HomeMy WebLinkAboutUvas Creek Park Preserve Master Plan (1992) - Initial Study787
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: April 21, 1993
TO: City Administrator
FROM: Melissa Durkin, Planner I
SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for the Uvas Creek Park Preserve Master Plan
Initial Study
Attached for your review is the Negative Declaration for the Uvas Creek
Park Preserve Master Plan project (File number M 92 -06). An Initial Study was
prepared for this project which addressed all of the environmental issues
related to development of Uvas Creek and the adjacent Ranch Site into a
community park. Twenty -two mitigation measures which would reduce all
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance have been proposed, and are
contained within the Negative Declaration document. Staff recommends that the
City Council adopt this Negative Declaration with the 22 mitigation measures.
Respectfully,
Melissa Durkin
Planner I
4/21/93 At their meeting of April 20, 1993, The Parks and Recreation
Commission took the following vote on M 92 -06:
1. To recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration as completed in
compliance with CEQA and reflecting the independent judgement of
the City, together with 22 mitigation measures as stated in the
Negative Declaration. 5 -0 -1 vote.
AYES: WATTERSON, PERKINS, ZIMMERSHEAD, ADAME, CASTELLO
NAYES: NONE
ABSENT: GAGE
V11-4. Z -
Planning Department
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
City File Numbers: M 92 -06
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 848 -0440
Name of Project: Uvas Park Preserve Master Plan
Nature of Project: Master plan for the revegetation and development of
the Uvas Park Preserve, and the adjacent Ranch Site.
PROJECT LOCATION:
Location: Along Uvas creek between Santa Teresa
Boulevard on the northwest, and Thomas Road on
the Southeast.
Assessors Parcel Numbers: 808- 01 -01, 11, 14; 808- 18 -07, 10; 799- 30 -01,
02; 799- 36 -06, 08
Entity or Person(s) Undertaking Proiect:
Name: City of Gilroy
Address: 7351 Rosanna St., Gilroy, CA 95020
INITIAL STUDY:
An Initial Study of this project was undertaken and prepared for the
purpose of ascertaining whether this project might have a significant
effect on the environment. A copy of this study is on file at the City of
Gilroy Planning Department, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020.
FINDINGS & REASONS:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the
environment. However, the project has been mitigated (see Mitigation
Measures below which avoid or mitigate the effects) to a point where no
significant effects will occur. There is no substantial evidence the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. The following
reasons will support these findings:
1. The proposal is a logical extension of the existing land use of this
area.
2. Identified adverse impacts are proposed to be mitigated through
preparation of special studies, and construction of on -site and off -
site improvements.
Preliminary Negative Declaration
M 92 -06 2 02/22/93
3. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies
of the General Plan of the City of Gilroy.
4. The Initial study was independently reviewed by City staff, and this
Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of
Gilroy.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The City shall prepare a preliminary soils investigation for the project
site by a qualified geotechnical firm, prior to construction of the
education building. The recommendations of the preliminary soils
investigation shall be incorporated into the final plans of the project,
subject to the review and approval of the city Building Department.
2. The project shall be designed in accordance with earthquake design
regulations of the Uniform Building code, subject to the review and
approval by the City Building Department.
3. The City shall construct finished floor elevations at least one foot above
the one hundred (100) year flood elevation as delineated on the current
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) produced by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
4. The design of all storm drainage improvements serving the project site
shall be provided by the City, subject to the review and approval by the
City Department of Public works.
S. Existing wildlife corridors shall be retained and enhanced by planting
additional trees and shrubs or establishing new corridors across the
site, subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Department.
6. Existing landscape trees along the farm access road and within the central
residential /agricultural complex shall be retained as nesting and perching
sites for resident and migratory birds. The landscaping along the west
side of Miller Avenue adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site
at the inception of the project shall be enhanced so that mature
landscaping will be in place to provide a movement corridor when Miller
Avenue is closed to through traffic, subject to the review and approval of
the City Planning Department.
7. 'surveys shall be conducted during the breeding season (which corresponds
to the middle to latter part of the rainy season) for California tiger
salamander and California red - legged frog. surveys for burrowing owl and
nesting raptors shall be conducted, and a qualified bat specialist shall
be engaged to survey the bat species present in the barn. If surveys
confirm the presence of any special status wildlife species, the City
shall develop a plan to protect these species, prior to grading or ground
disturbance on this site.
Preliminary Negative Declaration
M 92 -06 3
02/22/93
8. Herbicidal spraying shall be restricted to individual noxious plants with
over spraying avoided whenever possible. Setbacks shall be used in areas
which encroach within riparian zones, to avoid possible impacts to flora
and fauna in these areas, subject to the review and approval of the City
Planning Department.
9. The design of all street improvements serving the project site shall be
provided by the City, subject to the review and approval by the City
Department of Public Works.
10. The city shall replace all deteriorating curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
pave -out adjacent to the project site, subject to the review and approval
by the City Department of Public Works.
11. All phases of development shall provide minimum off - street parking in
accordance--with section 31, off Street Parking Requirements, of the
City,s zoning ordinance, subject to the review and approval by the City
Planning Department.
12. If necessary, the developer shall provide bus stops, turnouts, and
shelters, subject to the review and approval by the City Department of
Public Works and the Santa Clara County Transit District.
13. The development of the site shall include the installation of bicycle
racks, subject to the review and approval by the City Planning
Department.
14. The design of all storm drainage improvements serving the project site
shall be provided by the City, subject to the review and approval by
the City Department of Public Works.
15. The design of all water line improvements serving the project site shall
be provided by the City, subject to the review and approval by the City
Department of Public Works.
16. The project site shall be surveyed to determine the existence of any on-
site wells. Any wells existing on the site shall be permanently capped
in compliance with the standards set forth by the Santa Clara valley
Water District and the City Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
17. The design of all sewer line improvements serving the project site shall
be provided by the City, subject to the review and approval by the City
Department of Public Works.
18. The project site shall be surveyed to determine the existence of any on-
site septic systems. Any septic systems on the site shall be removed
after provision of a sanitary sewer line to this area, subject to the
review and approval of the Santa Clara County Health Department.
Preliminary Negative Declaration
M 92 -06 4 02/22/93
19. All phases of development of the education building on the Ranch Site, to
include design layouts and specific site considerations, shall be
addressed fully within the City of Gilroy's Architectural & Site Review
procedures.
20. The city shall construct all utilities to, through, and on the site
underground, subject to the review and approval by the City Department of
Public Works.
21. The City shall submit a detailed plan for all exterior lights, as part of
the building permit review process. The lighting plan shall incorporate
design elements that will minimize the potential for light and glare
impacts on adjacent residential properties. The lighting plan shall be
subject to the review and approval by the City Planning Department.
22. Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might
be found during construction, the following language shall be included in
any permits issued for the project site, including but not limited to
building permits for the future development, pursuant to the review and
approval of the City Planning Director:
if archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during
construction, work shall be halted within 150 feet of the find until
it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the
find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures
shall be formulated and implemented.
Date Prepared: February 22, 1993
End of Review Period: March 31, 1993
Date Approved By city Council:
Michael Dorn, Director of Planning
A Land Use Planning and Design Firm
April 19, 1993
Melissa Durkin
Planner I
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020 -6141
Re: Uvas Creek Park Preserve Master Plan Initial Study
Response to Comments Addendum
Dear Melissa,
The fbllowing are responses to the comments received on the Uvas Creek Park
Preserve Master Plan Initial Study, provided as an addendum. The public review
period for this initial study ended on March 30, 1993. Comments received prior to
that date include a letter from the California Department of Fish and Game, a
verbal comment from the California Department of Transportation, and a verbal
comment from the City of Gilroy Planning Department. One other comment letter
was received after the public review period ended, by the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
The letters received are attached. All comments were reviewed by the City of Gilroy
Planning Department (hereinafter "lead agency ") and EMC Planning Group Inc.
(hereinafter "the consultant").
The lead agency and the consultant have responded to only those comments which
pertain to project- specific and cumulative issues and which raise "significant
environmental issues." Each relevant comment is summarized, followed by the
response.
Letter Received During Public Review Period
L -1 Brian Hunter, Regional Manager, Region 3, State of
California Department of Fish and Game, March 24, 1993.
Comment 1. The initial study refers to revegetatian with native plants, but
specifics are not provided. The Master Plan should include a Revegetation Plan,
including a list of plants to be used, specific goals, and a time schedule for achieving
those goals. Local plant stock should be used for revegetation with native species.
On -site collection of seeds and propagules is recommended.
Response. The final Master Plan has a complete and specific plant list and is
therefore in compliance with this request. On -site collection of seeds and
propagules is planned wherever feasible.
99 Pacific St.. Suite 155 F . Monterey, CA 93940 . (408) 649 -1799
Ms. Melissa Durkin, Planner I
Response to Comments, 4/16/93
Page 2
Additionally, a more defined planting and maintenance schedule will be provided in
landscape construction documents.
Comment 2. It is stated in the initial study that surveys will be conducted for
California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, burrowing owls, nesting
raptors, and bats, and mitigation measures will be developed should any of these
species be found. Surveys for these sensitive species and the western pond turtle
should be conducted and specific avoidance or mitigation measures developed prior
to approval of the Negative Declaration.
Response. The animals named above are sensitive species and not endangered.
Analysis of appropriate surveys will be made for sensitive species and appropriate
mitigation measures will be incorporated into construction plans.
Comment 3. The initial study describes adult steelhead trout use of the creek as a
migration pathway and resting area during the winter. If sufficient water is
available, it is also used as a steelhead trout rearing area.
Response. No response is needed.
Comment 4. The initial study states that the design of all storm water
improvements shall include measures for controlling the flow of urban pollutants
into the creek channel. These measures should be specified and should include
oil/grease separators for runoff form parking lots for 40 or more cars. The impacts
of herbicides and fertilizers from the sports fields and other landscaped areas also
need to be addressed more specifically. Water quality should be monitored, and a
contingency plan should be developed if urban pollutants reach levels toxic to
aquatic life.
Response. All appropriate storm water mitigation measures including oil and
grease separators for parking lot runoff will be incorporated into any future
construction documents. Additionally, a storm water management plan will be
established incorporating appropriate maintenance practices to protect the water
quality of the Creek.
Comment 5. According to the initial study, the project site is within the 100 -year
flood zone, and the Ranch Site is within an area of undetermined flood hazards.
Project plans should ensure that the integrity of the floodplain and natural stream -
course are not compromised by development.
Response. The Master Plan includes provisions for protecting the integrity of the
the stream course and flood plain. As required by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Master Plan shall be closely adhered to in construction documents
with regards to maintaining the integrity of the flood plain and stream course.
Comment 6. The department recommends that a minimum 100 -foot buffer
measured outward from the top of each creekbank, be established to protect the
creek and its vegetation and provide a travel corridor for wildlife. No roads,
Ms. Melissa Durkin, Planner I
Response to Comments, 4/16/93
Page 3
buildings, or parking areas should be permitted within this area. Pedestrian trails
should be located along the outside edge of the riparian vegetation.
Response. No roads, buildings or parking areas will be constructed within the
channel proper. The Santa Clara Valley Water District requires a 20 foot wide
maintenance roadway at the top of the creek banks. These Santa Clara Valley
Water District Maintenance Roads will also serve as pedestrian/bikeways
paralleling the channel.
The City does not own or control sufficient land along the channel to provide for a
100 foot wide buffer from the top of each creek bank. Trails and pathways will be
designed with the least disruption to riparian vegetation possible.
It is anticipated that the net impact of the proposed project will significantly
increase overall riparian habitat quality, as well as, the quality of all habitats
within the project site.
Comment 7. Any work within the banks of the creek, including road crossings and
culverts, will require a streambed alteration agreement with this department. The
department has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 -1603
in regard to any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or
change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream. We recommend early consultation
since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid impacts to fish
and wildlife resources. Formal notification under Fish and Game Code Section 1603
should be made after all other r,-rmits and certifications have been obtained. Work
cannot be initiated until a streambed alteration agreement is executed.
Response. All necessary permits to satisfy the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the
California Department of Fish and Game, and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District will be provided for in the proposed project.
Verbal Comments Received During Public Review Period
V -1 Personal Telephone Contact from Caltrans District 4,
March 22, 1993.
Comment 8. The initial study does not provide a traffic study to determine the
number of trips generated by the proposed project.
Response. The initial study revealed that all of the streets in the vicinity of the
proposed project currently operate at a level of service (LOS) A. With this LOS A,
and with limited building construction on the project site, it is assumed that the
proposed project will not generate a substantial increase in the number of potential
vehicle trips. Additionally, the proposed project includes plans for the provision of
pedestrian trails and bicycle facilities which would help to encourage increased use
of transportation modes other than automobiles.
Ms. Melissa Durkin, Planner I
Response to Comments, 4/16/93
Page 4
V -2 Melissa Durkin, Planner I, City of Gilroy Planning
Department, March 29,1993.
Comment 9. Page 61, second paragraph, line four. The sentence reads, "... major -
magnitude earthquake within the usable lifetime of the residential units which may
be built on the project site ". The words "residential units" should be changed to
"education building'.
Response. This comment has been noted and on page 61, second paragraph, line
four, the sentence should read:
"...major magnitude earthquake within the usable lifetime of the education building
which may be built on the project site."
Comment 10. Page 61, Suggested Mitigation Measure #1, line one and two. The
sentence reads, "The City should prepare a preliminary soils investigation for the
project site by a qualified geotechnical firm, prior to construction." The sentence
should delete the word "project site" and replace it with "education building ".
Response. This comment has been noted and on page 61, Suggested Mitigation
Measure #1, line one and two, the sentence should read:
"The City should prepare a preliminary soils investigation for the education
building by a qualified geotechnical firm, prior to construction."
Comment 11. Page 61, Suggested Mitigation Measure #1, line two, three, and four.
The sentence reads, "The recommendations of the preliminary soils investigation
shall be incorporated into the final plans, subject to review and approval by the City
Building Department prior to construction on the site."
Response. This comment has been noted and on page 61, Suggested Mitigation
Measure #1, line two, three, and four the sentence should read:
"The recommendations of the preliminary soils investigation shall be incorporated
into the final plans for the education building, subject to review and approval by the
City Building Department prior to construction on the site."
Comment 12. Page 73, paragraph (a), line four. The sentence reads, "...sustaining
levels, threatened to eliminate a plant or animal community..." The word
"threatened" should be changed to "threaten ".
Response. This comment has been noted and on page 73, paragraph (a), line four
the sentence should read: "...sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community..."
Comment 13. Page 73, paragraph (d), line one, the sentence reads, "Does the
environmental effects of a project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly ". The word "effects" after the word "environmental"
should be singular "effect ".
Ms. Melissa Durkin, Planner I
Response to Comments, 4/16/93
Page 5
Response. This comment has been noted and on page 73, paragraph (d), the
sentence should read:
"Does the environmental effect of a project cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings either directly or indirectly."
Comment 14. Page 73, paragraphs (a),-(b), (c), and (d) should all end in a question
mark.
Response. This comment has been noted and on page 73, paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
and (d) should all end in a question mark.
Letter Received After Public Review Period
L -2 Marc J. Klemencic, Division Engineer, Design
Coordination Division, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
April 6, 1993.
Comment 15. The initial study does not adequately discuss potential flooding
impacts.
Response. The initial study was prepared for the 1992 Draft Uvas Creek Park
Preserve Master Plan and The Ranch Site Addition to Christmas Hill Park Master
Plan. Since the completion of the initial study, the Master Plan. The Master Plan
does include a discussion of potential flooding impacts. This new information is
hereby incorporated in this initial study by reference.
I hope that this letter adequately addresses the comments received during the
public review period. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact
either Cris Staedler or myself at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Elaine Hansen
Associate Planner
y, )
RECEIVE
App, e 81993
Gilroy Planning Dept,
April 6, 1993
Mr. Michael Dorn
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020 -6141
Dear Mr. Dorn:
Santa Clam Volley Water District 0
5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY
SAN JOSE, CA 95118 -3686
TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600
FACSIMILE (408) 266 -0271
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Subject: Initial Study for the Proposed Negative Declaration for the Uvas Park Reserve
Master Plan, File No. M 92 -06.
The District has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments:
Section 5.2 - Surface Water Hydrology Concerns
The Initial Study does not adequately discuss potential flooding impacts.
Construction of flood control levees along Uvas Creek between Thomas Road and Santa Teresa
was completed by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 1989. As the construction of these
levees induced additional flooding on the opposite (east) side of the creek, this District purchased
flood flowage easements. The entire Uvas Park Preserve and the Ranch Site addition are located
within the District's flood control easement and flowage easement and is, therefore, subject to
flooding. The Initial Study states that the 1 % flood elevation within the Ranch Site addition is
undetermined (Zone D) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. However, the i % flood elevation
within the Ranch Site has been studied by the Corps as part of the levee construction project.
They have determined that the flood elevation on this site is approximately 217 feet with the
depth of flooding varying between 3 to 5 feet.
The placement of buildings and other park improvements within the Ranch Site must be carefully
designed so as to not increase flooding on this or adjacent properties. The suggested mitigation
measure of placing the first floor of buildings above the 1 % flood elevation may not adequately
mitigate impacts as this type of construction, which could include the placement of fill within
the floodplain, could significantly impact adjacent flooding. The planting of additional
vegetation on the site and other modifications to the creek area within the Preserve can also
significantly impact the flooding pattern.
Arecycled paper
Mr. Michael Dorn 2 April 6, 1993
The District has been working closely with the City of Gilroy and Beals Landscape Architecture
in the design and layout of the Ranch Site improvements and the Uvas Park Preserve. Although
subject to modifications during preparation of construction drawings, the conceptual master plan
has adequately addressed concerns relative to flooding impacts. The Initial Study, however,
should have included this more detailed information and better addressed or identified all
flooding issues.
A District permit will be required for any construction, grading, landscaping, etc. undertaken
within the Ranch Site and the Uvas Park Preserve. A detailed analysis of flooding impacts
should be submitted to the District with the permit request.
Any questions may be referred to Sue Tippets at 265 -2607, extension 2253. We appreciate the
opportunity to review this Initial Study and Negative Declaration.
Sincerely,
Marc J. Klemencic
Division Engineer
Design Coordination Division
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599
(707) 944 -5500
Ms. Melissa Durkin
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020
Dear Ms. Durkin:
March 24, 1993
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 1993
Gilroy Planning Dept
Uvas Creek Park Preserve Master Plan
Initial Study /Negative Declaration
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the
Initial Study (IS) /Negative Declaration (ND) for the Uvas Creek
Park Preserve Master Plan. The project would allow revegetation
and park development along Uvas Creek in Gilroy, including
construction of trails, educational buildings, picnic areas, and
sports fields. We have the following comments.
1. The IS refers to revegetation with native plants, but
specifics are not provided. The Master Plan should include a
Revegetation Plan, including a list of plants to be used,
specific goals, and a time schedule for achieving those goals.
Local plant stock should be used for revegetation with native
species. On -site collection of seeds and propagules is
recommended.
2. It is stated in the IS that surveys will be conducted for
California tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum californiense;
California red - legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii; burrowing
owls, Athene cunicularia; nesting raptors, and bats, and
mitigation measures will be developed should any of these
species be found. Surveys for these sensitive species and
the western pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata, should be
conducted and specific avoidance or mitigation measures
developed prior to approval of the Negative Declaration.
In addition to the conceptual mitigations presented,
mitigation for the tiger salamander and pond turtle should
include maintenance of suitable upland habitat, as well as
protection of riparian habitat and of movement corridors
between the two habitat types.
Survey and mitigation guidelines for the burrowing owl have
been developed by the Burrowing Owl Consortium Mitigation
Committee. Although they are presently in draft stages, we
believe they represent the best available guidance for
addressing impacts to the burrowing owl. Survey
�T r
Ms. Melissa Durkin
March 24, 1993
Page Two
recommendations include an initial habitat assessment and, if
suitable habitat is identified, transect surveys for active
burrows. Burrow surveys should be conducted over four days
during the peak of the breeding season, April 15 to July 15.
If no owls are found during that time, a winter survey,
conducted between December 1 and January 31, is also
recommended. If burrowing owls are found to be using the
project site, steps to avoid disturbance of the burrow and at
least 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per bird or pair of birds
should be included in the mitigation plan. More complete
survey and mitigation recommendations can be obtained by
contacting the Department.
3. The IS describes adult steelhead use of the creek as a
migration pathway and resting area during the winter. If - --
sufficient water is available, it is also used as a steelhead
rearing area.
4. The IS states that the design of all storm drainage
improvements shall include measures for controlling the flow
of urban pollutants into the creek channel. These measures
should be specified and should include oil /grease separators
for runoff from parking lots for 40 or more cars. The impacts
of herbicides and fertilizers from the sports fields and other
landscaped areas also need to be addressed more specifically.
Water quality should be monitored, and a contingency plan
should be developed if urban pollutants reach levels toxic to
aquatic life.
The Master Plan should include measures to ensure that
increased surface water runoff and storm drainage improvements
will not increase erosion and sediments reaching the creek.
5. According to the IS, the project site is within the 100 -year
flood zone, and the Ranch Site is within an area of
undetermined flood hazards. Project plans should ensure that
the integrity of the floodplain and natural streamcourse are
not compromised by development.
6. The Department recommends that a minimum 100 -foot buffer,
measured outward from the top of each creekbank, be
established to protect the creek and its vegetation and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife. No roads, buildings,
or parking areas should be permitted within this area.
Pedestrian trails should be located along the outside edge of
the riparian vegetation.
Ms. Melissa Durkin
March 24, 1993
Page Three
Any work within the banks of the creek, including road
crossings and culverts, will require a streambed alteration
agreement with this Department. The Department has direct
jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code sections 1601 -1603 in regard
to any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the
natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream. We
recommend early consultation since modification of the proposed
project may be required to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. Formal notification under Fish and Game Code Section
1603 should be made after all other permits and certifications have
been obtained. Work cannot be initiated until a streambed
alteration agreement is executed.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers also has jurisdiction over
the discharge of fill to streams and wetlands under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. We recommend that the Corps be contacted to
determine if they have jurisdiction and if they require a permit.
We request that subsequent documents related to this project
be submitted to this Department for our review.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, contact
Martha Schauss, Wildlife Biologist, at (408) 623 -4989; or
Patricia Anderson, Fisheries Biologist, at (408)353 -2275.
Sincerely,
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3