9=10) ft X"Ra TOO 610)&764461 May 22, 2000 SCI. - 101 -5.26 1998102079 SCLI01599 Mr. Bryan Stice City of Gilroy, Planning Division 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Mr. Slice: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Gilroy Sports Park, City of Gilroy Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the proposed Gilroy Sports Park project. We have examined the D$IR and offer the following comments: L Detailed calculation for all analyses should be included in the DJ3M 2. Freeway segments and ramps on US 101 should be analyzed for traffic weaving and level of service (LOS) under all conditions for both AM and PM peak periods. 3. Queuing analysis and vehicle storage lengths for the Monterey Street at Luchessa Avenue end Monterey Frontage Road intersectiowand US 101 southbound and northbound ramps should be provided. 4. Please explain how the trips generated by the proposed project will be distributed over various phases of construction. The DEIR should also specify the number of trips generated during each construction phase. 5. After implementing all relevant mitigation measures, please provide . the LOS for the intersections on Monterey Street at Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Frontage Road., Sryau Stim, City of Gamy/SCLtOLM Muy 22, 2000 Pap 2 Should you require further information or have. any questions regarding this letter, please call Haiyan prang of my staff at (510) 622 -1641. -- Sincerely, (LARRY Y. YAHATA District Director "! BY !�,1n JEAN C, R. FINNEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c; Katie Sfiulte, State Clearinghouse 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR Response to the Letter from California Department of Transportation (May 22, 2000) 1. LOS calculations were prepared using TRAFFIX modeling software. The complete TIA, including the calculation tables, has been forwarded to Caltrans, and is also available for review at the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. 2. The revised TIA includes an analysis of level of service on the U.S. Highway 101 segments and ramps. The freeway segments would operate at LOS B and LOS C at project conditions. According to the traffic engineer, there are no weaving sections on the studied segments of U.S. Highway 101. The TIA was prepared in accordance with VTA requirements. VTA does not require a cumulative level analysis of freeway segments. 3. The revised TIA includes an analysis of queuing and vehicle storage lengths at six locations, including the four U.S. Highway 101 ramps, and two locations along Monterey Road. While vehicle queuing would extend beyond the left tam pockets on north bound Monterey Road at Monterey Frontage Road and at Luchessa Avenue under unmitigated project conditions, with mitigation measures presented in the Subsequent Draft EIR, this situation would be mitigated to a less than significant level. There would be no impacts from queuing at the U.S. Highway 101 ramps. 4. Figure 21 on page 2 -91 summarizes the project trip generation for each phase of the sports park, and for both the commercial and residential components of the proposed project. Because there are no specific development projects proposed for the commercial and residential components of the proposed project, it in not possible to assign trips associated with those components to a particular time frame. The sports park is expected to be built during a 20 -year period, but the timeframe for build -out of the commercial and residential components is unknown. For purposes of the TIA, it is assumed that build -out of the commercial and residential components would occur within 20 years. Construction- generated traffic would be spread out over at least a 20- year timeframe, with only relatively small portions of the sports park developed at any given time. Construction traffic would be a small portion of overall traffic generated by the proposed project during the approximately 20 -year build -out timeframe. 5. At project build- out, with mitigation incorporated, the intersection of Monterey Road and Luchessa Avenue, and the intersection of Monterey Road and Monterey Frontage Road would both operate at LOS C during the peak periods. 2 -10 EMC Planning Group Inc. �f A n I A C l A A A Valley Transportation Authority May 23, 2000 City of Gilroy . Department of Community Development 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 -6141 Attention: Bryan Stce, Planner I RECEIVED MAY 2 5 2000 Gilroy planning Div, Subject: Gilroy Sports Park Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Draft Dear Mr. Slice: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Draft (DSEIR) for the development of the Gilroy Sports Park, a 133.2 -acre sports park accommodating a variety of activities, at the southwest corner of Thomas Road and I3ighway 101. We have the following comments. On November 20, 1998, April 2, 1999 and May 10, 1999, VTA staff commented on the first NOP, Draft EIR and Final EIR for this project. Then on January 12, 2000, we commented on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent EIR for this project. j . Existing Transit Service On Page 2-82, the DSEIR identifies Route X 7A as a bus route currently operating within one -half mile of the project site. References to Route 17A should be deleted from the DSEIR as the route was discontinued effective January 2000 due to low ridership. The other bus route identified in the DSEIR, Route 68, continues to operate on Princevalle Street, West Luchessa Avenue and Thomas Road, north and west of the project site. The nearest bus stops are approximately one -half mile walldng distance from the northern edge of the sports complex. 2. In the section discussing consistency with Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission Policies on Page 1 -51, the DSEIR, notes that "The Santa Clam Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation at the project site. " With the nearest bus stops about one -half mile away, service is just outside the range of being within comfortable walking distance of the project. Therefore, the language should be changed to "The Santa Clam Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation in the vicinity of the project site. " Currently, VTA has no plans to provide transit services directly to or adjacent to the project site. . 3331 North First Street • Son Jose, CA 95134 -1906 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300 3 City of Gilroy May 23, 2000 Page 2 On Page 2 -85, the SDEIR states that `A sidewalk is provided along the north side of West Luchmsa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. Sidewalks are not provided along Monterey Frontage Road or Monterey Road." To allow patrons of the project to safely and conveniently access the nearest existing bus stops on Thomas Road, VTA staff recommend that the City also consider providing a sidewalk along the south side of Thomas Road. The sidewalk could connect with the Uvas Creek Trail, which will be extended by the project, to create a continuous pedestrian and bicycle pathway from the sports complex to the bus stops. 1.+. Design Wements As the design of the project continues, .VTA staff urge the City to ensure that urban design for this and other related projects in the area feature the following elements: • Narrow local streets with sidewalks which directly connect the neighborhood, commercial areas and sports park. This allows residents to access the park and commercial areas by car, foot or bike without burdening the regional transportation network • A local street network that could accommodate efficient delivery of transit services. • Building design in which parking garages and lots are not the prominent feature facing the streets. • A network of walking and biking paths that connect the sports park, the neighborhood and commercial services. Buildings that front the streets with small setbacks. This creates a pedestrian - friendly environment We appreciate the opportunity to review this project and request that future plans and additional information about this project be forwarded to VTA for review and comment. As noted.in our previous letters, we are still considering the possibility of bringing bus service to the sports park. VTA staff would like to work with City and project staffs on this possibility. If you have any questions, please call Lauren Bobadilla of my staff at (408) 321 -5776. Sincerely, Derek A. Kantar Environmental Program Manager DAK:LGB:kh cc: Roy Molseed, VTA Senior Enviromental Analyst Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR 20 Response to Comments Response to the Letter from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (May 23, 2000) 1. The comment is noted. The reference to Route 17A will be deleted. ' 2. The comment is noted. The text-will be changed to reflect this information. 3. With development of the parcels fronting on Luchessa Avenue (formerly Thomas Road), sidewalks would be installed, consistent with the City of Gilroy street improvement standards. 4. The comment is noted. Additional environmental review will be required at the time that specific development proposals are submitted to the City. The Revised Draft General Plan contains policies aimed at achieving many of the project designs recommended in this comment. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -13 County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission county Government center. East wing - 70 west Hedding street, 10th Floor San Jose. California 95110 (408) 299.2424 FAX 298 -1813 Autumn Arias, Execullve Director RECEIVED MAY 31 2000 may 24,2000 Gilroy Planning Div, Melissa Durkin, Planner City of Gilroy Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Re: USA 98 -03 Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report Dean Ms. n: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (I,APCO) has a number of comments regarding the DHR, specifically relating to the project's conformance with County and LAFCO plans and policies. I. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN A. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 1 (Page 1-44) "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 1: Most of the future urban growth of Santa Clara County should be accommodated within the existing urban areas, through inftll development, rather than expansion of the urbanized area into hillsides and resource areas. Consistency: The proposed project would expand growth into an area that contains prime farmland, a valuable resource. However, the land is contiguous with developed portions of the City of Gilroy to the north and east and additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project site. The project is a pocket of agricultural land that is largely surrounded by urban development. A review of the approved but not yet developed or completed projects in the City of Gilroy indicates that growth does take place within, or adjacent to, urban areas. The proposed project is consistent with this policy." Comments This proposal is not within the existing Urban Service Area (USA). It is not within the existing city limits. There may be available infill sites that could accommodate this proposal (i.e., the Sport's Park as well as residential and commercial development.) The commisslonerw Blanca Alvarado. Donald F. Gage, Manny Diaz, Suzanne Jackson, Susan vlcidund Wilson Commission Secretary: (408) 299-4321 w,r findings of the Vacant Land Inventory should be included in the Slit to assist in explaining the conclusion that infill opportunities are unavailable within the USA and so expansion into resource areas is necessary. In addition, the fact that development of other areas takes place adjacent to urban areas is irrelevant to consistency of this project with this policy. Therefore. this proposal is not consistent with this policy. B. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 7 (Pages 1-46 and 47) r "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 7.• Urban expansion should be planned on a staged, orderly basis, consistent with applicable plans (e.g. city, County, countywide plans) and the availability of needed urban services and facilities. The discouragement of expansion of cities' Urban Service Areas should be recommended to the IAFCO. Consistency. The project site has been in the City of Gilroy planning area since 1979 when the current general plan was adopted. The 20 -year planning area is expected to accommodate approximately 20 years of urban growth. The City of Gilroy USA is expected to accommodate growth for an approximate five -year period As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain approximate five -year inventory of developable land The City has determined that the project site should now be added to the USA. The project site is contiguous with developed portions of the City of Gilroy to the north and east and additional urban development exists within one -half mile to the west of the project sire. The project site is a pocket of agricultural land that is largely surrounded by urban development. Development of the project site would result in orderly expansion of the City. Urban services are available close to the project site and will be extended into the project site to serve the approved Sports Park. The proposed project is consistent with this policy." Comments The fact the City needs more land in the USA to maintain a five years supply should be corroborated by information from the vacant land inventory. The analysis should include the inventory of vacant land available for a specific land use and the rate of consumption of land for that specific purpose. C. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 8 (Pages 1-47 and 48) "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 8: Proposals to annex land or expand a city's urban service area boundaries shall be approved only if a. the city, special districts and affected school districts have the ability to provide all needed public services and facilities to the area within ftve years and without lessening existing levels of service, b. the existing supply of land within the city's USA accommodates no more than 2 3 five years of plannedgrowth; c. the area proposed for urban development is contiguous to existing urban areas. Consistency: Each of these factors is considered below: The City of Gilroy approved the Gilroy Sports Park for a portion of the project site and will provide potable water, recycled water and sewer service to the project site for that project. The city has adequate potable water and recycled wastewater supplies and sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would be served by the city police and fire department without the need for new facilities. The Gilroy Unified School District will collect development impact fees from development that occurs on the project site as allowed by State law. Land within Gilroy's Urban Service Area is expected to be substantially developed within five years. As development occurs within the existing USA it is necessary for the City to add new areas to its USA to maintain an approximate five -year inventory of developable land. The City of Gilroy last requested a USA amendment in October 1997. The City has determined that the project site should now be added to the USA. The project site is contiguous with urban development on the north and east. Tile proposed project is generally consistent with this policy. " Comments As the project includes the residential and commercial aspects in addition to the Sports Park, an evaluation of services to these specific projects should also be included. Again, the vacant land inventory should be used to quantify and determine the vacant land available to analyze if the recreational, residential, and commercial development proposed for this site could be alternatively located on sites within the USA. D. Growth and Development Policy C -GD 9 (Page 1-48) "Growth and Development Policy C -GD 9: "Proposals to annex land or expand the USA of a city for the purpose of adding lands for employment should be approved only if.' lands planned for employment overall do not exceed the capacity of the city's planned housing supply; or the city's housing element of its General Plan can document that the housing needs of all segments of the community population are being met as stipulated by state law. Consistency: Each of these factors is considered below: 1 The maximum probable development of the project's commercial parcels does not exceed the capacity of the City of Gilroy's planned housing supply. The City of Gilroy has recently updated its Housing Element, although it has yet to be certified by the State. Figure 5 -1 of the housing element contains a summary of quantified objectives, 1988 -2001. The estimates are based on past program performance, construction trends, land availability; and future program funding assumptions. The objectives address below market rate units, rehabilitated or replaced units, very low, low, moderate and above moderate income units. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Comments The policy requires that employment overall, not just that proposed by this project, does not exceed the capacity of City's planned housing supply. The total figures for the number of jobs and housing units created by this project should be used to establish this fact. The proposed project cannot be evaluated for consistency without supporting housing and commercial figures. II. CONSISTENCY WITH.LAFCO POLICIES A. LAFCO Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 4 (Pages 1-49, 50) 51) 'Urban Service Area Amendment Policy 4: LAFCO will consider factors such as the fallowing to determine the local and regional impacts of a proposed Urban Service Area amendment: The ratio of lands planned for residential use to land planned for employment - producing use; The existence of adequate regional and local transportation capabilities to support the planned city growth; Ability of the city to provide urban services to the growth areas without detracting from current service levels; The ability of school districts to provide school facilities; Whether the conversion of agricultural and other open space lands is premature, or if there are other areas into which to channel growth The role of special districts in providing services; Environmental considerations which may apply; The impacts of proposed city expansion upon the County as a provider of services, Fiscal impacts on other agencies. Consistency: Each of these factors is discussed below: The proposed project would include approximately equal acreage of residential use and commercial use. The residential uses would generate approximately 500 0 residents. A fiscal analysis has been prepared that evaluates the number of job opportunities expected to be generated by the proposed commercial development. The proposed project is served by U.S. Highway 101, Monterey Street and other local streets, and the extension of the Uvas Creek Trail, which has been approved. Bus service is planned to serve the Sports Park and the sports park master plan includes a bus turn- around and stop. The City of Gilroy would extend domestic and recycled water supply lines and sewer and storm drain lines to the project site as part of the approved sports park project. The City of Gilroy police and fire departments would provide public safety services to the project site. The City has existing or planned capacity to accommodate the proposed project without any decrease in the level of service available to other areas of the city. The project site was included in the City's Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan. The proposed project will add approximately 135 students to Gilroy schools. The Gilroy Unified School District would collect impact fees as allowed by State law. The proposed project would result in the conversion of 54.8 -acres of agricultural land to urban uses. The project site has been in the City of Gilroy 20 -year planning area since the adoption of the current Gilroy General Plan in 1979. Most of the land surrounding the City of Gilroy ahs development constraints, such as the presence of valuable wildlife habitat, flooding risks ofprime farmland Much of the land on which the existing City is built had similar characteristics. The alternative site that was identified for study in this SE1,R also contained substantial areas of farmland. As the City grows, a certain amount of these valuable resources are often converted into urban land. The City is preparing a vacant land analysis to quantify the type and extent of vacant land available within its USA. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation at the project site. An additional service may be extend into the project site. The City of Gilroy would provide most direct services. The USA. amendment is subject to the environmental analysis of this SE1R The proposed project would result in the conversion ofprime agricultural land to non- agricultural uses, which is an unavoidable significant impact. Other potential impacts have been identified in this ,61R and mitigation measures are presented to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The City of Gilroy would provide police, fire and general government services currently provided by the county if the proposed project is approved No water or sewer services are currently provided to the project site. The County would continue to provide some community health and social .services to residents at the project site. Demand for these would increase with the increase in population. An increase in population within city limits would to some extent also impact 5 County services for law enforcement and parks: A ftscal analysis has been prepared for the proposed project. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority may incur increased costs to serve the project site. -The proposed project is generally consistent with this policy. " Comments S The number of jobs and the housing units proposed should be clearly stated to determine if a jobs - housing balance can be established_ The proposed project would be removing these parcels from agricultural production prematurely. Again, growth should be channeled within the existing Urban Service Area. A clear distinction can be made between agricultural land inside and outside of an Urban Service Area; in order to promote orderly development, land inside of an Urban Service Area should be used first. With this in mind, it is clear that this land is being removed from agricultural production prematurely, and therefore this proposal is not consistent with this policy. III. Other Items 6 The Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area: The existence of an agricultural preserve is mentioned in the SEIR as a mitigation for conversion of agricultural land for recreational, commercial, and residential purposes. Although the SEIR acknowledges this does not mitigate the impact to a less than significant level, it nonetheless overly emphasizes the compensation for conversion of agricultural land as part of this project in light of the City of Gilroy's possible plan/recent discussion to remove lands from the agricultural preserve. 7 Additional Information: The fiscal analysis and vacant land analysis should be included in the SUR to provide factual information that supports the document's conclusions. Also, information on the schedule for adoption of City's General Plan Amendment process is needed as the land uses on which this analysis is conducted are not finalized. If you have any questions regarding these comments, you can reach me at 408/299 -3800 x7027. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report. We look forward to your responses to comments. Sincerely, Neelima Palacherla Executive Director P 2.0 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR Response to the Letter from County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (May 24, 2000) 1. The sports park is an approved project. The sports park was approved for the project site by the City on June 7, 1999. Although the sports park remains outside the City limits and USA, it is located within the 20 -year planning area for Gilroy. The site on which the sports park was approved is designated as OPEN SPACE and PARK/PUBLIC FACILITIES in the Gilroy General Plan and as PARK /RECREATION FACILITY in the Revised Draft General Plan. Three alternative sites for the sports park were analyzed in the EIR certified by the City of Gilroy on June 7, 1999. Because a large, level site is required for the sports park, the range of potential alternative sites was limited. The approved sports park site is closer to utility infrastructure, regional transportation infrastructure, and lodging compared to the alternative sites. The sports park will draw users from throughout the region, and good regional access to the site is important. Traffic impacts were worse at all of the alternative sites. The commercial and residential land proposed for inclusion in the USA amendment was included for the purpose of attaining a largely contiguous extension of the USA. A reduced project size alternative is evaluated in the Subsequent Draft EIR, which excludes the four commercial parcels south of the sports park access road from the USA amendment request, while retaining the contiguity of the area to the existing USA. This alternative reduces the project site from 140.2 acres to 125.2 acres, and the commercial area from 27.1 to 12.1 acres. The commercial parcels north of the sports park access road, and the residential parcels north of the sports park site, are necessary in conjunction with the sports park site, to avoid an island or narrow peninsula of land outside the USA. Alternative sites for the commercial and residential uses are analyzed in the Subsequent Draft EIR. A vacant land inventory was prepared in conjunction with the proposed project, but was not complete at the time the Subsequent Draft EIR was released for public review. The vacant land inventory was completed in June 2000, reflecting project approvals as of March 15, 2000, and has been updated for inclusion in the Subsequent Final EIR to reflect RDO allocations as of April 2000 (RDO allocations are approved by the City in April of even - numbered years), and site and architecture approvals through December 21, 2001. The Vacant Land Inventory is included in Appendix B. The vacant land inventory indicates that there is a nine -year supply of residential land, a 23 -year supply of General Services Commercial land, and a four -year supply of Commercial Industrial land. Although the residential and commercial uses could be located on sites already within the USA, the sports park, is an already approved project, and alternative sites within the USA were less appropriate. 2. The vacant land inventory indicates that the City has a nine -year supply of residential land, a 23 -year supply of General Services Commercial land and a four -year 2 -20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR 2.0 Response to Comments supply of Commercial Industrial land. A five -year supply of land is approximately 44 acres for General Services Commercial land, approximately 15 acres for Commercial Industrial land, and approximately 2,000 units for residential land. Therefore, the project site would accommodate approximately a three -year supply of General Services Commercial land and a nine -year supply of Commercial Industrial land. At an average density of nine units per acre, the project site would accommodate approximately 250 housing units, or a half -year supply. The City has approved the sports park on the project site and desires to include it within its USA. No equally appropriate site was available for the sports park within the existing USA. The residential and commercial area are included in the USA amendment request to achieve a more contiguous USA area than would be possible with inclusion of the sports park site alone. 3. Fire protective services, police protective services, schools, water supply, and wastewater disposal were analyzed for the entire proposed project, including recreational, residential, and commercial components. No significant adverse environmental impacts were identified. 4. There are currently approximately 20 commercial jobs for every acre of commercial development in the City of Gilroy. Based on this current ratio, the 27 acres of proposed commercial development could be expected to generate approximately 540 jobs. According to the fiscal analysis prepared for the sports park, the sports park would generate approximately four full-time- equivalent jobs. Thus, the total jobs generated would be approximately 544. At an average density of nine units per acre, the project site would accommodate approximately 250 housing units. Therefore, the jobs - housing balance of the project site alone would be approximately 2.17. The proposed general plan jobs - housing balance of between 2.59 and 3.03 indicates a surplus of jobs compared to housing. However, the Draft Environmental Impact Reportfor the City of Gilroy Revised Draft General Plan found the high jobs - housing balance to have a less than significant impact on the regional jobs - housing balance (Denise Duffy and Associates, September 2001). The proposed project land uses are consistent with those of the Revised Draft General Plan. As a component of the proposed general plan's build - out, the proposed project would contribute towards that change in the jobs - housing balance. However, the job - housing balance on the project site is lower than that of the overall general plan area, so the proposed project serves to moderate the overall jobs - housing balance. 5. Refer to the response to Comment 4. 6. The Subsequent Draft EIR acknowledges that the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area does not reduce impacts to agricultural lands to a less than significant level. Although the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 133.2 acres of prime farmland, the proposed project would not remove any land from the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area. 7. The comment is noted. The vacant land inventory is included in Appendix B and the fiscal analysis is included in Appendix D. EMC Planning Group Inc. 2 -21 Santa. Clara Volley Water District Community Projects Review Unit, Main Building 5750 Almaden Expressway, son. Jose, CA 95118 My PhoneNumber: (408).265 -2607 eat 2319 My Fax Number: (408) 266 -9751 My 11G -mail• yvonarro@aevwdAst.ea.us To Company or Agency Fax :79 ber Mr. Bryan Stice Oty of Gilroy 84 From: Yvonne Arroyo Total Pagesq including cover sheet: 2 Sub jest+ Gilroy Sports Park DEIR, City of Gilroy File USA 98 -03 Message: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental impart Report (DE1R) fox the subject project, received on April 10, 2000. The District has the following' comments on.lbe DEIR. The original letter will follow in the mail. Page 2-36, Mitigation Measure 3 The potential introduction of non - native invasive plant species to the Lives Creek riparian corridor was identified in the AFIR as•a potentially significant impact The mitigation measure consists of making provisions in the landscape plans tIW only native grasses or other native icon- invasive species will be allowed in the Uvas Creek habitat corridor. The District recommends that this measure be modified in allow only native, non - invasive species grown from local (preferably within 5 miles of the project site or within the Uvas Creek watershed) parent stock. Z IPage 2.49, Project Site Setting 9 fast line in the first paragraph on this page states that the hydrology study prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler in May 1999 encompasses all but the northern -most portions of the project site. However, the hydrology study also does not include the proposed commercial areas of the project site. The limits of the hydrology study assumed that the proposed commercial area was to be open space in its developed condition. in addition, the 3 hydrology study was based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency 100 -year flow rate of 14,000 cubic feet per second (ofs) for existing conditions. T iv District and the Army Corps of Engineers have calculated a 100 -year design flow rate of 17,000 ch. The design flow rate of 171000 cfs should be used in the hydrology study to determine the potential impacts of the future sports park, proposed residential areas and proposed commercial areas. '} Page 2-30) Storm Water Runoff Ihe District disagrees tliat the increase in land use from open space/agricultural to commercial and residential Will not have any impact on the existing flood flows in Uvas Creek without verification through a hydrology sway. Analysis should be provided showing that the post - developed runoff from the proposed commercial and ReadquarteffwMailing Address, 9750 Almaden Expreasway,'San Jose, CA 95118, (401) 26S-20o a i esidetl(ia1: areas will not be greater than the pre - developed condition. The analysis should show that there will not be any increase in flood flows to Uvas Creek after developmeat. The analysis should study the 100 -year flood condition as well as mots frequent flood events. Mitigation measures, such as detention ponds, should be designed on an area -wide or regional basis rather than on an individual basis. 5 1 page 2.56, Less Than Significant Impact - Ineressed Flood Flows on Uvas Creek See above comment. tJ (, Pase 2-56, Mitigation Measure 13 The proposed hydrology study should include the 216rsme"doned analysis of pwe developed runoff and post - developed runoff. The development should be designed such that any increase in runoff will be mitigated for. Any questions may- be referred to Ms. Yvonne Arroyo at (408) 265 -2607, extension 2319. We look forward to revicwmg the Environmental Impact Report when it is available. Sincerely, to Sue A. Tippets, pa Engineering Unit Manager Community Projects Review tWt Ileadquarters/Mailing Address, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118, (408) 265 -2600 20 Response to Comments Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR Response to the Letter from Santa Clara Valley Water District (May 25, 2000) 1. The comment is noted. The wording of the mitigation measure has been revised to include the condition that plant material be locally obtained. It should be noted that the equivalent mitigation measure that was adopted by the City when the Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment EIR was certified on June 9, 1999, and which applies to the sports park portion of the project site, did contain a provision that plant materials be locally obtained. 2. The hydrology study prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler in May 1999 included almost all of the commercial areas of the project site, with the exception of approximately 1.5 acres at the northern end of the proposed commercial area. Most of the residential area was not included in the study. A revised hydrology study was prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler in January 2002, and includes the proposed residential and commercial portions of the project site. The revised hydrology study is included in Appendix C. 3. The revised hydrology study addresses both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) flow rates for Uvas Creek in analyzing potential storm flooding on the project site. Using the Corps 100 -year flow rate of 17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), the overflow onto the project site would be 6,600 cfs, compared to 4,640 cfs using the FEMA 100 -year flow rate of 14,000 cfs. Mitigation Measure 13, requiring a hydrology study prior to approval of specific development plans within the 100 -year flood areas of the project site, has been revised to require the use of the Army Corps of Engineers flow rates for Uvas Creek. 4. The revised hydrology report analyzes existing and projected storm water run -off from the project site at build -out. Construction of the proposed project would increase run -off from the project site. However, the hydrology report concludes that the peak run -off times would be off -set from the peak storm flows in Uvas Creek and therefore would not contribute significantly to flood conditions in Uvas Creek. Due to grading of the sports park site, which lowers the middle of the sports park site to provide a reservoir during flood conditions, no increase in local off -site flood levels would occur as a result of the proposed project. 5. Refer to the response to Comment 4. 6. Refer to the response to Comment 4. 2 -24 EMC Planning Group Inc 3.0 Revised Summary Project Background and History To address a lack of sports facilities for City residents, the City of Gilroy proposed the construction of a sports park on land immediately south of the City. The proposed project included the construction of the sports park and related off -site improvements and a USA amendment request for the 78.36 -acre sports park site and 61.85 acres of surrounding land. Because only a 100 -foot wide driveway connected the sports park site to the existing USA, the surrounding land was included in the USA amendment to make the amendment area more contiguous to the existing USA. The City of Gilroy certified the EIR for the sports park and USA amendment and approved the sports park master plan on June 7, 1999. A USA amendment request was submitted to the Santa Clara County LAFCO on June 23, 1999. Santa Clara County LAFCO requested additional environmental review of the USA amendment request based on proposed new land use designations in the Revised Draft General Plan. The parcels that were a part of the USA amendment request but not proposed for sports park development were analyzed in the certified EIR based on the existing Gilroy General Plan designation of OPEN SPACE. The Revised Draft General Plan designates 27.72 acres of this area as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT and the remaining 27.13 acres of this area as COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES. This SEIR addresses the anticipated change in general plan designation for these parcels. Proposed Project The proposed project includes a USA amendment for the entire 140.21 -acre project site, which includes the approved Gilroy Sports park and habitat buffer on 78.36 acres, an approved trail extension and habitat buffer on 7.00 acres, proposed residential land use designation on 27.72 acres and proposed commercial land use designation on 27.13 acres. The entire 140.21 -acre project site is proposed for inclusion into the City's USA, and annexation to the City. The proposed project includes 27.13 acres designated in the Revised Draft General Plan as COMMERCIAL —GENERAL SERVICES. Commercial development would take place on two portions of the project site along Monterey Frontage Road, straddling the sports park entry road. Two parcels totaling 12.12 acres are located north of the sports park entry road and four parcels totaling 15.01 acres are located south of the sports park entry road. The proposed project includes 27.72 acres designated in the Revised Draft General Plan as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The residential area would be immediately north of the approved Gilroy EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -1 3.0 Revised Summary Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR Sports Park and the area proposed for COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES designation along Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15063 an initial study was prepared to determine the potentially significant effects of the proposed project. The initial study determined that certain issues would have a potentially significant impact on the environment. These issues concerned agricultural considerations, geology, hydrology, public services and service systems, biological resources, transportation /circulation, air quality, noise, archaeological resources, and aesthetics. Those issues determined to have a potentially significant environmental impact were studied in greater depth in an EIR. The City of Gilroy certified that EIR on June 7, 1999. Based on proposed new land use designations in the Revised Draft General Plan, this SEIR was prepared for the annexation of the entire project site and for commercial and residential development on land previously studied as open space. Environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed project are presented in Table S -1. Summary of Other CEQA Considerations Unavoidable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that a lead agency make findings of overriding considerations for unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts before approving a proposed project. Loss of Aaricultural Land The loss of prime farmland is considered a significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impact. The proposed project would result in the loss of the 54.8 acres of prime farmland (though some of this land is used for commercial and rural residential uses). In conjunction with the approved Gilroy Sports Park, which is within the project site, the loss of prime farmland would be 133.21 acres. The implementation of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area by both the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara serves as a partial mitigation for losses of prime farmland in southern Santa Clara County. However, it does not reduce the loss of prime farmland to a less than significant level and the proposed project would still be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on prime farmland. 3 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment Subsequent Final EIR 3.0 Revised Summary Noise Impacts Activities at the approved but not yet constructed sports park including athletic events and traffic entering and exiting the project site would generate long -term noise The acceptable UIV 5tanaaIUS tOU LLD Anxt J 4L ULC t1LU(2UJCU 1GbIUCivaai tuca ..U.... U. u... _ sports park In addition, activities at the approved but not yet constructed sports nark, including spectator shouting and public address system announcements, would generate short-term. annoyance noise at the residential area The short=term noise generated by these activities would be up to 80 dBA. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce both long -term and short-term Operational noise impacts to a less than significant level To reduce the long -term noise the barrier would continue along the easrboundary of the residential area for a distance of 100 feet. area would be an unavoidable significant impact. noise standards would be a significant adverse environmental impact. 'Although a noise southem Monterey 'Street, a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilrov 1999 -2020 General Plan This could result in a secondary visual impact Because of the potential for secondary impacts to hydrology and aesthetics exterior noise levels in excess of City standards in this location would be an unavoidable significant impact. , At General Plan build -out exterior noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue acceptable level would require a sound attenuation barrier that is taller than would be considered aesthericall� acceptable by the Citv Implementation of a mitigation measure presented in Section 2.8 Noise would reduce the impact but because the height of the attenuation barrier would be limited, the impact would probably not be reduced to a less than significant level. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -3 3:0 Revised Summary Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those environmental impacts resulting from the cumulative effects of approved but not.yet built projects and probable projects in the area of the proposed project. Cumulative impacts were based on projects in the southern part of Gilroy. Investigation indicated that the proposed project might make significant contributions to cumulative impacts in the areas of agricultural resources, air quality hydrology, and transportation /circulation. Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to transportation were found to be mitigated to a less than significant level by project level mitigation measures. No cumulative impacts were found in the areas of air quality and hydrology. Agricultural Considerations The proposed project would add 133.2 acres of prime farmland to the City of Gilroy Urban Service Area. Land within the Urban Service Area is generally expected to be developed within an approximate five -year timeframe. Prime farmland is a non- replaceable resource. Each cumulative project that involves the conversion of prime farmland to non- agriculturatuses contributes to the depletion of this resource. Transportation /Circulation A traffic impact assessment prepared for the proposed project determined that the increase in traffic associated with the proposed project and other proposed or existing development would result in traffic congestion at three intersections and along one roadway segment. Mitigation measures in Section 2.14 Transportation/ Circulation would reduce this these impacts to a less than significant level. Significant Irreversible • Environmental Changes The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of prime agricultural land. While this loss is mitigated in part by the establishment of the Gilroy Agricultural Lands Area, the prime agricultural land lost to the proposed project is not replaceable. The loss of prime agricultural land would be a significant irreversible change. Growth Inducing Impacts The proposed project itself is an extension of urban services into a previously un -served area. Although all urban service infrastructure is currently available near the project site, the approval of the USA amendment would make that infrastructure available to the project site itself and would result in future growth and development in that area. The project site is currently within the City of Gilroy 20 -year development area. The proposed project would transfer the project site into the City of Gilroy USA. Provision of urban services and development within a USA is generally expected to occur within 3-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment Subsequent Final EIR 3.0 Revised Summary an approximate five -year timeframe. The Gilroy Sports Park has previously been approved for a portion of the project site, and a residential development is undergoing the RDO process for the northern portion of the project site. Approval of the USA amendment request would encourage and facilitate development within the project site. Extension of services to the southern parcels on the project site and development of these parcels could result in development pressure on the land south of the project site. Although this area is designated in the Revised Draft General Plan as OPEN SPACE, the landowners may request a USA amendment and a change in general plan designation to open their land to development. Similar pressures may be felt to the west of Uvas Creek where a finger of land less than one -half mile wide would remain outside the Gilroy USA. These areas were included in the Water Master Plan and the SewerMasterPlan. Summary of Alternatives Analysis The following alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed to determine if they would achieve project objectives while minimizing environmental impacts. The following project alternatives were analyzed: Alternative # 1 "No Project" alternative; The USA request is not approved by Santa Clara County LAFCO and no development takes place on the portion of the project site outside the sports park. The approved sports park is developed outside the urban service area at its approved location. Alternative #2 Reduced Project Size alternative; The USA request is reduced by 15.01 acres by eliminating the four parcels located south of the sports park access road. The resulting project site has a total of 125:20 acres, with 27.72 acres of proposed residential area and 12.12 acres of proposed commercial area. The sports park is added to the USA as part of this alternative. Alternative #3 Alternative Site alternative; An addition to the Gilroy USA is made on the west side of Monterey Street at Day Road in northern Gilroy. The project has approximately 25 acres of proposed residential area and 25 acres of proposed commercial area. The approved sports park is developed outside the USA at its already approved location. The "No Project " alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, because it eliminates the unavoidable significant impact of loss of prime farmland and it results in reduced environmental impacts. Although there are no environmental impacts for the "No Project" alternative, it does result in the highest water use because it retains the project site in water - intensive agricultural use. For this reason it is considered worse than the proposed project and other alternatives in terms of impacts to the water supply. The Reduced Project Size alternative is the next best alternative. It reduces the magnitude of the unavoidable significant impact to agricultural resources, and also reduces impacts on air quality, hydrology and transportation. The Reduced Project Size EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 -5 3.0 Revised Summary Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR alternative would not significantly reduce the potential noise impacts at the residential development along Monterey Road and West Luchessa Avenue. If mitigation fails to fully mitigate noise in those areas, the noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Alternative Site alternative reduces conversion of agricultural land, and especially conversion of Prime Farmland. More of the Alternative Site is already developed than the project site. The Alternative Site alternative may have slightly reduced impacts on biological resources, and would eliminate the possibility of a significant unavoidable impact from noise. The Alternative Site alternative also reduces the hydrological impacts of the proposed project. 3 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. TABLE S -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual imps Aesthetics Change in Rural Character Less Than N/A None Less Than Development of the project site Significant Required Significant would permanently alter the existing rural character of the area. The view from U.S. Highway 101 would become moreurban than it is currently. However, surrounding parcels to the north and east are already developed and the approved sports park will provide an area of transition between the built and rural environments. Aesthetics. Nighttime Lighting The proposed Potentially I Residential development on the parcels Less Than project would place residences near Significant north of the sports park shall provide a Significant the planned athletic field lights of landscape plan that includes a double row the approved Gilroy Sports Park. of trees along the sports park boundary, Several of the planned lights are utilizing tree species that will attain a within 400 to 500 feet of, and crown between 30 and 50 feet above street aimed towards the nearest homes. ' level prior to occupancy of the houses These field lights would be directly located within 100 feet of the sports park, visible from these houses' windows. 3 m h� Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual hupact Agricultural Loss of Prime Farmland Unavoidable N/A The establishment of the Gilroy Unavoidable Resources Approval of the Urban Service Significant Agricultural Lands Area by both the City Significant Area amendment and development of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara of parcels adjacent to the sports serves as a regional mitigation for losses of park site, would result in the loss prime farmland in southern Santa Clara ' of 54.85 acres of designated prime County outside of the agricultural lands farmland. Approximately 49.85 area. Although this regional mitigation acres of this farmland would be has been implemented, it does not reduce converted.from agricultural the loss of prime farmland to a less than production. significant level and the proposed project would still be considered to have a Cumulative Project Loss of Prime significant and unavoidable impact on Farmland. prime farmland. Approval of the Urban Service Area amendment and development of parcels adjacent to the sports park site, in conjunction with development of the approved sports park, would result in the loss of 133.21 acres of designated prime farmland. Approximately 128.21 acres of this farmland would be converted from agricultural Production. Agricultural Conflict With Williamson Act. No N/A None No Resources Contract. _ Six of the parcels on Impact Required Inpact the.project site were previously under Williamson Act contract. None of these contracts is currently in effect. The parcels most recently in Williamson Act contract were non - renewed effective in . January 1999. a v n Area of impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Imps Agricultural Effect on Adjacent Agricultural Potentially N/A The establishment of the Gilroy Potentially Resources Uses. Implementation of the Unavoidable Agricultural Lands Area by both the City Unavoidable proposed project could induce the Significant of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara Significant adjacent farmland to the south of serves as a regional mitigation for losses of the project site and nearby prime farmland in southern Santa Clara farmland to the west of the project County outside of the agricultural lands site to be converted to non - area. Although this regional mitigation agricultural uses. These parcels has been implemented, it does not reduce adjacent to the project site are the loss of prime farmland to a less than within the proposed City of Gilroy significant level and the proposed project 20 -year planning area but are would still be considered to have a proposed to be designated for open significant and unavoidable impact on 'space uses. Development prime farmland. pressures could result in a change of general plan designation and subsequent development. Air Quality Proposed Project Operations Less Than N/A None Less Tban BAAQMD determines the Significant Required Significant thresholds of significance for general plans, master plans annexations and similar projects based on the project's consistency with the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Draft Gilroy 1999-2020 General Plan, which is in turn consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Air Quality Project Construction Potentially 2 Dust control measures shall be Less Than Significant incorporated into all permits for any phase Significant of ro osed rnnstruction on the project site. IC;o s Area of Impact Level of Mitigation MitigatioaMeasttre . Residual Concern significance Number Biological. Loss of Habitat. Due to No N/A None Required NO Impact a `c n Resources continuous human interaction, Impact agricultural fields typically provide little habitat for wildlife and do not u represent a significant biological resource. Biological Invasive Plant Species. The Significant 3 Project plans shall include a habitat buffer Less Than Resources riparian habitat along Uvas Creek designed to include appropriate Significant could be affected by the presence of specis and obtained native plant species and shall not non - native, invasive plant species. include plantings of non - native, invasive plant species. Wherever possible, the east side of the trail shall be planted with native grasses or other native species to provide additional native habitat. Biological Raptors. Construction activities in Potentially 4 A field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active Less Than Significant Resources or near the riparian woodland Significant raptor nests are present in the construction habitat found along Uvas Creek could result in the direct loss of zone or within 250 feet of the construction white - tailed kite, northern harrier, zone if any construction would occur during the nesting and /or breeding season Cooper's hawk, and short-eared of raptors potentially nesting in the areas owl nests, including eggs and proposed for development (generally March young, or the abandonment of an 1 through August 1). If active nests are active nest by the adults. found, at the discretion of the biologist, . clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until the nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. IC;o Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Biological Burrowing Owls. Construction Potentially 5 Field surveys shall be conducted to Less Than Resources activity along the slope of the Significant determine if burrowing owls are present in Significant levee in the northwest comer of the construction zone or within 250 feet of the project site, could result in the the construction zone if any construction direct loss of burrowing owl nests, would occur during the nesting and /or including eggs and young, or the breeding season of burrowing owls abandonment of an active nest by potentially nesting in the area (February 1 the adults. through August 31) and /or during the winter residency period (December 1 and January 31). If active nests are found, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall be Prepared. Biological Riparian Special- Status Species Potentially 6 A qualified biologist shall inform workers Less Than Resources Several special- status species may Significant. of the potential presence of the all special- Significant potentially occur in Uvas Creek status species, their protected status, work and in the riparian habitat adjacent boundaries, and measures to be to Uvas Creek. Any adverse implemented to avoid loss of these species effects on these special-status during construction activities. species, if present, resulting from construction activities associated All food - related trash items shall be with the residential area adjacent 7 enclosed in sealed containers and regularly y to the riparian habitat would be a removed from the project area to deter significant impact. attraction of potential predators p P Biological Effects of Nighttime Lighting on potentially g Luminaires in the proposed residential Less Than Resources Wildlife Lighting of roads in the Significant area shall be limited in height to 20 feet Significant proposed residential area could and shall be of a full cutoff design to reduce spill over into the riparian habitat light spillage to adjacent areas. and disturb wildlife, restrict the Luminaires located along a street adjacent movement or activity wildlife, or to the Uvas Creek levee shall be located to facilitate increased predation of the east side of the street. wildlife species. Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure - Residual Concern Significance Impact Cultural Historic Houses The project site Potentially q Prior to removal of any of the potentially Less Than Resources contains four potentially historic Significant historical evaluation shall be com historic houses on the project site an pleted. Significant houses. These houses are likely The. historic evaluation shall include an. be removed to accommodate future a development on the project site. architectural description of the structure, The houses may also have' an historic background for the property and significant buried historic resources the completion of an appropriate State associated with them. Department of Parks and Recreation form with hoto a hic documentation ' Cultural Currently unidentified buried Potentially 10 The city shall contract with a qualified Less Than Resources cultural resources may be found Significant. archaeologist to arrange a schedule for Significant during construction on the project monitoring the project site during grading site. and excavation activities. 11 If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted and the area shall be staked off. The project developer shall notify a qualified professional archaeologist. 12 If human remains are found during construction there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. Geology Seismic Hazards. The proposed Less Than N/A None Lew Than project exposes people or structures Significant Required Significant to a small risk of potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic hazards. c ,c e W a w Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number impact Hydrology Flood Flows in Uvas Creek. Storm Less Than N/A None Less Than water run- off from impervious Significant Required Significant surfaces could increase the rate of storm water discharge into Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River drainage. ' Hydrology On -Site Flooding. The proposed Potentially 13 A hydrology report, based on the Ann v Less "Than commercial area and portions of Significant CoWs of Engineers flow rates for Uvas Significant Creek• shall be prepared to address the the proposed residential area are within 100 -year flood zones as following requirements: er identified on the FEMA maps. Site plans and building designs shall The Gilroy Floodplain Control comply with the City of Gilroy Un"eideble Ordinance allows development Flood Plain Control Ordinance.. sagufflegnt within 100 -year floodplains Development on the project site provided certain measures are shall not impede the flow of taken to prevent potential damage floodwaters. from flooding. Portions of the Procedures shall be developed and commercial area are within a 25- site plans designed that will assure year flood zone based on a that any materials, supplies or hydrology study conducted for the goods used, stored hold for sale sports park. Development within at the proposed use that may t these areas prone to flooding present health hazards or risks of presents potential risks to health water contamination during flood and safety of people and damage to conditions are securely kept at least buildings and property, one foot above the 100 -year flood level. • Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in floodwater levels. off the project site. Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual , Concern Significance Number Imps Hydrology Secondary Impact—Off-Site Potentially 13 See Above. Less Than Flooding. Mitigation required for Significant Significant construction within the floodplain could potentially result in diversion of floodwaters and increases in flood levels off the project site. Hydrology Flood Flowage Easement. Potentially 13 See Above. LRSS TLan SCVWD holds a flood flowage Sigoificant Significant easement that restricts land use and development on a large portion of the project site. Inappropriate development within this easement could put structures at risk of damage and people at risk of injury or death from storm- related flooding. Hydrology Surface Water Quality During . Significant 14 The City shall submira Notice of Intent Less than Construction. Grading will and detailed engineering designs to the Significant expose sediments to rain or wind Central Coast Regional Water Quality erosion and subsequent Control Board, and implement a Storm transportation of sediments to Uvas Water Pollution Prevention Plan that uses 'Creek. Materials used and wastes storm water "Best Management Practices" generated during construction to control runoff, erosion and would degrade water quality also. sedimentation from the site. Non -point source pollutants from urban activity at the project site 15 The City shall submit.plans for review by, would be released and obtain an approved permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Hydrology Surface Water Qoafity During 16 A sedimentation basin shall be included in Less Than Operation. Contaminants common plans. Additional "best practices" Significant to urban area storm water and operational measures may be required for irrigation run -off could potentially specific projects. result in the pollution of Uvas Creek and the Pajaro River. These contaminants could be transported to the drainage system, polluting downstream water stems. Noise Long -Term and Short-term Noise Unavoidable N/A To reduce the long -term noise to a, less Unavoidable from Sports Park Activities. Significant than significant level, a six-foot tall Significant Athletic events and traffic entering acoustically effective barrier would be and exiting the project site would required along the northern boundary of generate long -term noise at the the sports park site. The location of the proposed residential area north of barrier is partly within the SCVWD flood the sports park. Spectator shouting flowage easement. Placement of the and public address system barrier would potentially impede the flow announcements, would generate of floodwaters and could result in increased short-term, annoyance noise at the flooding impacts in other areas. residential area: Noise Exterior Traffic Noise at Residential Unavoidable N/A This portion of the project site is located Unavoidable Areas along Monterey Street. At Significant within a flood zone, and a sound Significant General Plan build -out, noise ., attenuation barrier would not be feasible if levels from traffic on Monterey the barrier were to interfere with flood Street would exceed City standards flows or affect off -site flood levels. at adjacent proposed residential Additionally, a noise barrier would place a areas. visually obtrusive element along southern Monterey Street, a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 19992020 General Plan. This would result in a secondary visual impact. Area of impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual Concern Significance Number Impact Noise , . Exterior Traffic Noise at Residential Unavoidable 17 A sound attenuation barrier eight feet in Unavoidable Areas along West Luchessa Significant height shall be constructed along West Significant Avenue. At General Plan build- Luchessa Avenue. . out, noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street. Noise Interior Noise Levels at Residential Potentially 18 An acoustical study shall establish Less Than Areas. Traffic and sports park noise Significant engineering requirements to be included in Significant at the proposed residential area construction plans to maintain interior would exceed 45 dBA. noise levels at no greater than 45 dBAnxr.. Noise Short-term Construction Noise. Significant 19 Construction activities shall be limited to Less Than Construction activities at the specified hours. Significant project site could result in high levels of noise. Fite Protection Fire Services The proposed project No Impact N/A None No Impact Services does not result in the need for Required additional facilities for the provision of fire protective services, and would not decrease the level. of these services provided to any part of the community. Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance 'Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Police Police Services. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than Protection project does not result in the need Significant Required Significant Services for additional facilities for the provision of police services, and would not decrease the level of these services provided to any part of the community. Schools Student Enrollment Exceeding Less Than N/A None Less Than Capacity The proposed project Significant Required Sigufficant would add approximately 120 students to the GUSD. Enrollment is currently over capacity at the District's elementary schools and high school. However, since some students drop out each year, actual attendance is close to capacity. The District is constructing a new elementary school and has plans to construct a new middle school. In addition, grade level re- distribution among schools will bring kindergarten through 8th grade enrollment close to capacity for each of those grade levels. w la c a Area of Impact Level of Mitigation Mitigation Measure Residual a Concern Significance Number Imps c 6 C Water Supply. Construction of Potable Water and Less Than N/A None Less Than a Recycled Water Infrastructure. The Significant Required Significant proposed project does not require substantial extensions or upgrades to the existing potable or recycled water supply infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of -ways would serve the proposed project. Water Supply City Water Supply. The proposed Less Than N/A None Less Than project would result in an Significant Required Significant incremental increase in demand for potable water that is within the City of Gilro s ability to provide. c Water Supply Groundwater Supply. The Beneficial N/A None Beneficial a proposed project would result in an Required overall decrease in water use. n Less groundwater would be x required from the Llagas Groundwater Sub Basin to supply 'c the roject site. CD Waste water Construction of Wastewater Less Than N/A None Less Than Infrastructure. The proposed Significant Required Significant project does not require substantial c extensions or upgrades to the existing wastewater infrastructure. Existing or planned lines within adjacent street right -of -ways would T serve the ro osed ro'ect. o', la , with the addition of project- eastbound right -turn lane; generated traffic. addition of a right -turn arrow for the eastbound right -turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left -tum movement has a green arrow). 0 A m m a e 3 3 m c Area of I Impact L Level of M Mitigation M Mitigation Measure R Residual ` Concern S Significance N Number I Impact r s Transportation W West Luchessa Avenue /Princevalle L Less Than N N/A N None L Less Than a Circulation S Street. Traffic impacts at this S Significant R Required S Significant c intersection would improve to a a acceptable levels with signalization that is already included in the City's Capital Improvement Budget, and is programmed for It implementation in 2001 or 2002. ° °- Transportation W West Luchessa Avenue /Church S Significant 2 20 T The following street improvements shall be L Less Than Circulation S Street. The addition of project m made to the intersection of West Luchessa S Significant r traffic to the West Luchessa A Avenue and Church Street: Avenue /Church Street i installation of a traffic signal with two- intersection would cause both p phase operation; overall intersection operations and r re- configuration of the northbound and the worst approach to deteriorate s southbound approaches as necessary to from acceptable operating levels to p provide one approach lane for all LOS F during both the PM and m movements; Saturday peak hours. p provision of one left -turn lane and one shared through and right -turn lane on the eastbound and westbound appro aches. Transportation M Monterey Stmet/Luchessa Avenue. S Significant 2 21 T The following street improvements shall be L Less Than Circulation T The intersection of Monterey m made to the intersection of Monterey Street S Significant Street and Luchessa Avenue is a and Luchessa Avenue: projected to degrade from LOS C to c construction of a second northbound LOS F during the PM peak hour l left -tum lane and an exclusive c c , 0 A m m a e 3 3 m Area of Concern Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure . Residual Following or in conjunction with the Transportation Monterey Street/Monterey Significant 22 signalization of the intersection of Less 14tan Circulation Frontage Road. The operation of Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Significant the Monterey Street /Monterey Road, the following street improvements Frontage Road intersection is shall be made: projected to deteriorate from re- configuration of the southbound acceptable level under Background approach as necessary to provide one Conditions to LOS F during the left -turn lane, two through lanes, PM and Saturday peak hours with two right -turn lanes; the addition of project traffic and re- configuration of the westbound construction of the proposed traffic approach as necessary to provide one signal. shared lane for all movements; re- configuration of the northbound approach_ as necessary to two left - turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through /right - turn lane; re- configuration of the eastbound approach as necessary to provide one exclusive left -tum lane, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -turn lane. right -turn arrows shall be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three study periods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound approaches. 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text The following discussion ofsignif:cant unavoidable noise impacts is added to page S -2. The unavoidable significant noise impacts were included in the summary table on pageS -15 and S -16, and identified in the project noise analysis on page 2 -60 through 2 -68, but were inadvertently omitted from the summary text in the Subsequent DEIR. Activities at the approved but not vet constructed sports park including athletic events and traffic entering and exiting the project site would generate long -term noise. The noise generated by these activities would be up to 63 dBAn N1. thereby exceeding acceptable City standards (60 dBA 1 at the proposed residential area north of the sports park In addition activities at the approved but not yet constructed sports park, including spectator shouting and public address system announcements, would generate short -term annoyance noise at the residential area. The short-term noise generated by these activities would be up to 80 dBA. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce both long -term and short-term operational noise impacts to a less than significant level To reduce the long -term noise to a less than significant level a six-foot tall acoustically effective barrier would be required along the northern boundary of the sports park site To reduce flanking noise, oise the barrier would continue along the east boundary of the residential area for a distance of 100 feet. Implementation of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level would not be feasible. The location of the barrier is partly within the SCVWD flood flowage easement, and placement of the barrier would potentially impede the flow of floodwaters and could result in increased flooding impacts in other areas. Therefore, sports park noise impacts on the proposed residential area would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build -out, exterior noise levels from traffic on Monterey Street would attenuation barrier would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, this portion of the project site is located within a flood zone and a sound attenuation barrier would not be feasible if the barrier were to interfere with flood flows or affect off -site flood levels. Additionally, a noise barrier would place a visually obtrusive element along southem Monterey Street, a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan. This could result in a secondary visual impact. Because of the potential for secondaryy i=acts to hydrology and aesthetics exterior noise levels in excess of City standards in this location would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build -out, exterior noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street. A EMC Planning Group Inc. 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR sound attenuation barrier would be required to reduce the level of noise to within CitX standards. Because of unknown variables the exact requirements for mitigation of the noise impact cannot be determined at this time It is probable that reducing noise to an acceptable level would require a sound attenuation barrier that is taller than would be considered aesthetically acceptable by the City . Implementation of a mitigation measure presented in Section 2.8 Noise would reduce the impact but because the height of the attenuation barrier would be limited, the impact would probably not be reduced to a less than significant level. The following grammatical error on Page S -3 is corrected. A traffic impact assessment prepared for the proposed project determined that the increase in traffic associated with the proposed project and other proposed or existing development would result in traffic congestion at three intersections and along one roadway segment. Mitigation measures in Section 2.14 Transportation/ Circulation would reduce this these impact5. to a less than significant level. The following change is made to page 1 -51 to reflect the cessation of transit service on Route 17A: f. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority would continue to provide public transportation at near the project site. An additional service may be extend into the project site. The City of Gilroy would provide most direct services. Mitigation Measure 3 on page 2 -36 has been revised to require the use of locally obtained plant materials, and to remove a grammatical error. Mitigation Measure 3. A landscape plan consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy shall be prepared. for common and street side planting areas areas abutting the Uvas Creek habitat corridor, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The landscape plan shall include appropriate locally obtained native plant species and shall not include plantings of non - native, invasive plant species. Native grasses or other native species shall be preferred in the areas adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee to provide additional native habitat in association with the Uvas Creek habitat corridor. Mitigation Measure 6 on page 2 -38 has been revised to state the correct party responsible for implementation ofthe measure. Mitigation Measure Prior to commencement of construction activities, the efty applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to inform workers of the potential presence of the all special - status species, their protected status, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during construction activities. 4 -2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Mitigation Measure 13 on page 2 -56 has been revised to require the use of the Army Corps of Engineers flow rates in the preparation of development- specific hydrology studies. Mitigation Measure 13. Any applicant for development within FEMA - delineated 100 -year flood zones on the project site shall have a hydrology report, based on the Army Corps of Engineers flow rates for Uvas Creek, prepared for that development by a qualified hydrologist or engineer, to specify hydrology- related design requirements for the site and buildings, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and SCVWD prior to issuance of a building permit. The hydrology report shall address the following requirements: • Site plans and building designs shall comply with the City of Gilroy Flood Plain Control Ordinance. Development on the project site shall not impede the flow of floodwaters. Procedures shall be developed and site plans designed that will assure that any materials, supplies or goods used, stored or hold for sale at the proposed use that may present health hazards or risks of water contamination during flood conditions are securely kept at least one foot above the 100 -year flood level. Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in floodwater levels off the project site. Calculations for both the 25 -year and 100 -year flood events shall be submitted in support of these requirements. All grading, design or other recommendations of the hydrology report shall be incorporated into project plans. Mitigation Measure 13 on page 2 -59 has been revised to accurately state the City department responsible for review and approval. Mitigation Measure 16. Project plans for any development proposed for the project site, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Pla*rAng Engineering Division shall include a sedimentation basin adequate for filtering out heavy storm water contaminants such as silt, and grease traps suitable for filtering out other urban pollutants to the extent feasible. Additional measures as presented in "Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection," prepared by the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies Association and "Parking Lot Best Management Practices Manual," prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Run -off Pollution Prevention Program may be required for specific projects. Any physical water quality safeguards shall be installed prior to EMC Planning Group Inc. 4 -3 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR occupancy of the proposed development, and any best management practices plan must be implemented upon occupancy. The following change is made to page 2 -82 to reflect the cessation of transit service on Route 17A: Transit Service. Bus service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Currently, there are twe is one bus routes operating within one -half mile of the project site, Route 68 "pan. Avenue, east of Menter-ey StEeet. The following discussion ofsignicant unavoidable noise impacts is added to page 3 -1. The unavoidable significant noise impacts were included in the summary table on pages -15 and S -16, and identified in the project noise analysis on page 2 -60 through 2 -68, but were inadvertently omitted from Section 3 Related Issues in the Subsequent DEIR. Activities at the approved but not yet constructed sports park, including athletic events and traffic entering and exiting the project site would generate long -term noise. The noise generated by these activities would be up to 63 dBAn r. thereby exceeding acceptable City standards (60 dBAnNr 1 at the proposed residential area north of the sports park In addition activities at the approved but not vet constructed sports park including spectator shouting and public address system announcements, would generate short-term. annoyance noise at the residential area. The short-term noise generated by these activities would be up to 80 dBA. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce both long -term and short-term operational noise impacts to a less than significant level To reduce the long -term noise the barrier would continue along the east boundary_ of the residential area for a distance of 100 feet. Implementation of the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level would not be feasible. The location of the barrier is partly within the SCVWD flood flowage easement and placement of the barrier would potentially impede the flow of floodwaters and could result in increased flooding impacts in other areas Therefore, sports park noise impacts on the proposed residential area would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build -out exterior noise levels from traffic on Monterey Street would exceed City standards at adjacent proposed residential areas. Noise exceeding Citv noise standards would be a significant adverse environmental impact Although a noise attenuation barrier would reduce this impact to a less than significant level this portion of the project site is located within a flood zone and a sound attenuation barrier would 4-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 9M3 Subsequent Final EIR . 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text not be feasible if the barrier were to interfere with flood flows or affect off -site flood levels Additionall y, a noise barrier would place a visually obtrusive element alone southern Monterey Street a principal gateway designated in the Draft Gilroy 1999 -2020 General Plan This could result in a secondary visual impact. Because of the potential for secondary impacts to hydrology and aesthetics exterior noise levels in excess of City standards in this location would be an unavoidable significant impact. At General Plan build-out—exterior noise levels from traffic on West Luchessa Avenue would exceed City standards at the proposed residential areas adjacent to that street. A sound attenuation barrier would be required to reduce the level of noise to within Citv standards. Because of unknown variables, the exact requirements for mitigation of the noise impact cannot be determined at this time. It is probable that reducing noise to an presented in Section 2.8 Noise would reduce the impact but because the height of the attenuation barrier would be limited, the impact would probably not be reduced to a less than significant level. Figures 29 and 30, showing the alternative site location and uses, were inadvertently omitted. These figures are presented on the following pages. The following persons contacted have been added to page 4 -1: Ms. Cvdnev Casper. Planner I. Citv of Gilrov Planning-Division. Ms. Kristiann Choy, Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. The following sources have been added to page 4 -2: City of Gilroy. Revised Draft General Plan. September 2001. Denise Duffy and Associates. Draft Environmental lmpactReportfor the CitvofGilrov Revised Draft General Plan. September 2001. Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. Gilroy Sports Park / USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA. January 2002. Schaaf and Wheeler. Gilrov Sports Park USA Amendment Draft Hvdrolo¢v Studv. anuary 10. 2002. EMC Planning Group Inc. 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent Final EIR This side intentionally left blank. 4-6 EMC Planning Group Inc. t j Source: California Automobile Association and EMC Planning Group Inc _ Scae: T" = Z,Zuo' A Land Use Planning and Design F9rm Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Alternative Site Location Figure 29 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR Text Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Subsequent Final EIR This side intentionally left blank. 4-8 EMC Planning Group Inc. I Agricultural Rural Residence Fields Pet S ': �, upply -- ... A'iternative Site � rAgricultural - `� \ Fields \ Agricultural Fields h{ Agricultural DaY Rya Rcial i r Fields Yaeanf ' Resi fnee <.,< Orchard `A Agricultural Agricu_ltural:j Vacant Fields m c E Y x Agricultural Fields cant" Agricultural Fields Source: City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc u t- y Residences Scale: 1" = 500' Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Alternative Site and Vicinity and Design Firm Figure 30 u�^ Agricultural Grain Fields ': Elevators i Agricultural E Agricultu� al Vacant i 1 Fields 1 �� Fields tv — Rural ; Residence Vickery Avenue i E X I S T I NAG USA Transient :1 Apartments OAntonio ` Pizza y del Buono Grocery ,\ School Ve 7C(Under Construction) CD �� P�e� - Fatte ' *Z It' F '1 Source: City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc u t- y Residences Scale: 1" = 500' Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR A Land Use Planning Alternative Site and Vicinity and Design Firm Figure 30 0 oul dnwE) 6uluueld oW3 Od-h *qunIR dal f11Duo: ;ua ;uz ap:s nyj al3leuld Juan asgns CO- 96 luawpuawy ys() Aoine ixel &l3lJw0 eyl of sa ueyj 0•y Appendix A Updated Traffic Report FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GILROY SPORTS PARK AND. USA AMENDMENT SUBSEQUENT EIR (Gilroy, California) Prepared for: EMC Planning Group, Inc. Prepared by: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. February 2002 Final Report TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the GILROY SPORTS PARK AND USA AMENDMENT SUBSEQUENT EIR (Gilroy, California) Prepared for: EMC Planning Group, Inc. Prepared by: Fehr & Peers. Associates, Inc. February 2002 IW.\ -4ODE09[KIxly"V Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................ ............................... iv 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................. ............................... 1 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................... ............................... 8 Roadway Network .......................... ............................... 8 TransitService ............................. ............................... 9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............... ............................... 9 Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations .......................... 10 Level of Service Methodologies ............... ............................... 10 Existing Levels of Service ................... ............................... 17 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................ ............................... 22 Background Traffic Estimates ................ ............................... 22 Background Levels of Service ................ ............................... 24 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................... ............................... 27 Project Traffic Estimates .................... ............................... 27 Project Intersection Levels of Service .......... ............................... 33 Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service ..... ............................... 47 Two -Lane Highway Segment Levels of Service .. ............................... 48 Freeway Segment Levels of Service ........... ............................... 49 Left-Turn Pocket Storage and Queuing Analysis . ............................... 50 5 - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ................. ............................... 53 Cumulative Traffic Estimates ................. ............................... 53 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ...... ............................... 53 Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service . ............................... 55 Cumulative Two-Lane Highway Level of Service . ............................... 56 6 - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS .... ............................... 57 General Plan Buildout Traffic Estimates ........ ............................... 57 General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service ............................. 57 General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service ....................... 61 General Plan Buildout Two -Lane Highway Segment Level of Service ............... 62 7 - SITE ACCESS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW ...... ............................... 63 Gilroy Sports Park ......................... ............................... 63 Residential Development .................... ............................... 68 Commercial Parcels ........................ ............................... 68 8 - CONCLUSIONS .............................. ............................... 70 Technical Appendices 1015-425 LIST OF TABLES Table Page ES -la. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................... vii ES -lb. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................ viii ES -2. Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ... ............................... xi 1. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay ............... I............................ 14 2. Two -Way Stop - Controlled Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Delay ............... ............................... 14 3. Level of Service Threshold Volumes For Various Roadway Types ................. ............................... 16 4. Density -Based Freeway Level of Service Criteria . ............................... 17 5a. Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................... 18 5b. Existing Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................. 19 6. Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service .... ............................... 20 7. Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service .... ............................... 21 8a. Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................ 24 8b. Background Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service .......................... 25 9. Background Roadway Segment Levels of Service ............................... 26 10. Trip Generation Estimates ................... ............................... 28 l la. Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service .................. 38 1 lb. Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service ................ 40 12. Background and Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service ...................... 48 13. Freeway Segment Analysis Requirement Determination (PM Peak Hour) ............. 50 14. Project Freeway Segment Analysis (PM Peak Hour) ............................. 52 15a. Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ............................ 54 15b. Cumulative Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service .......................... 55 16. Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service . ............................... 56 17a. General Plan Buildout Signalized Intersection Levels of Service .................... 58 17b, General Plan Buildout Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service .................. 60 18. General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service ....................... 62 19. Parking Demand and Supply Summary ......... ............................... 67 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Location ............................... ............................... 2 2. Project Land Uses ........................... ............................... 3 3. Sports Park Site Plan ........................ ............................... 5 4. Existing Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes ....... ............................... 11 5. Existing Lane Configurations ................. ............................... 12 6. Background PM Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes ............................... 23 7. Trip Distribution Pattern .................... ............................... 32 8a. Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment (Project Buildout) ........................... 34 8b. Project Trip Assignment at Site Driveways and Nearby Intersections ................ 35 9. Background Plus Project Buildout Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..................... 36 10. Intersection Lane Configurations at General Plan Buildout ........................ 59 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Gilroy Sports Park andUrban Services Area (USA) amendment in Gilroy, California. A TIA was prepared in January 1999 for the sports park, while a January 2000 TIA was conducted to include the USA amendment. Since that time, the residential development proposed for some oftheUSA parcels has been withdrawn. The analysis contained in this report addresses the maximum allowable development on the amendment parcels; no specific commercial or residential developments are proposed at this time. Project Description The project site is located on the west side of Monterey Street, south ofLuchessa Avenue, and is bounded on thewest byUvas Creels and on the south byUvas Creek and Farman Lane. The purpose ofthe analysis is to idenfifythe likely transportation impacts ofthe project on the surroundingroadway system and to identify improvements to mitigate significant impacts. The prof ect includes three components: a sports park (approximately 78 acres), residential uses (approximately28 acres), and commercial uses (approximately 27 acres). The Gilroy Sports Park will contain 10 softball fields, three baseball fields, seven soccer fields (which are overlaid on theball fields), a commercial recreation area, and apark area. The commercial recreation area will house a community meeting room and have the potential to house additional indoor athletic activities (rollerhockey, indoor soccer, and BMX). The park area includes picnic areas, children's play areas, two sand volleyball courts, six bocce ball courts, and six horseshoe pits. The sports parkwill be developed in nine phases. Direct access to the project site will be provided via a main entryway on Farman Frontage Road. There is no specific development proposed forthe commercial or residential parcels. The commerical parcels will be zoned Commercial General Services, while the residential parcels will be zoned Neighborhood District. Per City staff direction, this analysis assumed the development of approximately 590,000 square feet (s.f.) ofretail space onthe commercial parcels and 147 units on the residential parcels. The commercial parcels front on Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road. Direct access was assumed to be provided via one right -turn driveway on Monterey Street and one full access drivewayonFarmanFrontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. The residential parcels are located on the south side of Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Uvas Creek. Direct access to the residential parcels was assumed to be provided by new public streets that will intersect with Luchessa Avenue at two locations and with Monterey Street at one location. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. iv Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Project Traffic The amount oftraffic generated by the sports park was based on the planned operation ofthe park. The traffic generated by the residential and retail components was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates (Trip Generation, 6th edition). A30 percent pass -by reduction was applied to the trips generated bythe retail component to account for traffic alreadytraveling along Monterey Street that would be attracted to the shopping center. Theproject is estimated to add 20,738 weekday, 495 AM peak -hour trips (273 inbound and 222 outbound), 2,091 PM peak -hour trips (1,019 inbound /1,072 outbound), and 2,851 Saturday peak -hour trips (1,485 inbound/1,366 outbound) to the surrounding roadways. The project - generated traffic was assigned to specific roadway segments, intersections, and turning movements based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses. Off -Site Traffic Impacts The impacts ofthe proposed project were estimated following guidelines ofthe CityofGilroyand the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The operations ofthe seven key intersections, four roadway segments, one two - lane highway segment, and two freeway segments were evaluated. Three ofthe key intersections are unsignalized under Existing Conditions. The intersections ofthe US 101 ramps with Monterey Street and the Monterey Street/LuchessaAvenue intersection are signalized. Signalization ofthe intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road is proposed as part of the final phase ofthe Gilroy Sports Park and was assumed to be completed prior to buildout of the commercial and residential parcels. The methodology presented in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (1994 HCM) for two -way stop - controlled intersections was used to evaluate the unsignalized intersections. Signalized intersection operations were evaluated using the approved CMP methodology. This methodology has also been adopted by the City ofGilroy. The operations ofthe key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours under Existing, Background, Project, Cumulative, and General Plan Buildout Conditions. In addition, four key intersections were evaluated for Saturday peak -hour conditions of the sports park.' Using existing counts, estimate traffic projections for approved and pending developments in the area, intersection lane configurations, signal phasings, and the project - generated trips, level of service calculations were conducted for Existing, Background, ProjectBuildout, Cumulative, and General Plan 'The analysis of Saturday peak -hour conditions for these intersections was carried over from the Gilroy Sports Park EIR TIA (Fehr &.Peers Associates, Inc., January 1999) analysis for consistency purposes. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Buildout Conditions. Theresults ofthe level of service calculations arepresented in Tables ES —laand ES -lb. Intersection Impacts The level ofservice calculation results indicate that the project will have a significant adverse impact on four of the seven key intersections: Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road Mitigation measures were identified for these intersections. The installation of a traffic signal at the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection would mitigate project impacts to a less -than- significant level. With the existing lane configuration, this intersection is proj ected to operate at LOS B during the AM, PM, and S aturday p eak hour with traffic volumes estimated for Project Conditions. The installation of a traffic signal and the provision ofleft-tum pockets on the eastbound and westbound approaches would mitigate proj ect impacts at the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection. With the estimated Projection Conditions volumes and these improvements, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The addition of a second northbound left -turn lane and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane will improve the operation ofthe Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersections from LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour with estimated Proj ect Conditions volumes. In order to further improve operations to LOS C, either aright -turn arrow would need to beprovided for the eastbound right -tam movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left -turn movement has a green arrow) or the eastbound right -turn movement would need to be removed from the intersection by apork chop island and controlled by a yield sign. With these improvements, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours, thus mitigating the project impact. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road prior to the completion ofPhaseIV ofthe sports park. With installation ofthe traffic signal, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during all three study periods through the final phase ofthe sports park with the existing lane configuration. With the development ofthe commercial parcels, additional turn lanes would be needed to serve traffic entering and exiting the retail uses. Two exclusive southbound right -turn lanes, two northbound left -turn lanes and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. vi Table ES -la Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Background Project Buildout Cumulative General Plan Buildout' Avg. Avg. O Crit. O Crit. Peak Intersection Hour Delay' LOS r Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Delay' V/C ° Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Luchessa Avenue / AM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.9 B+ 8.8 B Princevalle Street PM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.9 B+ 6.3 B+ Sat n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.7 B+ 8.1 B Monterey Street/ AM 18.7 C 20.2 C 22.3 (17.5) C (C) +1.5 +0.089 >120 (21.2) F (C) >120 (21.9) F (C) Luchessa Avenue PM 22.7 C 23.1 C- >120 (21.4) F (C) +176.4 +0.630 >120 (23.0) F (C) 76.2 (24.9) F (C -) Monterey Street/ AM n/a n/a n/a n/a 20.5 (21.4) C (C) n/a n/a 12.4 (9.8) B (B) 51.0 (13.7) E (B -) Farman Frontage Roads PM n/a n/a n/a n/a >120 (20.8) F (C) n/a n/a >120 (19.0) F (C) >120 (21.8) F (C) Sat n/a n/a n/a n/a >120 (21.4) F (C) n/a n/a >120 (17.5) F (C) * ** *'(24.9) F (C -) Monterey Street/ AM 12.6 B 13.7 B- 14.2 B- 0.0 +0.044 16.0 C+ 17.7 C US 101 SB Ramps PM 13.8 B- 14.9 B- 16.2 C+ +0.4 +0.173 17.2 C 23.9 C- Monterey Street/ AM 17.1 C 20.1 C 19.9 C -0.3 +0.014 20.9 C 34.4 (22.9) D (C) US 101 NB Ramps PM 20.6 C 20.4 C 20.0 C -1.1 +0.051 21.8 C 27.2 (24.0) D+ (C -) Santa Teresa Boulevard/ AM 18.6 C 19.2 C 19.6 C +1.2 +0.041 25.0 C- 19.9 C Thomas Road PM 16.2 C+ 17.7 C 18.0 C +4.2 +0.162 20.4 C 16.5 C+ Sat 16.3 C+ 17.5 C 17.2 C +5.0 +0.260 18.7 C 17.0 C+ Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 3 Level of service calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, and the 1985 Hig/muy Capacity Manual operations analysis methodology for signalized intersections. ' Change in critical movement delay from Background to Project Conditions. ° Change in critical volume-to-capacity ratio from Background to Project Conditions. ° This intersection is controlled by stop signs under Existing and Background Conditions (see Table ES -1b for LOS results for these scenarios). The approved sports park project was conditioned to signalized this intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. Under Project Buildout, Cumulative, and General Plan Buildout Conditions, this intersection is assumed to be signalized and retain the existing lane configuration. 6 General Plan Buildout Conditions include planned General Plan intersection improvements. ' Volume -to- capacity ratio exceeds 2.0. Average stopped delay cannot be calculated. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mifigated LOS shown in parentheses. Vii Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table ES -lb Intersection Worst Case Peak Average Average ,_1 I .., a ,. -- Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Existing Conditions AM 1.9 A 5.5 A Approved Projects + Project Buildout) PM 1.3 A 6.1 A Sat 1.0 A 4.1 A Background Conditions (Existing AM 1.3 A 5.9 B Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.3 A 7.6 B Sat 0.9 A 4.7 B Project Conditions (Existing Conditions + AM 7.0 B 8.6 (7.6) B (B) Approved Projects + Project Buildout) PM 8.4 B 65.6 (5.5) E (B +) Sat 8.0 B 61.9 5.7 F B+ Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Existing Conditions AM 1.1 A 5.5 B PM 0.9 A 6.8 B Sat 0.9 A 4.9 A Background Conditions (Existing AM 1.4 A 7.5 B Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.1 A 10.2 C Sat 0.9 A 6.1 B Project Conditions (Existing Conditions+ AM 2.5 (6.4) A (B) 12.8 C Approved Projects + Project Buildout) PM >120 (7.5) F (B) >120 F Sat >120 8.5 F B >120 F Cumulative Conditions (Project Conditions AM >120 (9.6) F (B) >12" F + Other Pending Projects) PM >120 (23.7) F (C -) >120 F Sat >120 8.9 F 13 >120 F General Plan Buildout Conditions AM >120 (17.3) F (C) >120 F PM >120 (14.0) F (B -) >120 F Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. viii Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table ES- 1b(cont.) Unsi nalized Intersection Level of Service Summary Worst Case Intersection Approach Average Average Peak Scenario Hour Delay' LOS 2 Delav LOS Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road' Existing Conditions AM 0.5 A 10.6 C PM 0.5 A 24.6 D Sat 0.4 A 10.0 B Background Conditions (Existing Conditions AM 0.5 A 13.0 C +Approved Projects) PM 0.9 A 60.1 F Sat 0.4 A 14.6 C Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersection, expressed in seconds per vehicle. 3 LOS calculations performed using the CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two -way stop - controlled intersections. ' The approved sports park project was conditioned to signalized this intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. The results of the analysis contained in this report indicate this intersection should be signalized prior to completion of Phase III of the sports park (see Table ES -I a for signalized intersection operations). LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. widening ofthe eastbound approach would be needed to serve the project volume. In addition, right - turn arrows would need to be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three studyperiods. This lane configuration will require splitphase operation ofthe eastbound and westbound approaches and willrequire widening ofFarman Frontage Road. Some realignment ofFatman Frontage Road maybe required to provide adequate turning radii as it approaches its intersection with Monterey Street. The feasibility ofthis improvement is subject to more detailed engineering studies. Without implementation of all the mitigation measures, the project's impact would not be fully mitigated. The General Plan Buildout scenario includes intersection improvements that are included in the City of Gilroy General Plan. With these improvements, five of the seven key intersections are projected to operate at deficient levels during at least one peak hour withthe estimated General Plan Buildout traffic volumes. The intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels under General Plan Buildout Conditions were also evaluated with the improvements identified to mitigate project impacts. The improvements recommended to mitigate project impacts at the two unsignalized intersections (LuchessaAvenue/Princevalle Street and Luchessa Avenue /Church Street), in combination with the General Plan improvements, would restore intersection operations to acceptable levels. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. ix Gilroy Sport ParkkUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Additional improvements would be required at the intersections ofMonterey Street with Luchessa Avenue and with Farman Frontage Road. To attained LOS C operations, the provision of a northbound free right -turn and an overlap phase (right -turn arrow) for the westbound right -turn movement would be needed at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection. Monterey Street/Fannan Frontage Road intersection operations areprojected to improve to LOS C during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours with the identified project mitigation. The intersection ofMonterey Street with the northbound US 101 ramps is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS D duringthe AM and PMpeak hours with the estimated General Plan Buildout traffic volumes. The proposedprojected is estimated to have a less- than - significant impact on this intersection, and therefore, no project mitigation measures were identified at this location. Intersection operations under General Plan Buildout Conditions would be improved to LOS C byre - striping the eastbound approach (the US 101 off -ramp) to pennit left turns from the existing through only lane. The resulting lane configuration on this approach would be two exclusive left-tum lanes, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -turn lane. Intersecti on operations are proj ected to be LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours with this striping revision. Alternatively, the City is proposing to lower the LOS standard for the US 101 ramp intersections with Monterey Street to LOS D with the proposed General Plan. With this LOS standard change, this intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service without the striping revision. Roadway Segment Impacts Roadway segment operations are summarized in Table ES -2. The proposed project is estimated to have a significant impact on one of the four segments. The operation of the segment of Luchessa Avenue between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street is projected to deteriorate from LOS A to LOS Fwith the addition ofproject traffic. Theremaining segments areprojected to continue to operate at LOS C or better. Wideningthe segment ofLuchessaAvenue between Monterey Street andPrincevalle Street from two to four lanes would provide adequate capacityto serve the estimated project buildout traffic volumes and mitigate the project impact. The City's General Plan includes widening of Luchessa Avenue between Chestnut Street and Thomas Road (including the bridge over Uvas Creek) to six lanes. An ultimate roadway with of approximately 116 to 120 feet is anticipated for Luchessa Avenue. Two -Lane Highway Impacts The impact of the proposed project on State Route 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway), eastofUS 101, was evaluated usingthe methodologypresented in the 1994HighwayCapacityManual. Theresults indicate that the project would not have a significant impact on the segment of SR 152 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. x Table ES -2 Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary General Plan Existing Background Project Cumulative Buildout LOS C Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Roadway Volume Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Segment Type's Threshold Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial Thomas Road to Princevalle (6 -Lane Divided 14,500 5,485 A 7,320 A 13,365 C 15,430 D (A) 16,000 A St. Arterial) (43, 000) Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial Princevalle St. to Monterey (6 -Lane Divided 14,500 6,030 A 8,035 A 16,965 E (A) 20,575 F (A) 22,000 A St. Arterial) (43,000) Monterey Street, 4 -Lane. Divided Tenth St. to Luchessa Ave. Arterial 29,000 (6 -Lane Divided (43,000) 7,835 A 9,765 A 13,005 A 15,860 A 23,000 A Arterial) Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided Luchessa Ave to US 101 Arterial 29,000 (6 -Lane Divided (43,000) 12,970 A 14,550 A 28,060 C 31,800 D (A) 36,000 B Arterial) Note: ' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 City of Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program reports. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. z Roadway types and LOS C threshold volumes in parentheses are assumptions for General Plan BuildourConditions. LOS deficiencies are indicated m bold Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 between Llagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road. SR 152 is currently being widened between US 101 and Llagas Creek. This segmentwould operate as a four -lane arterial with these improvements, which include roadway widening, intersection improvements, and a traffic signal at Gilroy Foods. Freeway Segment Impacts Potential project impacts on area freeway segments were evaluated using the CMP methodology. The key freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS B and C during the PM peak hour with the addition ofproject - generated traffic. Therefore, the project is estimated to have a less - than- significant impact on the nearby segments of US 101 according to the criteria established in the Santa Clara County CMP. Queuing Analysis The queuing analysis indicated that the estimated queues for the northbound left -turn movement at Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue and the northbound left-turn movement at Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road would extend past the existing left-tam storage pockets for the under Project Conditions. Implementation oftheproject mitigation measures for these two intersections would accommodate the expected queues. Other Issues Site access, on -site circulation, and parking for the sports park were reviewed in the January 1999 TIA for that project. The review was updated in the context of the current project description (with development ofthe USA amendmentparcels). The siteplan for the proposed residential development was review in terms of site access and acursoryreview ofon -site circulation was conducted. General access issues related to development on the commercial parcels were also reviewed. Snorts Park Site access, on -site circulation and parkingwere assessed forthe sports park. The proposed parking supply of 1,049 was found to be adequate to serve the estimated demand. However, a shortfall is projected to occur after the completion of Phase V. It is recommended that 180 of the 298 parking spaces that will be constructed with Phase VI be constructed instead with Phase V to offset the projected shortfall. Sports park site access was found to be adequate to serve sports park traffic, with sufficient storage provided for queued vehicles between Farman Frontage Road and the main entrybuilding, where a parking fee will be collected. It was recommended that the intersection ofthe sports park driveway Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xii Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 with Farman Frontage Road be monitored forpossible traffic signal installation afterbuildout ofthe commercial parcels. The intersection ofthe sports park driveway should be designed and constructed to accommodate the possible signal installation. On -site circulationwas reviewed and generally found to be adequate. The following recommendations were made: • The outbound lanes of the entrymad near Farman Frontage Road should be narrowed to one lane with paint to allow two outbound lanes (with park personnel directing traffic), if needed. All -way stop sign control is recommended at the intersection ofthe entryroad and the main north - southroad. All- waystop sign control will provide saferconditions forpedestrians crossing this intersection. It is recommended that the first driveway on the entrance road (closest to Farman Frontage Road) be widened to allow both inbound and outbound traffic andthe landscape median along the entry road be cut back to allow left turns from this parking area onto the entry road. Currently, the on -site traffic is concentrated at the intersection ofthe entry road and the main north -south circulation road. Allowing left turns out ofthe eastern most driveway will diffuse some ofthis traffic. Landscaping in the median should be low (two to 2.5 feet in height) or taller trees with thin trunks, which should be pruned to maintain adequate sight distance. • The provision ofan additional north-south circulation aisle in the western most parking area is recommended to breakup the long rows ofparking spaces. In addition, the parking bays and circulation aisles should be extended eastward, eliminating the isolated landscaped barrier at the east end of the parking area. Recommendations were made inregard to other improvements proposed as part ofthe sports park project, including: • A crosswalk across Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road should not be provided until the traffic signal is installed at this intersection. • The proposed Farman Frontage Road bus stop should be designed to VTA standards. Pedestrian access should be provided from the bus stop to along Farman Frontage Road that connects to the internal pedestrian paths. • The proposed sidewalk along the west side ofMonterey Street should connect to signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Monterey Street. It is recommended that the sidewalks Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xiii Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 along Monterey Street be installed when the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection is signalized. Due to travel speeds along Luchessa Avenue (in excess of 40 mph), a crosswalk is not recommended without the protection of a traffic signal with pedestrian heads forpedestrian crossing or all -way stop sign control (stop signs on all three intersection approaches). The recommended pedestrian and bicycle facilityis the connection of the existing trail north of Luchessa Avenue with the proposed trail to the south via the future under - crossing of the Luchessa Avenue bridge. It is recommended thatthis location bemonitored forboth vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle volumes, and an all - waystop ortraffic signals (with pedestrian heads) be installed ifwarrant requirements are met. (Signalization of this intersection is recommended as mitigation under Project Buildout Conditions.) Commercial and Residential Parcels Specific commercial and residential developments are notproposed at this time, and siteplans have not been developed for the corresponding parcels. Therefore, only a general review of site access was conducted. Detailed reviews of the site plans should be conducted when specific projects are is proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Direct access to the commercial parcels was assumed to be provided via one right -turn driveway on Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. Based onthe projected traffic volumes, a southbound right -turn lane is recommended to serve the traffic entering the northern commercial parcels via the Monterey Street driveway. It was noted that the estimated queues on the southbound approach of the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection may at times extend back past this driveway blocking the exiting vehicles. This could result in additional traffic being added to Farman Frontage Road and the west leg ofthe Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection. The northern commercial driveway on Farman Frontage Road was assumed to be controlled by stop sign on the driveway approach and is projected to operate at an acceptable level during the AM peak hour and unacceptable levels during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrantrequirements fortraffic signal installation are satisfiedwith volumes projected forthe PM and Saturdaypeak hours withproject buildout. However, the proximityofthis drivewayto the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection and the sports park driveway may make signalization infeasible. As discussed in regard to improvements at the Monterey Street/Farman Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xiv Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Frontage Road intersection and the sports park driveway, it maybe necessary to realign Farman Frontage Road. This realignment mayprovide opportunities for improved access to the commercial center. The conflicting traffic at the intersection ofthe southern commercial drivewaywith Farman Frontage -- Road is projected to be minimal, and the drivewayis projected to operate at acceptable levels during all study scenarios. However, one access point maynot be sufficient for emergency access. When a f site plan is proposed, it should be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. Directaccess to the residential parcels was assumed to be provided viatwo full access driveways, one at the intersection of Church Street and Luchessa Avenue, the other on Luchessa Avenue east of Church Street, and aright -turn only driveway on Monterey Street east ofLuchessa Avenue. Based on the projected traffic volumes, the assumed site access would be adequate. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. xv Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results ofthe Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the Gilroy Sports Park and proposed Urban Services Area (USA) amendment in Gilroy, California. ATIAwas prepared in January 1999 for the sports park and an update was prepared in January 2000 to include the USA amendment, with maximum allowable development on the amendment commercial parcels and a specific residential de6elopmentproposedforthe remaining amendmentpareels. Sincethattime, the proposed residential development has been withdrawn. This analysis evaluates impacts ofthe Sports Park and the USA amendment with maximum development on both the commercial and residential parcels. Theproject site is located on thewest side ofMonterey Street, south ofLuchessa Avenue (formerly Thomas Road), and is bounded on the west by Uvas Creek and on the south by Uvas Creek and Farman Lane. The site location and surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. Theproposed project includes three components: asports park (approximately 78 acres), residential uses (approximately 28 acres), and commercial uses (approximately27 acres). The locations of the proposed land uses are illustrated on Figure 2. The Gilroy Sports Park will contain 10 softball fields, three baseball fields, seven soccer fields (which are overlaid on the ballfields), a commercial recreation area, and a park/casual recreation area. The commercial recreation area will house a community meeting room and has the potential to house additional indoor athletic activities (roller hockey, indoor soccer, and BMX). The park area includes picnic areas, children's play areas, two sand volleyball courts, six bocce ball courts, and six horseshoe pits. The sports parks's Master Plan indicates that it will be developed in nine phases, as follows: Phase I - Utility infrastructure, entrance, corporation yard, and Uvas Creek Trail extension (rough grading) Phase 11- Two premier Little League fields (over-laid with one soccer field), parking, and Uvas Creek Trail extension Phase III - One ball field (over -laid with one soccer field) and commercial recreation Phase IV- North multi-use field area and parking (four softball fields over-laidwith two soccer fields); signalization ofthe Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection (a Condition ofApproval of the currently approved sports park project) Phase V- South multi -use field area and parking (four softball fields over-laid with two soccer fields) Phase VI- One premier softball/baseball field (overlaid with one soccer field) Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR M Key: Study Intersection Figure 1 SITE LOCATION Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. O N Not to Scale / Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent Ell? YYA February 2002 -6e§ldential Low Derlsiry: ;,, ;'a >z� . '�): 9rrumGen �en[ic - «S' xe ".,ie � -/: _ ' ' �_' -!: _ •,r �•, ®•sE -, Lll ES�/Y R11E.1'iaE .ark/ Bee Fa o l E � MdentlaMbIghborhood P istnct tt mix -_'`• "' " -i,`- - L� ♦1„'.ii.4s Re A�)� s I .. I ?> c.. :'`11�r -�.'. _ _ •,s 's'.^u —___ xT '2AR_Y__1i_ � '.•� i Ixtoi Nc �n � � � i I � 2 �'iiOfKlriiBiCl� , `. - -' lz"Ix ;`test ntial Neighborhood District - = LEGEND F 5•�'— armxia�Oe+q - -_ a xr M.��K�D•- EdstmgUSA F Lj USA Amendment R.J t q Proposed Sporls Pus f —/ PmposedResideaU �\ .— a,a ^'•• _ - , . , � �E,n H 11 0Y •tt - -7`—'— pNE ruices ® Proposed Commemal ` E;_.f _w npAN Land use designsuonstmrn ighb ftllal �_ ' r> 1999 Gilroy General Plan NQlghboaheo ist,_ �\ Open Space Soi,ca;Sanb[lam County OlBre of fhe ASSessaraMEMC PIanansCmup Mn OGilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Figure A1.•na v4 rranwng Subsequent EIR NOP °°'R. Urban Service Area Request s Figure 2 PROPOSED LAND USES azsttar Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Phase VII- Informal recreation area (park area with volleyball andbocce ball courts and horseshoe pits) Phase VIII- Farman Frontage Road improvements Phase IX- Uvas Creek Trail extension to Gavilan College The sports parkwill be constructed over twentyyears, with the first ballfields readyforuse in Spring 2002. Direct access to the-sports park sitewill beprovided via amain entryway on Farman Frontage Road. The sports park site plan is shown on Figure 3. There is no specific development proposed forthe commercial or residential parcels. The commerical parcels will be zoned Commercial General Services, while the residential parcels will be zoned Neighborhood District. Per City staff direction, this analysis assumed the development of approximately590,000 square feet (s.f.) ofretail space on the commercial parcels and 147 units on the residential parcels. The commercial parcels front on Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road. Direct access was assumed to be provided via one right -tum driveway on Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. The residential parcels are located on the south side of Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Uvas Creek. Direct access to the residential parcels was assumed to beprovided bynew public streets that will intersect with Luchessa Avenue at two locations andwith Monterey Street atone location. The Monterey Street intersection will be restricted to right -turns only (due to the existing raised median on Monterey Street). The purpose ofthe analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed development on the transportation system in the vicinity ofthe site. The impacts ofthe proposed project were estimated following the guidelines set forth by the City of Gilroy and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. Seven key intersections, fourroadwaysegments, one two -lane highway segment, and two freeway segments were evaluated: Intersections 1. Luchessa Avenue at Princevalle Street* 2. Luchessa Avenue at Church Street* 3. Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue 4. Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road* 5. Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps 6. Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps 7. Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road* * Intersections also analyzed during the Saturday peak hour. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 'Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Snnrla lmm�lar. an6 Alada, Pb- (D Figure 3 SPORTS PARK SITE PLAN Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. N. Not to Scale Gilroy Sport Park/USAAmendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Roadway Segments 1. Luchessa Avenue, between Thomas Road and Princevalle Street 2. Luchessa Avenue, between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street 3. Monterey Street, between Tenth Street and Luchessa Avenue 4. Monterey Street, between Luchessa Avenue and US 101 Two -Lane Highway Segment 1. SR 152, between US 101 and Frazier Lake Road Freeway Segments 1. US 101, between Leavesley Road and Monterey Street 2. US 101, between Monterey Street and State Route 25 (SR 25) The operations of the key intersections, two -lane highway segment, and freeway segments were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours (the time periods when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways are highest). A subset ofintersections (denoted with an asterisk above) was also evaluated during the S aturdayp eak hour (the time period when traffic generated by the sports park will be highest). The roadway segments were evaluated using weekday daily volumes. The intersections, roadway segments, and two -lane highway segment were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peakone- hourtraffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods and on a Saturday afternoon. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak -hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the area. Scenario 3a -g: Project Conditions. Background peak -hour volumes plus project - generated traffic estimated for the proposed development. The project was evaluated for six levels of sports park development and buildout of the project (including development on the residential and commercial parcels). Scenario 4: Cumulative Conditions. Traffic volumes estimated for conditions with buildout ofthe project (Scenario 3g) plus traffic associatedwith other pending (proposed but not approved) developments. Fehr- & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Scenario 5: General Plan Buildout Conditions. Traffic volumes projected for the buildout of the General Plan. Potential project impacts on the adjacent freeway segments were evaluated following CMP guidelines. Site access, on -site circulation, and parking were reviewed for the sports park. This report is divided into eight chapters: Chapter2 describes Existing Conditions regarding roadway facilities, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, trafficvolumes, and traffic operations ofthe study intersections. Chapter 3 describes the approved developments in the area and traffic operations for Background Conditions. Chapter describes the metho dology used to estimate the project traffic and its impacts on the transportation system (intersections and roadway and freeway segments). Cumulative Conditions and General Plan Buildout Conditions are presented in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. Site access, on -site circulation, and parking are discussed in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of this transportation impact analysis. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapterprovides a description ofExisting Conditions in terms of the roadway facilities, traffic volumes, and intersection operations. Roadway Network Regional access to theproject site is provided byUS 101 and State Route 152 (SR 152), while local access is provided by Monterey Street, Farman Frontage Road, Luchessa Avenue, Thomas Road, Princevalle Street, and Church Street: US 101 provides access to the project site via an interchange at Monterey Street. North of its interchange with Monterey Street, US 101 is a six -lane freeway, narrowing to four lanes north of Cochrane Road. South ofMonterey Street, US 101 becomes a four -lane conventional highway. US 101 extends northward through S an Jose and San Francisco and southward through the California Central Coast. SR 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway) connects US 101 to Interstate 5 and Highway99 in the California Central Valley. This segment of SR 152 is two to four lanes wide. SR 152 is also designated on portions ofUS 101, LeavesleyRoad, and Monterey Street. West ofMonterey Street, SR 152 extends westward along First Street. Monterey Street is, generally, a four -lane arterial through the CityofGilroy. Through downtown Gilroy (between Third and Seventh Streets), Monterey Street narrows to two travel lanes, with angled parking on the east site of the street separated fromnorthbound through traffic by araisedmedian. North of the CityLimits, Monterey Streetbecomes MontereyRoad, a rural highway with fourtravel lanes and a centerturn lane. Monterey Road continues northward into San Jose. South ofits interchangewith US 101, Monterey Street becomes BolsaRoad. Near the project site, the speed limit on Monterey Street is 50 miles per hour (mph). Farman Frontage Road (formerly Monterey Frontage Road) is a two -lane road that extends southward from Monterey Street, near the Monterey Street/US 101 interchange, ending in acul- de-sac south ofthe proj ect site. Farman Frontage Road is a frontage road located along the west side ofUS 101 that provides direct access to the project site (and other properties). Santa Teresa Boulevard is atwo -lane, north -south arterial. Santa Teresa Boulevard extends north from Castro Valley Road in the south part of Gilroy to Morgan Hill. Luchessa Avenue is a two- to four -lane roadway, which extends eastward from Greenfield Drive and terminates east ofUS 101, east ofits intersectionwithRossi Lane. The segment of Luchessa Avenue Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport ParkIUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 between Thomas Road and Monterey Streetwas recentlyrenamed from Thomas Road to Luchessa Avenue. Near the project site, Luchessa Avenue is two lanes wide, and the speed limit is 40 mph. Thomas Road is a two -lane roadway that extends northward from Santa Teresa Boulevard to its all - way stop controlled intersection with Luchessa Avenue. Princevalle Street is a two -lane residential collector street that extends southward from First Street to Luchessa Avenue. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Church Street is atwo -lane street in the vicinity ofthe project site. Church Street extends northward from Luchessa Avenue through downtown Gilroy to north ofFarrell Avenue. Church Street, between Luchessa Avenue and Farrell Avenue, is designated an arterial in the current General Plan and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Transit Service Bus service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Currently, there is one bus route operating within one - halfmile ofthe project site, Route 68: Route 68 operates along Princevalle Street, north ofLuchessa Avenue and along LuchessaAvenue and Thomas Road, west ofPrincevalle Street. Route 68 provides service between San Jose Diridon CalTrain Station and Gavilan College in Gilroy. Hours of operation are 4:30 am to 1:00 am on weekdays and 6:00 am to 12:30 am on weekends. Route 68 operates on a 15- minute headway during the commute hours and a 30- to 60- minute headway during other hours. . Commuterrail service (CalTrain) is provided from Gilroy to San Francisco by the Joint Powers Board. CalTrain provides frequent train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. Extended service is provided to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during the commute hours only. The Gilroy CalTrain station is located east of Monterey Street between Seventh and Ninth Streets. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, andpedestrian signals. Nearthe site, there are generallyno pedestrian facilities. A sidewalk is provided along the north side of Luchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. Sidewalks are notprovided alongFarman Frontage Road or Monterey Street. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths, bike lanes, andbike routes. Bikepaths are pavedtrails that are separated from theroadways. Bike lanes are lanes onroadways that are designated forusebybicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 with signs. Currently, there is abike path along the eastern side ofUvas Creek between Luchessa Avenue and Westwood Avenue, north of the site. Bike lanes are designated on Princevalle Street between Luchessa Avenue and Sixth Street. The Gilroy Sports Park will extend the Uvas Creek Trail southward to Gavilan College. Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations The operations ofthe keyintersections were evaluated formorning (AM) and evening (PM) peak -hour traffic conditions. In addition, four ofthe key intersections were evaluated for Saturdaypeak -hour conditions. Peak conditions generally occur during the morning and evening commuteperiods between 7:00 and 9:00 am and 4:00 to 6:00 pm, respectively, on a weekday. The Saturday peak conditions generally occur between noon and 2:00 pm, based on information provided by City staff (machine counts conducted on Luchessa Avenue in October 1998). Intersection operations were evaluated for _ the highest one -hour volume counted during each of these periods. New peak -hour traffic volumes were obtained for all of the key intersections during November and December 2001. Figure 4 shows the existing AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak -hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections. The intersection lane configurations are presented on Figure 5. Level of Service Methodologies The operations ofroadwayfacilities are described with the term level ofservice. Level of Service is a qualitative description oftraffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, or the worst operation conditions. LOS E represents "at- capacity" operations. When volumes exceed capacity, stop -and -go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. The Cityof Gilroy's standard for intersections and roadway segments is Level of Service C. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 10 V-85 sao Iv Ter e as r6ry3��1l�j O } Jlp�l �► 0 0`t' JII�S Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 m ° 'k- 22 (64) ♦46(110) 46 r (243) 33 (36) -� 109 (60) —► 1 90 (173)' c m•n m w NyyyV�y"i 4(11)[5) -� 0(0)[0] 1(6)[4) V `✓' X 120 t139) �-- 0(0)[0] r 10(5)[3) Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc "A I moro $ m R.45 (79) - 6 p (12) r 471 1 Key: (279) 50 (33) ! 1 I 0 = Study Intersection O N 00(00)[00] = AM (PM)[Saturday] Not to Scale Figure 4 EXISTING PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 451401 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA _ February 2002 I �r t. i r r O N Not to Scale Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 LOS D or better.is an acceptable operating level for the worst case movement/approach at an unsignalized intersection. The CMP standard for freeway segments is LOS E. Intersections The level ofservice calculation methodology for intersections is dependent on the type oftraffic control device (traffic signals or stop signs). Four ofthe key intersections are currently controlled bytraffic signals: Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue, Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps, Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps, and Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road. The remaining intersections are T- intersections that are controlled by stop signs on one approach. The intersection level ofservice methodologyused in this analysis to evaluate the signalized intersections is the approved VTA method. This method evaluates an intersection's operations based on the average stopped vehicular delay calculated using the method described in Chapter 9 ofthe 1985Highway CapacityManual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with saturation flow rates adjusted to reflect local conditions. The average stopped delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the TRAFFDX analysis software and is correlated to a level of service designation as shown in Table 1. Intersection levels ofservicewere calculated using the methodology presented in Chapter 10 ofthe 1994 Highway Capacity Manual for two -way stop - controlled intersections. This methodology evaluates an intersection's operation based on the total average delay at an intersection. The total delay for the unsignalized intersections was calculated using TRAFFIC analysis software and then correlated to a level of service. The level of service thresholds for two -way stop - controlled intersections are presented in Table 2. Roadway Segments Roadway segment operations were evaluated by comparing the measured traffic volume to LOS C volume thresholds. The thresholds used in the analysis were established in the 1997 City ofGilroy Traffic Monitoring Program and used in city monitoring programs in subsequent years. The threshold volumes are based on the roadway type and number of lanes (see Table 3). These thresholds are approximate and serve as a general guide as to whether existing (or projected) volumes exceed roadway capacity. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 13 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay A Average B Level of Stopped Delay 10.1 to 20.0 Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) Description A < 5.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994. p.10 -12. and/or short cycle length. B+ 5.1 to 7.0 Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and /or short B 7.1 to 13.0 cycle lengths. B- 13.1 to 15.0 C+ 15.1 to 17.0 Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and /or C 17.1 to 23.0 longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. C- 23.1 to 25.0 D+ 25.1 to 28.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D 28.1 to 37.0 progression, long cycle lengths, or high V /C ratios. Manyvehicles stop and D- 37.1 to 44.0 individual cycle failures are noticeable. E+ 40.1 to 44.0 Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle E 44.1 to 56.0 lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent E- j 56.1 to 60.0 occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F > 60.0 Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over - saturation, poor propression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 1998 and Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Beard, 1994. Table 2 Two -Way Stop - Controlled Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Total Vehicular Dela Level of Service Average Total Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle) A < 5.0 B 5.1 to 10.0 C 10.1 to 20.0 D 20.1 to 30.0 E 30.1 to 45.0 F > 45.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994. p.10 -12. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 14 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Two -Lane Highway Segments SR 152 is a rural highway on the CMP roadway network. It was therefore evaluated using the methodologypresented in Chapter 8 ofthe 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, as required bythe CMP. The level ofservice ofthe two-lane highway segment was determined by comparing the actual measured flow rates against calculated threshold maximum flow rates for LOS A through LOS E. These service flow rates were calculated by adjusting the ideal capacity for a two -lane rural highway segment (2,800 vehicles per hour) to account for directional distribution oftraffic, percentage ofheavy vehicles, lane widths, shoulder widths, type ofterrain, and the maximum volume-to-capacity ratio for the segment based percentage of no passing zones and terrain. Freeway Segments Freeway segments were evaluated using the methodology required by the VTA. The VTA's analysis procedure is based on the density of the traffic flow using methods described in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. The CMP freeway segment level of service criteria are shown in Table 4. These criteria are based on the 1994 HCM level ofservice criteria with adjustments to reflect local (Santa Clara County) conditions. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 15 i i r Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 3 Level of Service Threshold Volumes For Various Roadway Types' Roadway Type Maximum Daily Volume (both directions) LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E 8 -Lane Freeway 51,000 79,000 112,000 136,000 146,000 6 -Lane Freeway 39,000 59,000 85,000 102,000 110,000 8 -Lane Expressway 35,000 54,000 75,000 90,000 98,000 6 -Lane Expressway 28,000 42,000 56,000 67,000 74,000 4 -Lane Freeway 26,000 39,000 57,000 68,000 73,000 8 -Lane Divided Arterial (with left -tum lanes) 40,000 47,000 54,000 61,000 68,000 6 -Lane Divided Arterial (with left -turn lanes) 32,000 38,000 43,000 49,000 54,000 4 -Lane Expressway 18,000 27,000 36,000 45,000 50,000 4 -Lane Divided Arterial (with left -turn lane) 22,000 25,000 29,000 32,500 36,000 4 -Lane Undivided Arterial (no left -turn lane) 16,000 19,000 22,000 24,000 27,000 2 -Lane Rural Highway 4,000 8,000 12,000 17,000 25,000 2 -Lane Arterial (with left -turn lane) 11,000 12,500 14,500 16,000 18,000 2 -Lane Collector 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000 2 -Lane Local Street' 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1 -Lane Freeway Ramp' 5,000 7,500 10,500 13,000 15,000 2 -Lane Freeway Ramp' 10,000 15,000 21,000 26,000 1 28,000 Notes: ' Based on LOS threshold volumes established in the City of Gilroy 1997 - 1999 Traffic Monitoring program reports. All volumes are approximate and assume ideal roadway characteristics. 2 The capacity limitation is related to neighborhood quali ty of life rather than the physical carrying capacity of the road. This assumes a standard suburban neighborhood, 40 -foot roadway width, and 25 rile per hour speed limit with normal speed violation rates. ' Capacities given for each level of service assume the same level of service for adjoining merging roadway as well as level of service being determined by volume to capacity and not attainable speed. Level of service will be controlled by freeway level of service if worse than ramp. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 16 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 4 Density-Based Freeway Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Density (vehicles /mile /lane) A <10.0 B 10.1 to 16.0 C 16.1 to 24.0 D 24.1 to 46.0 E 46.1 to 55.0 F > 55.0 Source: VTA, Transportation Impact Analyss Guidelines, May 1998. Existing Levels of Service Intersections Current operations ofthe key intersections were evaluated with the existing volumes, existing lane configurations, traffic control devices, and signal phasings /timings used as inputs to the TRAFFIX level of service calculation program. The results are presented in Tables 5a and 5b for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. The level ofservice calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 5b presents both the level ofservice based on the delay for all movements at the unsignalized intersections and the level of service based on the worst case movement or lane group, usually the left - turn movement from the minor (stop sign- controlled) street. The results ofthe level of service calculations indicate that all ofthe key intersections are operating at acceptable levels under Existing Conditions. The four signalized intersections are operating at LOS B or C during both the AM and PM peak hours. Overall intersection operations at the key unsignalized intersections are at LOS A during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 17 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 5a Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Peak Count Intersection Intersection Hour Date Delayl LOS' AM 11 / 18.7 C Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue PM 01 11 /Ol 22.7 C AM 11/01 12.6 B Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps PM 11 /01 13.8 13- AM 11 / 17.1 C Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps PM 11 /O0] 1 20.6 C AM 11 /O1 18.6 C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 11/01 16.2 C-F Sat 12/01 16.3 C F Notes: 3 whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the approved CNT level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which is based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual delay methodology for signalized intersections. At all ofthe unsignalized intersections, theminor street approaches have no separate turn lanes. The worst case movement/lane groups at the intersections ofLuchessaAvenue withPrincevalle Street and with Church Street are the southbound approaches (Princevalle and Church Streets). The Princevalle Street southbound approach is operating at LOS A during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The southbound Church Street approach is operating at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours and LOS A during the Saturdaypeak hour. At the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection, the worst case approach is the eastbound (Farman Frontage Road) approach, which is currently operating atLOS C during theAM peakhour, an unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour, and LOS B during the Saturday peak hour. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 18 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 51) Existing Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Count Intersection Hour Date Delay' LOS' Delav LOS Luebessa Avenue and AM 11 /01 1.9 A 5.5 B Princevalle Street PM 11/01 1.3 A 6.1 B Sat 1 12/01 1.0 A 4.1 A Luchessa Avenue and AM 1 1/01 1.1 A 5.5 B Church Street PM 11/01 0.9 A 6.8 B Sat 12/01 0.9 A 4.9 A Monterey Street and AM 11/01 0.5 A 10.6 C Farman Frontage Road PM 11 /01 0.5 A 24.6 D Sat 12/01 0.4 A 10.0 B Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersections expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two -way stop - controlled intersections. if Roadway Segments Existing roadway segment operations are summarized in Table 6. Existing dailytraffic volumes on LuchessaAvenue and Monterey Street were obtained frommachine counts conducted in November 2001. All four segments are currently operating at good levels (LOS A). Two -Lane Highway Segment Existing traffic volume data and roadway characteristics forthe segment of SR 152betweenUS 101 and Frazier Lake Road were obtained from the GilroyRetail Center Traffic lmpact Analysis (Higgins Associates, July 26, 2001). Traffic counts were conducted on SR 152, west ofFrazierLakeRoad in Feburary 2001. Level of service calculations were conducted using the Retail Center TIA data. Calculation sheets are included in Appendix I. The results indicate that this segment of SR 152 is currently operating atLOS E duringthe AM andPMpeak hours, unacceptable operating levels based on the City of Gilroy standard (LOS Q. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 19 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Table 6 Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service LOS C Existing Volume Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Segment Typet (vpd') Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 5,485 A between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 6,030 A between Princevalle St. and Monterey St. Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 7,835 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 12,970 A between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note: I Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 Cityof Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program report Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. 2 Vehicles per day. Freeway Seements Table7 contains the existing freeway segment levels ofservicebased on the segment densities reported in the CMP's 1998Monitoringand Conformance Report. The 2000 monitoring report did not survey freeway segments in the City of Gilroy. In addition, the 1998 monitoring report did not include freeway segments south of the City ofMorgan Hill during the AM peak hour. Therefore, onlyPM peak hour information was used and presented in Table 7. The segments ofUS 101 reported in this table were chosen to be consistent with the segments in the VTA's monitoring report. Based on the monitored freeway segment densities, all ofthe segments are operating at LOS B during the PM peak hour under Existing Conditions. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 20 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 7 Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service' Peak Segment' Hour Direction Density' LOS US 101, Leavesley Road to Tenth Street AM NB &SB n /a^ n /a^ PM NB 12.9 B SB 12.0 B US 101, Tenth Street to SR 25 AM NB & SB n /aa n /a° PM NB 10.6 B SB 15.1 B Note:' Segment densities obtained from Appendices E and F of the VTA's 1998 CMPMonitodng and Conformance Report. (these segments were not monitored in the 2000 CMP Monitoring and Con /onnance Report) Levels of service reported here based on the monitoring report densities. ° Segments of US 101 presented here are based on those in the 1998 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report. The study segments for this analysis are located within these segments. ' Density expressed in vehicles per mile per lane. ° Not available. Not included in the VTA's 1998 monitoring report. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 21 Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA CHAPTER 3 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion oftheproposed development. Traffic volumes forBackground Conditions comprise existing volumes from counts plus traffic generated by approved developments inthe area. This chapter first describes the procedure used to estimatethe background traffic volumes. Then, the results ofthe level ofservice analysis forBackground Conditions are presented. Background Traffic Estimates Thetraffic voltunes forBackground Conditions were estimated by adding existing volumes and traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects in the vicinity ofthe site. The list ofapproved projects was developed with input from CityofGilroyPlanning staff. Eleven approved developments were identified in the vicinity ofthe project site (see Table C -1 in Appendix Q. These developments include Eagle Ridge (450 homes), the Highway 152 Retail Center (929,200 square feet), Wellington Business Park (90 acres), and Ramada Inn (96 rooms). The traffic associated with these projects was estimated based on trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6'h edition). Trip generation estimates for the approved developments are included in Table C -1. The trips associated with each proj ect were then assigned to the roadway network based on the trip distributionpattems contained in the City of Gilroy 2001 Traffic Monitoring Program TRAFFIX model, relative locations ofcomplementary land uses, and existing travel patterns. The traffic associated with the approved developments was added to the existing volumes at the key intersections and roadway segments to estimate traffic volumes for Background Conditions.' Figure 6 illustrates the traffic volumes estimated at the key intersections for Background Conditions. 'It should be noted that the Saturday peak -hour traffic estimates assume that all the uses included in the approved developments peak at the same time, producing a conservatively high estimate of Saturday peak -hour volumes. Furthermore, the method used to estimate traffic volumes added by the approved developments during all study periods is conservative. The approved developments include both residential and commercial /industrial developments. Some of the trips originating in the residential developments will be destined for the industrial /commercial uses. No reduction was applied to take into account this internalization between approved developments within Gilroy, resulting in some "double counting." Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 22 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TM February 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Background Levels of Service Intersections The results of the intersection level of service calculations forBackground Conditions are presented in Tables 8a and 8b. The LOS calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. The results indicate that the key intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels with traffic added by approved development projects. All ofthe key signalized intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or C duringboth peak hours. The overall operating levels at the three unsignalized intersections are projected to be LOS A. The worst case approach at the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours and LOS A during the Saturday peak hour. The worst case approach at the intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Church Street is projected to operate at LOS B during the weekday AM and Saturday peak hours and LOS C during the Saturday peak hour. At the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road, the operation of the worst case approach (eastbound Farman Frontage Road) is prof ected to be LOS C during the AM and Saturdaypeak hours and an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour volumes at this intersection did notmeet the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant for traffic signal installation (see Appendix E). Table 8a Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Intersection Peak Hour Delay' LOS= AM 20.2 C Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue PM 23.1 C- AM 13.7 B- Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps PM 14.9 B- AM 20.1 C Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps C PM 20.4 AM 19.2 C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 17.7 C Sat 17.5 C Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the approved CNN level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which is based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual delay methodology for signalized intersections. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 24 Gilroy Sport ParldUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Roadway Segments The operations of the key roadway segments with the addition of traffic associated with already approved developments is presented in Table 9. The key roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels. Two -Lane Highway Segments SR 152 will be widened from US 101 to Llagas Creek with widening to Gilroy Foods completed in November 2002. The widening would also include a traffic signal at Gilroy Foods. With these improvements, the section of SR 152 between US 101 and Llagas Creek would operate as a four -lane arterial. The segment of SR 152 between Llagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road would still operate as atwo -lane highway. With the addition oftraffic associated with already approved developments, this segment is proj ected to continue to operate at LOS E during the AM peals hour and degrade from LOS E to F during the PM peak hour. These operating levels are unacceptable bas ed on the City's standard. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 25 Table 8b Background Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Intersection Hour Dela r LOS 2 Delay' LOS' Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street AM 1.3 A 5.9 B PM 1.3 A 7.6 B Sat 0.9 A 4.7 A Luchessa Avenue and Church Street AM 1.4 A 7.5 B PM 1.1 A 10.2 C Sat 0.9 A 6.1 B Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road AM 0.5 A 13.0 B PM 0.9 A 60.1 F Sat 0.4 A 14.6 C Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignahzed intersection expressed in seconds per vehicle. 3 LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two-way stop - controlled intersections. Roadway Segments The operations of the key roadway segments with the addition of traffic associated with already approved developments is presented in Table 9. The key roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels. Two -Lane Highway Segments SR 152 will be widened from US 101 to Llagas Creek with widening to Gilroy Foods completed in November 2002. The widening would also include a traffic signal at Gilroy Foods. With these improvements, the section of SR 152 between US 101 and Llagas Creek would operate as a four -lane arterial. The segment of SR 152 between Llagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road would still operate as atwo -lane highway. With the addition oftraffic associated with already approved developments, this segment is proj ected to continue to operate at LOS E during the AM peals hour and degrade from LOS E to F during the PM peak hour. These operating levels are unacceptable bas ed on the City's standard. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 25 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 9 ' Background Roadway Segment Levels of Service LOS C Volume Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Segment Type' (vpd') Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 7,320 A between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 8,035 A between Princevalle St, and Monterey St. Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 9,765 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 14,500 A between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note: ' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 Ciryof Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program report. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. ' Vehicles per day. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 26 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 4 - PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed Gilroy Sports Park and buildout ofthe USA amendment parcels on the surroundingroadway system are discussed in this chapter. First, the methodologyused to estimate the amount oftraffic generated byeach component oftheproject is described. Then, theresults ofthe level of service calculations for Project Conditions are presented. Project Conditions are defined as Background Conditions plus traffic generated by the proposed project. Project Conditions were evaluated in seven phases. A comparison ofintersection and roadway segment operating levels under Background and Project Conditions is then presented, and the impacts of the project on the key intersections and roadway segments are described. The potential impacts ofthe project on freeway segments in the vicinity of the project site are also discussed. Project Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using a three -step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amounts oftraffic entering and exiting the site were estimated for the study periods. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site were estimated. The trips were assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results ofthe process for the Gilroy Sport Park and USA amendment are described in the following sections. Trip Generation Project trip generation was estimated for the individual project components and then summed to estimate the total number oftrips generated by the project. Table 10 presents a summary ofthe trip generation estimated for the project. The methodologies used to estimate the trip generation for each component are described in the following sections. Sports Park Peak -hour trip generation for the sports park component ofthe project was estimated based on the proposed number and types ofplaying fields and other uses, as well as input from the project architect on the expected operation of the sports park. The trip generation estimates assumed the use of all softball/baseball fields at one rime. These ball fields are overlaid with soccer fields, which would not be in use during softball or baseball games. Basing the trip generation on the use ofall softball/baseball fields was more conservative than assuming the use of all soccer fields because soccer teams are likely to have slightly fewer players than softbalbbaseball teams (12 per team versus 15 to 18 per team) and there are fewer proposed soccer fields than ball fields (seven soccerfields versus 13 softball and baseball fields). Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 27 Table 10 Trip Generation Estimates Component Use Weekday Daily AM Trip Rate' AM Peak Hour Trips PM Trip Rate' PM Peak Hour Trips Sat. Trip Rate' Saturday Peak Hour Trips Rate' Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Sports Park Phases I& II Entry Road Colt Baseball (1) Little League (2) n/a 940 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 56 56 112 n/a 74 74 148 Phase III Soft) Comm. m. Re c. n/a 570 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 34 34 68 n/a 58 58 116 Phase IV Softball (4) n/a 1,300 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 78 78 156 n/a 110 110 220 Phase V Softball (4) n/a 1,300 n/a 5 5 10 n/a 78 78 156 n/a 1110 110 220 VI & VII Softball (1) General Park n/a 490 n/a 20 20 40 n/a 29 29 58 n/a 48 48 96 Phases VIII &IX Other Roadway Improvements & Uvas Creek Trail south n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 Subtotal 4,600 40 40 80 275 275 550 400 400 800 Residential Single - Family 9.57 861 0.75 17 51 68 1.01 58 33 91 0.94 46 39 85 Condo/Townhouse 5.86 334 0.44 4 21 25 0.54 17 14 31 0.47 14 12 27 Subtotal 1,195 21 71 93 75 47 122 60 51 111 Commercial Shopping Center 36.17 21,347 0.78 281 180 460 3.43 973 1,054 2,027 4.69 1,441 1,330 2,770 Pass -by Reduction 30% (6,404) 30% � � 1138) 30% 304 304 608 30% (416) 415 8� Subtotal 14,943 212 111 322 669 750 1,419 1,025 915 1,939 Total 20,738 273 222 495 1,019 1,072 2,091 1,072 1,366 2,851 Notes:' Sports park trip generation is estimated based on expected usage of the park. Daily sports park trips were estimated assuring 12 percent of daily trips occur during the PM peak hour. Residential trip generation rates are from ITE Trip Generation (6th ad.) for single - family detached and townhouse(condominium land uses. Commercial trip generation is estimated based on ITE regression equations for shopping center trip generation. The presented rates are calculated by dividing the estimate number of trips by the size of the commercial space in thousands ofs uare feet Gilroy Sport ParldUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Trip generation estimates were first developed for the worst case condition, the Saturdaypeak hour. In addition to those described above, other assumptions include: (1) 30 players per field for softball and Little League and 36 players per field for colt baseball; (2) One spectatorperplayer for softball and colt baseball and 3 5 spectators per Little League game (slightly more than one per player to reflect more parents watching their children); (3) An auto occupancy of 2.0 persons per vehicle for softball and colt baseball and 2.1 personspervehicle for LittleL.eague (the higher occupancyfor Little League was assumed due to more parents arriving with children). (4) Seventy five percent (75 %) ofthe games were assumed to begin or end during the peak hour. It was further assumed that the players and spectators associated with these games would arrive or leave during that hour. (5) Commercial recreation, general park use, and special events were estimated to add 200 trips (50% inbound and 50% outbound) during the Saturday peak hour. (6) PM peak -hour trip generation was assumed to be 75 % ofthe Saturday peak -hour trip generation for softball and baseball games and 50 %of Saturdaypeak-hour trip generation for general park use, commercial recreation and special events. (7) AMpeak-hourtrip generationwas assumed to beprimarily associated with drop-in use ofthe park and no organized events are expected during the morning commute hours. City staff estimated that a maximum of50 people would be likely to use the park during this time period.2It was assumed that 80 percent ofpark users during the morning peak hour would travel by car and would enter and exit the site during the AM peak hour. The AMpeak- hour trip generation for the sports park was therefore estimated to be 80 trips (40 inbound and 40 outbound).' (8) In order to estimate weekday daily trip generation for the sports park, a peak -hour factor was developed based on the relationships of daily to PM peak -hour trip rates 'Personal communication with Bill Hedley, City of Gilroy Department of Community Development, December, 14, 1999. 'This trip generation estimale is believed to be conservative. The AM peak -hour trip generation for a 78 -acre park based on Institute of Transportation Engineers AM peak -hour trip generation rates for a "County Park" land use is one trip. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 29 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA for similar uses contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). It is estimated that 12 percent of the daily sports park trips will enter and exit the site during the PM peak hour. This factor was used to expand PM peak -hour trip generation to estimate weekday daily sports park trip generation. A summary ofthe trips generation estimates is contained in Appendix D, includingphase byphase estimates and estimates for use of all soccer fields (for informational purposes). The sports park, as proposed, is estimated to generate a total of4,600 weekday daily trips, 80 AM peak -hour tips (40 inbound and 40 outbound), 550 PM peak -hour trips (275 inbound and 275 outbound), and 800 Saturdaypeak -hour trips (400 inbound and 400 outbound). The trip generation estimates are presented in Table 10 by phase. Residential Development The amount of traffic generated by the residential parcels was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates, corresponding to the land use type, to the development size. It was assumed that the residential parcels would be developed for the maximum development of 90 single - family homes and 57 multi - family homes. The standard source used to estimate vehicular trip generation is the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (6th edition). The ITE trip generation rates for "Single- FamilyDetached Residential" and "Condominium/Townhouse" land uses were applied to the size of the proposed development in number of units. The trip generation rates and resulting trip generation estimates are presented in Table 10. The proposed residential development is estimated to generate a total of 1,195 weekday daily trips, 93 AM peak -hour tips (21 inbound and 71 outbound), 122 PM peak -hour trips (75 inbound and 47 outbound), and 111 Saturday peak -hour trips (60 inbound and 5l outbound). Commercial Parcels There is no specific development proposed for the commercial parcels. The parcels will be zoned Commercial General Services. At the direction of City staff, it was assumed that approximately 590,000 square feet (s.f.) ofretail space would be developed. This development size was estimated based on a 25 percent floor -area -ratio (FAR)' and an average building height of two stories on approximately 27 acres. The ITE trip generation regression equations for shopping centers were used 'This FAR is consistent with the City of Gilroy General Plan EIR. City staff has indicated that the commercial parcels are located within a floodway, and therefore, development on the commercial parcels is likely to be limited to an FAR of 25 percent or less. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 30 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 to estimate theproject trip generation. The buildout size of 590,000 s.f. was inputto these equations to estimate daily andAM, PM, and Saturdaypeak -hour trip generation. The results arepresented in Table 10. It was assumed that 50 percent ofthe trips would be generated by the northen parcels and 50 percent would be generated by the southern parcels. A 30 percentreduction factor was applied to the shopping center trip generation estimates to account forpass- bytrips. Pass -by trips are trips generated bythe proposed project that are attracted from the traffic alreadypassing the project site on an adjacent street. A 30 percent reduction is the maximum allowed under VTA guidelines. With the application ofthe pass-byreduction, the commercial parcels are estimated to add 14,943 new dailytrips, 322 AM peak-hour trips (212 inbound and 111 outbound), 1,419 PM peak-hour trips (669 inbound and 750 outbound), and 1,939 Saturdaypeak -hour trips (1,025 inbound and 915 outbound). Trip Distribution Thetrip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on existing travel patterns inthevicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. Separate distribution patterns were developed for each project component. The major directions for project - generated traffic to approach and depart the project site are estimated to be: Roadway/Direction Luchessa Avenue West Santa Teresa Boulevard North Santa Teresa Boulevard South Princevalle Street North Church Street North Monterey Street North US 101 North US 101 South SR 152 East Luchessa Avenue East Princevalle /Church neighborhood The trip distribution pattern is illustrated on Figure 7. Snorts Pazk Residential Commercial 5% 5% 5% 20% 7% 20% 5% 3% 5% 10% 3% 5% 15% 5% 8% 10% 20% 17% 15% 40% 19% 10% 15% 15% 5% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 5% 0% 5% 100% 100% 100% Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 31 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA F hru= 2002 ® Study Intersection XX/XX/XX = Sports Park/ Residential/ Figure 7 I TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN ax i of Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. O N Not to Scale %/I% Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent ED? TIA February 2002 Trip Assignment The trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. The pass -by trips (30 percent of the commercial development) were assigned based on the existing distribution oftraffic (northbound versus southbound) on Monterey Street at the site driveways. Figure 8a presents the peak -hour project trip assignments by turning movement at the study intersections and onnearbyroadwaysegments forbuildout conditions. Figure 8b shows projecttrips at the site driveways and the intersection of Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road. The projeettrips for each analysis phasewere addedto the traffic volumes forBackground Conditions to achieve turning- movement volumes at thekeyintersections for each analysis phase. The total traffic . volumes at each of the key intersections under project buildout conditions are shown on Figure 9. Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level ofservice calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating conditions ofthe key intersections with project traffic and the potential impacts ofthe proposed project on the local roadway system. Intersection operations were evaluated for seven levels of development of the project. The results ofthe intersection level ofservice calculations for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Tables 11 a and l lb. The signalized intersections ofMonterey Street with the US 101 southbound ramps an d with the US 101 northbound ramps and the Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road intersection are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels ofservice through buildout of the proposed proj ect. The signzlied intersection ofMonterey Street and Luchessa Aveue is projected to operate at acceptable levels thought the final phase ofthe Sports Park. With buildout ofthe residential and commercial parcels, intersection operations are proj ected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 33 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Figure 8a PEAK -HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 7i — „s (PROJECT BUILDOUT) Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Key: ® Study Intersection XX (XX)[XX) = AM(PM)[Saturday] O N Not to Scale Figure 8a PEAK -HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT 7i — „s (PROJECT BUILDOUT) Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Mole: Trip assigment at commendal driveways and the Monterey St eeWannan Frontage Road Not to Scale intersection includes sass -bv tncs. Figure 8b PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT AT SITE " f ,�,gn, DRIVEWAYS AND NEARBY INTERSECTIONS _ f Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. S \" /a ejl"a t Key: ® = Study Intersection 00(00)(00) = AM(PM)[Saturday] Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 �..- LAS 016) , ��A212061 J � T 2 J L U Pr 45 (79) X35(121) 1 � 56 (159) 56/(290) 1 r 88 (77) -�f R 182 (74) y 1 f 69 (700) _�k c m n�m 9(2)(9) r 9(0)(0) r 16(5)w) mI m 45 (79) lIN 47 4 /� ♦ r6(12)) 429(532)—o 1 I f 50 (33) � 107 (95) —4 °1 m O �= N Not to Scale Figure 9 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT BUILDOUT I ° f � „s„", PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 The overall operations ofthe unsignalized intersection ofLuchessaAvenue andPrincevalle Street are projected to be acceptable (LOS C or better) during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours through project buildout. The worst case approach is projected to operate at an acceptable level through the final phase ofthe sports park. Withbuildout ofthe commercial parcels and theresidential development, the worst case approach is projected to deteriorate to LOSE during the PM peak hour and LOS F during the Saturdaypeak hour. Operations during the AM peak hour areprojected to continue to be LOS B, an acceptable level. The overall operations of the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection are projected to be acceptable through the final phase of the sports park. With the buildout of the project, overall intersection operations are projected to deteriorateto LOS F duringthe PM and Saturdaypeak hours. Operations during the AM peak hour are projected to continue to be LOS A. The worst case approach is also projected to operate at acceptable levels through the final phase ofthe sports park (LOS D or better) and deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours with buildout of the residential and commercial parcels. As currently approved, the sports park proj ect is required to install a traffic signal at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. For this analysis, it was assumed that no lane additions would be made at this intersection as part of the proposed project. Overall intersection operations at the unsignalized intersection are projected to be acceptable through completion of Phase III ofthe sports park during AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The operations ofthe worst case approach, eastbound Farman Frontage Road, are projected to remain at acceptable levels during all threepeakhours through the completion ofPhase II ofthe sports park. With the completion of Phase III, this approach is projected to deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour. With signalization, the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road is projected to operate at acceptable levels duringthe AM, PM and Saturdaypeak hours (with no lane additions) from Phase IV through the final phase ofthe sports park. With buildout ofthe commercial and residential parcels, the operations of this intersection are projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturdaypeak hours. Operations during the AM peak hour are projected to be LOS C, an acceptable operating level. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 37 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table I I a ' Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Delav' LOS 1 Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Background Conditions AM 20.2 C (Existing Conditions + Approved Projects PM 23.1 C- Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 20.8 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic PM 23.4 C- Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 20.8 C Phase 11 Conditions+ Park Phase III Traffic PM 23.6 C- Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 20.8 C Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic PM 24.2 C- Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 20.8 C Phase IV Conditions+ Park Phase V Traffic PM 24.8 C- Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 20.9 C Phase V Conditions+ Park Phases VI &VII Traffic PM 25.1 D+ Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 20.9 C Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic PM 25.1 D+ Project Buildout Conditions AM 22.3 (17.5) C (C) (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic PM >120 21.4 F C Monterey Street and US 101 Southbound Ramps Background Conditions AM 13.7 B (Existing Conditions +Approved Projects PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 13.7 B (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 13.7 B Phase 11 Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 13.7 B Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 13.7 B Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 14.9 B- Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 13.7 B- Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic PM 15.0 B- Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 13.7 13- (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic ) PM 15.0 B- Project Buildout Conditions AM 14.2 B- S orts Park. Residential and Commercial Traffic PM 16.2 C+ Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 38 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table I I (cont.) Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Dela ' LOS Monterey Street and US 101 NB Ramps Background Conditions AM 20.1 C (Existing Conditions + Approved Pro'ects PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 20.1 C (Background Conditions + Park .Phases l &II Traffic PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 20.1 C Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic PM 20.4 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 20.1 C (Phase Vl &VII Conditions +Park PhasesVlll &IX Traffic PM 20.4 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 19.9 C (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic PM 20.0 C Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road' Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 9.9 B (Phase III Conditions+ Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 12.0 B Sat 15.2 C+ _ Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 10.0 B (Phase IV Conditions + Park Phase V Traffic) PM 14.7 B- Sat 17.9 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 8.5 B (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 15.7 C+ Sat 19.2 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 8.5 B (Phase Vl& VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 15.7 C+ Sat 19.2 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 20.5 (21.4) C (C) (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM >120 (20.8) F (C) Sat >120 21.4 F C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road Background Conditions AM 19.2 C (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 17.7 C Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 39 Gilroy Sport ParkWA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table I I a (cont.) Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Average Intersection /Scenario Hour Dela t LOS' Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 19.2 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &[I Traffic) PM 17.7 C Sat 17.7 C Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 19.2 C (Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 17.8 C Sat 17.8 C Sports Park Phase IV Conditions 19.2 C AM (Phase III Conditions+ Park Phase IV Traffic) 17.9 C PM 17.9 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 19.2 C (Phase IV Conditions+ Park Phase V Traffic) PM 17.9 C Sat 17.9 C Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 19.2 C (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 17.9 C Sat 17.9 C • Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 19.2 C (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 17.9 C Sat 17.9 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 19.6 C (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 18.0 C Sat 17.2 C Notes: I Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which is based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual delay methodology for signalized intersections. ' These phases of the sports park include roadway and Uvas Creek Trail improvements. The park is not estimated to generate any additional traffic over Phase VI &VII conditions. i This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs. The approved sports park project was conditioned to signalized this intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. See Table I Ob for LOS results for phases of the project prior to signalization. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 40 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 116 Background and Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Worst Case Intersection Movement Average Average - Peak Total Total Scenario Hour Del- ' LOS' Dela LOS Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Background Conditions AM 1.3 A 5.9 B (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 1.3 A 7.6 B Sat 0.9 A 4.7 B Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.5 B (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 1.4 A 8.3 B Sat 1.0 A 5.2 B Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.5 B (Phase 11 Conditions+ Park Phase III Traffic) PM 1.5 A 8.7 B Sat 1.0 A 5.6 B Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.6 B (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 1.5 A 9.9 B Sat 1.0 A 6.6 B Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.6 B (Phase IV Conditions+ Park Phase V Traffic) PM 1.9 A 11.4 C Sat 1.4 A 7.8 B Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 1.9 A 6.8 B (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 2.0 ,A 12.0 C Sat 1.5 A 8.4 B Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 1.9 A 6.8 B (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 2.0 A 12.0 C Sat 1.5 A 8.4 B Project Buildout Conditions AM 7.0 B 8.6 (7.6) B (B) (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM 8.4 B 65.6 (5.5) E (B +) Sat 8.0 B 61.9 (5.7 ) P' B+ Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Background Conditions AM 1.4 A 7.5 B (Existing Conditions + Approved Projects) PM 1.1 A 10.2 C Sat 0.9 A 6.1 B Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 1.4 A 6.3 B (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 1.3 A 11.9 C Sat 1.0 A 5.0 B _ Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 1.5 A (Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 1.5 A 13.0 C Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 41 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 • Table Ilb (can't) Background and Project Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Worst Case Intersection Movement Average Average Peak Total Total Scenario Hour Dela r LOS' Delay LOS Sports Park Phase IV Conditions AM 1.5 A 7.8 B (Phase III Conditions + Park Phase IV Traffic) PM 1.9 A 16.5 C Sat 1.5 A 10.5 C Sports Park Phase V Conditions AM 1.5 A 7.9 B (Phase IV Conditions+ Park Phase V Traffic) PM 2.5 A 21.5 D Sat 2.0 A 13.8 B Sports Park Phase VI &VII Conditions AM 1.5 A 8.2 B (Phase V Conditions + Park Phases VI &VII Traffic) PM 2.9 A 24.4 D Sat 2.3 A 15.9 C Sports Park Phase VIII &IX Conditions' AM 1.5 A 8.2 B (Phase VI &VII Conditions + Park Phases VIII &IX Traffic) PM 2.9 A 24.4 D Sat 2.3 A 15.9 C Project Buildout Conditions AM 2.5 (6.4) A (B) 12.8 C (Sports Park, Residential and Commercial Traffic) PM >120 (7.5) F (B) >120 F Sat 1 >120 8.5 F B >120 F Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road Background Conditions AM 0.5 A 13.0 C (Existing Conditions+ Approved Projects) PM 0.9 A 60.1 F Sat 2.2 A 29.1 D Sports Park Phases I &II Conditions AM 0.6 A 13.2 C (Background Conditions + Park Phases I &II Traffic) PM 14.1 A >120 F Sat 6.6 B 62.7 F Sports Park Phase III Conditions AM 0.7 A 13.2 C (Phase II Conditions + Park Phase III Traffic) PM 54.4 F >120 F Sat 1 113.1 1 F 1 >120 1 F Notes: ' Average total intersection delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle. z LOS calculations performed using the CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two -way stop- controlled intersections. ' These phases of the sports park include roadway and Uvas Creek Trail improvements. The park is not estimated to generate any additional traffic over Phase VI &VII conditions. ° This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs. The project proposes for this intersection to continue to be stop sign controlled until Phase VIII of the project when a signal will be constmeted. See Table IOa for LOS results for sports park phases VII& IX and buiklout of the project when the signal will be in place. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parenheses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 42 Gilroy Sport Park/USAAmendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Intersection Impacts The impacts ofthe proposed project were evaluated by comparing the results ofthe level of service calculations underProject (Buildout) Conditions to the results under Background Conditions. Forthis analysis, traffic impacts at signalized intersections are defined to occurwhen the addition ofproject traffic causes: 1. Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E, or F); or 2. Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS D, E, or F). Traffic impacts at unsignalized intersections are defined to occur when the addition ofproj ect traffic causes: 1. Overall intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E, or F); or 2. The peak -hour volume traffic signal warrant to be satisfied and the worst case approach operations to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. The results indicate that theprojectwill have a significant adverse impact on fourof the seven key intersections: Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road The addition ofproject traffic to the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection causes theworst case approach to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS E during the PM peak hour and from LOS B to LOS F duringthe Saturdaypeak hour. The addition ofproject trafficto the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection causes both overall intersection operations and the worst case approach to deteriorate from acceptable operating levels to LOS F duringboththePM and Saturdaypeak hours. The intersection ofMonterey Street and Luchessa Avenue is projected to degrade from LOS C to LOS F during the PM peak hour with the addition ofproject - generated traffic. The operation of the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection is projected to deteriorate from acceptable level under Background Conditions to LOS F during the PM and Saturdaypeak hours with the addition of project traffic and construction of the proposed traffic signal. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 43 Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Intersection Mitigation Measures Theproposed project is estimated to have a significant impact on fourofthe seven study intersections. Mitigation measures are discussed below for each intersection. Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street The estimated PM and Saturdaypeak-hour traffic volumes at the LuchessaAvenue/Princevalle Street intersection satisfythe Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant for traffic signal installation under Project Buildout Conditions (see Appendix E). The operation ofthis intersection would improve to LOS B duringAM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours with the installation ofatraffic signal, withthe existing lane configuration and two -phase signal operation. (Level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.) Therefore, installation of a traffic signal would mitigate the prof ect's impact at this intersection. Luchessa Avenue and Church Street The Caltrans PeakHour Volume warrant requirements are also satisfiedwith the Project Buildout Conditions volumes estimated for the intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Church Street during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The project's impact at this intersection would be reduced to a less - than- significant level with the installation of atraffic signal, two -phase signal operation, and the following lane configuration: Northbound and Southbound Approaches One approach lane for all movements Eastbound and Westbound Approaches One left -turn lane One shared through and right -turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection is projected to operated at LOS B during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours with traffic volumes estimated for Project Buildout Conditions. This mitigation measure requires the addition of left -turn pockets on the eastbound andwestbound approaches at this intersection. With buildout ofthe City's General Plan, Luchessa Avenue will be widened to six lanes. The future roadway width is anticpated to be of 116 to 120 feet. This width will be more than adequate to accommodate the addition of left -turn pockets. Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 44 Gilroy Sport ParIVUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 The addition of second northbound left -turn lane and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane will improve the operation ofthe Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersections from LOS F to LOS E during the PM peak hour. In order to further improve operations to LOS C, either a right -tum arrow would need to be provided for the eastbound right -turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left -turn movement has a green arrow) or the eastbound right -turn movement would need to be removed from the intersection by apork chop island and controlled by ayield sign. With these improvements, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C duringboth the AM and PM peak hours, thus mitigating the project impact. As noted above, an ultimatewidth of 116 to 120 feet is anticipated on LuchessaAvenue. A separate eastbound right -turn lane at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection could be accommodated within this width. The City's General Plan includes the addition ofa separate eastbound right -turn lane at this intersection. Currently, there is a wide landscaped median island on Monterey Street. Adequate width maybe available within the median to provide the second northbound left-turn lane with median modifications. A second westbound through lane would also need to be added to Luchessa Avenue, west of Monterey Street, to serve as a receiving lane for the second northbound left -turn lane. The General Plan includes widening Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Street (between Luchessa Avenue and US 10 1) to six lanes and providing a second northbound left -turn lane at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection. The third northbound through lane on Monterey Street will need to end at the intersection ofMonterey Street and Luchessa Avenue, mostly like as a "trap" right -turn or left -turn lane. The second northbound left -tum lane could be provided in this manner. Monterey Street and Fartnan Frontage Road As currently approved, the sports park project is required to install a traffic signal at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection prior to completion of Phase IV of the park. With the proposed project, it is recommended that this traffic signal be installed prior to completion ofPhase III of the sports park and that additional improvements to this intersection be made to mitigate impacts associated with buildout of the commercial parcels. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant for signal installation in the CaltransTrafftcManual was investigated to determine when traffic volumes at the intersection would satisfy the warrant requirements. The estimated traffic volumes for Background Conditions, sports park Phase I &II, and sports park Phase III were compared to the requirements for rural areas because travel speeds on Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road exceed 45 mph (the speed limit is 50 mph). Traffic volumes after the completion ofPhases III through project buildout satisfy the warrant requirements during both peak hours. Traffic projections for the PM peak hour after completion ofPhase II would marginally meet Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 4.5 Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 the requirements. The signal warrant sheets are included in Appendix E. With installation ofthe traffic signal, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during all three studyperiods through the final phase ofthe sports park with the existing lane configuration. With the development ofthe commercial parcels, additional turn lanes would be needed to serve traffic entering and exiting the shopping center. Two exclusive southbound right -turn lanes, two northbound left -tam lanes and widening of the eastbound approach would be needed to serve the proj ected volumes. The recommended lane configuration is: Southbound Approach - one left -tum lane, two through lanes, two right -turn lanes Westbound Approach - one shared lane for all movements Northbound Approach- two left-tam lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right -turn lane Eastbound Approach - one exclusive left -tum lane, one shared through and left -turn lane, and one right -turn lane. In addition, right -tum arrows would need to be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three study periods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound approaches. This improvement will need to be coordinated with future plans to widenMonterey Street to six lanes. The recommended lane configuration mayrequire widening on thewest side (beyondthatplanned by the City) to provide one orboth southboundright -turn lanes and possiblythe second northbound left- turn lane. The northbound left -turn lane may be able to be added with median modifications alone. The improvements to the Farman Frontage Road leg of the intersection will require substantial widening on Farman Frontage Road, which is currently50 feetwide at the intersection and narrows to 30 feet approximately 100 feetwest ofMonterey Street. The TRAFFIX design queues estimated for the Farman Frontage Road approach to its intersection with Monterey Street indicate that a250- foot right -turn pocket and two 475 -foot left -turn pockets will be needed to accommodate the projected queues. It is also recommended that the second westbound lane on FarmanFrontage Road (to accommodate the second northbound left -turn lane from Monterey Street) be continued to the sports park entrance road, approximately 600 feet from the intersection. Farman Frontage Road currently curves to the south justwest of its intersection with Monterey Street. Some realignment of the roadway may be necessary (Farman Frontage Road may need to be extended farther to the west before it curves to the south) to provide adequate turning radii at its intersection with Monterey Street. Feasibility of the improvements to Farman Frontage Road and its intersection with Monterey Street is subject to more detailed engineering studies. Without implementation ofall the mitigationmeasures, the project's impact would not be fully mitigated. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 46 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Proiect Site Access Evaluation of the proj ect site access is discussed in Chapter 7. Recommendations for improving the site access are also described. Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service Table 12 presents the operating levels ofthe keyroadway segments under Background and Proj ect Conditions. With the addition ofproject - generated traffic one ofthe four key segments is projected to operate at an unacceptable level: Luchessa Avenue between Princevalle and Monterey Streets is projected to operate at LOS Ewith the addition ofproject buildout traffic. The remaining segments are projected to continue to operate at LOS C or better, acceptable levels based on the City of Gilroy standard. Roadway Segment Impacts With the addition of project - generated traffic, one of the key roadway segments is projected to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. The segment ofLuchessaAvenue between Princevalle Street and Monterey Street is projected to degrade from LOS A to LOS E, an unacceptable level based on the City of Gilroy standard. This deterioration in roadway segment level ofservice constitutes asignificant impact. The three remaining segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels, and therefore, the project's impact on these segments is less than significant. Roadway Segment Mitigation Measures Widening the segment ofLuchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street from two to four lanes would provide adequate capacity to serve the estimated project buildout traffic volumes and mitigate the proj ect impact. The City's General Plan includes widening ofLuchessa Avenue between Chestnut Street and Thomas Road (including the bridge over Uvas Creek) to six lanes. An ultimate roadway width of 116 to 120 feet is anticipated on Luchessa Avenue Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 47 Gilroy Sport Park(USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 12 Background and Project Roadway Segment Levels of Service Background Project LOS C Volume Weekday Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Daily Segment Type, (vpdz) Volume LOS Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane 14,500 7,320 A 13,360 C Thomas Road to Princevalle St. Arterial Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane 14,500 8,035 A 16,965 E (A) Princevalle St. to Monterey St. Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane 29,000 9,765 A 13,005 A Tenth St. to Luchessa Ave. Divided Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane 29,000 14,500 A 28,060 C Luchessa Ave to US 101 Divided Arterial Note:' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 1998 and 1999 Cityof Gilroy Traffic Monitoring Program reports. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. ' Vehicles per day. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Two -Lane Highway Segment Levels of Service Level of service calculations were conducted for the segment of SR 152 between US 101 and Frazier Lake Road using traffic volumes estimated forProject Conditions. The calculation sheets are contained in Appendix I. Under both Background and Project Conditions, this segment is projectedto operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Two -Lane Highway Segment Impacts The impacts ofthe proposed project were evaluated by comparing the results ofthe level of service calculations underProject (Buildout) Conditions to the results underBackground Conditions. Forthis analysis, traffic impacts on two -lane highway segment are defined to occur when: 1. The addition ofproject traffic causes the operating level of a two-lane highway segment to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOSE or better) under Background Conditions to Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 48 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 an unacceptable level (LOS F); or 2. The number of new trips added by a project to a segment already operating at an unacceptable level underBackground Conditions is morethan one percent ofthe segment's capacity. Since the two -lane highway segment analyzed is outside ofthe City of Gilroy's limits and General Plan boundary, the VTA's definition ofacceptable operating level (LOS E) and significance criteria is used. The results indicate that the projectwill have a significant adverse impact on the segment of SR 152 between Llagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road during the PM peak hour. This segment is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour under both Background and Project Conditions. The proposed projected is estimated to add 4 trips during the AM peak hour and 20 trips during the PM peak hour to this segment. The capacity of the segment is 2,800 vehicles during the AM peakhour and 2,650 vehicles during the PMpeakhour (see Appendix I for calculations). Therefore, the addition of seven ofmore trips during the AM peak hour and eight or more trips duffing the PM peak hour would not constitute a significant impact. Freeway Segment Levels of Service Accordingto CMP guidelines, freeway segments to which aproposed developmentis projected to add trips equal to or greater than one percent ofthe freeway segment's capacitymustbe evaluated. Nearby segments of US 101 werereviewed to determine ifa significant amount ofproject traffic would be added to these freeway segments' during the PM peak hour. Capacities of2,200 vehicles per hourper lane (vphpl) for four -lane segments and 2,300 vphpl for freeway segments with six ormore lanes were used in the analysis. Table 13 presents the capacities ofeach segment, the estimated number oftrips added to each segment by the proposed development during the PM peak hour, and whether ornot the freeway segment must be evaluated in greater detail. 'The segment of US 101 south of Monterey Street is a conventional highway (not freeway). The CMP TIA guidelines do not specify a methodology for the analysis of multi -lane highway segments. Therefore, the freeway segment methodology was used to approximate the operating conditions on this segment. 'The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual indicates a capacity of2,200 vphpl formulti -lane highway segments (assuming a design speed 60 miles per hour). Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 49 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 13 Freeway Segment Analysis Requirement Determination (PM[ Peak hour 1% of Project Requires Segment Capacity' Capacity Trips Analysis? Northbound US 101, 6,900 69 224 Yes Monterey Street to Leavesley Road Southbound US 101, 6,900 69 219 Yes Leavesley Road to Monterey Street Northbound US 101, 4,400 44 139 Yes SR 25 to Monterey Street Southbound US 101, 4,400 44 147 Yes Monterey Street to SR 25 Notes: I A capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane was used for four -lane hi way segments, while a capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane was used for leeway segments wish six or more ffanes. a Greatest number of project trips added at any one location within this segment. The project is estimated to add traffic that will exceed one percent of the capacityto all four of the nearbyfreeway segments. Table 14presents the levels of service of these segments with the addition ofproject- generated traffic. All ofthe segments are projected to operate at LOS B or C during thePM peals hour, acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the project impact on these segments is less than significant. Left -Turn Pocket Storage and Queuing Analysis Queuing analyses were conducted at fourkey intersections. The analysis looked at the potential for queues in the through lanes to spill back from one traffic signal to an upstream intersection. Left-turn pockets on intersection approaches to which the proposed project is projected to add a significant number of vehicles were also evaluated. Six locations were analyzed: • Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue (northbound) • Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road (northbound) • Monterey Street/US 101 Southbound ramps (northbound) • Monterey Street/US 101 Southbound ramps (southbound) • Monterey Street/US 101 Northbound ramps (northbound) • Monterey Street/US 101 Northbound ramps (southbound) TRAFFIX was used to calculate the design (95h percentile) queues. The queuing analysis indicated . that the estimated queue lengths would extend past the existing left -turn storage pockets for the Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 50 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 northbound left - tummovement atMonterey Street and LuchessaAvenue and thenorthbound left-turn movement at Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road with the addition ofproject traffic during thePMpeakhour However, with implementation ofthe intersection mitigation measures, the left-turn queues would be accommodated. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 51 Table 14 .Project Freeway Segment Analysis PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions Project Conditions Average Project Freeway Study Segment CMP Segment' Direction Lanes Speed Volume Density LOS' Trips - Density LOS %Impact 101 Monterey to Leavesley Tenth to Leavesley NB 3 65 2,510 12.9 B 224 14.0 B 3.25% 101 Leavesley to Monterey Leavesley to Tenth SB 3 65 2,330 12.0 B 219 13.1 B 3.17% 101 SR 25 to Monterey SR 25 to Tenth NB 2 65 1,550 10.6 B 139 13.0 B 3.020 °% 101 Monterey to SR 25 Tenth to SR 25 SB 2 65 2,210 15.1 B 147 18.1 C 3.20 ° /n otes: Lanes, volume, speed and density fmm VfA 1998 CMP Monitoring Data. (These segments were not monitored in th @000 CMP Moni(oring and Conformance Report.) Segment contained in 1998 CMP Monitoring and Conformance Report that was used to estimate operating conditions on the study segment. a LOS based on density presented in CMP monitoring report Gilroy SportPark/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA CHAPTER 5 - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results ofthe level of service calculations under Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions are defined as existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by the proposed proj ect, plus traffic associated with other proposed but not approved developments in the study area. Cumulative Traffic Estimates Traffic volumes for Cumulative Conditions were estimatedby adding traffic associated with pending developments to traffic volumes estimated for Project Conditions. There are ninepending developments in the study area including the Glen Loma Specific Plan (670 homes and 360 apartments) and the South ValleyTechnology Park. The pending developments are presented in Table C- I (Appendix C). Traffic volumes for these developments were estimated in a manner similar to the traffic projections for approved developments. Trip generation rates were obtained from PTE Trip Generation (see Table C -1). Peak -hour trips were assigned to the roadwaynetwork based on existing travel patterns, relative locations of complementary land uses, and trip distribution patterns contained in the Gilroy traffic monitoring program TRAFFIX model.' Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service The operations ofthe key intersections were evaluated with level of service calculations. The results are presented in Tables 15a and 15b for sign alized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. The intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road, at which atraffic signal is proposed as part ofthe Gilroy Sports Park, was assumed to be signalized under Cumulative Conditions. In addition, the City is also planning to signalized the Princevalle and Luchessa Avenue intersection when traffic signal warrants are met. Therefore, this intersection was also assumed to be signalized under Cumulative Conditions. All of the other study intersections used existing lane configurations. Under Cumulative Conditions, the intersection ofMonterey Street and LuchessaAvenue is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. These intersections are projected to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour. The Monterey Street intersections at US 101 southbound ramps and US 101 northbound ramps are projected to continue to operate at LOS B or C during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road is projected to continue to operate at LOS B or C during both the AM, 'It should be noted that the Saturday peak hour traffic estimates assume that all the uses included in the approved and cumulative developments, as well as the proposed project, peak at the same time, resulting a conservatively high estimate of Saturday peak -hour volumes. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. S3 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue andPrincevalle Street is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS B during AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. Table 15a Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Intersection Peak Hour Delay' LOS' AM 6.9 B+ Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street PM 5.9 B+ Sat 5.7 B+ AM >120 (21.2) F (C) Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue PM >120 (23.0) F (C) Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road AM 12.4 (9.8) B (B) PM >120 (19.0) F (C) Sat >120 17.5 F C 4M 16.0 C+ Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps PM 17.2 C AM 20.9 C Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps PM 21.8 C AM 25.0 C- Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 20.4 C Sat 18.7 C Notes: Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' .LOS calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which isbased on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual d&ay methodology for signalized intersections. Volume- tc-capacity ratio exceed 2.0. Average stopped delay cannot be calculated. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. The intersections that are projected to operate atunacceptable levels under Cumulative Conditions were also evaluated with the improvements identified to mitigate project impacts. The improvements identifiedto mitigate project impacts at the Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue intersection would improve Cumulative operations to LOS E during the AM peak hour and remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. In addition to some of the General Plan improvements at this intersection which includes three southbound through lanes on Monterey Street, two westbound left -turn lanes, and separate westbound through and right-turn lanes onLuchessaAvenue, the provision ofanorthbound free right -turn would be needed to improve the operations to LOS C during both peak hours. The Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection operations are projected to improve to LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM and Saturday peak hours with the identified project mitigation. Fehr &.Peers Associates, Inc. 54 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 15b Cumulative Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Intersection Hour Dela ' LOS' Dela ' LOS' Luchessa Avenue and Church Street AM >120 (9.6) F (B) >120 F PM >120 (23.7) F (C -) >120 F Sat 1 >120 8.9 F B >120 F Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersection expressed in seconds per vehicle. LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual nethodology for two-way stop - controlled intersections. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Overall intersection operations at the LuchessaAvenue /Church Street intersection areprojectedto be LOS F during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The worst case approach is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. The project mitigation ofinstalling a traffic signal would improve the operations to LOS C or better. Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway segment operations withprojected Cumulative Conditions volumes arepresentedin Table 16. One of the four key roadway segments, Monterey Street between Tenth Street and Luchessa Avenue is projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels (LOS C orbetter). The segments of Luchessa Avenue between Thomas Road and Princevalle Street and Monterey Street between LuchessaAvenue and US 101 would deteriorate to LOS D with the addition oftraffic frompending developments. The segment ofLuchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street is projected to deteriorate to LOS F with the addition oftraffic associated with pending developments (from LOS A under Existing and Background Conditions and LOS E under Project Conditions). The widening ofthe Luchessa Avenue to four lanes would improve the operations to an acceptable level. The widening ofMonterey Street south ofLuchessa Avenue to six lanes would also improve the operations ofthis segment to an acceptable level. The General Plan includes widening ofLuchessa Avenue and Monterey Street south of Luchessa Avenue to six lanes. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. _ 55 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Table 16 Cumulative Roadway Segment Levels of Service. LOS C Volume Weekday Roadway Threshold Daily Segment Type' (vpd') Volume' LOS Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 15,430 D (A) between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Luchessa Avenue, 2 -Lane Arterial 14,500 20,575 F (A) between Princevalle St. and Monterey St. Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 15,860 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 4 -Lane Divided 29,000 31,800 D (A) between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note:' Roadway type of Luchessa Avenue based on classification in 2001 City ofGilmy Traffic Monitoring Program report. Monterey Street roadway type based on field observations. ' Vehicles per day. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Cumulative Two -Lane Highway Level of Service Levels ofservice were calculated for theAM and PM peakhours using traffic volumes projected for Cumulative Conditions. The results indicate that the segment of SR 152, east ofLlagas Creek, will degrade to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and will continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hourwith the addition oftraffic associatedwith cumulative developments (seeAppendix I). Widening of this segment would be necessary to improve the level of service. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 56 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February2002 CHAPTER 6 - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under General Plan Buildout Conditions. General Plan Buildout Traffic Estimates Traffic volumes for this scenario are based on traffic volume forecasts prepared for the current General Plan Update by Higgins Associates and from the South Valley Technology Park Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Higgins Associates, December 12, 2001). The daily volumes projected for the General Planbuildout alternative (2020) were compared to the dailybase year (1997) volumes from the General Plan update analysis to develop growth factors. These growth factors were applied to the existing (200 1) turning- movement volumes at the key intersections to expand the volumes to Year 2020. In general, growth factors were developed on an intersection approach by approach basis and ranged from 1.0 on Princevalle Street to 5.9 on the east approach ofthe Luchessa Avenue/Monterey Street intersection. Traffic projections for the south approach ofthe LuchessaAvenue /Church Street intersection and the west approach ofthe Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection, which will primarily serve the proposed project, were obtained from the Project Conditions scenario. Roadway segment volumes were obtained, where available, directly from the General Plan update projections for buildout conditions. General Plan Buildout Intersection Levels of Service The operations ofthe key intersections were evaluated with level of service calculations. Intersection improvements that are included in the City of Gilroy General Plan were assumed to be in place. The lane configurations with these improvements are shown on Figure 10. The LOS calculation results are presented in Tables 17a and 17b for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 57 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 17a General Plan Buildout Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Average Intersection Intersection Peak Hour Delay' LOS' AM 8.8 B Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street PM 6.3 B+ Sat 8.1 B Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue AM >120 (21.9) F (C) PM 76.2 (24.9) F (C -) Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road AM 51.0 (13.7) E (B -) PM >120 (21.8) F (C) Sat * * * *r 24.9 F (C-) Monterey Street and Southbound US 101 Ramps AM 17.7 C PM 23.9 C- Monterey Street and Northbound US 101 Ramps AM 34.4 (22.9) D (C) PM 27.2 (24.0) D+ (C -) AM 19.9 C Santa Teresa Boulevard and Thomas Road PM 16.5 C+ Sat 17.0 C+ Notes: ' Whole intersection weighted average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2 LOS calculations performed using the approved CMP level of service analysis program, TRAFFIX, which is based on thc1985 Highway Capacity Manual delay methodology for signalized intersections. ' Volume -to- capacity ratio exceed 2.0. Average stopped delay cannot be calculated. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 58 Gilroy Sports Park and USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TM February 2002 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 17b General Plan Buildout Unsi nalized Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Worst Case Movement Average Average Peak Intersection Hour Delay' LOS 3 Delav' LOS 2 Luchessa Avenue and Church Street AM >120 (17.3) F (C) >120 F PM >120 (14.0) F (B -) >120 F Sat 72.4 (15.6 ) F (C +) >120 F Notes: ' Average total intersection delay for unsignalized intersection expressed in seconds per vehicle. ' LOS calculations performed using TRAFFIX, and the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two-way stop- controlled intersections. LOS deficiencies are indicated in bold. Mitigated LOS shown in parentheses. The results indicate that, with the (General Plan) planned lane configurations, the signalized intersection of Luchessa Avenue and Monterey Street will operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, unacceptable levels. The Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection is also projected to operate at unacceptable levels: LOSE during the AMpeak hour and LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The intersection of Monterey Street and the southbound US 101 ramps is projected to operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Monterey Street and the northbound US 101 ramps is projected to degrade to an unacceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour and continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C during the PM peak hour. The intersection ofSantaTeresaBoulevard and Thomas Road is projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS C during the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. The signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street would operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The unsignalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Church Street is projected to operate at overall LOS F during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours, with the worst case approach also operating at an unacceptable level. The intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels under General Plan Buildout Conditions were also evaluated with the improvements identified to mitigate proj ect impacts. The improvements recommended to mitigateproject impacts at the one unsignalized intersection, Luchessa Avenue and Church Street, would restore intersection operations to acceptable levels with the General Plan Buildout proj ections. With traffic signal installation and the provision ofleft-tum p ockets on the eastbound and westbound approaches (proj ect mitigation), the intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 60 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Church Street is projected to operate at LOS B during the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours with the projected General Plan Buildout volumes and Luchessa Avenue roadway widening. The improvements identified to mitigateproject impacts atthe Monterey Street/LuchessaAvenue intersection would improve General Plan Buildout operations to LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours. To attained LOS C operations, the provision of a northbound free right -turn and an overlap phase (right -turn arrow) for the westbound right -turn movement would be needed. Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection operations areprojected to improve to LOS C during the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours with the identified project mitigation. The intersection ofMonterey Streetwith the northbound US 101 ramps is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours with the estimated General Plan Buildout traffic volumes. The proposed project is estimated to have a less- than- significant impact on this intersection, and therefore, no project mitigation measures were identified at this location. Intersection operations under General Plan Buildout Conditions would be improved to LOS C byre - striping the eastbound approach (the US 101 off -ramp) to permit left turns from the existing through only lane. The resulting lane configuration on this approach would be two exclusive left-turn lanes, one shared through and left-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. Intersection operations are projected to be LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours with this striping revision. Alternatively, the City is proposing to lower the LOS standard for the US 101 ramp intersections with Monterey Street to LOS D with the proposed General Plan. With this LOS standard change, this intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service without the striping revision. General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service The General Plan includes roadwaywidening on three of the fourkey roadway segments. Monterey Street, south ofLuchessa Avenue, and both study segments ofLuchessa Avenue will be widened to six lanes. With these roadway improvements, all four ofthe key segments will operate at acceptable levels with General Plan Buildout projections. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 61 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Table 1S General Plan Buildout Roadway Segment Levels of Service LOS C Weekday Roadway Volume Daily Segment Type' Threshold Volume LOS Luchessa Avenue, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 16,000 A between Thomas Road and Princevalle St. Arterial Luchessa Avenue, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 22,000 A between Princevalle St. and Monterey St. Arterial Monterey Street, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 23,000 A between Tenth St. and Luchessa Ave. Arterial Monterey Street, 6 -Lane Divided 43,000 36,000 B between Luchessa Ave and US 101 Arterial Note:' Based on General Plan improvements. Traffic volumes taken directly from General Plan Update Year 2020 projections, except for the segment on Luchessa Avenue, between Thomas Road and Princevalle Street, which is estimated based on estimated volumes and growth factors derived from General Plan traffic forecasts. General Plan Buildout Two -Lane Highway Segment Level of Service Under General Plan Buildout Conditions, SR 152 between US 101 and Frazier Lake Road was assumed to be widened and have traffic signals installed. Therefore, this segmentwill no longer function as two -lane highway. Its operation will be constrained bythe operations ofthe signalized intersections. The General Plan Buildout analysis included in the Gilroy Retail Center TIA indicates that SR 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway) will operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 62 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 CHAPTER 7 - SITE ACCESS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW This chapter discusses issues associated with the proposed site plans for the Gilroy Sports Park and the residential component ofthe prof ect. Site access, parking, and on -site circulation for the sports parkwere reviewed in detail for the January 1999 Gilroy Sports Park TIA. Park access in the context ofthe currentlyproposed project (with development on the USA amendment parcels) is discussed in this chapter. Therecommendations oftheprevious review ofparking and on -site circulation forthe sports park are also presented. Currently, specific projects have notbeenproposed for the residential or commercial parcels, and therefore, site plans are not available for review. However, general site access issues for the commercial and residential parcels are discussed. Gilroy Sports Park Site access, on -site circulation, and parking were reviewed in detail in the January 1999 TIA for the sports park. An updated review is presented in the following sections. The sports park site plan is illustrated on Figure 3. Site Access Vehicular Access The Gilroy Sports Park will be served byone driveway on Farman Frontage Road. The intersection of the driveway with Farman Frontage Road will be controlled by a stop sign on the driveway approach. During the worst casepeak hour on a Saturday, 400 vehicles are projected to exit the site during one hour. Under conditions with completion ofthe sports park alone, the intersection ofthe driveway with Farman Frontage Road is projected to operate at acceptable levels —overall LOS A operations with LOS B operations for the park driveway approach due to the low volumes along Farman Frontage Road. However, with buildout ofthe commercial parcels, the overall operation of this intersection will deteriorate to LOS F during the Saturday peak hour and the worst case movement, the left -turn from the sports park driveway, will operate at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements are satisfied with the project estimated buildout traffic volumes during the PM and Saturdaypeak hours. (See Appendix F for level ofservice calculation sheets and the signal warrant analysis worksheet.) This intersection should be monitored and atraffic signal installed, ifwarranted, with buildout ofthe commercial parcels. It is recommended that this intersection be designed and constructed to accommodate the possible signal installation. Entryto the parkwill be controlled by a cashier at the entrybuilding located approximately 500 feet from intersection of the park entry road with Farman Frontage Road. A flat parking fee would be charged to vehicles entering the park with some park users (such as tournament players and members Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 63 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 ofleague feams) usingpasses provided in advance. Thehourlydesign capacity foraparking entrance with a cashier and aflat fee is approximately 300 vehicles perhourper entry lane (vphpl). The project proposes to have at leasttwo entrylanes. The highest inboundvolume to thepark is expected to occur during the S aturdaypeak hour. The estimated hourlypeak volume is 400 vehicles. The 95'percentile queue was calculated using aPoisson distribution, a capacityof300 vphpl, two entrylanes, and apeak volume of 400 vph (see Appendix F). The results indicate that the maximum queue would be approximately 175 feet in each oftwo lanes. The 500 -foot storage length would be sufficient to serve this queue. Two turn around areas are provided along the entryroad: one between the park gates and Farman FrontageRoad and a second west ofthe entrybuilding. These locations will allow vehicles arriving after the park has closed (or drivers wishing to exit for other reasons) to make U -turns and exit the park. Pedestrian Access As part of the sports park component of the project, six -foot wide sidewalks are proposed to be constructed along the west side of Farman Frontage Road between Monterey Street and the park entrance and along the west side ofMonterey Street between Luchessa Avenue and Farman Frontage Road. A crosswalk is proposed across the north leg ofthe Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection. It is recommended that the crosswalk across Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road not be provided until the traffic signal is installed at this intersection. Project- sponsored improvements along Monterey Street should be coordinated with the city's recent improvements to the intersection of Monterey Street/Luchessa Avenue. (A traffic signal was constructed in Fall 1999.) City standards require 10 -foot sidewalks along Monterey Street. (The site plan shows six -foot sidewalks.) In addition, it is recommended that the sidewalks along Monterey Street be installed when the other improvements (i.e., the installation ofthe traffic signal) occur at the Monterey Street /Farman Frontage Road intersection prior to the completion ofPhase III ofthe sports park. During earlier phases pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided via the Uvas Creek Trial, which links the park to the residential neighborhood to the north and is, therefore, likely to cant' the majority of pedestrian traffic to the site. Uvas Creek Trail The project proposes to extend the Uvas Creek Trail from Luchessa Avenue through the sports park and then southward to Gavilan College. The trail extension will allow pedestrians and bicyclists to access the sports park from Luchessa Avenue and the neighborhoods to the north. The ultimate trail connecti on at Luchessa Avenue is an under- crossing at the bridge located west ofPrincevalle Street. It is planned but is not proposed as part of the sports park project. The proposed near -term trail Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 64 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA crossing ofLuchessa Avenue is an at -grade crossing located at the intersection ofLuchessa Avenue with Princevalle Street. Improvements will be constructed along both the north and south sides of Luchessa Avenue to continue the pedestri an/bicycle trail between the Uvas Creek and the Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection. The intersection ofLuchessa Avenue at Princevalle Street is aT- intersection and is controlledbya stop sign on the Princevalle Street (southbound) approach. The installation oftraffic signals, crosswalks, and stop signs on all approaches to support of the near -term Uvas Creek Trail connection were investigated. (The ultimate trail connection via the future under-crossing ofthe LuchessaAvenue bridge is the recommended pedestrian and bicycle facility.) Due to travel speeds along Luchessa Avenue (in excess of40 mph), crosswalks are not recommended without the protection oftraffic signals withpedestrian heads for pedestrian crossing or all -way stop sign control (stop signs on all three intersection approaches). The installation of signals were investigated via Caltrans traffic signal wan-ants. The vehicular volumes proj ected after the completion ofthe sports park do not satisfy the Peak Hour Volume Warrant requirements (see Appendix E). Caltrans' "Wan-ant 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume" for traffic signal installation requires apedestrian volume crossing the majorstreet of 100 or more for each of any four hours or 190 or more during any one hour during an average day.' Data provided in the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan (July 1995) indicates that usage ofthe Uvas Creek Trail (measured at Miller Avenue) was about 260 persons on a Saturday and 150 persons on a Tuesday in May 1994. The most likely users ofthe trail for park access will be residents living in the neighborhoods immediately north of Thomas Road /Luchessa Avenue. As shown on Figure 6, five percent of the project - generated traffic is estimated to originate or be destined forthis area. Assuming avehicle occupancyof2.0 persons per vehicle, 80 person -trips during the Saturdaypeak hour and 55 person -trips during thePMpeakhour would be generated by these neighborhoods. This projection does not meet the minimum volume required. Therefore, signals are not recommended in the near -term. It is recommended that this location be monitored for both vehicular and pedestrianibicycle volumes, and an all -way stop ortraffic signals (with pedestrian heads) be installed ifwarrant requirements are met. As discussed in Chapter4, with buildout ofthe project (and in particular, the commercial parcels), signalization of this intersection is recoramendedto mitigateproject impacts. Under Project Buildout Conditions, the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied with both the projected PM and Saturday peak -hour volumes. 'In addition to the minimum pedestrian volume, less than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross during the same time period must be observed. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 65 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent E/R TIA February 2002 Transit Access The project masterplan indicates that the VTA will extend bus service to serve the sports park. City staffhas indicated that the VTA will extend service when other development in this area (including hotels and other commercial uses along Monterey Street) generate sufficient demand for bus service. The site pIan shows abus stop and turn around area on Farman Frontage Road south ofthe project entrance. This bus stop and turn around should be designed to VTA standards. Pedestrian access should be provided from the bus stop to the park, including a sidewalk along Farman Frontage Road that connects to the internal pedestrian paths. On -Site Circulation On -site circulation for the sports park was reviewed and generally found to be adequate. Pedestrian paths and sidewalks are located throughout the park and provide adequate internal pedestrian circulation and connections to the Uvas Creek Trail and Farman Frontage Road. Pedestrians paths along the perimeter ofthe park are 12 feetwide and double as emergency vehicle access roadways. Some recommended improvements for vehicular circulation are listed below. Sketches illustrating the changes are included in Appendix G. • The outbound lanes of the entrymad near Farman Frontage Road should be narrowed to one lane with paint to allow two outbound lanes (with park personnel directing traffic), if needed. • All -way stop sign control is recommended at the intersection ofthe entryroad and the main north -south road. All -way stop sign control will provide safer conditions forpedestrians crossing this intersection. It is recommended that the first driveway on the entrance road (closest to Farman Frontage Road) be widened to allow both inbound and outbound traffic and the landscape median along the entry road be cut back to allow left turns from this parking area onto the entry road. Currently, the on -site traffic is concentrated at the intersection ofthe entry road and the main north -south circulation road. Allowing left turns out of the eastern most drivewaywill diffuse some ofthis traffic. Landscaping in the median should be low (two to 2.5 feet in height) or taller trees with thin trunks, which should be pruned to maintain adequate sight distance. • The provision of an additional north-south circulation aisle in the western most parking area is recommended to breakup the long rows ofparking spaces. In addition, the parking bays and Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 66 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 circulation aisles shouldbe extended eastward, eliminatingthe isolated landscaped barrier atthe east end of the parking area. Parkin The parking demand was estimated in a manner similar to trip generation, based on the planned operation ofthe sports park and assumptions regarding numbers ofpersons pervebicle for the different uses withinthepark. The parking demand estimates byphase arepresented in Table 19. Details ofthe parking estimate calculations are contained in Appendix H. Theparking demand afterbuildout ofthe park is estimated be 996 parked vehicles. The recommended parking supply is the parking demand plus five percent to account for circulating vehicles. Therefore, the recommended parking supply for the Gilroy Sports Park is 1,041 parking spaces. The recommended parking supply by phase is presented in Table 19. The site plan (date June 16,1998) includes 1,049 parking spaces, which will adequately serve the projected demand. Table 19 presents a comparison ofthe recommended parking supply byphase to the proposed parking supplyby phase. A shortfall is projected to occur after the completion ofPhase V. It is recommended that 180 of the 298 parking spaces that will be constructed with Phase VI be constructed instead with Phase V to offset the projected shortfall. Table 19 Parking Demand and Supply Summer Sports Park Phase Cumulative Estimated Demand Cumulative Supply Recommended Provided Difference 1 0 0 117 +117 II 196 206 278 +72 III 326 343 439 +96 IV 606 637 751 +114 V 886 931 751 -180 VI & VII 996 1047 1049 +2 VIII & Ix 996 1 1047 1 1049 1 +2 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 67 Gilroy Sport ParklUSA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 The CityofGilroyZoning Ordinance does not include an off - street parking requirement forball parks. The most similar land use included in the ordinance is a theater or auditorium with fixed seats. The parking requirement for this land use is oneparking spaceper four seats or seven feet ofbench space. The sports park will have approximately 300 feet ofbench space for each of the 13 ballfields, for a total of 3,900 feet of bench. The required off - street parking supply would be 558 spaces. The proposed 1,049 parking spaces would be sufficient to meet this requirement. Residential Development A specific project for the residential parcels is notproposed atthis time, therefore, asiteplan has not been developed for the residential parcels. Only a general review of site access was conducted. A detailed review ofthe site plan should be conducted when a specific prof ect is proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Access to the residential parcels was assumed to be provided via two new public streets that will intersect with Luchessa Avenue and one new public street that will intersection with Monterey Street. The intersection at Monterey Street will be restricted to right turns only (due to the existing raised median on Monterey Street). These new residential streets are projected to serve 31 to 56 vehicles during a peak hour at their intersections with Luchessa Avenue, while the site roadwaythat intersects with Monterey Street will serve 16 to 18 peak -hour vehicles. The number of access locations is adequate to serve the estimated project - generated traffic. The intersection ofthe westernresidential site roadwaywith Luchessa Avenue was assumed to form the south leg ofthe existing LuchessaAvenue /Church Street intersection. This intersection is akey study intersection and was evaluated with LOS calculations. Overall intersection operations are projected to deteriorate to LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours underProject Buildout Conditions. The installation ofatraffic signal atthis intersectionwas recommendedto mitigateproject impacts. (CaltransPeakHour Volume warrant requirements are satisfiedwith the estimatedPM and Saturdaypeak-hour volumes underProject Buildout Conditions.) Level of service results indicate that with signalization this intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM, PM, and Saturdaypeak hours. Commercial Parcels A specific commercial developmentis notproposed atthis time, and a siteplanhas not been developed for the commercial parcels. Therefore, only a general review of site access was conducted. A detailed review ofthe site plan should be conducted when a specific project is proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 68 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that access to the commercial parcels would be provided via one right -turn only driveway on Monterey Street (serving the northern commercial parcels) and two full access driveways on Farman Frontage Road (one each serving the northern and southern commercial areas). Theright -turn driveway on Monterey Street is projected to serve 316 inboundtrips and 158 outbound trips during the Saturdaypeak hour (the studyperiod with the greatest retail trip generation). Aright - turn lane on Monterey Street would be recommended to serve the projected inbound traffic volume. The TRAFFIX projected design queue in the southbound right turn lanes at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection with the recommended project mitigation (including the provision ofsouthbound two right -turn lanes) is 300 feet. The commercial frontage along Monterey Street extends approximately 400 feet north ofthis intersection. Therefore, the right-tam po cket lanes are likely to extend past the shopping center driveway, and at times ofpeak demand, the southbound right -turn queue from the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection could block the driveway (depending upon the location of the driveway in relation to the intersection). This could result in additional traffic being added to Farm an Frontage Road and the west leg ofthe Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection. The northern full access driveway on Farm an Frontage Road was assumed to be controlled by a stop sign on the shopping center driveway. This intersection is projected to operate at acceptable levels during the AMpeak hour and at unacceptable levels during the PM and S aturday peak hours. During the S aturday peak hour 3 62 vehicles are projected to exit the shopping center via a left turn from this driveway, while during the PM peak hour 296 vehicles are projected to exit. With the estimated volumes onFarman Frontage Road underprojectbuildout, the calculated delayto the outbound left- turn movement is veryhigh, resulting in LOS F operations for this movement. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrantrequirements fortraffic signal installation are satisfied with the volumes projected for. thePM and Saturdaypeak hours withprojectbuildout. However, theproximityofthis drivewayto the Farman Frontage Road /Monterey Street intersection and the sports park driveway may make signalization infeasible. As discussed in regard to improvements at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection and the sports park driveway, it may be necessary to realign Farman Frontage Road. This realignmentmayprovide opportunities forimproved access to the commercial center. At the southern full access commercial driveway, 512 inbound and 457 outbound project - generated trips are projected to travel through the driveway intersection during the Saturdaypeak hour. The conflicting traffic at this intersectionis projected to beTninimal, and therefore, thedrivewayis projected to operate at acceptable levels during all study scenarios. However, one access point may not be sufficient for emergency access. When a site plan is proposed, it should be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 69 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSIONS The proposed Gilroy Sports Park and Urban Services Area amendment is estimated to generate 20,738 new weekday daily trips, 495 AM peak -hour trips (273 inbound/222 outbound), 2,091 PM peak -hour trips (1,019 inbound/1,072 outbound), and 2,851 Saturday peak -hour trips (1,485 inbound/1,366 outbound). The impacts ofthe proposed development on the surrounding roadway system were evaluated following guidelines of the City of Gilroy and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Project Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures The level of service calculation results indicate that theproject will have a significant adverse impact on four of the seven key intersections: Luchessa Avenue and Princevalle Street Luchessa Avenue and Church Street Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road Mitigation measures were identified for these intersections. The installation ofa traffic signal atthe Luchessa Avenue/Princevalle Street intersection would mitigate project impacts to a less -than- significant level. Thetraffic signal installation and the provision of left- tumpockets onthe eastbound and westbound approaches would mitigate project impacts at the Luchessa Avenue /Church Street intersection. At the Monterey Street/LuchessaAvenue intersection, the addition of second northbound left -turn lane and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane will improve the operation of the Monterey Street/LuchessaAvenue intersections from LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour with estimated Project Conditions volumes. In order to further improve operations to LOS C, either aright -turn arrow would need to be provided for the eastbound right-turn movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the northbound left -turn movement has a green arrow) or the eastbound right -turn movement would need to be removed from the intersection by apork chop island and controlledby a yield sign. The currently approved sports parkproject is required to signalize the intersection ofMonterey Street and Farman Frontage Road prior to completion ofPhase IV ofthe park. With installation of the traffic signal, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C during all three study periods through the final phase ofthe sports park with the existing lane configuration. With the development ofthe commercial Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 70 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 parcels, additional turn lanes would be needed to serve traffic entering and exiting the retail uses. Two exclusive southbound right -tam lanes, two northbound left-turn lanes and widening ofthe eastbound approach would be needed to serve the projected volume. In addition, right -turn arrows would need to be provided for the eastbound and southbound right -turn movements to provide LOS C intersection operations during all three studyperiods. This lane configuration will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound approaches and will require widening ofFarman Frontage Road. Some realignment of Farman Frontage Road may be required to provide adequate turning radii as it approaches its intersection with Monterey Street. The feasibility ofthis improvement is subject to more detailed engineering studies. Withoutimplementationofall themitigation measures, theproject'simpact would not be fully mitigated. Roadway Segment Impact Analysis The proposed project is estimated to have a significant impact on one of the four key roadway segments, Luchessa Avenue betweenPrincevalle Street and Monterey Street. The remaining segments are projected to continue to operate at LOS C or better with buildout of the project. Widening the segment ofLuchessa Avenue between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street from two to four lanes would provide adequate capacity to serve the estimated project buildout traffic volumes and mitigate the project impact. The City's General Plan includes widening ofLuchessa Avenue between Chestnut Street and Thomas Road (including the bridge over Uvas Creek) to six lanes. Two -Lane Highway Segment Impact Analysis The impact of the proposed project on State Route 152 (Pacheco Pass Highway), east ofUS 101, was evaluatedusing the methodology presented in the 1994Highway Capacity Manual. The results indicate that theproject would nothave a significant impact onthe segment of SR 152 betweenLlagas Creek and Frazier Lake Road. SR 152 is currentlybeingwidened between US 101 and Llagas Creek. This segment would operate as a four -lane arterial with these improvements, which include roadway widening, intersection improvements, and a traffic signal at Gilroy Foods. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 71 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Project Impact Freeway Analysis Potential project impacts on area freeway segments were evaluated. The key freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS B and C during the PM peak hourwith the addition ofproject- generated traffic. Therefore, the project is estimated to have a less than significant impact on the nearby segments of US 101 according to the criteria established in the Santa Clara County CMP. Queuing Analysis The queuing analysis indicated that the estimated queues for the northbound left -turn movement at Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue and the northbound left-turn movement at Monterey Street and Farman Frontage Road would extend past the existing left -turn storage pockets for the under Project Conditions. Implementation ofthe proj ect mitigation measures for these two intersections would accommodate the expected queues. Sports Park Site Access, On -Site Circulation, and Parking Site access, on -site circulation andparkingwere assessed forthe sports park. The proposed parking supply of 1,049 was found to be adequate to serve the estimated demand. However, a shortfall is projected to occur after the completion ofPhase V. It is recommended that 180 ofthe 298 parking spaces that will be constructed with Phase VI be constructed instead with Phase V to offset the projected shortfall. Site Access Sports park site access was found to be adequate to serve sports parktraffic, with sufficient storage provided for queued vehicles between Farman Frontage Road and the main entrybuilding, where a parking fee will be collected. It was recommended that the intersection ofthe intersection ofthe sports park drivewaywith Farman Frontage Road be monitored forpossible traffic signal installation after buildout ofthe commercial parcels. The intersection ofthe sports park driveway should be designed and constructed to accommodate the possible signal installation. On -Site Circulation On -site circulation for the sports park was reviewed and generally found to be adequate. The following recommendations were made: The outbound lanes ofthe entry road near Farman Frontage Road should be narrowed to one lane with paint to allow two outbound lanes (with park personnel directing traffic), if needed. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 92 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 All -way stop sign control is recommended at the intersection ofthe entryroad and the main north -south road. All - waystop sign control will provide saferconditions forpedestrians crossing this intersection. It is recommended that the first driveway on the entrance road (closest to Farman Frontage Road) be widened to allow both inbound and outbound traffic and the landscape median along the entry road be cut back to allow left turns from this parking area onto the entry road. Currently, the on -site traffic is concentrated at the intersection of the entry road and the main north -south circulation road. Allowing left turns out ofthe eastern most driveway will diffuse some ofthis traffic. Landscaping in the median should be low (two to 2.5 feet in height) or taller trees with thin trunks, which should be pruned to maintain adequate sight distance. The provision of an additional north -south circulation aisle in the westem-most parking area is recommended to break up the long rows ofparking spaces. In addition, the parking bays and circulation aisles should be extended eastward, eliminating the isolated landscaped barrier at the east end of the parking area. Other Access Recommendations Recommendations were made in regard to other improvements proposed as part ofthe sports park project, including: • It is recommended that the crosswalk across Monterey Street at Farman Frontage Road not be provided until the traffic signal is installed at this intersection. • The proposed Farman Frontage Road bus stop should be designed to VTA standards. Pedestrian access should be provided from the bus stop to along Farman Frontage Road that connects to the internal pedestrian paths. • The proposed sidewalk along the west side ofMonterey Street should connected to signalized intersection ofLuchessa Avenue and Monterey Street. It is recommended that the sidewalks along Monterey Street be installed when the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection is signalized. • Due to travel speeds along Luchessa Avenue (in excess of 40 mph), a crosswalk is not recommended without the protection of a traffic signal with pedestrian heads for pedestrian crossing or all -way stop sign control (stop signs on all three intersection approaches). The recommended pedestrian and bicycle facility is the connection of the existing trail north of Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 73 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA Februarv2002 Luchessa Avenue with the proposed trail to the south via the fixture under- crossing of the LuchessaAvenue bridge. It is recommended thatthis location be monitored forboth vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle volumes, and an all - waystop ortraffic signals (with pedestrian heads) be installed if warrant requirements are met. Residential Development Site Access A general review ofsite access was conducted for the residential parcels since a specific project is not proposed at this time. It was assumed that access to the residential parcels will be provided via two driveways on Luchessa Avenue and one right -turn only drivewayon Monterey Street. Site access was found to be adequate. Commercial Development Site Access A specific commercial development is notproposed atthis time, and a site plan has not been developed for the commercial parcels. Therefore, only a general review of site access was conducted. A detailed review of the site plan should be conducted when a specific projectis proposed to ensure adequate access, circulation, and parking are provided. Direct access to the commercial parcels was assumed to be provided via one right -turn drivewayon Monterey Street and one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the northern commercial parcels (those located north of the sports park entrance) and at least one full access driveway on Farman Frontage Road serving the southern commercial parcels. Based on the projected traffic volumes, a southbound right -turn lane is recommended to serve the traffic entering the northern commercial parcels via the Monterey Street driveway. It was noted that the estimated queues on the southbound approach of the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection may at times extend back past this drivewayblocking the exiting vehicles. This could result in additional traffic being added to Farman Frontage Road and the west leg of the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection. The northern commercial driveway on Farman Frontage Road was assumed to be controlled by stop sign on the driveway approach and is projected to operate at an acceptable level during the AM peak hour and unacceptable levels during the PM and Saturday peak hours. The Caltrans Peak Hour Volume warrant requirements for traffic signal installation are satisfied with volumes projected for the PM and Saturdaypeak hours with project buildout. However, the proximity of this driveway to the Farman Frontage Road/Monterey Street intersection and the sports park driveway may make signalization infeasible. As discussed in regard to improvements at the Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road intersection and the sports park driveway, it may be necessary to realign Farman Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 74 Gilroy Sport Park/USA Amendment Subsequent EIR TIA February 2002 Frontage Road. This realignment mayprovide opportunities forimproved access to the commercial center. The conflicting traffic at the intersection ofthe southern commercial drivewaywithFarman Frontage Road is projected to be minimal, and the driveway is projected to operate at acceptable levels during all study scenarios. However, one access point may not be sufficient for emergency access. When a site plan is proposed, it should be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. General Plan Buildout Intersection Recommendations The improvements recommended to mitigate project impacts at the unsignalized intersection of Luchessa Avenue and Church Street, in combination with the General Plan improvements, would also provide acceptable operating levels under General Plan Buildout Conditions. Additional improvements (over General Plan improvements and project mitigation measures) would be required at the intersections ofLuchessa Avenue/Monterey Street, Monterey Street/Farman Frontage Road, and Monterey Street/US 101 northbound ramps to provide acceptable operating levels (LOS C orbetter) during all of the study time periods (AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours). Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 95 Appendix B Vacant Land Inventory Background A city's urban service area (USA) is defined as that area to which the city provides urban services such as water and sewer, or expects to provide these services within five years of the adoption of a capital improvement program. Thus, the USA is expected to accommodate approximately five years of urban development. In Santa Clara County, jurisdictional boundary changes, including USA amendments, are reviewed and acted upon by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO). Santa Clara County LAFCO does not generally allow urban development to occur outside established USAs. The City of Gilroy is requesting an amendment to its existing USA. The Gilroy City Council approved a USA amendment request for a 140.21 -acre area south of the City on June 7, 1999 and staff was directed to submit the application to LAFCO. The USA amendment request is officially identified as Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03, and commonly known as the Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment. LAFCO will generally only accept one USA amendment request per year from each city. The most recent previous USA amendment request was filed in October 1997. In acting upon a USA amendment request, LAFCO requires the preparation of an appropriate environmental review document, a fiscal analysis, and a vacant land analysis of the existing USA. LAFCO utilizes the vacant land analysis in assessing the need for expansion of the USA, based on a goal of maintaining an approximate five -year supply of developable land within the USA. This vacant land analysis has been prepared to provide this information to LAFCO in their decision on Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03. The request for Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 includes 140.21 acres, of which 85.36 is the approved Gilroy Sports. Park and Uvas Creek Trail extension, 27.72 acres is proposed for residential development, and 27.13 acres is proposed for general services commercial development. This vacant land analysis quantifies the amount of vacant land that carries any Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan land use designation of RESIDENTIAL (with any residential zoning), or a Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan land use designation of COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES and a zoning designation of C -3 (Shopping Center Commercial) or CM (Commercial Industrial), which are the commercial zone districts consistent with the COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES land use designation. Locations within the existing USA on which development of a sports park is possible are also quantified in the analysis. EMC Planning Group Inc. 1 Vacant Land Survey Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Determination of Five -year Supply A determination of what constitutes a five -year supply of vacant land in Gilroy was established for residential and C -3 and CM commercial development. The method for determining a five -year supply of each of these is outlined below. Since the sports park is a unique use, alternative sites within the USA were determined rather than a five -year supply. Residential Residential development in the City of Gilroy is largely controlled through the Residential Development Ordinance (RDO). The RDO sets a 10 -year goal of 4,000 residential units. An averaged number of 2,000 units was used as a basis for establishing a five -year supply of residential land. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) issues a regional housing needs determination for each City in the greater Bay Area. ABAG has determined that the City of Gilroy should provide 3,677 new housing units from 1999 through 2006. This is an annual average of 490 housing units, or 2,450 units in a five -year period, about 20 percent higher than is expected under the Gilroy RDO. Commercial There is no commercial parallel to the RDO. To determine the number of acres required for five typical years of commercial development, City of Gilroy Architecture and Site Approval records were analyzed for the five -year period from July 1994 through June 1999. The total acreage was calculated for commercial projects in the C -3 and CM zones that received Architecture and Site approval during that time span, and were later issued building permits. This acreage figure was used as the basis for a five -year supply of commercial land. Based on this recent five -year sample, the City of Gilroy can expect a demand for 44 acres of C3 and 15 acres of CM designated land over the next five years. Sports Park The sports park is a large scale project that will meet the City's organized sports needs for many years. In this regard, the sports park is unique from other parkland; such as neighborhood and community parks. Although the sports park is already approved at the selected site, this analysis looks at alternative sites within the USA that are of suitable size and terrain for placement of a similar facility. EMC Planning Group Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 Vacant Land Survey Existing Vacant Land Supply The survey of vacant land reflects RDO allocations as of April 2000, and for residential properties exempt from RDO, site and architecture approvals thorough December 21, 2001. The survey reflects commercial site and architecture approvals through December 21, 2001. Residential The number of probable future dwelling units in the City was calculated. For residential development projects in which a known number of units will be built, information from the City's RDO process was used to determine how many additional RDO allocations will be made. Lands for which an RDO allocation had been granted by the City were considered not to be vacant, although there is a lag period between RDO allocation and construction of houses. Table 1 summarizes the land for which RDO allocations remain available. TABLE 1 Remaining RDO Allocations of Major Projects Project Name Neighborhood Medium Density Low Density Hillside Hecker Pass Carriage Hills 75 Country Estates 94 Deer Park/ Rancho Hills 118 Eagle Ridge 134 Glen Loma 1 159 Village Green 107 TOTAL 1,277 107 75 228 0 Source: City of Gilroy For other properties, a list of all vacant land with a residential designation under the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan was compiled. Land that was in rural residential use, but planned for higher densities was considered vacant. The gross acres of residential land was reduced by 25 percent to account for street rights -of -way, park dedications, and other non - residential uses. The number of acres of each land use was multiplied by its average potential density to determine the probable number of dwelling units. The amount of vacant land in each general plan residential category and the potential average build -out is listed in Table 2. EMC Planning Group Inc. 3 Vacant Land Survey Gilroy USA Amendment 98-03 TABLE 2 Vacant Residential Land Within the Existing Gilroy USA General Plan Designation Gross Acres Vacant Net Acres Vacant Average Net Density Allowed Potential Units (at average net density) Neighborhood 181.5 136 9 1,224 Medium Density 16.6 13 12 156 Low Density 87.8 66 5 330 Hillside 51.5 39 2 78 Hecker Pass Area 248.2 186 0.4 74 TOTAL 1 585.6 490.2 3,549 1,862 Note: Excludes lands contained in Table 1. Source: City of Gilroy Table 3 summarizes the probable residential build -out within the Gilroy USA. 11I�TFI�c. Residential Capacity of the Gilroy USA General Plan Designation Units from RDO Analysis Units from Acreage Analysis Total Units by Land Use Five -year Supply Neighborhood 1,277 1,224 2 501 Medium Density 107 156 263 Low Density 75 330 405 Hillside 1 228 1 78 1 306 Hecker Pass Area 0 74 74 TOTAL 1,687 1,862 3,549 2,000 Note: Five -year supply is based on RDO and goals established by Gilroy City Council. Source: City of Gilroy Commercial A list was compiled of all vacant land within the existing Gilroy USA with a Draft 1999- 2020 Gilroy General Plan designation of COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES and one of the two compatible zoning designations: C -3 or CM. Land for which site and 1-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Vacant Land Survey architectural review had been approved, through December 21, 2001, was considered not to be vacant. Land that was in non - structural commercial use, such as pallet storage, was considered vacant. The total amount of land in each of the two commercial categories is listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 Vacant General Services Commercial Land Within the Existing Gilroy USA Commercial Zoning - Gross Acres 5 -year Supply C -3 199.2 44 CM 11.7 15 TOTAL 210.9 69 Note: Five -year supply is based on C -3 and CM zoned Architecture and Site Approvals July 1994 -June 1999, for which permits were subsequently issued. Sports Park The sports park has several unique siting requirements. The site must be large enough to achieve the goal of providing a centralized sports facility and it must be sufficiently level for development of athletic fields without excessive grading. It should also be well located for local and regional access. The City determined that the city-owned location immediately north of the City limits and USA was the most suitable and approved the Gilroy Sports Park on that site. The City looked at several alternative sites for the sports park. All of these sites are within the existing USA and two are in areas designated in the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan for residential development. The alternative sites are listed in Table 5. TABLE 5 Alternative Sports Park Sites Within the Existing Gilroy USA Location Gross Draft General Plan Displaced Area Designation Residential Units Bolsa Road 103 acres Open Space - -- Santa Teresa Blvd. and 97 acres Neighborhood District 655 Miller Avenue Hwy. 152 west of 120 acres Hecker Pass Area 36 Santa Teresa Blvd. Note: Displaced residential units is based on net area of the site (25 percent less than gross area) times the net density for the Draft General Plan land use. EMC Planning Group Inc. Vacant Land Survey Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Source: City of Gilroy Discussion Under the land use designations of the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan, the City of Gilroy has an approximate nine -year supply of residential land within its existing USA. There is an approximate 23 -year supply of COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES land zoned C -3 and a four -year supply of COMMERCIAL — GENERAL SERVICES land zoned CM. Table 6 summarizes the remaining supply of vacant land. Supply of Vacant Land Remaining in USA Note: Residential land is designated RND, RMD, RLD, RH, and HPA Source: City of Gilroy Residential Land Designations Of the vacant residential land, the largest supply is that designated in the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. Most of the area covered by this designation is undeveloped land currently designated LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL or RURAL RESIDENTIAL. The LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL designation has an average density of five units per acre, compared to nine units per acre in the RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The RURAL RESIDENTIAL designation has a maximum density of 0.2 units per acre. These proposed reclassifications increase the number of dwelling units that could potentially be built within the USA, because the allowable net development density per acre is higher under the proposed RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT designation than the existing R -1 designation. 1 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. 5 -Year Supply Remaining Supply Acres or Units Estimated Years Supply Residential 2,000 units 3,549 units 9 Commercial C -3 44 acres 199.2 acres 23 Commercial CM 15 acres 11.7 acres 4 Note: Residential land is designated RND, RMD, RLD, RH, and HPA Source: City of Gilroy Residential Land Designations Of the vacant residential land, the largest supply is that designated in the Draft 1999 -2020 Gilroy General Plan as RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. Most of the area covered by this designation is undeveloped land currently designated LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL or RURAL RESIDENTIAL. The LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL designation has an average density of five units per acre, compared to nine units per acre in the RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. The RURAL RESIDENTIAL designation has a maximum density of 0.2 units per acre. These proposed reclassifications increase the number of dwelling units that could potentially be built within the USA, because the allowable net development density per acre is higher under the proposed RESIDENTIAL — NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT designation than the existing R -1 designation. 1 -6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 Vacant Land Survey The RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT land use designation is a mixed -use designation that also permits some neighborhood - serving commercial and office uses. No commercial development is required, but some developments may have fewer residential units if commercial uses are incorporated into RESIDENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT developments. The supply of lowest density residential land within the USA is much less. In the 1995 vacant land survey, the City had a supply of 595 acres of vacant RESIDENTIAL HILL DISTRICT available. Much of the land under this designation has been developed or received RDO allocations. Commercial Designations The City's supply of COMMERCIAL - GENERAL SERVICES land that is zoned CM is the most limited of any covered by this survey, with an approximate four -year supply remaining. Some CM uses could be accommodated by the proposed CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL general plan designation in northeast Gilroy. If the sports park were to be located within the existing USA, rather than the approved site within the USA amendment area, the supply of vacant residential land within the existing USA could be reduced. Location of the sports park within the USA on the Bolsa Road site would have no effect on residential vacant land. Location of the sports park on the State Highway 152 /Santa Teresa Boulevard site would result in a small reduction in residential vacant land. If the sports park were located on the Santa Teresa Boulevard /Miller Road site, approximately 655 residential units would be displaced. This would amount to a reduction of approximately one and one -half years worth of vacant residential land. EMC Planning Group Inc. 7 Vacant Land Survey Gilroy USA Amendment 98 -03 This side intentionally left blank. 1 -8 EMC Planning Appendix C Updated Hydrology Report GILROY SPORTS PARK USA AMENDMENT DRAFT HYDROLOGY STUDY PREPARED FOR EMC Planning Group PREPARED BY SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS January 10, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................... ..............................1 Introduction .............................. Project Description ................... UvasCreek ............................... Flood History ............................ Corps of Engineers Project ....... Flood Insurance Study ............... Hydrology... ............................... DesignFlow ............................... Flood Plains ............................... Drainage ...... ............................... Sports Park Design ..................... Project Facilities .......................... Project Flood Elevations ............. Project Drainage .......................... Runoff.......... ............................... Conclusions .. ............................... .................................... ............................... 2 .................................... ............................... 2 .................................... ............................... 2 .................................... ............................... 5 .................................... ............................... 6 ................................... ............................... 6 ................................... ............................... 6 ................................... ............................... 9 ................................... ............................... 9 ..................................... .............................10 ..................................... .............................10 ..................................... .............................11 ..................................... .............................17 .................................... .............................18 .................................. ............................... 23 .................................. ............................... 25 References........................................................................................... .............................25 DRAFT HYDRO)r OGY STUDY GELROY SPORTS PARK USA AMENDMENT Executive Summary The project site is located on the east bank of Uvas Creek in an area, which is an historic flood plain due to overflows from Uvas Creek. The site flooded in 1955, and 1986. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a levee project for the reach of Uvas Creek upstream from the project site. The levee was designed to provide 100 -year flood protection for the development areas upstream of Thomas Road. The levee ends near the northern edge of the sports park site. As local sponsor for the flood control project, the Santa Clara Valley Water District ( SCVWD) has jurisdiction over Uvas Creek and owns the flood control levee. Additionally, SCVWD holds a flood flowage easement that restricts land used and development on a majority of the sports park site. The flowage easement encompasses land that was calculated to suffer induced flooding due to the construction of the Uvas Creek levee. Areas of induced flooding would be flooded to a greater extent than would have been expected prior to the construction of the levee. Potential land uses within the flowage easement are restricted to open space uses that would not inhibit the flow of flood waters across the land. The sports park design was developed to incorporate consideration of the potential flooding issues, to maintain the existing flow patterns on the site, avoid increased flow or flood depths on adjacent properties, and to provide storm drainage for the proposed park project. These objectives were reviewed with SCVWD to ensure that the project constraints would be consistent with the intent of the SCV WD flood flowage easement. The proposed Gilroy Sports Park USA area development would be consistent with the objectives of the SCV WD flood flowage easement. The sports park grading is generally lower than the existing ground elevations in the paved parking and access road areas to allow for blockage in other areas for park facilities. The proposed commercial development would balance cut and fill on the site to maintain flood conveyance. The estimated flood elevations for the Uvas design overflows and 100 -year flood overflows are at or below existing elevations. The Uvas Creek overflows would enter the site and leave the site in the same quantities and locations as the existing flood condition. The flood risk on other properties would not be affected by the proposed project. The estimated 10 -year and 100 -year peak runoff from the project site would increase due to the proposed development. The estimated increase would depend on the particular rainfall event. The increased peak flow would occur prior to the peak flow in Uvas Creek and would not affect flooding from the creek. The local contribution to the peak flow in the creek would not increase due to development. Therefore, the project would not affect peak flows in the creek or flooding from Uvas Creek. Schaaf & Wheeler 1 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 DRAFT HYDROLOGY STUDY GILROY SPORTS PARK USA AMENDMENT Introduction This report describes the hydrology analyses for the Gilroy Sports Park Urban Service Area (USA) Amendment project in the City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County. The proposed sports park would be located within the 100 -year base flood plain from Uvas Creek. The hydrology study was completed as part of the supplemental EIR studies for the proposed USA amendment. The purpose of this study was to: document the existing flood hydrology and hydraulics; 2. estimate the potential flood elevations and flow areas for the project; and estimate the potential effects of the proposed development on drainage and flood flows. This report supplements the previous hydrology study for the Sports Park which was completed in May 1999. Project Description The project site is located at the south end of Gilroy, southwest of the intersection of Thomas Road and Monterey Road. The site is located on the east bank of Uvas Creek and extends from Thomas Road to Farman Lane, approximately 2500 feet south of Thomas Road. The site is extends from the east bank of Uvas Creek to Monterey Road. The project site is approximately 140.2 acres. The proposed USA amendment includes the sports park (78.36 acres), residential development (27.72 acres), and commercial development (27.12 acres). The sports park is an approved project. The residential development north of the park and the commercial development east of the park are proposed projects. Uvas Creek The project site is located in the Uvas Creek watershed southwest of the City of Gilroy. Uvas Creek is a tributary to the Pajaro River system which drains west through the Coast Range to Monterey Bay. The Pajaro River and its tributaries drain approximately 1300 square miles. The principal tributaries of the Pajaro River are San Benito River, San Juan Creek, Uvas- Camadero Creek, Llagas Creek, Tequisquita Slough, and Salsipuedes Creek. Schaaf & Wheeler 2 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10. 2002 Figure 1 Site t_ooaaon Map Schaaf & Wheeler Uvas - Camadero Creek is located in southern Santa Clara County and drains an area of approximately 89 square miles with its headwaters in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The basin is primarily mountainous being bounded on the north, west, and south by the Santa Cruz Mountains and to the east by the Llagas Creek drainage basin. The creek generally flows southeast to join the Pajaro River approximately six miles south of the City of Gilroy. Uvas- Camadero Creek is approximately 32 miles in length with elevations ranging from 120 feet to 3800 feet above mean sea level. Upstream of U.S. Highway 101 the stream is known as Uvas Creek, and downstream as Camadero Creek. Stream flows in Uvas- Camadero Creek are regulated by Uvas Reservoir, constructed in 1958 by the South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District for water supply purposes. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 10,350 acre -feet. The drainage area at the reservoir is approximately 30 square miles. The reservoir is operated for water supply purposes, but does provide some incidental flood control benefits due to peak flow attenuation within the reservoir. The upland areas of Uvas Creek including the project site have soils mainly of the Los Gatos, Gaviota, and Vallecitos associations. They range in depth from shallow to deep, and are located on steep to very steep slopes. The vegetative cover includes oak, pine, brush, hardwoods, and grasses. The infiltration rates of water in the upland areas is generally slow. The upland soils have been classified to have a high to very high erosion potential, although sedimentation rates in the reservoir have not been unusually high in the past. This is probably due to the relatively undisturbed character of the upland areas of the watershed. The upland portions of the watershed has very little development at this time, and the County General Plan calls for only limited development in the future with mostly open space. The lowland valley areas of Uvas Creek including the project site have soils mainly of the Arbuckle, Pleasanton, and Yolo associations. They range in depth from deep to very deep, and are located on shallow to moderate slopes. The infiltration rates of water in the lowland areas is generally moderate to good. The lowland soils have been classified to have slight erosion potential. The area has a relatively mild climate, with ninety percent of the annual rainfall occurring in the late fall and winter months. January is usually the month with the most rainfall. The mean annual precipitation within the Uvas Creek watershed varies from a high of 40 inches in the Santa Cruz Mountains to a low of 20 inches near Gilroy. Flood History Damaging floods have occurred on Uvas Creek in 1937, 1940, 1955, 1958, 1963, and 1986. The flood of record before 1986 occurred in December 1955 with a flow of 14000 cfs at U. S. Highway 101. According to the local newspapers in Gilroy, the December 1955 flood event was reported to be the greatest event since 1880. Flooding was mainly limited to the area east of Thomas Road. The flood in February 1986 was larger than the 1955 event. The estimated peak flow was approximately 14500 cfs upstream of Thomas Road even with the attenuation effects of Schaaf & Wheeler 5 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 Uvas Reservoir. The reservoir was completed in 1958 after the 1955 flood. In 1986, Uvas Creek overflowed upstream of Thomas Road flooding the existing development area upstream of Thomas Road between the creek and Monterey Road. The creek also overflowed in the agricultural area downstream of Thomas Road. The flood flows generally continued south along Monterey Road to return to the creek channel near Highway 101. The flood flows also overflowed to the east across Monterey Road and Highway 101 near Luchessa Avenue and flooded the commercial area east of Monterey Road. Corps of Engineers Project The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a levee project for the reach of Uvas Creek from 1100 feet downstream of Thomas Road to 4500 feet upstream of Miller Avenue. The project was designed to provide 100 -year flood protection in the development area on the east side of the channel. Construction started in 1988 and was completed in 1990. As local sponsor for the flood control project, the Santa Clara Valley Water District ( SCVWD) has jurisdiction over Uvas Creek and owns the flood control levee. Additionally, SCVWD holds a flood flowage easement that restricts land used and development on a majority of the sports park site. The flowage easement encompasses land that was calculated to suffer induced flooding due to the construction of the Uvas Creek levee. Areas of induced flooding would be flooded to a greater extent than would have been expected prior to the construction of the levee. Potential land uses within the flowage easement are restricted to open space uses that would not inhibit the flow of flood waters across the land. Flood Insurance Study Uvas Creek was studied as part. of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study for Santa Clara County, completed in 1979. The channel has an estimated capacity of approximately 14000 cubic feet per second upstream of Thomas Road, decreasing to approximately 8300 cfs at U. S. Highway 101. Flows in excess of the channel capacity spill from the channel toward the east. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County were amended in 1991 by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The maps were revised to include the flood control levee upstream of the sports park site. The FIRMs were revised most recently by FEMA to consider current levee policies and topography in the area. The analysis also included more detailed analyses of the Uvas Creek overflows. The current FIRMs became effective in 1998. Hydrology Based on the FEMA detailed Uvas Creek hydraulic model for the current FIRMs, the estimated 100 -year flow rate for Uvas Creek downstream of Thomas Road is 14000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The 100 -year flow rate is contained within the Uvas Creek channel downstream to the end Schaaf & Wheeler 6 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park M Amendment January 10, 2002 Figure 3 NASSET THOMAS SUDD. Of RANCH COT IS yA.AeiJ CAS ,ANIMAS RANCHO PARTITION 'BN .i AC ao+N. 799 • uI •.. m. u.7, EDCRESSA AVE. • 1 ROAD YY ti'* +r. • " h� s L— »`4 Y1'�:�in%tm+t3,it)p'�`TyZ y•xTi,•T.p�' 2 Y111•IA ti 1' . 300' 0 »' za Ac Il11lIL. 7; Y ( y W Ad " TN. I K IM1Ix.I \ .L y \ DK ti A Pat 7 1. � \ 841 LU •• CSMT AM AG No r.D C I 11 .. ��: � \ � Y YY { �� FLOOD FLOWAGE EASEMENT As (ct7r or DlEeo Y n D � - - - - ±, -- 4 � A a� 1 c\ I,l L '� I7 0 ' ! L.V. /• 'r �% \I O .ZONE ASIKNA R I C wt J ZOI�E C I YJ �. 't1'.RC,C NCTIl I 1•R'' • `SRC I 34 aAC. TOTA� 2) rrR A0. w)n 5 3 0/ 1l Source: FEMA. City of Gilroy and EMC Planning Group Inc. NO Scale Schaaf & Wheeler vvar..a«aa v • � of the flood control levee near the northwest corner of the sports park site. Downstream of the levee, approximately 1740 cfs overflows to the east into the sports park site. Further downstream, near the southeast corner of the sports park site, an additional 2900 cfs overflows into the sports park for the 100 =year flood. The FEMA hydraulic model was also used to estimate the potential overflows for the 25 -year and 50 -year flood events, based-on the FEMA channel flow rates. The FEMA estimated 50 -year flow rate downstream of Thomas Road was 1.1000 cfs. The estimated 50 -year overflow at the end of the flood control levee was 165 cfs. An additional 1900 cfs would overflow from the channel near the southeast comer of the sports park site. For the 25 -year event, there would-be no overflow at the downstream end of the flood control levee. However, approximately 630 cfs would overflow at near the southeast corner of the sports park. For the 10 -year event, the FEMA flow rate was 5500 cfs. The channel has capacity for the 10- year flood and would not overflow within the sports park site. Design Flow The Corps of Engineers levee project on the east side of Uvas Creek upstream of the Sports Park " was designed for a 100 -year design flow rate of 17000 cfs: This is greater than the 100 -year flow rate estimated for the FEMA ,flood insurance study. The design flow rate generally considers more conservative watershed conditions. The FEMA flood insurance study HEC -2 model was used to estimate the overflow from Uvas Creek on the project site. The upstream overflow at the end of the Corps levee was estimated to be-3900 cfs. The downstream overflow at the southeast corner of the sports park site was estimated to be 2700 cfs. The combined overflow was estimated to be 6600 cfs. This is approximately 2000 cfs greater than the 100 -year flood condition. Flood Plains The existing flood plain and flood elevations for the 100 -year, 50 -year, and 25 -year flood events on the project site were estimated using the Corps of Engineers HEC -2 computer model. The estimated flow rates were based on the FEMA Uvas Creek overflow flow rates. Existing condition cross sections on the project site were taken from topographic maps completed in 1998. The site. flood plains and typical flow depths are shown in Figure 4. , The figure includes the .100- year,' 50 -year and 25 -year flood areas. The flood plain areas differ in certain areas from the effective FEMA flood plain maps due to differences in the topographic mapping and the FEMA mapping standards. Schaaf & Wheeler 9 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 In general, there are two separate flow paths associated with the two separate overflow locations. The existing ground slopes from the, creek toward Monterey Road. There is a shallow swale through the middle of the site which slopes from west to east, from the end of the flood control levee to approximately the access road area. Overflows from the creek flow as shallow sheetflow away from the creek toward the swale. The existing 100 -year flood plain analyses from the flood insurance study were reviewed to establish an estimated water surface elevation at Monterey Road. for the design flood condition. The existing 100 -year flood analysis was based on an overflow of 4640 cfs on the sports park site. The water surface elevations on Monterey Road near the site were based on weir flow over Monterey Road north of the Highway 101 embankment. The Monterey Road weir was more restrictive than the flow over the railroad embankment east of Monterey Road. The elevation discharge curve for the weir was used to estimate a water surface west of Monterey Road of 192.4 ft for the combined overflow of 6600 cfs. Drainage There are no existing drainage facilities on the sports park site. Runoff from the site flows overland to Monterey Road. There is a City of Gilroy storm drain system in Monterey Road which discharges to a Caltrans storm drain to Uvas Creek at Highway 101. Based on the City of Gilroy Storm Drain Master Plan, the existing; 54 -inch storm drain in Monterey Road south of Farman Lane has capacity for the proposed project area. Sports Park Design The Sports Park design.philosophy was developed to guide the sports park plan and grading to incorporate consideration of the potential flooding issues into the park planning. The objectives of the design philosophy were to maintain the existing flow patterns on the site, avoid increased flow or flood depths on adjacent properties, and to provide storm drainage for the proposed.park project. These objectives were reviewed with SCVWD to ensure that the project constraints would be consistent with the intent of the SCVWD flood flowage easement. Based on the existing flood plain information, the proposed residential area north of the Sports Park would be partially within the 100 -year flood plain. The lowest portion of the site, near Monterey Road would be flooded due to the Uvas Creek overflows. Because the overflows occur downstream of the residential development, the flooding. on the site would be ponded water due to the depth of flow downstream in the commercial development area along Monterey Road. For evaluation purposes, the residential development was assumed to meet the minimum standards required for development in the floodplain, including building pad elevations above the 100 -year water surface elevation. The proposed commercial development areas are located in an area where the overflows from Uvas Creek turn to follow Monterey Road south toward Uvas Creek at Highway 101 or flow over Monterey Road toward the railroad. The creek overflows enter the commercial area from the west and leave on the south or east side. Schaaf & Wheeler 1.0 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 202 20.0 198 d .�°'.. 196 c 0 > 194 CD MU 192 190 188 Figure 5 Water Surface and Ground Elevations Design Flood at Section 2 800 1300 1800 2300 2800 Cross Section Station (feet) -- Project WS -Existing WS -- Project Ground - - - Existing Ground . r -- _.... 800 1300 1800 2300 2800 Cross Section Station (feet) 197 - 196- 195 - a� 1D 194- 0 193- w 192- 191 - 190 - Figure 6 Water Surface and Ground Elevations Design Flood at Section 3 800 1300 1800 2300 2800 Cross Section Station (feet) Project WS - - - Existing WS - Project Ground - - -Existing Ground J_T 800 1300 1800 2300 2800 Cross Section Station (feet) Water Surface and Ground Elevations Design' Flood at Section 5 800 1300 1800 2300 Cross Section Station (feet) 2800 Figure 7 200 199 198 .� 197 Q a� v 196 0 195 m w 194 193 192 191 Water Surface and Ground Elevations Design' Flood at Section 5 800 1300 1800 2300 Cross Section Station (feet) 2800 Figure 7 202 �zIZQ 198 196 as 6 194 MU 192 190 186 Water Surface and Invert Profiles for Design Q Figure Project WS Existing WS Project Invert 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance from Monterey Road (feet) 3000 o_r M For evaluation purposes, the commercial development was assumed to include building pad elevations above the 100 -year and design water surface elevations. In addition, it was assumed that the development would balance cut and fill on the site to maintain flow areas in the landscaping and parking areas. This would allow sheetflow to cross the site without significant increases in the water surface elevations. No site plans or grading plans have been established for the commercial development. Project Flood Elevations The project condition flood elevations and flood plains were estimated using the HEC -2 computer model used to estimate the existing condition flood elevations. The ground cross sections were modified to include the proposed project grading. Cross section areas which may be obstructed by buildings or softball backstops were blocked in the project condition cross sections. Representative cross sections are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7. The calculated design water surface elevations for the existing and project conditions are shown on the flood profile in Figure 8, along with the corresponding invert elevations. This condition corresponds to the estimated maximum overflows from Uvas Creek for the 17000 cfs design flow in Uvas Creek upstream of the site. The invert elevations are based on the lowest grade elevation on any cross section. The profile was taken along a line through the property which approximates the alignment of the proposed access road. It should be noted that the design water surface elevation for the project condition is below the existing ground elevations at the lowest portion of the cross sections close to Uvas Creek. The lowest portions of the parking areas and access road near the creek are approximately 4 feet below existing grade elevations to provide slope across the turf areas near the creek, and to allow ponding areas within the parking areas. For flood events in which the creek overflows, the ponding areas in the parking lots will act as sedimentation basins to allow silt to deposit on the parking areas. Paved parking areas would be easier to clean in comparison to turf areas. These ponding areas are shown as low points on the invert profile for the project condition. As shown on the flood profile in Figure 8, the flood elevations for the design flood condition are at or below the existing water surface elevation for all areas. No areas outside the project boundary would be affected by the increased water surface elevations due to the project. The project condition flood plains are shown in Figure 9. Project Drainage The proposed storm drain system for the sports park site is shown in Figure 11. The storm drain system would drain the 10 -year runoff from the sports park site. The storm drain system would include two separate pipe systems. The main system would drain the majority of the sports park site and would discharge to an outfall to Uvas Creek at the southeast comer of the site. The Schaaf & Wheeler 17 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 F L 0 W 2 N C F S 10JAN02 14:56:15 4yx 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 22oo 0000 EXI-9B SPORTS—COMPLEX FLOW PRJ_9B SPORT—COMPLEX FLOW Figure 12 F L 0 W 2 N C F S 10JAN02 14:57:07 0000 0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 0000 E10 @--UVAS_CREEK FLOW P10 @-UVAS_CREEK FLOW Figure 13 F L 0 W I N 0 F S IWAN02 14:58:35 0000 0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 IM 1600 1800 2000 2200 0001 EXI_9B SPORT-COMPLEX FLOW PRJ_9B SPORTS--COMPLEX FLOW Figure 14 F L 0 W I N C F S IOSAN02 14:54:02 lewo 0400 0620 0800 1000 1200 - 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 0000 E100 @_WAS_CREEK FLOW P100 @_WAS_CREEK FLOW Figure 15. second system would drain only the access road from Monterey Road and a portion of the parking areas generally near the park, entrance. The access road storm drain would drain to the storm drain in Monterey Road. The City storm drain system in Monterey Road has capacity to serve the proposed project, and site drains to Monterey Road for existing conditions. However, a new outfall to Uvas Creek was recommended in consultation with the City staff to limit storm drain flows from the site during flood events. This intended to reduce potential sediment inflows to the City storm drain system during flood events. The proposed outfall to Uvas Creek would include a flapgate at the storm drain outfall to prevent back flow from the creek when the water levels in the creek are high. Therefore, when the creek overflows occur, there would be no significant flow though the storm drains and flood water would pond in the low areas in the parking lots and other landscaping areas. This would promote deposition of suspended silt and sediment on the project site, instead of adding to the sediment entering the City storm drain. The sports park storm drain system includes a sediment/water quality pond near the outfall to Uvas Creek. The pond would trap dust and suspended sediment washed off the parking lot during normal rainfall events. The pond would include a concrete bottom and access road to allow mechanical removal of trapped sediment. The pond would also allow more efficient clean up after a flood event. Trapped silt in the storm drains or on parking lots which cannot be removed mechanically can be washed off into the sedimentation pond, without discharging additional sediment into Uvas Creek. Runoff The runoff from the USA amendment project site was estimated for the 10- and 100 -year flood events for both the existing and project conditions, to evaluate the potential impact on flood flows in Uvas Creek. The runoff from the project site and the entire Monterey Road storm drain system drainage area were estimated using the SCV WD draft hydrology methodology. The hydrology is a unit hydrograph procedure based on the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number procedure. The procedure estimates the runoff hydrograph based on the 24 -hour rainfall, drainage area, time of concentration, and loss rates based on land use. For the project area, the loss rates were based on the estimated percent impervious for each land use. Pervious areas were assumed to be row crops for existing condition, and turf or for project conditions. For evaluation purposes, runoff from the portion of the sports park which drains directly to Uvas Creek was included in the project runoff estimates. No distinction was made between the runoff which enters at the site, and the runoff in the Monterey Road storm drain. The storm drain to the creek channel would not operate during large flood events when flood elevations are high in the creek. Therefore, for flood events it was assumed to contribute to the Monterey Road system. The estimated runoff hydrographs for the existing and project conditions are shown for the sports park project area for the 10 -year and 100 -year events in Figures 12 and 13. Schaaf & Wheeler 23 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10. 2002 Table 1 Peak Flow Rates Sports Park USA Area 140.2 acres The estimated runoff hydrographs for the existing and project conditions are shown for the Monterey Road drainage area for the 10 -year and 100 -year events in Figures 14 and 15. Table 2 Peak Flow Rates Monterey Road Drainage System 333.2 acres Existing Project Percent Event Condition Flow Condition Flow Increase cfs cfs 10 Year 68 94 38 100 Year 125 162 30 The estimated runoff hydrographs for the existing and project conditions are shown for the Monterey Road drainage area for the 10 -year and 100 -year events in Figures 14 and 15. Table 2 Peak Flow Rates Monterey Road Drainage System 333.2 acres As shown in the flood hydrographs and the peak flow rate tables, the peak flows from the project site would increase with development. This is due to increased runoff from impervious areas, and the increased flow velocities in the site drainage systems. The site runoff would no longer flow overland to Monterey Road to the storm drain system. The estimated increase in peak flow from the site and the Monterey Road would not have a significant impact on flood conditions in Uvas Creek. The peak flow from the local Monterey Road drainage system represents a relatively small portion of the overall Uvas Creek watershed, and has a different timing that the overall watershed. The time of concentration for the Monterey Road drainage area is approximately 40 minutes. In comparison, the time to peak for the overall watershed, including the area above the Uvas Reservoir is approximately 10 hours. The time to the peak flow in the lower watershed below the reservoir is approximately 4 hours. Therefore, Schaaf & Wheeler 24 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 Existing Project Percent Event Condition Flow Condition Flow Increase cfs cfs 10 Year 207 228 10 100 Year 353 378 7 As shown in the flood hydrographs and the peak flow rate tables, the peak flows from the project site would increase with development. This is due to increased runoff from impervious areas, and the increased flow velocities in the site drainage systems. The site runoff would no longer flow overland to Monterey Road to the storm drain system. The estimated increase in peak flow from the site and the Monterey Road would not have a significant impact on flood conditions in Uvas Creek. The peak flow from the local Monterey Road drainage system represents a relatively small portion of the overall Uvas Creek watershed, and has a different timing that the overall watershed. The time of concentration for the Monterey Road drainage area is approximately 40 minutes. In comparison, the time to peak for the overall watershed, including the area above the Uvas Reservoir is approximately 10 hours. The time to the peak flow in the lower watershed below the reservoir is approximately 4 hours. Therefore, Schaaf & Wheeler 24 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 the peak flow in the Uvas Creek channel would occur at least 3 hours after the peak runoff from the local drainage area. As shown in the hydrographs in Figures 14 and 15, the runoff from the i local drainage area after the local peak flow is lower for the project conditions than for the existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not increase flows during the peak flow in the creek. Conclusions The proposed Final Draft Master Plan for the Gilroy Sports Park would be consistent with the objectives of the SCVWD flood flowage easement on the project site. The project grading is generally lower than the existing ground elevations in the paved parking and access road areas to allow for blockage in other areas for park facilities. The flood elevations on the project site are at or below existing elevations on the site and at the project boundaries. The Uvas Creek overflows would enter the site and leave the site in the same quantities and locations as the existing flood condition. The flood risk on other properties would not be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project includes ponding areas in the paved parking areas to allow silt in the flood water to settle out before reaching Monterey Road. The ponding in paved portions of the project would simplify clean up after a flood event. The ponding in the parking areas would not occur for smaller local rainfall events less than a 10 -year storm. The increased impervious area on the project site would increase runoff from the site and local peak flows into Uvas Creek. Due to the difference in timing between the local drainage and the creek flows, the peak local drainage discharge would reach Uvas Creek before the peak flow in the creek. Based on the estimated flow hydrographs, the local runoff at the time of the peak flow in the creek would not increase due to the project. References The Beals Group, Gilroy Sports Park Final Draft Master Plan, April 1999. 2. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., City of Gilroy Storm Drain Master Plan, May 1993. 3. Federal Emergency, Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, Santa Clara County, California, Revised February 1986. 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study, City of Gilroy, California, February 1980. 5. Schaaf & Wheeler, City of Gilroy - Uvas Creek Floodplain Management Study, November 1995. 6. Schaaf & Wheeler, Gilroy Sports Park Hydrology Study, May 1999. Schaaf & Wheeler 25 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 7. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pajaro River, California, Uvas Creek Levee at Gilroy, General Design Memorandum, November 1984. 8. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pajaro River Basin, Uvas - Carnadero Creek, General Design Memorandum, Phase I, Main Report and Environmental Statement, July 1981. 9. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soils of Santa Clara County, August 1968. Schaaf &Wheeler 26 Draft Hydrology Study Gilroy Sports Park USA Amendment January 10, 2002 L Appendix D Updated Fiscal Analysis DRAFT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GILROY SPORTSPARK AND URBAN SERVICES AREA AMENDMENT March 21, 2000 n�`C4 & JqN 14 ?002 EMC P44NNIIVG GRnfJp 2N6 Prepared for the City of Gilroy Prepared by Douglas H. Svensson, AICP Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue Berkeley CA 94704 510.548.5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310, Sacramento CA 95814 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... ..............................1 2. Property Tart Dist ribution ............................................................................... ..............................1 3. Sports Park Fiscal Impact on the City of Gilroy ......................................... ..............................1 4. Residential and Commercial Fiscal Impact on City of Gilroy 5. Project Impact on Santa Clara County .......................................................... ..............................5 Appendix A: LAFCO Cost Revenue Methodology ........................................... ..............................7 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current And Estimated Future Property Tax Distribution ....................... ..............................2 2. Fiscal Impact Of Non- Sportspark Annexation Area On The City Of Gilroy .....................3 3. Project Characteristics 4. Assumed Development Phasing ................4 5. Cost/Revenue Impact On Santa Clara County ........................................... ..............................6 (�e�Fy A, E1:x INTRODUCTION From a fiscal standpoint, the project involves three actions that would affect public costs and revenues for the County of Santa Clara, the City of Gilroy, and other taxing agencies serving the project site. The first is the annexation of the parcels into the City of Gilroy. This would change the jurisdiction of the property and affect the distribution of property tax revenues to many of the taxing agencies. Secondly, operation of the sports park complex will create additional jobs and possibly minor increases in population, which will create service costs for County government, as well as increase the operating budget of the City Parks and Recreation Department. Finally, development of the other land in the annexation into residential and commercial uses will also have a fiscal impact on both the City and the County. PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION When the City purchased the property for the sports park, it effectively removed it from the tax rolls. However, the parcels surrounding the sports park site still in private ownership will change jurisdiction with the annexation. Those parcels currently have an assessed value of approximately $1 million and generate total property taxes of about $10,900 per year. With the annexation, it is likely that the distribution of property taxes will change. The table below shows the current distribution and the anticipated distribution after the annexation is complete. The future distribution is estimated to be similar to that in the Tax Rate Area within the City boundaries immediately adjacent to the project site. The largest difference in the two columns is the transfer of service responsibility and taxes from the South Santa Clara Fire District to the City of Gilroy. SPORTS PARK FISCAL IMPACT ON THE CITY OF GILROY The City of Gilroy has not finalized an operating budget for the proposed Sport Park Preliminary estimates indicate the total cost at full operation may be about $1 million, of which a portion maybe funded by user fees.' The project planning consultant for the City estimates that the staffing for the park would include six maintenance, ranger and supervisorial positions? However, some of these positions would work only part time at the park. The planned phasing of the park is about 20 years, so the full cost and job base will not reach maximum levels for some time. 1 Mr. Bill Headley,Gilroy Facilities and Park Development, personal communication. 2 Mr. Derek McKee, Beals Landscape Architecture, Inc. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE / Ftr�: fi 'J TABLE I CURRENT AND ESTIMATED FUTURE PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION Taxing Agency Current Distribution* Estimated Future Distribution* County General Fund 24.30% 23.400/6 County Library 4.40% 4.20% Educational Agencies 58.30% 56.30% So SC County Fire Dist. 9.80% 0.00% SCY Water 1.70% 1.70% Bay Area AQMD 0.20% 0.20% Gavilan Water Dist. 0.60% 0.60% SCYWD State Water Proj. 0.50% 0.50% City of Gilroy 0.00% 12.90% Other 0.20% 0.20% Total 100.00% 100.00% Source: ADE, based on data provided by the Santa Clara County Controllers Office. *Note: Neither the current nor the future tax distributions reflect the ERAF adjustment, which would increase the share to educational agencies. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY OF GILROY Full development of the residential and commercial property in the annexation would have a positive fiscal impact for Gilroy as shown in Table 2. Nearly all of this benefit is generated by the sales tax from the commercial property. The residential component of the development starts out creating a small positive cash flow from the City in the early years, but this declines in later years as the value of the property tax erodes in relation to escalations in City service costs (see bottom he of Table 2). The analysis is based on the project characteristics shown in Table 3 and the phasing shown in Table 4. The residential phasing and market prices are based on information provided by the project sponsor and reflects Greystone Homes' request to the City for RDO allocation. No market analysis exists for the commercial properties, and they are presumed in this analysis to follow the completion of the residential development. If the commercial property-takes longer to develop, then the fiscal benefit to the City would be different than shown in Table 2. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT E[ONOM /[S PAGET TABLE 2 FISCAL IMPACT OF NON-SPORTSPARK ANNEXATION AREA ON THE CITY OF GILROY Administration 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 REVENUES $0 $0 $13,843 $53,041 $102,793 $154,809 $161,776 $169,056 $169,056 $176,663 $184,613 $201,602 Property Tax $1,290 $1,316 $7,662 $26,666 $47,746 $69,269 $78,151 $101,162 $124,702 $127,577 $130,478 $133,447 Sales & Use Tax $0 $0 $11,136 $42,056 $80,334 $184,644 $288,246 $915,427 $1,565,589 $1,612,556 $1,660,933 $1,762,084 Franchise Fees $0 $0 $724 $2,734 $5,223 $8,919 $10,387 $14,335 $17,972 $18,511 $19,066 $20,227 Real Property Tsf. Tax $0 $0 $5,389 $16,987 $20,701 $19,138 $10,128 $14,702 $16,230 $11,747 $11,992 $12,271 Utility Tax $0 $0 $2,567 $9,696 $18,521 $27,492 $28,317 $29,167 $29,167 $30,042 $30,943 $32,827 Investment Interest $39 $39 $919 $3,301 $5,858 $10,297 $13,500 $33,318 $53,684 $55,120 $56,742 $60,035 Motor Vehicle -in -lieu $0 $0 $2,130 $8,045 $15,367 $22,810 $23,495 $24,200 $24,200 $24,926 $25,673 $27,237 Gas Tax $0 $0 $1,022 $3,862 $7,376 $10,949 $11,278 $11,616 $11,616 $11,965 $12,324 $13,074 SUBTOTAL $1,329 $1,355 $31,550 $113,347 $201,126 $353,519 $463,502 $1,143,928 $1,843,160 $1,892,443 $1,948,152 $2,061,203 Administration $0 $0 $1,803 $6,909 $13,390 $20,166 $21,073 $22,021 $22,021 $23,012 $24,048 $26,261 Police $0 $0 $13,843 $53,041 $102,793 $154,809 $161,776 $169,056 $169,056 $176,663 $184,613 $201,602 Fire $0 $0 $457 $1,752 $3,395 $5,113 $5,343 $5,584 $5,584 $5,835 $6,097 $6,658 Community Services $0 $0 $454 $1,740 $3,372 $5,079 $5,307 $5,546 $5,546 $5,795 $6,056 $6,614 Community Recreation $0 $0 $808 $3,095 $5,999 $9,034 $9,441 $9,865 $9,865 $10,309 $10,773 $11,765 Community Development $0 $0 $3,833 $14,688 $28,465 $42,869 $44,799 $46,815 $46,815 $48,921 $51,123 $55,827 SUBTOTAL $0 $0 $21,198 $81,225 $157,414 $237,070 $247,738 $258,886 $258,886 $270,536 $282,710 $308,727 NET (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $1,355 $10,351 $32,122 $43,712 $116,449 $215,764 $885,041 $1,584,273 $1,621,907 $1,665,441 $1,752,476 CUMULATIVE (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $2,684 $13,035 $45,157 $88,870 $205,319 $421,083 $1,306,125 $2,890,398 $4,512,305 $6,177,746 $7,930,222 RESIDENTIAL ONLY NET (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $1,355 $10,351 $32,122 $43,712 $40476 $27,437 $28,078 $29,862 $20,005 $16,051 $5,234 CUMULATIVE (COST)/REVENUE $1,329 $2,684 $13,035 $45,157 $88,870 $129,346 $156,783 $184,861 $214,723 $234.728 $250.779 $256.014 TABLE 3 ' PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS RESIDENTIAL Acres Units Population Unit Values TOTAL 15.0 147 504 Low Density (6,000 sq.ft. lots) 5.8 42 144 $400,000 Medium Density(4,000 sq.ft. lots) 4.4 48 165 $325,000 Tri - plexes 4.8 57 196 $225,000 COMMERCIAL Acres Sq.Ft. Employment Unit Values TOTAL 27.1 590,891 1,085 Service Commercial 6.8 147,723 271 $75.00 Regional Commercial 20.3 443,169 814 $75.00 Parks 1.2 TABLE 4 ASSUMED DEVELOPMENT PHASING ANNUAL 2001 2002 2003 2004. 2005 2006 Units - Annual Low Density 0 20 22 0 0 0 Medium Denisity 15 20 13 0 0 0 Tri - plexes 0 0 12 45 0 0 Sq.Ft. - Annual Service Commercial 0 0 0 74,052 74,052 0 Regional Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 217,800 All of the costs and most of the revenues in Table 2 are calculated on a per capita basis including both population and employment from the project site. The per capita cost factors are calculated from information in the 1999/2000 City of Gilroy budget. For services that generate direct user fees, such as Recreation and Community Development (building permits, etc.), the user charges have been netted out of the service costs before calculating the per capita measures. The service population used in the calculations is consistent with a "daytime population" concept that assigns 75 percent of the service burden to the residential population and 25 percent to the job base in the City. APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGE4 ,S,.F rd43, c The property tax is calculated directly from the units values shown in Table 3. The sales tax in t" the early years is based on per capita spending by project residents. However, as the commercial property comes online, the sales tax shifts to a per sq.ft. calculation on the commercial space, to avoid double - counting resident purchases at the commercial center. PROJECT IMPACT ON SANTA CLARA COUNTY The County LAFCO methodology for estimating fiscal impacts to County government addresses the impact of population growth on County services. The residential portion of the project would increase population by 504 persons. The 1,072 jobs in the commercial portion of the project and the four FTE jobs at the Sportspark could generate 2,284 additional population, for a total project impact of 2,788.' The following table indicates the costs and revenues associated with this increase in population. The LAFCo methodology indicates that all population increases have a negative impact on County finances (see Appendix A for the LAFCo base data on costs and revenues). The cumulative negative impact of this project is estimated to exceed $6.6 million by 2010. ' Recent ABAG data indicates that Gilroy has about 1.6 workers per household. The average household size is estimated to be 3.43. APPLIED DEYELOPMENT ECONOMICS PAGES TABLE 5 COST/REVENUE IMPACT ON SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Revenues 52,061 219,031 409,276 754,602 1,120,029 1,155,174 1,189,493 1,224,717 Law and Justice $13,813 $60,091 $116,176 $221,736 $340,869 $364,249 $388,763 $415,013 Health Services 19,253 83,963 162,720 311,247 479,460 513,392 548,965 587,129 Social Services 32,176 134,763 250,933 461,424 683,630 704,319 724,933 746,561 General Government 13,597 56,351 103,782 188,694 276,263 281,154 285,694 290,345 Subtotal 78,839 335,167 633,611 1,183,101 1,780,222 1,863,115 1,948,355 2,039,048 Law and Justice 52,061 219,031 409,276 754,602 1,120,029 1,155,174 1,189,493 1,224,717 Health Services 55,006 169,639 317,434 586,027 870,905 899,258 926,975 955,392 Social Services 53,987 224,965 416,589 761,586 1,121,309 1,147,681 1,173,197 1,199,627 General Government (655) (6,077) (17,151) (41,631) (75,767) (91,675) (107,525) (123,470) Subtotal 160,399 607,558 1,126,148 2,060,585 3,036,476 3,110,437 3,182,140 3,256,265 Net (Costs)/Revenue (81,560) (272,391) (492,537) (877,484) (1,256,254) (1,247,323) (1,233,785) (1,217 218) Cumulative $(81,560) $(353,952) $(846,489) $(1,723,973) $(2,980,227) $(4,227,549) $(5,461,334) $(6,678,551) Source: ADE, Inc., based on Santa Clara County LAFCO cost and revenue factors. l� APPENDIX A LAFCO COST REVENUE METHODOLOGY A P P L/ EO O E V EL 0 P M E N T EC 0 N 0 M/ C S PAGE7 G'k_ I Lr91141 h1U ! Y'. LI! A' 1U�15:53 '.'HL I2.Z7 rA.l 410 .a:, irld County of Santa Clara Local .A.Rcncy Formanon Cott nni };ion C.nvv> GUvnrnme:n CG3ixle, £05' wiiiA 70 Was, HcilcFlib Sir-640. I O+h Rn�- San lose. CaLlarn,a 98! IU Is0812P73a2a PqX Z�• -!hl Au"'CA. Ae'6u. Exe ultv.• u'reaor i IL.I IL 1'll �. JLL llll:ll! .,:u.. FISCAL IMPACTS OF LAFCO PROPOSALS it is a LAFCO requirement that applicants provide information regarding the fiscal impacts of proposals upon affected local agencies. Affected agencies usually include the city, county and elementary and high school districts, ;.ut certain proposals may have a fiscal impact upon other agencies as well. The LAPC0 executive director should be contacted regarding which types of districts should be included in the analysis. The attached tables have been prepared by the County Office of Budget and Analysis, for use in estimating, the fiscal impact of development proposals upon Santa Clara County Government. Fiscal impacts to the city and any atfeeted special districts will also need to be analyzed. These agencies should be contacted directly to receive information regarding fiscal impacts. The fiscal impacts to affected agencies other than the county should be analyzed for the same base years, and should be formatted in the same cost vs. revenue manner. Please call LAFCO Executive Director Autumn Arias at 299 -3800, extension 7027, if you have any questions regarding either the County Government tables or the fiscal analysis process in general. FISCAL IMPACTS TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT: The attached tables depict fiscal impacts on a per capita basis. One table indicates the per capita costs to the County General Fund and the other table depicts the per capita revenues that would be realized by the County General Fund. To use these worksheets, the number of residents general- 3 by a specific proposal should first be determined. This number can then be multiplied by the per capita figures in each category. The analysis should include the following information: Fiscal Years: Analysis should be performed for the fiscal year in which the project is proposed to be built, as well as five years and ten years from this base fiscal year (example: FY 1998, 2003 & 2008). The year (or estimated ,ear) of annexation should be used as the base year, if the project construction date is unknown. (-more-) ('O(SjOli9WpOt'.({l s:anea A•.'JfEtl9, \,gngti a Fernancics. P.0 FCJenia, Michac; N1.:iordl(:' Sn59r1 VICKlune 1Y:6cn0 COTTISSIOl1$lt-rplr V 1403: 2d£W331 ro» Post -it` Fax Note 7671 Oatc ! ZC ��9 Fapns� TyOV <. SJ2J SSo From Rt q�P�� j4(.�*cs Fax 9 �I FkIJ('l : EPIC- PLHI'11111AU UIkWUI HHLINE 11LI. Jai-I. A. 1%f ! 10:08Ht'1 F'c' 10.15:96 TNC 12.26 PAX M 23,. 1biJ t. L,JL.�G1 LIVA Costs to County Government: For each year to be analysed, show the breakdown of Costs to each of the four major areas shown to the table: Law & justice (L & j,, Health (111th), Social Services (SocSves), and General Goverlunent (GenGovt). Also show the total General Fund expenditures (GFEx) for each year. Revenues to County Government* For each year to be analyzed, show the breakdown of costs by subject area, as well as total revenues for each year. March 1996 FROM : EPIC PLANI4II.01 GROUP PHONE 140. 101115 /5N •lli` 1:. en r+.. yo, .od ��.•. . -.. PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1N PRESENT /FUTURE DOLLARS ia7l. 26 1999 10:09AM P (General Fund Law & JusticGs'Health, Social Sarvices, General Gov't.) 47.56 50.86 54� 62.06 66.39 71.09 76.14 81.65 87.49 93.69 100,26 107.23 114.62 122,46 130.76 139.56 148.87 Otha Mal swsvca Oen©0vt 64,07 167.97 68.82 171.20 73.75 1703 ' 183..8644 84.97. . 97 ,g8 1033.78 10536 199.39 11320 705.52 121.63 M1.81 130.59 21825 140.09 . 224.85 150.19 231.61 160.89 238.52 171,25 • 243.60 184.30 252•84 M,07 260.24 210.61 267.80 77.18 78.35 79.42 soS6 82.06 83,50 85.10 86.77 88.60 90.42 92.23 94.02 95.79 97.54 99.25 100 102.56 104,15 2010 cl'P_ I'LHl 11114LI LIK! JUI-' t-H HL I1U. FY 1984 1985 1936 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 997 1998 1999 200 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 SGGo CPI 104.0 108.4 111.6 115.4 126A 132.1 137.9 142.0 147.3 152.4 157.6 163.1 169.5 176.1 183.3 191.0 119.4 208.2 217.3 226.9 236.9 247.3 25$.2 269.5 281.4 "M a P&SWUMM Year Dollars mltb, Sodal Servicaa, Go oral Per Capita CQets is Pa UFumfe Year DoUara GFEx 5333.96 $364.27 $389.39 $448.35 $488.11 $536.23 $603.12 $675.29 $725.83 $749.94 $774.69 S8�� $835.24 $882.54 $909.06 $936.53` $96126 $987.98 $1,013.70 $1,039.43 $1,065.15 $1.090.88 $1,116.60 $1.142.33 a. FUth $43.11 Jde1, :t 1'd'd7 10:11lyHl'I 1-14 Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Monitoring Program for Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 9802 Subsequent EIR Introduction CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The law was passed in response to historic non - implementation of mitigation measures presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented. Monitoring Program The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the environmental impact report. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures become conditions of project approval, which the project proponent is.required to complete during and after implementation of the proposed project. The attached checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. This monitoring checklist contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the environmental impact report. Monitoring Program Procedures The City. of Gilroy shall use the attached monitoring checklist for the proposed project. The monitoring program should be implemented as follows: The Gilroy Community Development Department should be responsible for coordination of the monitoring program, including the monitoring checklist. The Community Development Department should be responsible for completing the monitoring checklist and distributing the checklist to the responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 1 2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring checklist to the Community Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring checklist should not be returned to the Community Development Department. The Gilroy Community Development Department will review the checklist to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with at the appropriate time, e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is required for project approvals. 4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non - compliance has occurred, a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy to the Community Development Department, describing the non - compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If a non - compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the City of Gilroy. Responsible Parties and Timing of Implementation and Monitoring The following table lists the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measures at each stage of the proposed project. The party(ies) responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure is (are) indicated by italics. The party(ies) responsible for monitoring the mitigation measure is (are) indicated by bold text. A key to abbreviations is located following the table. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 2 Principal Responsible Parties: A: Applicant or designee; ATT: Gilroy City Attorney; BLD: Gilroy Building Division; CD: Gilroy Community Development Department; CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game; COR: Santa Clara County Coroner, ENG: Gilroy Engineering Division; NAHC: Native American Heritage Commission; PLN: Gilroy Planning Division; RWQCB: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; SCVWD: Santa Clara Valley Water District Other Responsible Parties and Specialized Consultants: 1: Biologist; 2: Archeologist 3: Hydrologist. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 Implementation Timeframe Mitigation Project Plans Prior /During Prior /During Prior to Post Measure Final Map Permits Grading Construction Occupancy Development Number I A A A PLN PLN PLN 2 A A A, BLD, PLN A, BLD, PLN 3 A A A PLN PLN PLN 4 A 1; PLN 6 A 1, PLN, CDFG 6 A A 1, PLN 1, PLN 7 A A PLN PLN S A A ENG ENG 9 A A PLN PLN 10 A A 2, PLN 2, PLN 11 A A 2, PLN 2, PLN 12 A A COR,NAHC COR,NAHC 13 43 - ENG, SCVWD 14 A A A RWQCB, ENG A, ENG A, ENG 15 A A A SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD 16 A A A A A ENG ENG ENG ENG ENG 17 A A CD CD 18 A A BLD BLD 19 A A A ENG A, ENG, BLD A, ENG, BLD 20 A ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 21 A, ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 22 A, ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 23 A, ATT A, ATT ENG ENG 24 A ATT A, -ITT ENG Principal Responsible Parties: A: Applicant or designee; ATT: Gilroy City Attorney; BLD: Gilroy Building Division; CD: Gilroy Community Development Department; CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game; COR: Santa Clara County Coroner, ENG: Gilroy Engineering Division; NAHC: Native American Heritage Commission; PLN: Gilroy Planning Division; RWQCB: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; SCVWD: Santa Clara Valley Water District Other Responsible Parties and Specialized Consultants: 1: Biologist; 2: Archeologist 3: Hydrologist. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 The text of the mitigation measures and the role of each responsible party is listed in the following table. Mitigation Measure Text of Mitigation Measure Number Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, prior to approval of a tentative subdivision soap, the applicant for residential development on the parcels north of the sports park shall provide a landscape plan that is consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy, and includes a double row of trees along the sports park boundary, utilizing tree species that will attain a crown between 30 and 50 feet above street level. One row of trees may be planted on the sports park side of the shared property boundary. The plantings shall be a minimum size of 24 -inch boxed specimens and shall be planted prior to occupancy of the houses located within 100 feet of the sports park. The following dust control measures shall be incorporated into all permits for any phase of proposed construction on the project site. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The following additional measures shall be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area: • Hydroseed or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non -toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, em.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Subject to determination by the Gilroy Planning Division the following measures shall be implemented at construction sites that are very large or are located near sensitive receptors: • Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Install wind breaks, or plant trees /vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per how, • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. Implementing Party Monitoring Party Applicant shag prepare plan, install plantings prior to occupancy, and replace any plants that fail to grow adequately for the fast five years following initial occupancy Applicant shall implement dust control measures as necessary to control the migration of visible dust off site. Gilroy Planning Division shall ensure that the landscape plans meet requirements, and shall conduct annual monitoring for five years following initial occupancy to ensure trees are growing adequately. Gilroy Planning Division shall ensure that all permits issued include dust control requirements. The construction manager shall nom implementation of dust control measures in the construction log and provide a copy of the log to the City at the end of each week. Gilroy Planning Division shall review construction logs weekly for the initial four weeks and monthly thereafter. Gilroy Building Division shall investigate reported violations. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 4 A landscape plan consistent with the Gilroy Consolidated Landscape Policy shall be prepared for common and street side planting areas abutting the Uvas Creek habitat corridor, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division. The landscape plan shall include appropriate native plant species and shall not include plantings of non - native, invasive plant species. Native grasses or other native species shall be preferred in the areas adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee to provide additional native habitat in association with the Uvas Creek habitat corridor. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no earlier than 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to commencement of clearing, grading or construction in or adjacent to any riparian habitat, a field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active raptor nests are present in the construction zone or within 250 feet of the construction zone. These surveys shall be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting and /or breeding season of raptors potentially nesting in the areas proposed for development (generally Much 1 through August 1). If active nests we found within the survey area, at the discretion of the biologist, clearing and construction within 250 feet shall be postponed or halted until the nests are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no earlier than 45 days and no later than 20 days prior to commencement of grading or construction on or adjacent to the slope of the levee, field surveys shall be conducted at least four consecutive evenings by a qualified biologist to determine ifburmwing owls are present in the construction zone or within 250 feet of the construction zone. These surveys shall be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting and /or breeding season of burrowing owls potentially nesting in the area (February 1 through August 31) and /or during the winter residency period (December 1 and January 3l). Pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. If active nests are found within the survey area, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game fonreview and approval. The burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan shall contain mitigation measures contained in the California Department of Fisb and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Compliance with this mitigation measure may include, but not be limited to, the following: • Avoidance of occupied burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31); • Acquisition, protection and funding for long -term management and monitoring of foraging habitat adjacent to occupied habitat; • Enhancement of existing burrows and /or creation of new burrows; • Passive relocation ofburfowing owls. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to inform workers of the potential presence of the all special -status species, their protected stains, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during construction activities. Applicant shall prepare plan and install plantings, and replace any plants that fail to grow adequately during the first year. Applicant shall arrange for the surveys, and shall abide by the determinations of the biologist. Applicant shall arrange for the surveys, and shall abide by the determinations of the biologist, and the provisions of the mitigation program. Applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to educate workers. All food - related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and Applicant shall regularly removed from the project area to deter attraction of potential place trash predators of the California red - legged frog, foothill yellow - legged frog, containers at western spadefoot toad, California tiger salamander, and western pond approved locations. turtle. Pets shall not be allowed on the construction site. The proper location of the trash containers shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Community Development Department. Gilroy Planning Division shall review the plans and inspect the plantings following installation, and shall ensure that the landscape plans meet requirements, and shall conduct monitoring following planting and one year later to ensure plants are growing adequately. Qualified biologist shall conduct surveys, and report results to the applicant and the Gilroy Planning Division. Gilroy Planning Division shall approve the selection of the biologist and review the biologist's reports. Qualified biologist shall conduct surveys, and report results to the California Department of Fish and Game, the applicant, and the Gilroy Planning Division. Gilroy Planning Division shall approve the selection of the biologist and review the biologists reports. California Department of Fish and Game shall review the reports and the mitigation plan, and shall monitor compliance with the mitigation Plan. Gilroy Planning Division shall approve the selection of the biologist. Biologist shall inform the Gilroy Planning Division of completed educational sessions. Gilroy Community Development Department shall review proposed placement of trash containers. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 5 Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, luminaires in the proposed residential area shall be limited in height to 20 feet and shall be of a full cutoff design to reduce light spillage to adjacent areas. Luminaires located along a street adjacent to the Uvas Creek levee shall be located to the east side of the street. Prior to removal of any of the potentially historic houses on the project site an historical evaluation shall be completed. The historic evaluation shall include an architectural description of the structure, an historic background for the property and the completion of an appropriate State Department of Parks and Recreation form with photographic documentation. 10 The developers for any portion of the project site shall contract with a qualified archaeologist to arrange a schedule for monitoring during grading and excavation activities due to the project site's creek -side location and proximity to recorded historic and prehistoric sites. 11 Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be found during construction the following language shall be included any permits issued for the project site, including, but cot limited to building permits for future development, subject to the review and approval of the Gilroy Planning Division: 12 If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted at a minimum of 200 feet from the find and the area shall be staked off. The project developer shall notify a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that this language is included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e): If human remains are found during construction there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if., a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Applicant shall indicate the height and placement of luminaires on Final Maps and project plans.. Applicant shall have an historical evaluation performed and follow the recommendations of the report. Applicant shall arrange for the archeological monitoring at least once per day during grading and excavation. Applicant shall halt work if archaeological resources or human remains are discovered on the project site, and notify a qualified archeologist. Applicant shall halt work if human remains are discovered on the project site, and notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. Gilroy Engineering Division shall review Final Map and project Plans. Gilroy Planning Division shall review the historic report and determine the appropriate measures. Archeologist shall provide weekly reports of site monitoring to the Gilroy Planning Division, and halt work if significant resources are discovered. Archeologist shall investigate finds, and report immediately to the Gilroy Planning Division if significant resources are discovered. Gilroy Planning Division shall consult with the archeologist to develop appropriate measures. Coroner shall investigate finds, and report to the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 boors if the remains are determined to be of Native Americans. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify likely descendants. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 6 13 Any applicant for development within FEMAdelineated 100 -year flood Applicant shall have Gilroy Engineering zones on the project site shall have a hydrology report prepared for that a hydrological Division shall development by a qualified hydrologist or engineer, to specify hydrology- report prepared, and approve the related design requirements for the site and buildings, subject to the review incorporate the hydrologist, review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division and SCV WD prior recommendations the hydrology report, to issuance of a building permit. The hydrology report shall address the into project plans. and review project following requirements: plans to ensure that • Site plans and building designs shall comply with the City of the recommendations Gilroy Flood Plain Control Ordinance. .. of the report are • Development on the project site shall not impede the flow of adequately addressed floodwaters. in the project plans. • Procedures shall be developed and site plans designed that will SCV WD shall review assure that any materials, supplies or goods used, stored or hold project plans to for sale at the proposed use that may present health hazards or ensure that the risks of water contamination during flood conditions are securely recommendations of kept at least one foot above the 100 -year flood level. the report are • Development on the project site shall not result in an increase in adequately addressed floodwater levels off the project site. in the project plans. Calculations for both the 25 -year and 100 -year flood events shall be submitted in support of these requirements. All grading, design or other recommendations of the hydrology report shall be incorporated into project plans. 14 The project applicant for any proposed development, shall, for each phase of Applicant shall Central Coast the development, submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and detailed engineering submit NOI, RWQCB shall designs to the Central Coast RWQCB. This permit shall require proposed SWPPP, review and approve a development and implementation of a SWPPP that uses storm water "Best and engineering SWPPP for the Management Practices" to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from designs to the proposed project. the site. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices that address Central Coast Gilroy Engineering source reduction and, if necessary, shall include practices that require RWQCB. Division shall review treatment. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of Gilroy Engineering project plans to Division for review and approval prior to approval of a building permit for ensure that the each phase of the project SWPPP is adequately addressed on project Plans. The construction manager shall note implementation of SWPPP measures in the construction log and provide a copy of the log to the City at the end of each week. Gilroy Engineering Division shall review construction logs weekly for the initial four weeks, and between November 15 andApril 15 and monthly at other times. 15 The project applicant for any proposed development within 50 feet of a Applicant shall SCV WD shall monitor waterway or flood flowage easement shall submit plans for review by, and obtain a permit from the project site for obtain an approved permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District the SCV WD. compliance with its (SCV WD) prior to approval of a building permit for each phase of the permit. project. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 7 16 Project plans for any development proposed for the project site, subject to Applicant shall the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division shall include on the Final include a sedimentation basin adequate for filtering out heavy storm water Map and construct contaminants such as silt, and grease traps suitable . for filtering out other the required urban pollutants to the extent feasible. Additional measures as presented in features. "Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Applicant shall Protection," prepared by the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies prepare any required Association and "Parking Lot Best Management Practices Manual," managementplan. prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Run -off Pollution Prevention of notification by Program may be required for specific projects. Any physical water quality the City of Gilroy safeguards shall be installed prior to occupancy of the proposed Engineering Division. development, and any best management practices plan must be implemented upon occupancy. Gilroy City 17 Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Community Applicant shall Development Department, the applicant for any residential development on include noise the project site along West Luchessa Avenue shall construct a sound attenuation barriers attenuation barrier eight feet in height when measured from the near curb of on Final Maps and West Luchessa Avenue. The barrier shall be completed prior to occupancy construct prior to of any homes on lots adjacent to West Luchessa Avenue. occupancy. 18 Subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Building Division, Applicant shall have the applicant for any residential development on the project site shall an acoustical study conduct an acoustical study and establish engineering requirements to be prepared and included in construction plans to maintain interior noise levels at no greater incorporate than 45 dBAoNL. engineering and Interior noise attenuation techniques may include forced air ventilation or design requirements in project plans. air conditioning for all habitable rooms with a window facing noise sources, triple -paned windows, sound insulation or other appropriate means that will reduce interior noise levels to no greater than 45 dBAmNL- 19 The following language shall be included on any permits issued at the Applicant shall project site, subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy limit noise - Engineering Division. "All noise generating construction activities shall be generating limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and to Saturdays and construction to the City holidays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction is allowed boors listed. on Sundays. In addition, temporary berms or noise attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary." 20 The following street improvements shall be made to the intersection of West Applicant for Luchessa Avenue and Church Street:. applicable project • installation of a traffic signal with two -phase operation; shall include the • reconfiguration of the northbound and southbound approaches as listed improvements necessary to provide one approach lane for all movements; in project plans, and • provision of one left -rum lane and one shared through and right- shall implement the turn lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. improvements The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined within rune months by the City of Gilroy traffic - monitoring program or a project - specific traffic of notification by analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations the City of Gilroy below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required Engineering Division. as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. Gilroy City Attorney shall prepare a reimbursement agreement applicable to all projects in the amendment area. Gilroy Engineering Division shall review plans to ensure that the required features are included on the Final Map, and have been constructed prior to occupancy. Gilroy Engineering Division shall monitor the management plan annually for the first five years to ensure the plan is adequate to safeguard water quality. Gilroy Community Development Department shall review Final Maps and ensure that the required walls are constructed. Gilroy Building Division shall review project plans to ensure that the recommendations of the acoustical study are adequately addressed. The construction manager shall note hours of noise- generating construction activities in the construction log and provide a copy of the log to the City at the end of each week. Gilroy Engineering Division shall review construction logs. Gilroy Building Division shall investigate reported violations. Gilroy Engineering Division shall determine the timing for the listed improvements as part of its traffic monitoring program, and provide notice to the applicant for the appropriate project upon determining that the improvements are required. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 8 21 The following street improvements shall be made to the intersection of Applicant for Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue: applicable project Gilroy Engineering • construction of a second northbound left -rum lane and an shall include the Division shall exclusive eastbound right -mm lane; listed improvements determine the timing • addition of a right -mm arrow for the eastbound right -turn in project plans, and for the listed movement (so vehicles in this movement could move while the shall implement the improvements as part northbound left -rum movement has a green arrow). improvements of its traffic monitoring The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined win nine months of notification by program, and provide by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project - specific traffic the City of Gilroy notice to the applicant analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations for the appropriate below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required Engineering Division. project upon as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be determining that the subject to a reimbursement agreement. Gilroy City improvements are Attorney shall required. prepare a reimbursement agreement applicable to all projects in the amendment area. 22 Following or in conjunction with the signalization of the intersection of Applicant for Monterey Street and Monterey Frontage Road, the following street applicable project Gilroy Engineering improvements shall be made: shall include the Division shall • reconfiguration of the southbound approach as necessary to listed improvements determine the timing provide one left -tum lane, two through lanes, two right -mm lanes; in project plans, and for the listed • re- configuration of the westbound approach as necessary to shall implement the improvements as part provide one shared lane for all movements; improvements of its traffic monitoring • re- configuration of the northbound approach as necessary to two within nine months program, and provide left -tam lanes, one through lane, one shared through /right- turn of notification by notice to the applicant lane; the City of Gilroy for the appropriate • re- configuration of the eastbound approach as necessary to Engineering project upon provide one exclusive left -mm lane, one shared through and left. Division. determining that the turn lane, and one right -mm lane. Gilroy City improvements are • right -mm arrows shall be provided for the eastbound and Attorney shall required. southbound right-turn movements to provide LOS C intersection prepare a operation during all three study periods. This lane configuration reimbursement will require split phase operation of the eastbound and westbound agreement approaches. applicable to all The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined projects in the by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project -spec traffic amendment area. analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. 23 A right -of -way sufficient for a six-lane arterial shall be dedicated to the City Applicant for any Gilroy Engineering of Gilroy along the West Luchessa Avenue frontage of the project site. project in the Division shall review The dedication shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City amendment area along West Final Map and/or project plans to ensure of Gilroy traffic - monitoring program oraprojec t - specific traffic analysis. Luchessa Avenue inclusion of the right - The dedication shall be implemented at such a time as to allow construction shall include a of -way dedication. necessary to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable dedication on the levels. Final Map and /or in project plans Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 9 24 West Luchessa Avenue shall be widened to four lanes between Monterey Street and Princevalle Street. The street improvements shall be implemented at such time as determined by the City of Gilroy traffic- monitoring program or a project - specific traffic analysis, and at such time as to prevent the deterioration of traffic operations below acceptable levels. Construction of the improvements shall be required as a condition of approval for the applicable project. Improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement. Applicant for applicable project shall include the listed improvements in project plans, and shall implement the improvements within nine months of notification by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division. Gilroy City Attorney shall prepare a reimbursement agreement applicable to all projects in the amendment area. Gilroy Engineering Division shall determine the timing for the listed improvements as part of its traffic monitoring program, and provide notice to the applicant for the appropriate project upon determining that the improvements are required. Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment 98 -03 Subsequent EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 10